Is selfishness evil or just neutral?

[Zhentarim]

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. Likewise, my characters in games tend to ask “what’s in it for me?” before going and helping the other PC’s. I work with the GM beforehand to make my character personally invested in the problem in some way, so getting at the BBEG becomes personal and I stick with the group because our goals now align. That said, my characters, while pretty much bever acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves). When they do decide to help others, it has to be at least win-win (ie: Both the character and the person the character is helping are advanced).

Above all else, the characters I make follow what philosopher’s call “enlightened self-interest”.

Is this evil or neutral?

Edit:
I’ll also add my characters tend to bristle at authority figures, but won’t necessarily rebel if they feel like the request doesn’t impact their personal advancement and/or they feel like the authority is powerful enough to punish them if they rebel (and they have no way to rebel secretly).

[Nifft]

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else.

Why should we answer your question?

What's in it for us?

What you describe seems Neutral so long as you don't engage in anti-social behavior, but you could certainly create an Evil character with the exact same sort of hedonic motivation.

[druid91]

Why should we answer your question?

What's in it for us?

What you describe seems Neutral so long as you don't engage in anti-social behavior, but you could certainly create an Evil character with the exact same sort of hedonic motivation.

Yeah, Pay up Buddy. 12 gold an answer. Seriously though, if we didn't ENJOY discussing these things then why would we be here?


In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. Likewise, my characters in games tend to ask “what’s in it for me?” before going and helping the other PC’s. I work with the GM beforehand to make my character personally invested in the problem in some way, so getting at the BBEG becomes personal and I stick with the group because our goals now align. That said, my characters, while pretty much bever acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves). When they do decide to help others, it has to be at least win-win (ie: Both the character and the person the character is helping are advanced).

Above all else, the characters I make follow what philosopher’s call “enlightened self-interest”.

Is this evil or neutral?

I'd say it's neutral. It lacks the drive to do good for it's own sake but doesn't have the inherent maliciousness of evil. Evil isn't being selfish and only looking out for yourself. Evil is being selfish and then grinning to yourself when you notice your actions have hurt someone else.

[Zhentarim]

Why should we answer your question?

What's in it for us?

What you describe seems Neutral so long as you don't engage in anti-social behavior, but you could certainly create an Evil character with the exact same sort of hedonic motivation.

A good discussion and the opportunity to explore character archetypes you may not have explored in the past, of course.

Nice bait and switch there. You make me proud! I must also admit that while I am pretty ruthless about advancing myself, I do occasionally slip and do minor acts of what could be called “kindness”. I have been so disillusioned by the trickery of others and the futility of various “causes”, that I found “salvation” in a way through radical selfishness.

[hamishspence]

my characters, while pretty much bever acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves).

"Not giving money to a beggar" isn't specifically called out as Evil. However, "minor petty theft" from a beggar could easily be Evil where "minor petty theft" from a rich person, might not be.

Because, even though the amount of coins stolen might be the same, the amount of suffering that results, is much larger.

[zlefin]

personally; general selfishness is neutral.
it's more when you actively hurt other people that it becomes evil. (dm rules may vary ofc)

but it appears that canonically, that trends more toward neutral evil. based on hte description in the alignment section of the prd.

[Nifft]

"Not giving money to a beggar" isn't specifically called out as Evil. However, "minor petty theft" from a beggar could easily be Evil where "minor petty theft" from a rich person, might not be.

Because, even though the amount of coins stolen might be the same, the amount of suffering that results, is much larger.

Yeah. Depriving a rich man of one luxury isn't comparable to depriving a poor man of one week's food, even if the former is a lot more GP than the latter.

You're doing evil when you harm others, and removing one luxury (of many) isn't nearly as harmful as causing starvation.

[hamishspence]

You're doing evil when you harm others, and removing one luxury (of many) isn't nearly as harmful as causing starvation.
Which is probably why stealing from the needy (rather than just "stealing") is called out as a Corrupt act in Fiendish Codex 2.

[Nifft]

Which is probably why stealing from the needy (rather than just "stealing") is called out as a Corrupt act in Fiendish Codex 2.

Interesting. How's the rest of that book for morality advice?

I kinda gave up hope in finding such in WotC books after BoED.

[Pleh]

The answer is "Trends towards Evil (and slightly Chaotic)."

Creatures that are Evil, Neutral, or Chaotic could all easily possess a truly selfish alignment.

Good creatures and Lawful creatures tend more towards goals and aspirations that are altruistic and/or codependent, neither of which is usually very compatible with selfish behavior (strong Codependency, when one sided, can express in a very selfish manner, though). Basically, it's the general tendency of Good and Lawful characters to support a goal they deem to be more important than themselves (the basic antithesis to Selfishness).

As everyone else pointed out, there is an extreme level of Selfishness that is almost exclusive to Evil, however, and that's usually where it begins to express Cruelty and Sadism.

Extreme Chaotic behavior actually tends to make a person so random they aren't even Self Centered. They don't prefer anyone's benefit over any other, not even their own. These are SOMETIMES the characters that will flip a coin to decide whether they shoot you in the leg, or themselves, because they want to see what the coin will say and they will be happy with the result either way.

[hamishspence]

Interesting. How's the rest of that book for morality advice?

I kinda gave up hope in finding such in WotC books after BoED.IMO there's a lot of good stuff in BOED - it's just overlooked thanks to the bad stuff.

FC2's list of Corrupt Acts was:

1 pt: Casting an [Evil] spell
1 pt: Humiliating an underling
1 pt: Torture (intimidating - no actual HP damage)
2 pts: Stealing from the needy
2 pts: Desecrating a Good church or temple
2 pts: Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain
3 pts: Causing gratuitous injury to a creature
3 pts: Perverting justice for personal gain
4 pts: Torture "cruel or painful" (some damage)
5 pts: Torture "excruciating" (more damage)
5 pts: Murder
6 pts: Torture "sadistic" (heavy damage)
6 pts: Cold blooded Murder
7 pts: Murder for pleasure
7 pts: Torture "indescribable" (even more damage)

The scale may be logarithmic rather than linear - IMO casting 7 [Evil] spells in quick succession is vastly less evil than murdering someone for pleasure once.

The corresponding Lawful (Obesiant) acts are:

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



For books besides FC2, this compilation:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?241789-Alignment-related-3-0-3-5-book-statements-summary
listed all the books I could find that mentioned acts in "alignment terms" - with page numbers.

[Feantar]

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. Likewise, my characters in games tend to ask “what’s in it for me?” before going and helping the other PC’s. I work with the GM beforehand to make my character personally invested in the problem in some way, so getting at the BBEG becomes personal and I stick with the group because our goals now align. That said, my characters, while pretty much bever acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves). When they do decide to help others, it has to be at least win-win (ie: Both the character and the person the character is helping are advanced).

Above all else, the characters I make follow what philosopher’s call “enlightened self-interest”.

Is this evil or neutral?

Selfishness without empathy is generally evil, but borderline. The part that hit the evil-o-meter was this:

my characters, while pretty much never acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil

[Psyren]

Actions inform alignment, not merely attitudes. What does your "selfishness" cause you to actually do? "Not giving to beggars" is neutral since that's the default state for pretty much every sapient lifeform. "Petty theft" is chaotic if anything.

[HouseRules]

Altruism is defined to be Good, so Selfishness is not Good, that does not mean it is Evil. We do not have enough evidence to determine whether is is Neutral or Evil, so it is circumstantial.

If a character believes people are born inherently Evil, then that character judges Selfishness as Evil.
If a character believes people are born inherently Good, then that character judges Selfishness as Neutral.

[Quertus]

Animals are neutral.

As others have said, selfishness is neutral*, not giving money to beggars is shrug. That leaves theft, and your comment about ignoring social norms.

Theft... is tricky. Robin Hood is a classic character archetype, and he's considered archetypal of Chaotic Good. But he's Cg because his theft shows that he values the individual over the establishment, and his actions have the clear intent to help other people.

Theft from an organization - placing the individual over the establishment - may be chaotic, but theft from an individual - placing one individual over another - is more ambiguous, and, if the theft causes harm, it is evil.

Not adhering to social norms? Well, you're clearly not Lawful. Beyond that, it depends. If you rebel against social norms, it's chaotic. If an animal would do the same thing, it's neutral. If you keep doing it, even though it causes harm, it's evil.

* In 3e. In 2e, selfishness was evil.

[Crake]

I've always characterised selfishness as chaotic. If you put your interests above those of others, you are chaotic neutral, if you put your interests above those of others at others' expense you're chaotic evil. Chaotic good is an interesting case, where the individualism becomes flipped, and you put the interests of OTHER individuals before the interests of the community, where the interests of the community conflict with the interests of the individual.

[HouseRules]

Except Robin Hood is a very rich Earl who fight wars against a Duke which the King is off to a Crusade.

[Fizban]

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. . .
Does "all else" include harming others to further your own needs? If so, then Evil. If not, then Neutral. If you're willing to do a little of each (take advantage of a pricing error here, toss a beggar a few coins there), then you're Neutral, possibly with some law/chaos tendency if there's a pattern in your leanings- but remember that petty Evil is still Evil. And if you are currently Neutral, that while there is no single Good action so strong as to redeem someone, there are plenty of Evil actions that have a much bigger stain based on their magnitude and permanence: murder, imprisonment, enslavement, etc, doing these things for personal ends dumps you into Evil hard and fast.

If I had to number it, I'd say one instance puts you on the precipice, and the next time your good/evilness is questioned your first response betrays your alignment and sets it. So your neutral character murders someone for personal gain, they stay neutral until the next time the topic comes up, and if the first words out of your mouth aren't "no, because. . . " then you're Evil. If you make the right answer then you stay neutral until you do it again, then you're evil anyway, and either way of course you have no chance of turning Good without a massive change of heart.

Above all else, the characters I make follow what philosopher’s call “enlightened self-interest”.
The "enlightened" part of that from what I usually hear is the part where treating yourself as part of the herd and thus working to benefit or protect the herd is considered a significant part of the plan. Usually with a smug side of "look at all these sheep thinking I'm helping them when I'm really helping myself." If you operate this way but have doubts as to whether you're Good, you're probably Neutral, as long as you're not gleefully doing the minor Evil in the shadows.

Edit:
I’ll also add my characters tend to bristle at authority figures, but won’t necessarily rebel if they feel like the request doesn’t impact their personal advancement and/or they feel like the authority is powerful enough to punish them if they rebel (and they have no way to rebel secretly).
This can be anything on the law/chaos axis, because law/chaos is much more personally defined. If you defy laws and authority figures you would otherwise consider legitimate, then you're acting chaotic (by following your instinct rather than the laws you were raised/grew to naturally find legitimate). If you're only following the laws to avoid punishment, you're still chaotic, the same way a murderer who usually follows the laws is still evil.

Edit: the edit in the first post and generalized intro drew me away from the meat of the post:

That said, my characters, while pretty much bever acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves)
Yeah, no, as ezekialraiden is pointing out, that doesn't get a pass. While you could balance out to neutral with the usual petty theft/supports beggars example, deliberately shunning every opportunity to do good while intentionally doing evil means you're evil. And explicitly only ever following social norms due to threat or chance of gain after you've rationalized yourself into it means you're chaotic. This character's first instincts are "harm=profit" and "do what I want," and those are pretty clear.

This sounds a lot like what some of my friends wrote on their sheets back in middle school. "Oh, he's Neutral Evil because he's only a little bit Evil, so it's fine." And then proceeded to firebomb innocents during a monster raid and loot their belongings. While I was playing a Paladin. And then complained that I had a problem with it. Sigh. (Dunno if those characters were actually listed as evil, but same players).

[ezekielraiden]

If we are talking D&D alignment, yeah, attitude is really only a very small part of the equation. It's still there, but ir's small.

Does your character always, and in every condition of things, need a clear, compelling reason to do good, and otherwise avoids it? That strikes me as Neutral flirting with Evil so hard it makes its coworkers retch. :smalltongue: It's very very clearly not Good, and the more they avoid doing anything helpful to others, the more Evil that Neutral starts to look.

Does your character frequently want to do evil, e.g. hurt people who have done nothing wrong, take things that others need, or tell lies purely for personal gain, but only avoids doing so because it would have bad/major repercussions? If so, that's pretty clearly Evil that's simply conscientious enough to not be flagrant about it. It sounds like this is generally true, though, as you have said yiur character will lie, steal, etc. in small ways--basically, doing evil whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

So yeah. Character strikes me as having one foot on either side of the Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil divide, just sufficiently rational to not do that stupidly. Harm to others is not necessarily desired, but it isn't avoided. Giving anything to others, even time or kindness, is avoided unless the calculated benefit to herself is equivalent or greater. Authority figures are only obeyed if they have her personal respect, or she can't afford to handle the costs of disobedience.

I do find it funny that "avoids obeying authority unless it can't be helped or is too personally beneficial" gets you clearly into the Chaotic camp for most people, but "avoids doing good unless it can't be helped or is too personally beneficial" AND "occasionally commits minor evil acts for pleasure or profit" do not, even together, get people clearly calling "team Evil."

Character is callous about others' needs, radically self-interested*, consistently disliking and bristling at formal authority, willing to commit (minor) evil acts when profitable, not ever willing to commit good acts unless profitable. CN, leaning CE or NE depending on exactly how strong those chaotic tendencies are.

*btw, you should look up "enlightened self interest," as I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means. "Enlightened self interest" usually is used to refer to willingly doing good things for others, not for direct or obvious reward, but because doing good for others will result in good effects for you. "Doing well by doing good." What you're talking about sounds a lot more like Randian "rational selfishness," where you always put your personal benefit first, but not to the point of irrationality (e.g. overindulging in food can cause weight gain, which is not serving your self interest.) Enlightened self-interest can thus be seen as a midway point between Randian "rational selfishness" and altruism: it allows for the notion that willingly doing good for others, even at cost to yourself, has real benefits as a consequence. You don't seem to be referring to that; it takes clear, concrete, demonstrable reward for this character to ever engage in acts beneficial to others, to the point that you must always work something out in advance with your DM.

[Nifft]

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. Likewise, my characters in games tend to ask “what’s in it for me?” before going and helping the other PC’s.
(...)
Above all else, the characters I make follow what philosopher’s call “enlightened self-interest”.

"Enlightened self-interest" is a justification for and euphemism for altruism.

You do not follow that if the rest of your description is accurate.

[Zhentarim]

If we are talking D&D alignment, yeah, attitude is really only a very small part of the equation. It's still there, but ir's small.

Does your character always, and in every condition of things, need a clear, compelling reason to do good, and otherwise avoids it? That strikes me as Neutral flirting with Evil so hard it makes its coworkers retch. :smalltongue: It's very very clearly not Good, and the more they avoid doing anything helpful to others, the more Evil that Neutral starts to look.

Does your character frequently want to do evil, e.g. hurt people who have done nothing wrong, take things that others need, or tell lies purely for personal gain, but only avoids doing so because it would have bad/major repercussions? If so, that's pretty clearly Evil that's simply conscientious enough to not be flagrant about it. It sounds like this is generally true, though, as you have said yiur character will lie, steal, etc. in small ways--basically, doing evil whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

So yeah. Character strikes me as having one foot on either side of the Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil divide, just sufficiently rational to not do that stupidly. Harm to others is not necessarily desired, but it isn't avoided. Giving anything to others, even time or kindness, is avoided unless the calculated benefit to herself is equivalent or greater. Authority figures are only obeyed if they have her personal respect, or she can't afford to handle the costs of disobedience.

I do find it funny that "avoids obeying authority unless it can't be helped or is too personally beneficial" gets you clearly into the Chaotic camp for most people, but "avoids doing good unless it can't be helped or is too personally beneficial" AND "occasionally commits minor evil acts for pleasure or profit" do not, even together, get people clearly calling "team Evil."

Character is callous about others' needs, radically self-interested*, consistently disliking and bristling at formal authority, willing to commit (minor) evil acts when profitable, not ever willing to commit good acts unless profitable. CN, leaning CE or NE depending on exactly how strong those chaotic tendencies are.

*btw, you should look up "enlightened self interest," as I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means. "Enlightened self interest" usually is used to refer to willingly doing good things for others, not for direct or obvious reward, but because doing good for others will result in good effects for you. "Doing well by doing good." What you're talking about sounds a lot more like Randian "rational selfishness," where you always put your personal benefit first, but not to the point of irrationality (e.g. overindulging in food can cause weight gain, which is not serving your self interest.) Enlightened self-interest can thus be seen as a midway point between Randian "rational selfishness" and altruism: it allows for the notion that willingly doing good for others, even at cost to yourself, has real benefits as a consequence. You don't seem to be referring to that; it takes clear, concrete, demonstrable reward for this character to ever engage in acts beneficial to others, to the point that you must always work something out in advance with your DM.
“Rational Selfishness” is closer to what I had in mind.

[Fizban]

not ever willing to commit good acts unless profitable.
Which, incidentally, makes the act no longer Good. Good is helping people at cost to yourself, as even minor acts of good with no "cost" to you still cost some amount of time and/or energy. If you're making a profit, it's not Good anymore, it becomes Neutral, as long as your desire for profit isn't extracting more price than the "beneficiary" can afford for whatever you're doing.

Maybe, "never willing to commit positive acts unless profitable?" Or rather, "never willing to act unless profitable," which really shows the angle.

[Zhentarim]

Which, incidentally, makes the act no longer Good. Good is helping people at cost to yourself, as even minor acts of good with no "cost" to you still cost some amount of time and/or energy. If you're making a profit, it's not Good anymore, it becomes Neutral, as long as your desire for profit isn't extracting more price than the "beneficiary" can afford for whatever you're doing.

Maybe, "never willing to commit positive acts unless profitable?" Or rather, "never willing to act unless profitable," which really shows the angle.

The latter, though my characters do enjoy a massage or occasional time off, so pleasurable could be an aspect as well.

[denthor]

Let us cut through this

A village is about to be attacked

Good. Defend the village no thought of payment up front

Nuetral Defend the village we can talk about payment later

Evil. I will defend the village what are you paying?

A village is being attacked

Good defend until told to quit

Nuetral defend the village while making plans for evacuation of yourself and others

Evil flee, renegotiate or change sides

Your first post was classic Nuetral Evil self absorbed need a reason or who cares.

[Crake]

Let us cut through this

A village is about to be attacked

Good. Defend the village no thought of payment up front

Nuetral Defend the village we can talk about payment later

Evil. I will defend the village what are you paying?

A village is being attacked

Good defend until told to quit

Nuetral defend the village while making plans for evacuation of yourself and others

Evil flee, renegotiate or change sides

Your first post was classic Nuetral Evil self absorbed need a reason or who cares.

Neither of those last two cases are really definitively examples of evil. Unless you're claiming that all the helpless villagers who are running for their lives are evil? Even a competent adventurer fleeing battle isn't evil. What would be evil is taking advantage of the chaos to say, rape, murder or kidnap people to enslave them. Likewise, refusing to defend the village without upfront commitment to pay isn't evil, what WOULD be evil would be negotiating pay at the town's expense, then taking that money and fleeing, leaving the town unable to hire someone ELSE.

[Segev]

Selfishness is moderately non-good by itself. You won’t ever be “good” while being purely selfishly motivated. Having self-interest as well as genuinely caring and acting to benefit yourself and others can be good; self-interest does not automatically make an act non-good. A paladin could be a hero for hire who has standard rates and asks for payment when people want him to do heroics.

However, the paladin will still be tempted to, and will oft give in to the temptation to, help pro-bono when deserving and needy people can’t afford his rates. Paladins get sense motive as a class skill, though, so be careful trying to trick this one into doing free work when you can reasonably afford to pay.

Mercenaries who will not help without reward are neutral, generally speaking. As long as they balk at jobs that harm the innocent as more than incidental collateral damage (because genuine warfare for hire will hurt people; it’s unavoidable, and being a mercenary soldier isn’t automatically evil if you choose your employers well), the can stay in the neutral zone in he morality axis.

Similarly, self-interested people without a sense of charity who still refuse to hurt others to get their way (barring those others starting it and making it a matter of self defense or reasonable retribution) can remain both non-good and non-evil.

You slip to evil if you enjoy making others suffer for your own amusement, or are willing to (unjustly) hurt others for your own profit. So if you’re willing to do dirty deeds to get your gain, and need to ask what is in it for you to refrain from harming people who are means/obstacles to getting your ends, you’re probably evil.

[hamishspence]

Except Robin Hood is a very rich Earl who fight wars against a Duke which the King is off to a Crusade.

There are lots of different versions of Robin, from Earl to Yeoman - but the one thing that they all have in common is that they are outlaws - their land has been taken from them, leaving them with only what they and their followers (if any were present initially) were able to flee into the forest with.

Some versions of Robin fled into the forest alone, and teamed up with existing outlaw bands before taking charge.

Others upped and left Locksley or Huntingdon with a bunch of followers after being outlawed - with their followers being the core of their outlaw band.

[Zhentarim]

Let us cut through this

A village is about to be attacked

Good. Defend the village no thought of payment up front

Nuetral Defend the village we can talk about payment later

Evil. I will defend the village what are you paying?

A village is being attacked

Good defend until told to quit

Nuetral defend the village while making plans for evacuation of yourself and others

Evil flee, renegotiate or change sides

Your first post was classic Nuetral Evil self absorbed need a reason or who cares.

Neutral from the first set, Neutral or Evil on second set (depending on prospects of winning).

[gkathellar]

It depends on the particulars.

Incidentally, that's probably the best answer to most questions in the vein of, "is X vague pattern of behavior Y alignment?"

Alignment only works when it's intuitive and emotionally recognizable. Codifying it is rarely helpful.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

As someone here once pithily put it:


Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

[Zhentarim]

As someone here once pithily put it:

Which leaves the question of how chaotic neutral is different from true neutral.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Which leaves the question of how chaotic neutral is different from true neutral.

It's a matter of aretology/virtue ethics vs. consequentialism (https://opinionfront.com/consequentialism-vs-deontology-vs-virtue-ethics); Law, ethical Neutrality, and Chaos map roughly to deontology (rules-focused), aretology (intention-focused), and consequentialism (outcome-focused) ethics, respectively.

For instance, if asked "Does this dress make me look fat?" a LN character might say "Yes" if he cares more about honesty or "No" if he cares more about social niceties (following one rule or another), a TN character might say "Yes" or "No" based on dress-wearer's closeness to him and whether he feels she needs to hear it (intending not to be a jerk unless necessary), and a CN character might say whatever he has to say to not get in trouble (avoiding immediate negative consequences).

[Quertus]

Which leaves the question of how chaotic neutral is different from true neutral.

True Neutral will accept and follow rules if it's in their best interests, whereas Chaotic Neutral will chafe at the existence of such beneficial rules?

[Zhentarim]

It's a matter of aretology/virtue ethics vs. consequentialism (https://opinionfront.com/consequentialism-vs-deontology-vs-virtue-ethics); Law, ethical Neutrality, and Chaos map roughly to deontology (rules-focused), aretology (intention-focused), and consequentialism (outcome-focused) ethics, respectively.

For instance, if asked "Does this dress make me look fat?" a LN character might say "Yes" if he cares more about honesty or "No" if he cares more about social niceties (following one rule or another), a TN character might say "Yes" or "No" based on dress-wearer's closeness to him and whether he feels she needs to hear it (intending not to be a jerk unless necessary), and a CN character might say whatever he has to say to not get in trouble (avoiding immediate negative consequences).
I care about consequences. How you got there doesn’t matter much to me. I’ll probably say you’re fat if you look fat, though, and I relatively sure you won’t hurt me for being honest.

Edit: In your link, Hedonist Consequentialism sounds like what I do, pretty much all the time.

[Segev]

Lawful people subscribe to at least one set of rules. They follow them religiously (sometimes literally). Chaotic people tend to subscribe to a set of principles, just because nearly everybody has them. They find them to be good ideas by which to live in order to achieve their goals. Neutral people are guided by principle but also think rules are a good way to codify those principles, while also thinking rules are a bit imperfect and can be disregarded when they hit snags in supporting their principles.

So the difference between a Neutral person and a Chaotic person will tend to be that a Neutral person will break rules only when they become more than a little inconvenient, and will tend to view them as important enough to follow, sometimes even when they get in the way. But not to the point where they actively prevent them from doing something they feel strongly about. Chaotic people will, on the other hand, tend to follow rules almost only coincidentally. While they might adhere to them if compelled by threat of force, they otherwise will take rules into account as possibly good advice if they help them adhere to their principles, and will otherwise disregard them completely.

You'll generally tell Neutral people by how many Lawful people call them "chaotic" and how many Chaotic people call them "lawful." They're genuinely middle of the road. Unlike good/evil, you CAN adhere to the rules a lot to counterbalance some rule-breaking, and you CAN break a lot of rules to counterbalance one act of extreme compliance. (Though again, Chaotic people can coincidentally comply just like the most Lawful person in the world, if it suits their overall principles and goals.)

[Zhentarim]

Lawful people subscribe to at least one set of rules. They follow them religiously (sometimes literally). Chaotic people tend to subscribe to a set of principles, just because nearly everybody has them. They find them to be good ideas by which to live in order to achieve their goals. Neutral people are guided by principle but also think rules are a good way to codify those principles, while also thinking rules are a bit imperfect and can be disregarded when they hit snags in supporting their principles.

So the difference between a Neutral person and a Chaotic person will tend to be that a Neutral person will break rules only when they become more than a little inconvenient, and will tend to view them as important enough to follow, sometimes even when they get in the way. But not to the point where they actively prevent them from doing something they feel strongly about. Chaotic people will, on the other hand, tend to follow rules almost only coincidentally. While they might adhere to them if compelled by threat of force, they otherwise will take rules into account as possibly good advice if they help them adhere to their principles, and will otherwise disregard them completely.

You'll generally tell Neutral people by how many Lawful people call them "chaotic" and how many Chaotic people call them "lawful." They're genuinely middle of the road. Unlike good/evil, you CAN adhere to the rules a lot to counterbalance some rule-breaking, and you CAN break a lot of rules to counterbalance one act of extreme compliance. (Though again, Chaotic people can coincidentally comply just like the most Lawful person in the world, if it suits their overall principles and goals.)

Yeah, I’m chaotic neutral. lol...

[RedMage125]

I saw a post once from tumblr (via Pintrest) that I thought I'd share here:

Lawful: Rules matter more to me than individuals

Chaotic: Individuals matter more to me than rules.

Good: Other people's well-being is more important than my own.

Evil: My own well-being is more important than other people.

Neutral: My opinion of what is more important is determined on a case-by-case basis.

So a Lawful Good character's guiding moral philosophy might be "I follow the rules because the rules keep people safe, even if they are sometimes inconvenient or harmful to me or other individuals". A Chaotic Evil character's guiding moral principle might be like "Screw the rules and screw you".
/quote

So, OP, what I would say marks the distinction is how FAR you are (generally) willing to go to further your own interests. If you don't care at all who gets hurt as long as you get what you want...Evil. If you'd rather not hurt others, even complete strangers, but try to get away with some kind of benefit to yourself in everything you do...Neutral.

I, personally, identify as Lawful Neutral (were I to be in a world with D&D objective alignment forces). I'm pretty orderly. I like structure and rules. And my thought processes tend to be a bit rigid, I tend to have trouble "abandoning Plan A in favor of something new". It's easier for me to "find a way to get Plan A back on track", so to speak. I would suffer and make sacrifices for those who are closest to me (my family, my closest friends), but I do not care about the hardships of strangers. I try to live by a "whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink mine" philosophy.

The bottom line is finding the degree to which one's selfishness extends vis a vis causing harm or detriment to others. If it's "I try not to hurt others unless it's essential/minor harm/they've done something to deserve it", then you're Neutral. If you straight-up do not care about what the fallout from your actions are, then you're Evil.

[Zanos]

Yeah, no, as ezekialraiden is pointing out, that doesn't get a pass. While you could balance out to neutral with the usual petty theft/supports beggars example, deliberately shunning every opportunity to do good while intentionally doing evil means you're evil. And explicitly only ever following social norms due to threat or chance of gain after you've rationalized yourself into it means you're chaotic. This character's first instincts are "harm=profit" and "do what I want," and those are pretty clear.
+1

Some people are more Evil than others, but if you harm people for profit and have no inclination at all to be altruistic that's pretty textbook Evil.


Let us cut through this

A village is about to be attacked

Good. Defend the village no thought of payment up front

Nuetral Defend the village we can talk about payment later

Evil. I will defend the village what are you paying?
Shift Evil up to Neutral(mercenary work is not Evil unless you're doing it for Devils) and replace Evil with "Nice village you got here, shame if someone were to tell the enemy about all your defenses. How's your treasury holding up?"


A village is being attacked

Good defend until told to quit

Nuetral defend the village while making plans for evacuation of yourself and others

Evil flee, renegotiate or change sides
A character of any alignment could pick any of those options depending on the circumstances. If the attack is overwhelming, for example, a Good character is not required to spend their life in the least efficient way possible. And an Evil character may choose to fight in the face of overwhelming odds due to devotion to a cause or to protect an Evil goal. It's not like all the villains immediately cut and run when they see the PCs.


Lawful: Rules matter more to me than individuals
I'd argue that Lawful is about systems mattering more than individuals. Lawful people don't have to be ironclad bound by the rules as they are written and can rally against an illogical rule, but they generally do find value inherent in stability, order, and planning. A Lawful character is unlikely to challenge an illogical rule if they believe doing so challenges the stability of the system, however.

[Fizban]

Lawful people subscribe to at least one set of rules. They follow them religiously (sometimes literally). Chaotic people tend to subscribe to a set of principles, just because nearly everybody has them. They find them to be good ideas by which to live in order to achieve their goals.
Disagree. A set of principles is just another name for a set of rules. A person who follows a set of "principles" is just a lawful person who isn't subscribing to the laws of a specific society- they made up their own laws, possibly in response to other people's laws, but they're still internal laws even if they're called principles instead.*

A chaotic person is the opposite. If you ask them how to act, they ask what they're supposed to be responding to. The same way a lawful person can still act against their principles-their laws, for certain things, the chaotic person can still have certain things that trigger the same reaction almost every time. But in the end the whole point is that for a chaotic person, there is no such thing as a "principle" they won't compromise. A lawful person has a point where they stop reacting and start responding by rote, based on the principle, while a chaotic person has a point where they say "screw it!" and go with their gut (and of course, doing both about evenly means you're neutral).

The part where a chaotic person has "principles" is just describing their good/evil axis, which is usually the primary concern, and is the big part where they will have the same reactions over and over. The same way a lawful good/evil character is most likely to break the law for good/evil, a chaotic person is the most consistent when it comes to good/evil, simply because that's the main thing that comes up. LG and CG can still have the same response to a moral conundrum, say for a hostage situation: the LG could have "no bargains with evil" and the CG could figure "nah, I don't trust this guy," or the LG could have "always aim to reduce conflict" and the CG could have "if I pay the ransom I'll get more time to think of a way to save them even if it doesn't work." Same responses, same Good "principles," different reasoning, different alignments.

You have to work pretty hard to build a grey enough situation that good/evil- altruism/exploitation seem less important than rote/reactive response tendency.

*This is the biggest pitfall of consistency in WotC's own 1st party materials though, and seems to stem from attempts to reconcile CG characters being trustworthy and working with lawful socieities: "well they're just principled instead of lawful, right?" No, a CG character is trustworthy because you know that when the chips are down, they'll do the "right" (Good) thing, so you trust them to do the right thing. They work within the law in town because most of the laws aren't Evil or onerous and they're not stupid. But WotC really likes portraying people on the wrong side of the local law as Chaotic when they're actually just Lawful for a different set of laws.

The conflation of principles and law leads to the only good being Lawful Good, and chaos as being unprincipled to the only chaos being Chaotic Evil. Which is where they've been moving their products since 3.5.

[ezekielraiden]

I saw a post once from tumblr (via Pintrest) that I thought I'd share here:

Lawful: Rules matter more to me than individuals

Chaotic: Individuals matter more to me than rules.

Good: Other people's well-being is more important than my own.

Evil: My own well-being is more important than other people.

Neutral: My opinion of what is more important is determined on a case-by-case basis.

An interesting classification system, though (as always, with alignment) not entirely perfect. E.g. what do we do with Bahamut-type Lawful Good, where the guy is literally an embodiment of Justice, but it's explicitly stated that he prefers to arm individuals to defend themselves rather than doing the defending personally? That tends to be the kind of LG I ascribe to both for the characters I play (it's hard to play anything other than LG or NG for me--I can do CG and TN at a stretch, but beyond that...) and for my own personal conduct. I do think rules should, in general, take precedence, because those rules should be structured in such a way as to improve the well-being of all subject to them. I also think that, if those rules fail to meet that standard--if they actually reduce the well-being of those subject to them--then they have broken their own purpose, become self-contradictory, and thus by both Good and Law, they should be repaired or (if necessary, and sadly it often is necessary) replaced until they no longer reduce the well-being of those subject to them.


So a Lawful Good character's guiding moral philosophy might be "I follow the rules because the rules keep people safe, even if they are sometimes inconvenient or harmful to me or other individuals". A Chaotic Evil character's guiding moral principle might be like "Screw the rules and screw you".

I could get along with this. Rules, and the self-restraint required to follow them, are often inconvenient to individuals. But by accepting a reasonable amount of said inconvenience, everyone can gain a lot of benefit. What, exactly, constitutes a "reasonable amount" of inconvenience is often a matter of debate, but that is something we address with deliberative bodies, elections, expert witnesses, etc.

I would generally articulate a Chaotic Evil "guiding principle," such as it is, as "anything to get what I want." But even the CE individual will apply this rationally: actions with only minor, incidental, or short-lived benefit are less desirable than those with major, direct, or long-term benefit. Similarly, actions which cause you to lose a lot of what you want in the long-term had better be pretty damned valuable in the short-term, or otherwise open to amelioration, in order to be desirable. If following the rules for a while ends up being useful--do it. Not because you put value in the rules, but because you put value in the results. For example, generally playing by the rules of poker is necessary in order to win anything; if you flagrantly cheat at every single opportunity, you'll be kicked out in short order. A rational cheater must obey the rules only to the limit of maintaining cover etc., but at the same time, they should always encourage others to follow the rules scrupulously, because that's advantageous. Chaotic Evil in its deranged form is certainly murderiffic, but in its rational form it is more like psychopathy. Not in the pop-psych "raving violent lunatic" sense; rather, in the "severe antisocial personality disorder" sense, characterized by a lack of empathy, reckless behavior, and careful psychological manipulation of others. A violent psychopath will calculatingly work to injure or kill others without negative consequence to themselves; an ambitious psychopath will eliminate all rivals regardless of how much harm they may need to inflict to do so.


So, OP, what I would say marks the distinction is how FAR you are (generally) willing to go to further your own interests. If you don't care at all who gets hurt as long as you get what you want...Evil. If you'd rather not hurt others, even complete strangers, but try to get away with some kind of benefit to yourself in everything you do...Neutral. <snip> The bottom line is finding the degree to which one's selfishness extends vis a vis causing harm or detriment to others. If it's "I try not to hurt others unless it's essential/minor harm/they've done something to deserve it", then you're Neutral. If you straight-up do not care about what the fallout from your actions are, then you're Evil.

Yeah, it sounds like it's much closer to the latter than the former there. It's, "I do care about the consequences of my actions...if they would hurt me. Anybody else? Meh, whatever." It's not just selfishness, but selfishness paired with a disregard for harm to others. Sure, maybe harm to others isn't actively sought for its own sake (which would be pretty clearly evil), but if a character straight-up doesn't care if an action hurts others unless it would have bad consequences for them, and straight-up refuses to aid others unless it would be of concrete personal benefit...yeah. That char's Evil. Maybe not horrible evil. Maybe even affable evil--evil that can still get along with others. But evil nonetheless.

Maybe I'd call that a sort of "redeemable" evil, in that it's not that harming or manipulating others is directly valued--it's just seen as a useful instrument. Someone like that at least has the possibility of developing actual "enlightened self-interest," of coming to believe that helping others without direct profit does lead to personal benefit down the line, and that harming others generally (or even always) will eventually lead to greater personal cost. A character exhibiting this kind of Evil could at least theoretically be convinced to flip their "avoid/pursue" clauses: to pursue good for others, even if it might be costly, because the overall reward is worth it, and to avoid harm to others, even if it might be rewarding, because the overall cost isn't worth it.

[Nifft]

I saw a post once from tumblr (via Pintrest) that I thought I'd share here:

Lawful: Rules matter more to me than individuals

Chaotic: Individuals matter more to me than rules.

Good: Other people's well-being is more important than my own.

Evil: My own well-being is more important than other people.

Neutral: My opinion of what is more important is determined on a case-by-case basis.

So a Lawful Good character's guiding moral philosophy might be "I follow the rules because the rules keep people safe, even if they are sometimes inconvenient or harmful to me or other individuals". A Chaotic Evil character's guiding moral principle might be like "Screw the rules and screw you".


Close to what I tend to prefer. Here's mine:

Lawful: Organizations matter more to me than individuals.

Chaotic: Individuals matter more to me than organizations.

L-C Neutral: Individuals and organizations matter equally.


Good: Will accept risk to self for the well-being of others.

Evil: Will accept risk to others for personal profit.

G-E Neutral: May accept risk to self for personal profit, or may avoid risk to others and self entirely.

[Segev]

Principles differ from rules in that principles are guidelines. Good ideas. Ideals. There are not rules, and often are not codified in if/then or dos and don’ts. They are general. Statements of purpose.

They are not interpreted strictly.

[Fizban]

Principles differ from rules in that principles are guidelines. Good ideas. Ideals. There are not rules, and often are not codified in if/then or dos and don’ts. They are general. Statements of purpose.

They are not interpreted strictly.
It's just a differing degree. Petty theft is less evil than murder, principles are less lawful than a strict code of conduct or given legal system. Still lawful. If you're acting on "principles," something is still compelling your actions. You chose those principles, and when you're unsure you consult those principles. You're not acting with the absence of law, just less of it. If your "principles" are specifically regarding altruism/exploitation, then they're just the good/evil axis, as I already said.

Humans are a tribal species, meaning we have laws instilled in us as we grow up no matter what. So a person who disagrees with those laws thinks of themselves as chaotic with this law/chaos phrasing, even if they're actually just acting under their own set of less restrictive laws, and a person who actually has an absence of law still has to describe themselves within those bounds. There's not really words for someone who acts with zero knowledge or regard for society's laws and principles, because there is no person who hasn't grown up with them, so there cannot be zero regard for them (well I'm sure there's some clinically recognized disorder categorized that way, but that's not the point).

But you can still have a person who, when confronted with some sort of law or principle, to a greater or lesser degree, either naturally or deliberately, chooses to reject it and only respond to a specific situation. That refusal of law, the absence of law, is chaos. The less information you need, the more strongly you can declare your response even without being in a given situation, the more lawful you are.

To go back to the "CG" example, if the character's "principles" basically boil down to "help others" then they've really only got the one principle- Good. If they've got a bunch of faux chivalry stuff in there as seen in "dashing swashbuckler/rogue" types, like "women and children first," and "always keep your word (and oh that's a big one)," and they actually follow those in times of stress? That's not very chaotic anymore. Might not be lawful, but not chaotic. Probably just NG, if they actually violate their non-good/evil principles often enough to be non-lawful.

If you have a principle broad enough to not be a "law" and divorced enough from good/evil that it's not just a statement of good/evil, then. . . what do you have? No matter how the character would phrase it out loud, their behavior in actions and reasoning determine their alignment.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It's just a differing degree. Petty theft is less evil than murder, principles are less lawful than a strict code of conduct or given legal system. Still lawful. If you're acting on "principles," something is still compelling your actions. You chose those principles, and when you're unsure you consult those principles. You're not acting with the absence of law, just less of it. If your "principles" are specifically regarding altruism/exploitation, then they're just the good/evil axis, as I already said.

Humans are a tribal species, meaning we have laws instilled in us as we grow up no matter what. So a person who disagrees with those laws thinks of themselves as chaotic with this law/chaos phrasing, even if they're actually just acting under their own set of less restrictive laws, and a person who actually has an absence of law still has to describe themselves within those bounds. There's not really words for someone who acts with zero knowledge or regard for society's laws and principles, because there is no person who hasn't grown up with them, so there cannot be zero regard for them (well I'm sure there's some clinically recognized disorder categorized that way, but that's not the point).

But you can still have a person who, when confronted with some sort of law or principle, to a greater or lesser degree, either naturally or deliberately, chooses to reject it and only respond to a specific situation. That refusal of law, the absence of law, is chaos. The less information you need, the more strongly you can declare your response even without being in a given situation, the more lawful you are.

Your "humans innately follow rules, some people just choose to reject them" premise is a very Lawful/deontological perspective; indeed, focusing on what's compelling your actions as the be-all and end-all of ethics is the basis of deontological ethics, where consequentialist ethics focuses on outcomes and aretological ethics focuses on motivation. You could easily argue something similar but opposed from the Chaotic/consequentialist perspective:

It's just a differing degree. Petty theft is less likely to lead to evil than murder, basic guidelines are more reasonable than a strict system of rules. Still chaotic. If you're acting on "principles," you're not worried about what you have to do to follow them. You know what level of risk and reward (or guilt and satisfaction) you're comfortable with, and when you're unsure you do what seems the most likely to lead to the outcome you want. You can follow rules sometimes if int makes sense, but that doesn't mean you're acting in an absence of chaos, just using the rules as a handy shortcut to figure out what to do. If what you want specifically deals with altruism/exploitation, then they're just the good/evil axis, as I already said.

Humans are evolved biological creatures, meaning we have instincts and drives at a very primal level no matter what. So a person can choose to follow some arbitrary moral framework--laws, religion, a personal code--and deny themselves their fundamental needs and wants when necessary and people like that will think of themselves as lawful with this law/chaos phrasing, even if their true motives shine through when they bend or break the rules on occasion, and a person who follows their own rules to their own detriment still has to describe themselves in terms of the goals of their moral framework. There's not really words for someone who acts without having an end goal in mind, because there is no person who hasn't figured out basic cause and effect, so there cannot be zero regard for that (well I'm sure there's some clinically recognized disorder categorized that way, but that's not the point).

But you can still have a person who, when faced with all the possible consequences of their actions and their relative likelihood, to a greater or lesser degree, either naturally or deliberately, chooses to ignore that and do what their rules say just because it's what their rules say, even if it turns out badly. That refusal to see the nuance in a situation and instead place all responsibility in an abstract moral framework is "law." The less information you need, the more strongly you can declare your response no matter how many hypothetical constraints are applied to you, the more chaotic you are.

Now, that doesn't necessarily flow as well because doing a mirror-image rewrite is constraining, but surely you can see that someone might reasonably hold that viewpoint and that "ideals" and "rules" are not necessarily, or even usually, the same thing?

[P.F.]

But you can still have a person who ... chooses to ignore that and do what their rules say just because it's what their rules say, even if it turns out badly. That refusal to see the nuance in a situation and instead place all responsibility in an abstract moral framework is "law."

As a chaotic/consequentialist person, I'd say this sums it up pretty well.

Also, I'm surprised by the number of mercenary apologists here. Mercenary working is lawful/legal, but killing people for money absent any other motivation trends toward evil, not neutral.

[Pleh]

Neutral: My opinion of what is more important is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Hm. I always read Neutral more as:

"I do care for others, but I can't justify harm to myself in pursuit of their wellbeing. It seems most reasonable for each person to take only responsibility for themselves, even though altruism is admirable."

This ends up setting Evil rather firmly in the region of "I don't care about the wellbeing of others" and "I enjoy the harm of others."

[Segev]

Everyone operates on principles. Lawful people use them to help them judge the rules they follow, and perhaps change the set of rules to which they subscribe. Chaotic people don't bother with rules.

The argument that it's just a matter of degree fails when you attempt to accept the premise and re-examine. If "principles" are inherently lawful, then chaotic people must have none. What, then, judges how they act? Chaotic people are not as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, despite the joke and/or bad interpretation some people give it. But if they take actions that they feel benefit them, that's operating on a principle.

Chaos, as an alignment, isn't about being pants-on-head random. It's about not caring about rules. Chaotic people can still be predictable as long as you know what their goals are: they will work towards them. "Goal-oriented" is a valid way to express part of what being Chaotic means. But that also means adhering to a principle that obtaining your goals is something you should pursue.

Principles are guildelines. They are nonspecific, though you can find things that definitely follow them and things that definitely violate them. The line between is very fuzzy and how a principle is followed will be context-dependent.

You can still count on chaotic people not to violate their principles, though, simply because they are not rolling dice to determine the result of every action. Chaotic people can be, and usually are, rational. They just don't have a code of well-defined rules they follow even when those rules seem to get in the way of the shortest path to their goals.


Also, I'm surprised by the number of mercenary apologists here. Mercenary working is lawful/legal, but killing people for money absent any other motivation trends toward evil, not neutral.Partially, it's because of context.

Mercenary work is not inherently evil any more than serving in an army is. It's not about killing people for hire; it's about providing force to help employers achieve their goals. What kinds of work a mercenary is willing to do, and how they execute their missions, will determine a lot about their goodness vs. evilness. It is generally difficult to make a living as a Good-aligned mercenary, but it isn't impossible if you choose your employers and missions well. A neutral-aligned mercenary is more likely to take jobs from unsavory employers, but would still refrain from things like raping and pillaging innocent civilians, and is more likely to focus on fighting enemy soldiers.

[Pleh]

@segev: that's precisely why I usually define Law vs Chaos as a reaction to external authority.

Chaos isn't truly random, it's resistant to external authority. In my physics trained mind, I think of Neutrinos and other bizarre quantum particles. Neutrinos are "chaotic" in the sense that they simply ignore most of the physical forces (about the only "external authority" they experience). Quantum particles are often, "beligerent" because they have a habit of switching modes between particle and wave whenever external force is applied. They just tunnel through the barrier and slip through the inescapable barrier.

[Segev]

@segev: that's precisely why I usually define Law vs Chaos as a reaction to external authority.

That's a mostly-valid way to look at it, though consider that one can impose one's own "external" authority on oneself by codifying rules that will be followed unless and until you determine that the rules are bad and need changing. This isn't the same as constantly updating them for circumstances; if you are going to change them, it's a big deal and has serious rammifications for ongoing action, and is not something you'd ever do for a one-off circumstance.

[vasilidor]

On the mercenary bent of things, and killing being evil. I believe there are some things and people, in fiction and theoretically in real life, that if you find yourself in the same room as your best chance of survival is to strike first and go for the kill. Examples of this include the Joker from Detective Comics, Illithids from DnD, and Blood Mages from Shadowrun (from all my experiences with them).
Any person who realizes this and acts accordingly is making a neutral act of sanity. Any person who would hire themselves out to hunt these things down is commiting a neutral act of questionable sanity.
There are evil acts of mercenary work as well, such as hiring out to torch a village of otherwise peaceful sentients.

[Clistenes]

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. Likewise, my characters in games tend to ask “what’s in it for me?” before going and helping the other PC’s. I work with the GM beforehand to make my character personally invested in the problem in some way, so getting at the BBEG becomes personal and I stick with the group because our goals now align. That said, my characters, while pretty much bever acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves). When they do decide to help others, it has to be at least win-win (ie: Both the character and the person the character is helping are advanced).

Above all else, the characters I make follow what philosopher’s call “enlightened self-interest”.

Is this evil or neutral?

Edit:
I’ll also add my characters tend to bristle at authority figures, but won’t necessarily rebel if they feel like the request doesn’t impact their personal advancement and/or they feel like the authority is powerful enough to punish them if they rebel (and they have no way to rebel secretly).

How far are you willing to go in order to get what you want?

Somebody who accepts hardship and loss in order to help others is Good. Somebody who is willing to hurt others in order to better themselves or to get what they want is Evil.

Somebody who does neither is neutral. If you refuse to share or give from the fruit of your own labors, if you refuse to take risks to help or save others, that doesn't make you Evil.

If a crime boss were to offer a bounty on the head of an innocent, would you reveal the location of the victim for the reward?
Would you steal a vaccine in order to sell it for ten times its market price?
I you are able to do stuff like that, then you are certainly Evil.

[vasilidor]

As far as the original topic goes, I would say it would depend upon the degree in which you take your selfishness to. One extreme example of evil selfishness (that does occur in real life) is killing for money.
One neutral example of selfishness is realizing that there is only enough food in the valley to keep half the people in it alive till the spring, there is no way out of it, and you want to be among the survivors.

[Zhentarim]

How far are you willing to go in order to get what you want?

Somebody who accepts hardship and loss in order to help others is Good. Somebody who is willing to hurt others in order to better themselves or to get what they want is Evil.

Somebody who does neither is neutral. If you refuse to share or give from the fruit of your own labors, if you refuse to take risks to help or save others, that doesn't make you Evil.

If a crime boss were to offer a bounty on the head of an innocent, would you reveal the location of the victim for the reward?
Would you steal a vaccine in order to sell it for then times it market price?
I you are able to do stuff like that, then you are certainly Evil.

What kind of money are we talking about here?

[Pleh]

That's a mostly-valid way to look at it, though consider that one can impose one's own "external" authority on oneself by codifying rules that will be followed unless and until you determine that the rules are bad and need changing. This isn't the same as constantly updating them for circumstances; if you are going to change them, it's a big deal and has serious rammifications for ongoing action, and is not something you'd ever do for a one-off circumstance.

I agree that self discipline fits in the Chaotic mindset. Feels like a reach to call it "external" in that regard, but there's nothing amiss in the statement.

[Zhentarim]

I agree that self discipline fits in the Chaotic mindset. Feels like a reach to call it "external" in that regard, but there's nothing amiss in the statement.

You mean lawful?

[Clistenes]

What kind of money are we talking about here?

Enough that you wouldn't need to work anymore in order to keep your current living standards...

[Forum Explorer]

In of itself? Neutral. From what you've described, likely evil.

Evil doesn't need to be some grand villain or crackling maniac. You don't need to be a mass murderer, or crime boss either.

It can very well be nothing more then a bunch of petty evils. Stealing an ally's food so you don't use your own. Kicking an opponent when they are down. Sacrificing others to save yourself.

The way I see it, it breaks down like this:

Good: Willing to sacrifice/suffer for the sake of others
Neutral: Unwilling to sacrifice self or harm others
Evil: Willing to harm others for the sake of itself.

[Pleh]

You mean lawful?

Self discipline isn't inherently lawful. That was more or less the point. Self discipline is the act of consciously shaping yourself into a state which you find preferable. It means you live more intentionally than passively.

Acsetic Monks use Self Discipline to be lawful, denying their physical and material desires to conform to their philosophy

Meanwhile, a chaotic bard diligently studies an instrument through a custom style no one has taught before. At night, he disciplines himself by intentionally drinking as much alcohol as he can because he's trying to stretch his limits and become a more resolute drinker.

[Segev]

My point was more that if you have a regimented code by which you live, from which you will only deviate if you are officially (even just to yourself) changing said code, and you do not change the code lightly (e.g. every time it's challenged even slightly), you're behaving Lawfully.

If you have a set of principles that you use as guidelines, but not a regimented code you consult every time you must make a decision, such that your choices are situational and you may demonstrate inconsistent reasoning as to why you'd do something one way one time and another way a different time, you're behaving Chaotically. But you still have principles you use as guidelines. You're just not too concerned over exact wording or precise judgments and consistent reasoning. You can go with your gut, and can avoid ever worrying about your rules conflicting with your goals or principles, because you don't care about specific rules.

Note that a Lawful person would say that those apparent conflicts are more often than not an indication that there's a broader scope that the Chaotic person is ignoring, and that the Chaotic person is probably betraying his principles by going with his gut and not sticking to well-defined rules which help control for momentary bad judgment, etc. etc.

[Zhentarim]

Enough that you wouldn't need to work anymore in order to keep your current living standards...

Tempting, but I need more info. What kind of disease is this vaccine for? Does this individual have any dependents?

[ezekielraiden]

Tempting, but I need more info. What kind of disease is this vaccine for? Does this individual have any dependents?

Details will just take us into the weeds.

Assume there is an object that another person needs in order to not die. This object is perfectly safe to handle and cannot be meaningfully used as a weapon.* You are asked to steal this object from that person, for a third party you hold no special regard for (neither positive nor negative), in return for a large sum of money, enough to retire comfortably. You know, to a very good (but not necessarily perfect) certainty, that if you steal this object carefully, no harm will come to you or your reputation until after you eventually die (assume you will die of old age long after choosing to do or not do act), and that no harm will come to those you care about. You also know (to similar certainty) that no harm will come to you, the person who currently owns the object, or anyone you personally care about, should you refuse--but you won't earn any special reputation for refusing, either.

In short: you really will earn a lot of money at little cost to yourself if you do something that will lead to the death of an otherwise morally neutral bystander (someone you know nothing special about). It may or may not prevent another's death, you aren't privy to what your employer will do with the object, other than that it won't be used to harm anyone else.

Would you let a person die, specifically because of your actions, if it would earn you this large amount of money?

Or to phrase it differently: if your ailing grandfather, whom you neither like nor dislike, were to have a heart attack, and you were his sole beneficiary of his (say) $100 million estate, would you help him and wait longer (perhaps many years) to get your inheritance, or would you simply allow him to die, knowing no one would know or think less of you?

*Nearly anything can act as an improvised weapon. This has no features that would make it at all effective as a weapon, neither on a person-to-person level nor a mass-destruction level. No plagues or chemical weapons, no heavy weight or sharp edges.

[Zhentarim]

Details will just take us into the weeds.

Assume there is an object that another person needs in order to not die. This object is perfectly safe to handle and cannot be meaningfully used as a weapon.* You are asked to steal this object from that person, for a third party you hold no special regard for (neither positive nor negative), in return for a large sum of money, enough to retire comfortably. You know, to a very good (but not necessarily perfect) certainty, that if you steal this object carefully, no harm will come to you or your reputation until after you eventually die (assume you will die of old age long after choosing to do or not do act), and that no harm will come to those you care about. You also know (to similar certainty) that no harm will come to you, the person who currently owns the object, or anyone you personally care about, should you refuse--but you won't earn any special reputation for refusing, either.

In short: you really will earn a lot of money at little cost to yourself if you do something that will lead to the death of an otherwise morally neutral bystander (someone you know nothing special about). It may or may not prevent another's death, you aren't privy to what your employer will do with the object, other than that it won't be used to harm anyone else.

Would you let a person die, specifically because of your actions, if it would earn you this large amount of money?

Or to phrase it differently: if your ailing grandfather, whom you neither like nor dislike, were to have a heart attack, and you were his sole beneficiary of his (say) $100 million estate, would you help him and wait longer (perhaps many years) to get your inheritance, or would you simply allow him to die, knowing no one would know or think less of you?

*Nearly anything can act as an improvised weapon. This has no features that would make it at all effective as a weapon, neither on a person-to-person level nor a mass-destruction level. No plagues or chemical weapons, no heavy weight or sharp edges.

I’d pass for lack of information. Too many variables. There is also the general principal that while I strongly pursue my own interests, I will avoid harming others. Just don’t expect me to go out of my way to help, either.

As for an ailing grandfather having a heart attack who I feel neutrally towards, there are certain expectations that must be upheld among family. So long as I merely had to call for help, I’d save him. There is little risk to myself, after all, and he’s old, so I won’t need to wait THAT long for him to die in a situation that I am both unable and unobligated to save him from.

[ezekielraiden]

I’d pass for lack of information. Too many variables. There is also the general principal that while I strongly pursue my own interests, I will avoid harming others. Just don’t expect me to go out of my way to help, either.

So...how does this square with some of the other stuff you said? I know this is getting into the problem of separating player from character, but you did explicitly say that your characters see things much as you do, and that your characters are okay with stealing when they can get away with it. And, as noted, you aren't harming anyone--you're just permitting harm to happen through the change you make to the situation, which may be morally different in your eyes. (It isn't to mine, but we already disagree on other moral stuff as it is.)

That is, you seem to be saying that (at least for your characters) harm to others is OK if it can be gotten away with. That's a pretty Evil attitude, especially when paired with "I refuse to help unless sufficiently rewarded." Now, however, you seem to be saying "actually, I prefer not to cause any harm unless it's genuinely unavoidable, and I am willing to help out without recompense...just not very much." That's...a world of difference.


As for an ailing grandfather having a heart attack who I feel neutrally towards, there are certain expectations that must be upheld among family. So long as I merely had to call for help, I’d save him. There is little risk to myself, after all, and he’s old, so I won’t need to wait THAT long for him to die in a situation that I am both unable and unobligated to save him from.

What if you are his only living relative, by blood or marriage, so family expectations no longer apply? (Perhaps a contrived situation, but the point is to make it all about your choice, without the baggage of social expectation--be it the society called "family," "culture," "nation," "class," or whatever else.)

[Zhentarim]

So...how does this square with some of the other stuff you said? I know this is getting into the problem of separating player from character, but you did explicitly say that your characters see things much as you do, and that your characters are okay with stealing when they can get away with it. And, as noted, you aren't harming anyone--you're just permitting harm to happen through the change you make to the situation, which may be morally different in your eyes. (It isn't to mine, but we already disagree on other moral stuff as it is.)

That is, you seem to be saying that (at least for your characters) harm to others is OK if it can be gotten away with. That's a pretty Evil attitude, especially when paired with "I refuse to help unless sufficiently rewarded." Now, however, you seem to be saying "actually, I prefer not to cause any harm unless it's genuinely unavoidable, and I am willing to help out without recompense...just not very much." That's...a world of difference.



What if you are his only living relative, by blood or marriage, so family expectations no longer apply? (Perhaps a contrived situation, but the point is to make it all about your choice, without the baggage of social expectation--be it the society called "family," "culture," "nation," "class," or whatever else.)

It depends on how gritty the game is. If I’m intentionally going darker than I am in real life, you bet I’ll steal whatever I need to to retire and let my rich grandfather die. If I’m playing the character more like a reflection of myself, it depends. I’m more conflicted in real life than my characters are. Which way I go can depend on my mood at the moment, which is quite changeable at times. My moods are like weather, constantly changing and hard to forecast beyond a certain point.

[Segev]

I think a better way to frame the scenario would be that the heir and you are alone in a room with his rich predecessor. Either of you could perform CPR to potentially save the predecessor's life, and the heir offers you half his inheritance to not perform CPR.

The question here is whether refraining from performing a potentially life-saving procedure is evil.

The reason it's sticky is because it gets into the question of whether you're obligated to offer a personally distasteful life-saving service, and if so, how far you're obligated to go to save somebody's life, in terms of how much you're required to give up of your own health, wealth, comfort, or happiness to do so.

And that is not a question you'll ever get a definitive answer to on this forum; it has been debated - often hotly - with no resolution many times.

[hamishspence]

The question here is whether refraining from performing a potentially life-saving procedure is evil.

It's often portrayed as leaning that way, at least:

Murder By Inaction (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurderByInaction)

[Segev]

It's often portrayed as leaning that way, at least:

Murder By Inaction (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurderByInaction)

Indeed. But, like I said, that raises the question of degree.

Most people would agree that refusing to clap your hands and say "I do believe in fairies" to save the life of a fairy who is dying right in front of you and only needs that much effort from you to save them is fairly evil. Similarly, refusing to push a button to stop a buzz saw from cutting somebody in half and instead walking on because it's too much bother would usually be universally regarded as pretty depraved in its indifference.

But, likewise, if the requirement to save the fairy were to offer it your soul, turning yourself into a mindless husk to let it live, few would call you evil for refusing to do so. In fact, killing the fairy, yourself, for trying to do it to you against your will would be seen as justifiable. Similarly, refusing to push a button that would fill the chamber in which you're trapped with molten lava even if that button is the only thing that would stop the buzz saw from cutting somebody else in half is probably not evil, and the buzz saw person using mind-control to force you to push that button would be seen as pretty evil for murdering you to save himself.

By most, anyway. Some will differ, especially on the last example.

There is a matter of degrees. How much is reasonable to expect you to do to save somebody else? If forced to choose between your life savings (including the money you need to avoid being made homeless tomorrow) and saving somebody's life, are you evil for choosing to not destroy your own life? Does it matter if the person is dying right in front of you and all you ahve to do is choose to save them rather than your bag of gold? Does it matter if you'd actually have to put your gold on a truck that will be shipped to a location to buy life-saving drugs for this other person, who is in another city and who you only know because he was allowed one phone call to a random phone number and it happened to be yours? What if you just see him pleading for hte money on a Go Fund Me type site, but you know for a fact he's telling the truth?

What if it's not all of your life savings, but only a quarter?

What if it's just your prized stuffed animal from when you were growing up that's the last memory of your dead family?

What if it's just one dollar? Are we all evil for failing to contribute one dollar to every "save my life" fund-raising effort out there, even though everybody viewing this forum in a month donating one dollar would be enough to save them?


I'm not saying any of these are "obviously" yes or no. Just that it's a matter of degree, and it is a personal judgment for everyone. That's why you'll never get consensus for any particular example, though you can push it towards consensus by making the efforts or costs required particularly low or particularly high.

[Seneschul]

I think the summary here is thus:

The "what" does not tell us an alignment. Not properly.
The why is what tells us their alignment.


I played a rogue dragonwrought kobold of chaotic good, on the path to sainthood. (had a knight's code-thing to follow, take enough exalted feats, etc. Heavy roleplay, I loved it)

My DM shelved the campaign for 2 months so he could fix it after my kobold died.

My kobold burned down a forest. Evil?
He was trying to preserve his and his companion's life, and hit a spider with a torch, missed, and lit the webbing on fire. All of it.

My kobold destroyed a town's livelihood. Evil?
A town had sprung up servicing adventurers who where going through a local digsite, hell-themed. My kobold's bag of holding got destroyed, dumping it's contents out. Including Brown Mold spores. THe dungeon froze over, literally.

My kobold turned a forest to ash. Evil?
He did not have time to deactivate a newly found artifact (DM gave us a gauntlet that ashes plantlife for a 5m radius) and NPCs kidnapped the party's wizard - the kobold was the only one capable of trying to keep up and track the kidnappers.

My kobold opened a giant 2 way portal into hell. Evil?
We were rescuing a little girl who was about to be sacrificed. The paladin wound up falling through the rift into Hell. The kobold and the wizard managed to rewrite the blood ritual (using the kobold's Stigmata feat for flavor) and made the portal 2 way, enabling them to go after and retrieve the paladin.

We tried blowing the cave up, (we had a plasma pistol the kobold was told never to mess with. So the kobold messed with it) trying to close the portal. That side of hell is now a lake of lava. Aaand so was the mountain the ritual took place in. >_>


Oh, and this repaired The Weave, so now the magic users are preparing to wage war on the neighboring city we had taken refuge in.

The DM ruled the portal was tied to the kobold's life.
Was it a sin for the kobold to commit suicide?

Will Krampus (the kobold) be vilified as a country-wrecking bastion of evil? Seriously, 2 forests, a small town, a large city, imminent war with the other city full of mages, tens of thousands of NPC's lives wrecked, the forces of hell brought forth...
Or should be be sanctified, held up as a saint?

Krampus lived, trying to do the right things.

My DM has ruled that Krampus is a saint.

You could spin the above points many different ways. That these are the acts of an evil kobold.
But what was most important was that the kobold was trying to be good, and that none of these acts where caused with malicious intent.
The kobold tried to save lives. Intent.
I could have played a very different character, trying to upset things on purpose, and the above actions would have been evil.

[Zhentarim]

Indeed. But, like I said, that raises the question of degree.

Most people would agree that refusing to clap your hands and say "I do believe in fairies" to save the life of a fairy who is dying right in front of you and only needs that much effort from you to save them is fairly evil. Similarly, refusing to push a button to stop a buzz saw from cutting somebody in half and instead walking on because it's too much bother would usually be universally regarded as pretty depraved in its indifference.

But, likewise, if the requirement to save the fairy were to offer it your soul, turning yourself into a mindless husk to let it live, few would call you evil for refusing to do so. In fact, killing the fairy, yourself, for trying to do it to you against your will would be seen as justifiable. Similarly, refusing to push a button that would fill the chamber in which you're trapped with molten lava even if that button is the only thing that would stop the buzz saw from cutting somebody else in half is probably not evil, and the buzz saw person using mind-control to force you to push that button would be seen as pretty evil for murdering you to save himself.

By most, anyway. Some will differ, especially on the last example.

There is a matter of degrees. How much is reasonable to expect you to do to save somebody else? If forced to choose between your life savings (including the money you need to avoid being made homeless tomorrow) and saving somebody's life, are you evil for choosing to not destroy your own life? Does it matter if the person is dying right in front of you and all you ahve to do is choose to save them rather than your bag of gold? Does it matter if you'd actually have to put your gold on a truck that will be shipped to a location to buy life-saving drugs for this other person, who is in another city and who you only know because he was allowed one phone call to a random phone number and it happened to be yours? What if you just see him pleading for hte money on a Go Fund Me type site, but you know for a fact he's telling the truth?

What if it's not all of your life savings, but only a quarter?

What if it's just your prized stuffed animal from when you were growing up that's the last memory of your dead family?

What if it's just one dollar? Are we all evil for failing to contribute one dollar to every "save my life" fund-raising effort out there, even though everybody viewing this forum in a month donating one dollar would be enough to save them?


I'm not saying any of these are "obviously" yes or no. Just that it's a matter of degree, and it is a personal judgment for everyone. That's why you'll never get consensus for any particular example, though you can push it towards consensus by making the efforts or costs required particularly low or particularly high.

This post is what I was looking for.

[Katie Boundary]

"I planted the flour, I ground the wheat, I baked the bread... so now it's mine and the rest of you can go f*ck yourselves" = neutral

"I'll grind your bones to make my bread" = evil


Your character sounds mostly neutral

[Zhentarim]

"I planted the flour, I ground the wheat, I baked the bread... so now it's mine and the rest of you can go f*ck yourselves" = neutral

"I'll grind your bones to make my bread" = evil


Your character sounds mostly neutral

The second is just vindictive and gross. lol

[ezekielraiden]

"I planted the flour, I ground the wheat, I baked the bread... so now it's mine and the rest of you can go f*ck yourselves" = neutral

"I'll grind your bones to make my bread" = evil


Your character sounds mostly neutral

As long ad we ignore the "I wouldn't even give water to a man dying of thirst unless he paid me good and proper" and "I might steal your bread, if I can get away with it" sentiments. Because yeah, no, there's a lot more going on here than just "why should I be forced to share my hard-earned resources with strangers who did nothing?"

Or, at least, that is quite blatantly how the OP descriptions read to me. The second is definitely evil (and pretty hypocritical given the "how DARE you ask for MY bread" thing), and the first...well. The point that there can be limits to what we reasonably expect of altruism is well-made, but I don't think anything even remotely like those limits was described in the OP. It very very much came across as "character thinks altruism is always the incorrect decision 100% of the time, without exception, and also tries to get away with stealing etc. whenever it's not too inconvenient." If you can't even be moved to altruism when it's convenient, I'm gonna start wondering if there's an E on your alignment.

[Zhentarim]

As long ad we ignore the "I wouldn't even give water to a man dying of thirst unless he paid me good and proper" and "I might steal your bread, if I can get away with it" sentiments. Because yeah, no, there's a lot more going on here than just "why should I be forced to share my hard-earned resources with strangers who did nothing?"

Or, at least, that is quite blatantly how the OP descriptions read to me. The second is definitely evil (and pretty hypocritical given the "how DARE you ask for MY bread" thing), and the first...well. The point that there can be limits to what we reasonably expect of altruism is well-made, but I don't think anything even remotely like those limits was described in the OP. It very very much came across as "character thinks altruism is always the incorrect decision 100% of the time, without exception, and also tries to get away with stealing etc. whenever it's not too inconvenient." If you can't even be moved to altruism when it's convenient, I'm gonna start wondering if there's an E on your alignment.

I once gave a homeless man a bike, $1000, a week at a hotel, a bike lock, and a track phone just so he’d stop camping on my front porch. I let him in on some secrets on how to flip that $1000 into $100,000. He never came back. After a few weeks, though, I had a bigger encampment than woodstock on my porch. I just invested in some noise cancelling headphones and used my underground passages to come to and from my house, and invested in fencing to keep vagrants out in the future.

I really like my peace and quiet. Its one of the reasons I went from some of my more lucrative but shady income streams to public school teaching after I did some black market work for the teachers union. It was quid pro quo. I’ve never been that fond of conflicts and I get more weary every year.

[RedMage125]

"Goal-oriented" is a valid way to express part of what being Chaotic means. But that also means adhering to a principle that obtaining your goals is something you should pursue.


So, would you say that Lawful people are "Procedure-oriented", then?

[Segev]

So, would you say that Lawful people are "Procedure-oriented", then?

A bit over-simplified, but about as accurate as you can get with that level of simplicity.

Or, in other words, "sure."


There's a lot of nuance possible, here, but if we're not getting down into nuance, that works.

[RedMage125]

A bit over-simplified, but about as accurate as you can get with that level of simplicity.

Or, in other words, "sure."


There's a lot of nuance possible, here, but if we're not getting down into nuance, that works.

Right, but so is summing up Chaotic individuals as "Goal-Oriented". I was just asking about the other way in the same vein.

[dude123nice]

I think the summary here is thus:

The "what" does not tell us an alignment. Not properly.
The why is what tells us their alignment.


I played a rogue dragonwrought kobold of chaotic good, on the path to sainthood. (had a knight's code-thing to follow, take enough exalted feats, etc. Heavy roleplay, I loved it)

My DM shelved the campaign for 2 months so he could fix it after my kobold died.

My kobold burned down a forest. Evil?
He was trying to preserve his and his companion's life, and hit a spider with a torch, missed, and lit the webbing on fire. All of it.

My kobold destroyed a town's livelihood. Evil?
A town had sprung up servicing adventurers who where going through a local digsite, hell-themed. My kobold's bag of holding got destroyed, dumping it's contents out. Including Brown Mold spores. THe dungeon froze over, literally.

My kobold turned a forest to ash. Evil?
He did not have time to deactivate a newly found artifact (DM gave us a gauntlet that ashes plantlife for a 5m radius) and NPCs kidnapped the party's wizard - the kobold was the only one capable of trying to keep up and track the kidnappers.

My kobold opened a giant 2 way portal into hell. Evil?
We were rescuing a little girl who was about to be sacrificed. The paladin wound up falling through the rift into Hell. The kobold and the wizard managed to rewrite the blood ritual (using the kobold's Stigmata feat for flavor) and made the portal 2 way, enabling them to go after and retrieve the paladin.

We tried blowing the cave up, (we had a plasma pistol the kobold was told never to mess with. So the kobold messed with it) trying to close the portal. That side of hell is now a lake of lava. Aaand so was the mountain the ritual took place in. >_>


Oh, and this repaired The Weave, so now the magic users are preparing to wage war on the neighboring city we had taken refuge in.

The DM ruled the portal was tied to the kobold's life.
Was it a sin for the kobold to commit suicide?

Will Krampus (the kobold) be vilified as a country-wrecking bastion of evil? Seriously, 2 forests, a small town, a large city, imminent war with the other city full of mages, tens of thousands of NPC's lives wrecked, the forces of hell brought forth...
Or should be be sanctified, held up as a saint?

Krampus lived, trying to do the right things.

My DM has ruled that Krampus is a saint.

You could spin the above points many different ways. That these are the acts of an evil kobold.
But what was most important was that the kobold was trying to be good, and that none of these acts where caused with malicious intent.
The kobold tried to save lives. Intent.
I could have played a very different character, trying to upset things on purpose, and the above actions would have been evil.

The question here isn't really 'why' he did all those things, it is: 'Could he reasonably have predicted those negative consequences?'

There is such a thing as 'criminal negligence', you know. If a character ends up doing bad things without intending to, but without taking reasonable precautions either, then that is definitely not good. Maybe even evil, if the degree of neglect is to egregious. There are also extenuating circumstances, such as trying to protect someone close to you or someone innocent.

In the case of your kobold, a lot of the time the consequences were both unpredictable and unintended. So if I were a DM I would give you a pass for those. And the portal to hell had extenuating circumstances, though, if I were a DM, that would be the thing I would come down hardest on your character for. I mean your character is still Good, but I am not sure he deserves to be exalted if he took a risk with such disastrous consequences without having a reasonably sure way to undo the damage (which, from the sounds of it, you didn't). Even the soul of a good man isn't worth the horrors that a stable hole to hell could unleash on the material plane, and it's not like you couldn't have retrieved it later. It wouldn't be ideal, I know, since who knows what could happen to him in the meantime, but still, one soul versus the souls of countless innocents.

EDIT: Also, is suicide even a sin in DnD? Because remember that in the real life, at least in the eyes of Christianity, normal suicide may be a sin, but killing yourself to save others or to stand up for your (church approved) principles is martyrdom.

[Katie Boundary]

The second is just vindictive and gross. lol


The second is definitely evil (and pretty hypocritical given the "how DARE you ask for MY bread" thing), and the first...well. The point that there can be limits to what we reasonably expect of altruism is well-made, but I don't think anything even remotely like those limits was described in the OP.

It seems that nobody understood those references.

"I planted the wheat etc" is from a well-known legend involving farm animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

"I'll grind your bones to make my bread" is from Jack and the Beanstalk.

[Zhentarim]

It seems that nobody understood those references.

"I planted the wheat etc" is from a well-known legend involving farm animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

"I'll grind your bones to make my bread" is from Jack and the Beanstalk.

I like the little red hen. She is so wise.

[ezekielraiden]

It seems that nobody understood those references.

"I planted the wheat etc" is from a well-known legend involving farm animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

"I'll grind your bones to make my bread" is from Jack and the Beanstalk.

I understood the references. I just chose not to argue with a fairy tale, and rather the words you personally used.

If the fairy tale is what you wanted to invoke for actual discussion, a big part of the Hen's story is that she gave everyone numerous opportunities to do even one little thing to help her, and all refused without exception. Only when cost-free benefit was offered did anyone (indeed, everyone) 'volunteer.'

None of this is in any way comparable to some of the examples I used, like giving water to someone dying of thirst. Any analogy to the Little Red Hen necessarily breaks down when you're talkimg about someone who never had a chsnce to give or deny help in making the bread. Doubly so since her whole shtick is "I asked for help and you refused to give it": she is practicing tit-for-tat, so it would be pretty hypocritical of her to refuse a request for help from a starving stranger (unless, as others have noted, the request is actually onerous or unreasonable, but that is a huge vague thing so we won't dive into it.)

We were told that, catrgorically, kindness to others was avoided unless it couldn't be helped or was fully paid for:

In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else. Likewise, my characters in games tend to ask “what’s in it for me?” before going and helping the other PC’s. <snip> [M]y characters...[are] only very rarely evil, and...always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves).

From the outset, we're talking about characters who view other people as means to the characters' personal ends, not as ends in themselves. That's already Definitely Not Good, and at risk of being outright evil, because viewing people as means is likely to produce rather callous behavior; other people become merely tools to you, and who cares about damage to tools, other than to be upset that you no longer have use of them and may need to make a significant effort to replace them?

Then on top of that, these characters who (like their player) "put [their own] pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else" (emphasis added) also prefer to break laws if they get more benefit than cost from doing so, and eagerly engage in petty theft if it suits them. That, to me, seals the deal. They categorically favor their own needs, wants, and even "miscellaneous desires" (which reads like "whims" to me) over doing literally anything at all for other people, and have no problems stealing from or roughing up others unless doing so would be more harmful than beneficial to themselves. You guys may have a different view--ymmv and all that--but it's hard not to read the OP and say these characters are flirting very hard with outright Evil.

Long story short, these characters read as:
- Never, ever, perform a willing good deed for its own sake;
- Always demand sufficient payment for anything done for others, otherwise don't do it (though revenge etc. may qualify)
- Occasionally do some "minor" evil things willingly, possibly even joyfully, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't foresee greater cost than benefit from said actions

The first is "probably not good." Combined with the second, it's definitely "not good." The third is vague, but says "maybe evil" or "likely evil," depending on the frequency of theft and other such petty harms caused to others. Petty evil is still evil, just as petty good is still good: these characters outright dislike even petty good they must perform, and only do so at all because it would cost them too much (directly or in opportunity costs) if they don't do it.


"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full."

Hence why I tried the hypothetical. I wanted to know: if this character could commit a serious (but not unforgivable) wicked deed, knowing there would be zero consequences, would they? Unfortunately, I got mostly "is the situation conditional enough" questions rather than any kind of answer, not that that is super surprising. (And I cast no aspersions in saying that: knowing more before you make a choice is reasonable.)

So I'll try again, more simply and straightforwardly; consider this question asked of one of your characters: "You're alone with another person. Unless you perform some simple act, say throwing a rope, that person will die. If that person lives, you know you will never receive any credit for saving them, and that person (by surviving) will obtain 200,000 gp. If they die, however, you will obtain that money. No one else will ever know what you do here, not even the gods themselves. Only you and this other person. No one else will be harmed, even indirectly, and no harm will come to you regardless of what you choose. Do you throw the rope?"

And, to front and center my position? A person who doesn't throw the rope is Evil. No bones about it. I don't care if it would earn you ten trillion dollars. It's never morally acceptable to fail to at least (honestly) try to save someone when it costs you so little. But if you categorically value your own wealth above all else, I don't see how a rational actor with that value would ever save this person.

[Segev]

Right, but so is summing up Chaotic individuals as "Goal-Oriented". I was just asking about the other way in the same vein.

Agreed. I can't help but think that you're taking my statement characterizing them as such a bit out of the intended context if you think that was the full summation I was going for. I was actually disagreeing with summing them up that way, or at least trying to.

Still, I think further attempts on my part to clarify will only muddy further, because I am apparently bad at articulating this. :smallannoyed:

Especially since "goal-oriented" vs "process-oriented" seems to make a value judgment of chaotic as the superior ethos to lawful, and I don't think that's necessarily true.

[Caedes]

So I think from a game perspective being selfish in and of itself is not evil.

So no. In the games I run just because your character is selfish does not make them evil.

Now, how that selfishness manifests and how it affects the world is a different thing.

And from what you have stated below, if you were playing in my game, just based off this description, I would put you as Neutral Evil.

This is what sets your char up as evil and not just plain old neutral.

That said, my characters, while pretty much never acting in a way that could be considered “good”, is only very rarely evil, and the evil is always to a minor extent (ie: not giving money to a beggar, doing minor petty theft, or generally only caring about social norms if the character has rationalized following those norms at that moment will gain them a powerful ally or money and power for themselves). When they do decide to help others, it has to be at least win-win (ie: Both the character and the person the character is helping are advanced).

A little evil is still evil. And if they avoid doing good. Or doing good for altruistic purposes, that just leaves all the small evil deeds and nothing to "balance them out".

This does not make your character Vlad the Impaler by any means or Jack the Ripper. But definitely on the level of let's say a used car salesman or nearly every merchant in Waterdeep.

Some in the thread have used your edit below as an argument for chaos.

Edit:
I’ll also add my characters tend to bristle at authority figures, but won’t necessarily rebel if they feel like the request doesn’t impact their personal advancement and/or they feel like the authority is powerful enough to punish them if they rebel (and they have no way to rebel secretly).

To me this just adds to the neutral side of your character. They have their own goals and principles. And if they happen to be stymied or challenged by an authority figure that challenges those goals and principles it would be natural for a neutral character to bristle a bit.

Now what would make that chaotic is if it is all authorititative figures and everyones rules but your characters own are stupid and they are blatant and outspoken on how that is. This would be chaotic and depending on how your character went about it, evil to boot.

---

With all that said. If you were playing at my table, I would tell you to just embrace being neutral evil and don't try to hard to hang onto the true neutral / chaotic neutral label. As long as your character is not causing a disruption to the fun of everyone else and is fitting with the campaign you should be fine. :)


In my real life, I put my personal pleasure, power, freedom, wealth, and miscellaneous desires above all else.

I bet picking pizza toppings with you around is an adventure in it's own right. :D

[Zhentarim]

So I think from a game perspective being selfish in and of itself is not evil.

So no. In the games I run just because your character is selfish does not make them evil.

Now, how that selfishness manifests and how it affects the world is a different thing.

And from what you have stated below, if you were playing in my game, just based off this description, I would put you as Neutral Evil.

This is what sets your char up as evil and not just plain old neutral.


A little evil is still evil. And if they avoid doing good. Or doing good for altruistic purposes, that just leaves all the small evil deeds and nothing to "balance them out".

This does not make your character Vlad the Impaler by any means or Jack the Ripper. But definitely on the level of let's say a used car salesman or nearly every merchant in Waterdeep.

Some in the thread have used your edit below as an argument for chaos.


To me this just adds to the neutral side of your character. They have their own goals and principles. And if they happen to be stymied or challenged by an authority figure that challenges those goals and principles it would be natural for a neutral character to bristle a bit.

Now what would make that chaotic is if it is all authorititative figures and everyones rules but your characters own are stupid and they are blatant and outspoken on how that is. This would be chaotic and depending on how your character went about it, evil to boot.

---

With all that said. If you were playing at my table, I would tell you to just embrace being neutral evil and don't try to hard to hang onto the true neutral / chaotic neutral label. As long as your character is not causing a disruption to the fun of everyone else and is fitting with the campaign you should be fine. :)



I bet picking pizza toppings with you around is an adventure in it's own right. :D

Yes. I decree the ideal pizza will have Jalepeños, Anchovies, and Pineapple as the first 3 toppings before any other toppings can be added. The sweet, salty, and spicy balance each other to create a perfect triune pie that is rivaled by no other flavor!

[Segev]

Yes. I decree the ideal pizza will have Jalepeños, Anchovies, and Pineapple as the first 3 toppings before any other toppings can be added. The sweet, salty, and spicy balance each other to create a perfect triune pie that is rivaled by no other flavor!

Bah. Cheese with extra sauce.

I will also tolerate hawaiian, or saussage, or pepparoni. Onions, green peppers, and mushrooms is also good, as is mushrooms alone.

[ezekielraiden]

Bah. Cheese with extra sauce.

I will also tolerate hawaiian, or saussage, or pepparoni. Onions, green peppers, and mushrooms is also good, as is mushrooms alone.

My favorite pizzas are "fancy Hawaiian" (adding bacon, provolone, and herbs) and combination with bacon (mushrooms, olives, onions, bacon, sausage, pepperoni, salami, provolone, and optionally bell peppers). Yes, I like bacon and provolone perhaps more than a normal person would. I don't really like bell peppers, or peppers in general, but I can tolerate them in a combination pizza.

[Kish]

Pepperoni, mushrooms, and black olives.

I am quite curious about what the answer to this post would be, too.

[...]
So I'll try again, more simply and straightforwardly; consider this question asked of one of your characters: "You're alone with another person. Unless you perform some simple act, say throwing a rope, that person will die. If that person lives, you know you will never receive any credit for saving them, and that person (by surviving) will obtain 200,000 gp. If they die, however, you will obtain that money. No one else will ever know what you do here, not even the gods themselves. Only you and this other person. No one else will be harmed, even indirectly, and no harm will come to you regardless of what you choose. Do you throw the rope?"

And, to front and center my position? A person who doesn't throw the rope is Evil. No bones about it. I don't care if it would earn you ten trillion dollars. It's never morally acceptable to fail to at least (honestly) try to save someone when it costs you so little. But if you categorically value your own wealth above all else, I don't see how a rational actor with that value would ever save this person.

[Quertus]

Cheese. Extra cheese. Thin crust / less sauce optional. XXX cheese optimal.

[Zhentarim]

Pepperoni, mushrooms, and black olives.

I am quite curious about what the answer to this post would be, too.

It depends on how dark I’m playing the character. A lighter shade of black character will save the person and tell the person they owe them half since the character could have let them fall. A darker character of mine would have no issue letting the person die before pocketing the money.

[Segev]

Pepperoni, mushrooms, and black olives.

I am quite curious about what the answer to this post would be, too.

It is, again, about where you set your threshold. And that’s personal. What if the money is critical for you to pay for a life-saving operation for yourself? Or to buy your next meal, when you haven’t eaten in days? Or to save the life of a loved one, and you’ve no other way to do it?

What if the money is rightfully yours even if he survives, but he’s in a position to steal it from you if he survives, and he definitely will do so? Note that he isn’t hurting you, other than taking money you didn’t have before this scenario started, but it definitely is rightfully yours and he’s being a thief about this. And ungrateful, since he will not let you have any of it once he steals it even bough you saved his life.

Again, I’m not saying you’re justified in letting him die, nor that you’re unjustified. I am just saying that some will disagree over at what point “he has it coming, and you don’t owe him help that costs you so much.”

That threshold of how much you can be expected to give up to save him is the question that I doubt will ever see consensus.

[ezekielraiden]

It is, again, about where you set your threshold. And that’s personal. What if the money is critical for you to pay for a life-saving operation for yourself? Or to buy your next meal, when you haven’t eaten in days? Or to save the life of a loved one, and you’ve no other way to do it?

What if the money is rightfully yours even if he survives, but he’s in a position to steal it from you if he survives, and he definitely will do so? Note that he isn’t hurting you, other than taking money you didn’t have before this scenario started, but it definitely is rightfully yours and he’s being a thief about this. And ungrateful, since he will not let you have any of it once he steals it even bough you saved his life.

Again, I’m not saying you’re justified in letting him die, nor that you’re unjustified. I am just saying that some will disagree over at what point “he has it coming, and you don’t owe him help that costs you so much.”

That threshold of how much you can be expected to give up to save him is the question that I doubt will ever see consensus.

Zero of these situations apply, else I would have specified. And if the "he has it coming" thing is such a problem? Fine. Someone else did this to him as a last, entirely unmerited, bizarre act before dying. I did say no one else would be harmed in any way, and that you would not be harmed at all other than not getting the money... ("I/my loved one will die if I don't get the money" IS being harmed OTHER than just not getting the money...I even specified that no indirect harm would result.)


It depends on how dark I’m playing the character. A lighter shade of black character will save the person and tell the person they owe them half since the character could have let them fall. A darker character of mine would have no issue letting the person die before pocketing the money.

Well, that seems to pretty clearly end the discussion, at least for me. Some are, as you say, "a lighter shade of black," which sounds like the TVTropes way of saying what I said (Neutral leaning close to Evil), while a "darker" character would be actually Evil just rational and subtle about it. Your characters sound somewhat non-Lawful and definitely non-Good. The more noble ones will be typically TN, maaaaybe verging into LN if they have some rules they won't break even if it means failing to pursue the greatest rational benefit to themselves. Typical ones will be TN, CN, or a little NE, and particularly callous ones may verge CE.

Having a fundamental, pervasive lack of compassion and empathy, except for people who directly and personally matter to oneself, is a pretty dark character concept to begin with. It's not far from antisocial personality disorder, aka the actual illness frequently glossed in pop culture as "psychopathy"/"sociopathy."

Edit: or, to go back to the title, "selfishess" without clarification is not evil, but isn't good either. With your clarifications, it sounds like "either neutral or evil depending on the character." Which, I know, not a crazy useful answer. But you're talking about a range of chars, not a single char; an answer that fits should probably be a range as well.

[Zhentarim]

Zero of these situations apply, else I would have specified. And if the "he has it coming" thing is such a problem? Fine. Someone else did this to him as a last, entirely unmerited, bizarre act before dying. I did say no one else would be harmed in any way, and that you would not be harmed at all other than not getting the money... ("I/my loved one will die if I don't get the money" IS being harmed OTHER than just not getting the money...I even specified that no indirect harm would result.)



Well, that seems to pretty clearly end the discussion, at least for me. Some are, as you say, "a lighter shade of black," which sounds like the TVTropes way of saying what I said (Neutral leaning close to Evil), while a "darker" character would be actually Evil just rational and subtle about it. Your characters sound somewhat non-Lawful and definitely non-Good. The more noble ones will be typically TN, maaaaybe verging into LN if they have some rules they won't break even if it means failing to pursue the greatest rational benefit to themselves. Typical ones will be TN, CN, or a little NE, and particularly callous ones may verge CE.

Having a fundamental, pervasive lack of compassion and empathy, except for people who directly and personally matter to oneself, is a pretty dark character concept to begin with. It's not far from antisocial personality disorder, aka the actual illness frequently glossed in pop culture as "psychopathy"/"sociopathy."

Edit: or, to go back to the title, "selfishess" without clarification is not evil, but isn't good either. With your clarifications, it sounds like "either neutral or evil depending on the character." Which, I know, not a crazy useful answer. But you're talking about a range of chars, not a single char; an answer that fits should probably be a range as well.

Fair enough. That’s actually what I expected. I just enjoy discussion on alignment.

[Segev]

Zero of these situations apply, else I would have specified. And if the "he has it coming" thing is such a problem? Fine. Someone else did this to him as a last, entirely unmerited, bizarre act before dying. I did say no one else would be harmed in any way, and that you would not be harmed at all other than not getting the money... ("I/my loved one will die if I don't get the money" IS being harmed OTHER than just not getting the money...I even specified that no indirect harm would result.)

Sure. You've planted this scenario in ground you feel is so far in the "you have to help him" territory that you feel it unambiguous. My point wasn't that your scenario wasn't definitive, but that the interesting question is more in where any given person draws the line.

You say nobody - you nor anybody else - will be harmed in any way by you saving this guy, except that this guy will get $200,000 that you otherwise will get. That indicates that there are caveats you can see. At what point do those caveats become enough to weigh in that it's okay to not help him?

What if other people will be inconvenienced by it? Maybe throwing him the rope will take enough time that you'll be late to a movie and miss the first five minutes. Is that enough to justify not saving his life? What if throwing him the rope will give you rope burn? Is that harm enough to justify not helping?

(Again, I'm acknowledging your situation as you wrote it, and altering it to find where you change from "it's evil" to "okay, maybe a neutral person could refuse to save him and not be being evil, here.")

Heck, does the question of whether the $200,000 is legally and legitimately yours, period, but the guy can and will steal it from you if you throw him the rope and let him live long enough to do it change it, for you?


My point being that while you can find a way to frame it such that the vast majority will agree you have to be a pretty big jerk/evil monster to refuse to save the guy, where exactly the line is drawn between "refusing to act to save him is evil" and "demanding that you save him at xyz cost is unreasonable" is hard to find and will vary from person to person.

Or, to borrow your phrasing, you say that it's evil to refuse to save him when it "costs you so little." How non-little does the cost have to grow to in order for it to cease to be evil?