Graffiti: Good, Evil Or Just Plain Neutral

[Bartmanhomer]

Let just say the adventurers find Graffiti in the city wall. The drawing is a symbol of Pelor, Corellon Latherian, Vecna and other deities. The adventurers are very intrigued by the drawing while another NPC considers the drawing to be offensive. So my question is Graffiti consider to be good, evil or just plain neutral? :confused:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Let just say the adventurers find Graffiti in the city wall. The drawing is a symbol of Pelor, Corellon Latherian, Vecna and other deities. The adventurers are very intrigued by the drawing while another NPC considers the drawing to be offensive. So my question is Graffiti consider to be good, evil or just plain neutral? :confused:Depends entirely on the purpose behind it.

If it's in a relatively Lawful, non-Evil place, and it's to deface others' property just to ruin their property? At least mildly Evil, and definitely Chaotic.

If it's to spread a message of beauty and hope in an ugly, Evil-aligned place? Good.

[Luccan]

Probably Chaotic, actually. MaxiDuRarity points out a couple situations where it might be considered on the good/evil axis, but just the concept of graffiti is Chaotic. And in most cases it isn't making a moral impact; look up what people in medieval and pre-medieval societies tended to do for graffiti. Most of it wasn't inciting bloody revolution or beautifying a desperate kingdom.

[magicalmagicman]

It's pure evil.

You are intentionally harming innocents to satisfy your own sadistic pleasure. Anyone who intentionally and knowingly harms innocents, no matter how trivial, is evil. So unless the victim of this vandalism is evil like a corrupt noble or city official, the graffiti artist is pure evil for forcing the city to waste tax money dealing with his crap.

Chaotic creatures gives the finger to the law. It has nothing to do with whether they intentionally and knowingly harms others or not.

[OrbanSirgen]

It's pure evil.

You are intentionally harming innocents to satisfy your own sadistic pleasure. Anyone who intentionally and knowingly harms innocents, no matter how trivial, is evil. So unless the victim of this vandalism is evil like a corrupt noble or city official, the graffiti artist is pure evil for forcing the city to waste tax money dealing with his crap.

Chaotic creatures gives the finger to the law. It has nothing to do with whether they intentionally and knowingly harms others or not.

How is graffiti harming anyone? Is a mage going to make it come to life and attack?

[Eldan]

Not unless you're in the world of Perdido Street Station.

It is harming people financially, I suppose, if they have to get walls cleaned or repainted.

[FinnDarkblade]

As always when it comes to judging a behavior, the answer is going to be "It depends". The circumstances around a specific behavior have a lot more to do with how the behavior is judged than anything else.

Graffiti protesting a corrupt Hanging Judge: definitely chaotic, either neutral or good.

Graffiti secretly marking a building for the authorities as being a shelter for people who are the victims of an ongoing pogrom sanctioned by the government: neutral evil.

Graffiti on an old, disused building in a public space meant to beautify it: chaotic neutral/good.

Graffiti on an old, disused building in a public space meant to denote gang territory: chaotic neutral/evil.

I'd say the one hard rule on this one is that as long as you're somewhere where graffiti is illegal it can never be lawful.

[Morty]

I don't think acts of petty vandalism need an alignment ascribed to them.

[Batcathat]

Probably Chaotic, actually. MaxiDuRarity points out a couple situations where it might be considered on the good/evil axis, but just the concept of graffiti is Chaotic. And in most cases it isn't making a moral impact; look up what people in medieval and pre-medieval societies tended to do for graffiti. Most of it wasn't inciting bloody revolution or beautifying a desperate kingdom.

Yeah, this seems about right.

[MoiMagnus]

Chaotic.
Using someone's else properties without appropriating it for you exclusively is Chaotic, not Evil.
[Insert here the argument a Chaotic character could make against private properties]

Then, it could be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil depending on the context.
E.G.
A graffiti on a wall of a shop that damages the merchant's business if not erased is probably CE.
A graffiti funny/beautiful enough to makes the peoples passing in front of it happy is probably CG.
A graffiti on a back-alley nobody uses is probably CN.

[Spore]

It is chaotic.

Chaotic good if you have the wall owner's permission.

Chaotic neutral if you don't but it objectively improves the area visually.

Chaotic evil if it is just some random crap, a gang sign or a childish act of defacement.

[Celestia]

It is chaotic.

Chaotic good if you have the wall owner's permission.

Chaotic neutral if you don't but it objectively improves the area visually.

Chaotic evil if it is just some random crap, a gang sign or a childish act of defacement.
What? No. If you have permission, then it's not chaotic. It's also not graffiti anymore; it's just a mural.

Also, beauty cannot be objectively defined.

[Grek]

It is very mildly chaotic, but that's about it.

[SirNibbles]

I just found a cool new supplement to the game that actually explains this pretty well. It's called the Player's Handbook.




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

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

Player's Handbook, page 104


Vandalising someone's property means you care more about yourself than you do about them (evil), and it means you don't respect the law (chaotic).

[FinnDarkblade]

I just found a cool new supplement to the game that actually explains this pretty well. It's called the Player's Handbook.




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

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

Player's Handbook, page 104


Vandalising someone's property means you care more about yourself than you do about them (evil), and it means you don't respect the law (chaotic).

It seems like graffiti could be considered chaotic evil in the same way as something like not picking up after your dog when it poops is chaotic evil.

[SirNibbles]

It seems like graffiti could be considered chaotic evil in the same way as something like not picking up after your dog when it poops is chaotic evil.

Pretty much. It's not as bad as murder, but it's still chaotic evil.

Too many people think they're good just because they haven't drowned any puppies recently.

[FinnDarkblade]

Pretty much. It's not as bad as murder, but it's still chaotic evil.

Too many people think they're good just because they haven't drowned any puppies recently.

Sorry, I thought the /s was unneeded there. My point was that the amount of "evil" in something like that is so minimal as to not register on the scale in the game. Would you as a DM legitimately make a Paladin fall for not picking up dog poop? The rule does state that they lose their abilities if they ever willingly commit an evil act. I would not make a Paladin fall for that and so in in-game terms especially, I cannot describe it as an evil act. Rude and inconsiderate, sure, but not Evil.

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't think acts of petty vandalism need an alignment ascribed to them.

This is the correct answer, IMO.

[Eldan]

I think intent matters as well, to a degree. A tiger hunting and eating a person is not evil. A serial killer murdering a person, then eating them is.

So, it's less evil to commit grafiti if you consider it a victimless crime and "it's just a wall" than when you want to ruin someone's house.

[SirNibbles]

Sorry, I thought the /s was unneeded there. My point was that the amount of "evil" in something like that is so minimal as to not register on the scale in the game. Would you as a DM legitimately make a Paladin fall for not picking up dog poop? The rule does state that they lose their abilities if they ever willingly commit an evil act. I would not make a Paladin fall for that and so in in-game terms especially, I cannot describe it as an evil act. Rude and inconsiderate, sure, but not Evil.

Being inconsiderate is evil, as defined by the rules.

There's no numerical abstraction of how evil an act is. I think there should be, especially for Paladins. So while it may take 5 Evil Points (TM) to fall, a 1 Evil Point (TM) act such as polluting the streets that everyone has to walk through with your dog's excrement wouldn't do this unless it were done in combination with other acts which showed that the Paladin had a disregard for others (also known as being Evil).

Remember, you can get a yellow card for making a lot of small fouls, not just one bad foul.

[hamishspence]

Being inconsiderate is evil, as defined by the rules.

There's no numerical abstraction of how evil an act is. I think there should be, especially for Paladins. So while it may take 5 Evil Points (TM) to fall, a 1 Evil Point (TM) act such as polluting the streets that everyone has to walk through with your dog's excrement wouldn't do this unless it were done in combination with other acts which showed that the Paladin had a disregard for others (also known as being Evil).

Remember, you can get a yellow card for making a lot of small fouls, not just one bad foul.

FC2 has "Corruption points" - but the chart is very short - 1 pt to 7 pt acts, and there's no fractional point ones listed. IMO the chart was basically reverse geometric - 7 pt acts were vastly worse than 1 pt acts - not just "7 x as bad".

While core D&D doesn't really have much nuance - either act is Evil and you fall and lose all your powers, or it's not and you don't, third party sources like Quintessential Paladin 2 did allow for "partial falling" - where for minor evil acts, with mitigating factors, you might only lose a very minor paladin class feature until you atone - rather than all of them.

[Quertus]

The platonic ideal of graffiti lives in the plane of Chaos. Is a given implementation of graffiti often mildly evil? Perhaps. Most people are evil, after all. But I could imagine a Paladin of Freedom leading a rebellion against a corrupt government using graffiti - on that government's property.

[hamishspence]

Most people are evil, after all.

Not in D&D. In D&D, most people are non-evil - and evil people rarely make up more than 30% of the population. In some places and settings it might be more, in some it might be less.

Eberron has the 30% figure - and has a very broad definition of Evil by D&D standards. In other settings, Evil characters will tend to be rarer.

[zfs]

In the most general cases, it's chaotic, given that there are laws against graffiti. Any more complicated situation needs to be examined specifically, not generally.

[magicalmagicman]

How is graffiti harming anyone? Is a mage going to make it come to life and attack?

Go ask people in impoverished neighborhoods why they live with graffiti all over the place. See how many say because they love it and how they love living in a place that looks like skidrow, and compare that number to how many say they hate it and they are stuck living it with because either they or their landlord can't afford to remove the graffiti because not only is it a huge expense in time and money, but also because it never ends and how even law enforcement has given up. And then ask them how much of the price of their home dropped because of them, and how hard is it to sell it to move to a better place because of the graffiti.

Yeah, totally not evil. Totally not harming anyone. People totally love to buy and live in homes where their home is vandalized repeatedly and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

[Bartmanhomer]

It sounds like there a lot of mixed opinions on the alignment of graffiti. I didn't know that law and chaos also play a factor of graffiti. :smile:

[hamishspence]

Yeah, totally not evil. Totally not harming anyone. People totally love to buy and live in homes where their home is vandalized repeatedly and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Does it make a difference if it's on public property rather than on personal property? Graffiti on walls way away from anyone's home or business, might be a little different.

That said, it could just as easily be argued that this kind of graffiti makes life a little worse, each time, for many people rather than one person.

[magicalmagicman]

Does it make a difference if it's on public property rather than on personal property? Graffiti on walls way away from anyone's home or business, might be a little different.

That said, it could just as easily be argued that this kind of graffiti makes life a little worse, each time, for many people rather than one person.

No. Public walls are cleaned with taxpayer money. So every time graffiti artists vandalize public property there's less money in schools, police force, road maintenance, parks, etc. And the costs really add up. Some towns eventually give up altogether and you need volunteers to step up and clean the whole town. If you don't have money or good simaritans in your town then you're town is in the crapper and it will suck to be the mayor there.

And it lowers property value all the same. No one wants to live in a graffiti infested neighborhood unless they have no choice even if the graffiti is restricted to public places.

[Telonius]

I think it depends a bit on whether anybody in particular owns the wall. If it's private property (like somebody's house), yeah, that's damaging somebody else's stuff, and is evil. But a blank surface that nobody in particular owns (and isn't used as part of some kind of architectural thing) is another story. That kind of blank wall is anathema to humans. We've been painting stuff on surfaces for 44,000 years at least. I would think it's pretty close to inherent to most humans. Take a dozen random 5-year-olds anywhere in the world, and give them a piece of chalk. If there is any sidewalk, blacktop, or smooth rock nearby, it will have something drawn on it in about 2 minutes. Graffiti's an extension of that. If a wall exists, and humans are in the vicinity, it will get stuff painted and written on it. It will never stop getting graffiti on it as long as it's a wall. Setting up a public wall and telling people to keep it blank is trying to force people to act against their nature, and to ignore a basic impulse that's common across cultures and times. I would call that Evil.

[Saint-Just]

No. Public walls are cleaned with taxpayer money. So every time graffiti artists vandalize public property there's less money in schools, police force, road maintenance, parks, etc. And the costs really add up. Some towns eventually give up altogether and you need volunteers to step up and clean the whole town. If you don't have money or good simaritans in your town then you're town is in the crapper and it will suck to be the mayor there.

And it lowers property value all the same. No one wants to live in a graffiti infested neighborhood unless they have no choice even if the graffiti is restricted to public places.

Regardless of graffiti-alignment you are projecting some modern and to a certain degree regional values on the settings\societies which do not share the same values. I can agree that by default graffiti is rarely welcome but don't you think that your words are not applicable to the, say, Roman Empire?


Not in D&D. In D&D, most people are non-evil - and evil people rarely make up more than 30% of the population. In some places and settings it might be more, in some it might be less.

Eberron has the 30% figure - and has a very broad definition of Evil by D&D standards. In other settings, Evil characters will tend to be rarer.

Oh, Eberron books have data about distribution of alignments? Which book it is?

[hamishspence]

Oh, Eberron books have data about distribution of alignments? Which book it is?

Not the Campaign Setting book itself - the online articles about it. The second of the two Silver Flame Dragonshard articles, provides the "odds are good that 3 out of 10 commoners are evil" quote:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

Keith Baker's own blog makes it clear that yes, that's intended:

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/

People know these things. If a paladin walks into a tavern and scans ten people, he may find that three of them are evil. This doesn’t require any immediate action on his part, and while disappointing it isn’t a surprise.


And from the Eberron Campaign Setting book itself:

"In a world where characters have access to magic such as detect evil, it's important to keep in mind that evil people are not always killers, criminals, or demon worshippers. They might be selfish and cruel, always putting their interests above those of others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers. The self-centered advocate is lawful evil, for example, and the cruel innkeeper is neutral evil."

[Asmotherion]

Chaotic Neutral, and only if the property is protected by Law. If done with permission, plain neutral.

Also not something you'd expect to activelly affect your alignment.

If the alignment was on a graph, and ultimate law/chaos was respectively -100/+100 (0 representing neutrality) on the x Axis, stealing would be aproximatelly +20, wile graphity would be a +1 or less.

[hamishspence]

Chaotic Neutral, and only if the property is protected by Law. If done with permission, plain neutral.


A case could be made that there's no such thing as "graffiti done with permission" that the word itself includes the lack of permission - if it's with permission, it's "wall art" not graffiti.


Just as there's no such thing as "stealing with permission" - if someone asks you to take something from them, it's not stealing, it's a gift.

[Quertus]

Afaik, cool art on railroad cars, that never gets cleaned off (and thus never costs anyone (but the artist) any money), that in the aggregate increases happiness… is still classified as graffiti.

[hamishspence]

And, if a person did the research (maybe looking into the future?) knew that it would increase happiness overall, and cost nobody anything - and did so specifically because they wanted to make the world a happier place?



Then I'd ping that particular act as Chaotic Good. "Breaking the law, when doing so would increase Good overall" is kind of CG's schtick.

[Asmotherion]

And, if a person did the research (maybe looking into the future?) knew that it would increase happiness overall, and cost nobody anything - and did so specifically because they wanted to make the world a happier place?



Then I'd ping that particular act as Chaotic Good. "Breaking the law, when doing so would increase Good overall" is kind of CG's schtick.

I think it's safer to only account for the act itself being slightly chaotic; Then apply a modifier depending on the circumstances, simply because you can't account for N+ circumstances. For example, a soldier who is ordered to do so on enemy teritory as an act of intimidation would turn the act on the lawful spectrum, and possibly slightly evil.

On graffity being unlawful by definition; I can't express an oppinion. In France there exists a Graffity festival, and at the very least I know as fact the artists are not prosecuted; don't know about it's legality though, only that it's officially refered to as Graffity.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Always chaotic. If you have permission, it's not graffiti, it's a mural, even if it's a mural done by someone with graffiti experience using graffiti styles.

As for good/evil, that's very much a case-by-case basis. Who is hurt, who is helped? If you paint on the walls of a building owned by someone who has never set foot on that side of town, then I can't say that the absentee owner has actually been impacted in any significant way. As long as it doesn't hurt people who actually use that wall on a daily basis, it's probably neutral, though context and content matter. Writing slurs? Always evil. Marking gang territory? More-or-less neutral, though gang membership itself is another story. Just making things pretty in an area where there's not much of that? That's low-level Good.

And that's before we get into further context. There was a guy in England who painted extremely basic genitalia over all the potholes in his town, forcing the city council to close the roads to clean them(and fix the potholes while they're at it). 0 artistic value, vulgar subject matter, property that is not owned by him and whose owner definitely objected to the graffiti. Chaotic Good action.

[The Insanity]

Depends. Is it by Banksy?

[magicalmagicman]

Regardless of graffiti-alignment you are projecting some modern and to a certain degree regional values on the settings\societies which do not share the same values. I can agree that by default graffiti is rarely welcome but don't you think that your words are not applicable to the, say, Roman Empire?

Hard to say. Pretty sure Romans would kill every graffiti artist suspect (emphasis on SUSPECT) by crucifixion until the graffiti ended before graffitis damage property value.


And that's before we get into further context. There was a guy in England who painted extremely basic genitalia over all the potholes in his town, forcing the city council to close the roads to clean them(and fix the potholes while they're at it). 0 artistic value, vulgar subject matter, property that is not owned by him and whose owner definitely objected to the graffiti. Chaotic Good action.

I doubt it. You talk like the government has infinite money and it is out of pure laziness and corruption they don't repair potholes. Somewhere elsewhere is gonna suffer because that vandal forced the town to take money away from higher priority problems just because he wants the potholes fixed.

Chaotic good my ass. Unless it was in fact pure laziness and corruption that the potholes weren't fixed.

[hamishspence]

Pretty sure Romans would kill every graffiti artist suspect (emphasis on SUSPECT) by crucifixion until the graffiti ended before graffitis damage property value.

Considering there's plenty of graffiti preserved from Pompeii, I think you might be overestimating how severe the Romans were.

[FinnDarkblade]

Hard to say. Pretty sure Romans would kill every graffiti artist suspect (emphasis on SUSPECT) by crucifixion until the graffiti ended before graffitis damage property value.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti
11,000 samples of graffiti on Pompeii alone and that's just the ones that are preserved. And we don't read anything about mass executions either. How familiar are you with ancient Rome? They had a tradition of Very active public lives that could include a lot of rudeness. And especially during the early and middle Republican period they had a LOT more respect for the rights of the Roman citizen than that.

[daremetoidareyo]

Property value is imaginary. It's chaotic to paint in top of it. Good and evil don't enter into the equation. It's a question of whether or not you respect property rights or not. Nothing more.

[Gnaeus]

No. Public walls are cleaned with taxpayer money. So every time graffiti artists vandalize public property there's less money in schools, police force, road maintenance, parks, etc. And the costs really add up. Some towns eventually give up altogether and you need volunteers to step up and clean the whole town. If you don't have money or good simaritans in your town then you're town is in the crapper and it will suck to be the mayor there.

And it lowers property value all the same. No one wants to live in a graffiti infested neighborhood unless they have no choice even if the graffiti is restricted to public places.

I love our neighborhood’s unapproved street art. It’s beautiful. Most of it is done on the concrete bank to a train line. We point out the new pieces to our children whenever we pass. Local businesses put up signs saying things like “if you are going to paint on our business, please make it burger related.” And the kids do. Generally, the kids are very respectful of other people’s work, so when something is done that’s cool or pretty it tends to stay up for a long time. At least one of our local street artists transformed her “graffiti” into a successful international art career.

It could lower property values isn’t the threshold for evil. Planting a tree could be evil. Building a house or a road could be evil. Having a city dump could be evil. Having a soup kitchen to feed the homeless or a rehab center could be evil.

Re: Rome. There are temples in Egypt that are 4000 years old, that have graffiti from Roman soldiers 2000 years old. And since they took the time to make graffiti with smoke from a lantern or torch they must have spent some time on it.

[magicalmagicman]

Considering there's plenty of graffiti preserved from Pompeii, I think you might be overestimating how severe the Romans were.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti
11,000 samples of graffiti on Pompeii alone and that's just the ones that are preserved. And we don't read anything about mass executions either. How familiar are you with ancient Rome? They had a tradition of Very active public lives that could include a lot of rudeness. And especially during the early and middle Republican period they had a LOT more respect for the rights of the Roman citizen than that.

I stand corrected. I haven't read about romans in depth. All I know about them is what I learned in school and what I saw on the History Channel. Their armies were brutal. They butchered barbarians mercilessly, they had slaves and chained them under ships for rowing and left them to their deaths if the ship was sinking. So i assumed it was the same on the home front.

[hamishspence]

they had slaves and chained them under ships for rowing and left them to their deaths if the ship was sinking.

That's very much a Hollywood thing:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_slave


Ancient navies generally preferred to rely on free men to man their galleys. Slaves were usually not put at the oars except in times of pressing manpower demands or extreme emergency,[2] and in some of these cases they would earn their freedom by this. There is no evidence that ancient navies ever made use of condemned criminals as oarsmen,[3] despite the popular image from novels such as Ben-Hur.

Roman and Carthaginian navies
In Roman times, reliance on rowers of free status continued. Slaves were usually not put at the oars, except in times of pressing manpower demands or extreme emergency.[2]

Thus, in the drawn-out Second Punic War with Carthage, both navies are known to have resorted to slave labour. In the aftermath of Cannae, a levy of slaves was equipped and trained by private Roman individuals for Titus Otacilius’ squadron in Sicily (214 BC).[19] After the capture of New Carthage five years later, local slaves were impressed by Scipio in his fleet on the promise of freedom after the war to those who showed good will as rowers.[19] At the end of the war, Carthage, alarmed over the impending invasion by Scipio, bought five thousand slaves to row its fleet (205 BC).[20] It has been suggested that the introduction of polyremes at the time, particularly of the quinquereme, facilitated the use of little-trained labour, as these warships only needed a skilled man for the position nearest the loom (middle part of the oar), while the remaining rowers at the oar followed his lead.[21]

Nonetheless, the Romans seemed to avoid the use of slave rowers in their subsequent wars with the Hellenistic east. Livy records that naval levies in the War against Antiochos consisted of freedmen and colonists (191 BC),[22] while in the Third Macedonian War (171 BC–168 BC) Rome's fleet was manned by freedmen with Roman citizenship and allies.[23] In the final showdown of the civil war between Octavian and Sextus Pompey, the adversaries enlisted among others slaves, but set them free before putting them to the oars,[24] indicating that the prospect of freedom was judged instrumental in keeping the rowers motivated. In Imperial times, provincials who were free men became the mainstay of the Roman rowing force.[25]

[magicalmagicman]

That's very much a Hollywood thing:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_slave

I stand corrected again.

I do know about the world being wrong about Egyptian slaves. Attendance logs prove pyramids were not built by slaves.

I'll stfu about Romans. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance.


It could lower property values isn’t the threshold for evil.

Intentionally harming others for selfish or petty reasons is. The only question is "severity". A kid pulling a prank is evil, but it's possibly trivial. But then you hear about teenagers tricking naive less popular teenagers into thinking they have a date with a hot girl only for a dolled up pig to show up on their porch and pictures taken and spread all over school.

So while some graffiti won't turn you into evil alignment, it is an evil act most definitely.

[Keltest]

I stand corrected again.

I do know about the world being wrong about Egyptian slaves. Attendance logs prove pyramids were not built by slaves.

I'll stfu about Romans. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance.



Intentionally harming others for selfish or petty reasons is. The only question is "severity". A kid pulling a prank is evil, but it's possibly trivial. But then you hear about teenagers tricking naive less popular teenagers into thinking they have a date with a hot girl only for a dolled up pig to show up on their porch and pictures taken and spread all over school.

So while some graffiti won't turn you into evil alignment, it is an evil act most definitely.

If you feel an act can be described as "trivial" then you cant really call it evil. Evil isn't just anything that mildly annoys somebody else, there needs to be actual malice and tangible harm done beyond just slightly ticking somebody off.

[Warmjenkins]

And that's before we get into further context. There was a guy in England who painted extremely basic genitalia over all the potholes in his town, forcing the city council to close the roads to clean them(and fix the potholes while they're at it). 0 artistic value, vulgar subject matter, property that is not owned by him and whose owner definitely objected to the graffiti. Chaotic Good action.

This is awesome.

More on topic though, acts themselves never have an alignment. The best description for graffiti is usually chaotic but as shown by previous posters examples it can even be lawful if doing so is part of carrying out orders for a lawful cause. It is a combination of intent and the circumstances surrounding an act that gives it an alignment. There will always exist a set of circumstances for any act that can make it any alignment.

[hamishspence]

Even the PHB has some acts as specifically aligned. "Channelling negative energy" (using a cleric's Rebuke Undead class feature) is an evil act, and "channelling positive energy" is a Good act.

If you go to the splatbooks, you'll find plenty more.


There will always exist a set of circumstances for any act that can make it any alignment.

Not necessarily. Based on the PHB, and on many splatbooks, it seems that there do exist "always Good" acts, and "always Evil" acts.

[Warmjenkins]

Even the PHB has some acts as specifically aligned. "Channelling negative energy" (using a cleric's Rebuke Undead class feature) is an evil act, and "channelling positive energy" is a Good act.

If you go to the splatbooks, you'll find plenty more.



Not necessarily. Based on the PHB, and on many splatbooks, it seems that there do exist "always Good" acts, and "always Evil" acts.

Yes, until other sources contradict it. And those acts are always evil when not under the specific circumstances that make it no longer true. Based on the players handbook you can't cast spells with somatic components while grappled, cast wizard spells while wearing armor, or so a full attack after moving but we all know none of those are true.

[Gnaeus]

Intentionally harming others for selfish or petty reasons is. The only question is "severity". A kid pulling a prank is evil, but it's possibly trivial. But then you hear about teenagers tricking naive less popular teenagers into thinking they have a date with a hot girl only for a dolled up pig to show up on their porch and pictures taken and spread all over school.

Intentionally harming others. Do you hear yourself? Putting a tag on a warehouse is not “intentionally harming others”. Painting a mural illegally on the side of a building is intentionally bringing joy to others. That pig prank is intentionally making another person suffer, and as such is more evil than every act of casual graffiti in my large city from the beginning of time to now all put together. And it is a trivial evil act. Street artists do not, as a general rule, go mark things in order to harm others. A swastika on a synagogue? That’s harming others. Evil. Racial profanity on a minority church? Harming others. Evil. Teenagers tagging every bridge pylon in the world put together? A grand total of 0 evil.

[Quertus]

Intentionally harming others. Do you hear yourself? Putting a tag on a warehouse is not “intentionally harming others”. Painting a mural illegally on the side of a building is intentionally bringing joy to others. That pig prank is intentionally making another person suffer, and as such is more evil than every act of casual graffiti in my large city from the beginning of time to now all put together. And it is a trivial evil act. Street artists do not, as a general rule, go mark things in order to harm others. A swastika on a synagogue? That’s harming others. Evil. Racial profanity on a minority church? Harming others. Evil. Teenagers tagging every bridge pylon in the world put together? A grand total of 0 evil.

There are plenty of acts that are "harmful to the taxpayer". And all of them are evil. Some might do more good than harm, and, in the aggregate, be beneficial. Beautiful art that never gets cleaned up (costing no money to taxpayers)? It may actually cause harm to some (tastes vary, and the very existence of graffiti can be a negative to some… and it can devalue things, which can be good or bad), while still having a net positive impact.

So, no, those teenagers tagging bridges? Willfully performing harmful acts (even if blind to the harm that they are causing). This very human tendency to not even consider the impact of their actions on others is just one of the many reasons that I consider the bulk of humanity to be too evil for my taste. And I'm batting for team Lawful Evil.

[icefractal]

It may actually cause harm to some (tastes vary, and the very existence of graffiti can be a negative to some… and it can devalue things, which can be good or bad), while still having a net positive impact.A definition of evil (causing any harm, even if the net impact is positive) that puts almost everyone in the evil category is not a useful one.

Eberron has alignment evenly distributed - personally I prefer more like 20%/60%/20% but YMMV. To get either of those, you need a minimum threshold for what counts as an evil (or good) act.

And also, by that definition, not only is graffiti evil, but so is preventing or removing graffiti. After all, there's likely at least one person who will be less happy without it.

[Asmotherion]

I stand corrected. I haven't read about romans in depth. All I know about them is what I learned in school and what I saw on the History Channel. Their armies were brutal. They butchered barbarians mercilessly, they had slaves and chained them under ships for rowing and left them to their deaths if the ship was sinking. So i assumed it was the same on the home front.

Oh, if you rely on the school system to provide historically accurate content, you may as well choose an other fictional universe; To make this clear I'm bashing on the school system, not you.

The Roman Empire was one of the greatest, if not The greatest civilisation to walk on earth. Many of their ideals and ways of governing were way ahaid of their time.

[Warmjenkins]

There are plenty of acts that are "harmful to the taxpayer". And all of them are evil. Some might do more good than harm, and, in the aggregate, be beneficial. Beautiful art that never gets cleaned up (costing no money to taxpayers)? It may actually cause harm to some (tastes vary, and the very existence of graffiti can be a negative to some… and it can devalue things, which can be good or bad), while still having a net positive impact.

So, no, those teenagers tagging bridges? Willfully performing harmful acts (even if blind to the harm that they are causing). This very human tendency to not even consider the impact of their actions on others is just one of the many reasons that I consider the bulk of humanity to be too evil for my taste. And I'm batting for team Lawful Evil.

So art is always evil because someone doesn't like it, therefore it causes harm. I know there are nihilistic creatures out there that the mere existence of others causes them much emotional and mental harm. The kaorti are harmed by the very existence of the material plane. Therefore all of existence is now evil, cool. That means killing anybody I want is a good act because I now know for certain they are evil. Makes justifying being a murder hobo much easier.

[hamishspence]

Eberron has alignment evenly distributed - personally I prefer more like 20%/60%/20% but YMMV.

30%/40%/30% isn't exactly even, to be fair.

[Gnaeus]

There are plenty of acts that are "harmful to the taxpayer". And all of them are evil.

That’s a worse argument than the other one. Harmful to the taxpayer is chaotic. Not evil.

Starting a church or charity is harmful to the taxpayer. Practicing civil disobedience against an injust law is harmful to the taxpayer. Going on strike is harmful to the taxpayer. Putting money in a tax exempt savings account is harmful to the taxpayer. Literally anything that costs a government money or reduces their income is harmful to the taxpayer. In a classical society, the act of NOT taking conquered people as slaves for public sale or use is harmful to the taxpayer. The list of things that are harmful to taxpayers but not evil is immense.

[magicalmagicman]

That’s a worse argument than the other one. Harmful to the taxpayer is chaotic. Not evil.

You're absolutely correct. Completely and totally. Doing things totally against the will of the vast majority of people living in the region, continually forcing a government who never has enough money and is always in debt to continually spend more money on clean up that didn't need to happen, lowering property value to the point not only making it a lot harder to move out of the graffiti infested hellhole they don't want to live in, but also attracting less than desirable entities to start moving in thanks to cheaper living costs, all for the sake of satisfying some vandal's urge to break the law and tag public property is totally not evil, not unacceptable, and everyone else is evil for wanting to stop the vandal.

You are absolutely correct. No need for further discussion. You're right, I'm wrong, no one is hurt by graffiti, the graffiti vandal is a hero. In fact the law against graffiti should be removed, everyone should be allowed to draw anything they want anywhere, and everyone should accept that having graffiti everywhere is the best aesthetic to have.

Lowering property value is trivial. Doesn't matter if someone's been paying off his mortgage for 30 years. It is not evil to halve his land value at all with vandalism.
Aesthetics is trivial. Doesn't matter if the vast majority in the town doesn't want to see graffiti in their town. It is not evil to constantly piss them off and make them waste money and time everyday to get rid of it.

Totally not evil.

[Warmjenkins]

You're absolutely correct. Completely and totally. Doing things totally against the will of the vast majority of people living in the region, continually forcing a government who never has enough money and is always in debt to continually spend more money on clean up that didn't need to happen, lowering property value to the point not only making it a lot harder to move out of the graffiti infested hellhole they don't want to live in, but also attracting less than desirable entities to start moving in thanks to cheaper living costs, all for the sake of satisfying some vandal's urge to break the law and tag public property is totally not evil, not unacceptable, and everyone else is evil for wanting to stop the vandal.

You are absolutely correct. No need for further discussion. You're right, I'm wrong, no one is hurt by graffiti, the graffiti vandal is a hero. In fact the law against graffiti should be removed, everyone should be allowed to draw anything they want anywhere, and everyone should accept that having graffiti everywhere is the best aesthetic to have.

Lowering property value is trivial. Doesn't matter if someone's been paying off his mortgage for 30 years. It is not evil to halve his land value at all with vandalism.
Aesthetics is trivial. Doesn't matter if the vast majority in the town doesn't want to see graffiti in their town. It is not evil to constantly piss them off and make them waste money and time everyday to get rid of it.

Totally not evil.

Lowering property value lowers your property tax, you just saved them a lot of money. Very good act there. Not only that you stimulated their mind and forced them to consider new ideas, it may mildly annoy them but the growth they will achieve as a person will be more than worth it. Just like urging someone to lose weight, they may hate the exercise but its ultimately in their best interest. Not to mention the beatification of the area, because you believe your art is beautiful so why wouldn't they? Yes art is subjective and someone might not but that's true of literally all art in existence.

Any government that spends money on graffiti cleanup when there are more important things that need it is evil. Although the people who clean graffiti need jobs too so in a way you're stimulating the economy and potentially saving their children's lives. Although forcibly taking money from people in order to "clean up the neighborhood" or "fix the roads" seems pretty evil. I never agreed to give money for those causes. They are stealing from me much more than the graffiti artist.

Low property values bring in low income people. These people need a place to live and now can live in nicer buildings than they could otherwise afford. Just like buying a functional car with cosmetic damage (like my current car) it saves money for the people who aren't bothered by it. I also think it's rather evil and close minded of you to call low income people "less than desirable entities." Just because someone can't afford to live in some mansion in the city doesn't make them less valuable as a person. If these areas end up with crime problems then it's the fault of the government who is taking their money by force and not fixing their problems not the low income residents because they don't have money and definitely not the graffiti artist.

Sorry, got a bit sidetracked and went on a rant for a while there. Tldr: the graffiti is not the cause of any of the problems you think it is. Treating the poor as less than human while still taking their tax dollars is. A lack of caring from those who can fix the problem is. If anything graffiti is just the symptom of the problem. I apologize if things got a little too real world there, just don't like when misconceptions like that go unchecked.

[Gnaeus]

You're absolutely correct. Completely and totally. Doing things totally against the will of the vast majority of people living in the region, continually forcing a government who never has enough money and is always in debt to continually spend more money on clean up that didn't need to happen, lowering property value to the point not only making it a lot harder to move out of the graffiti infested hellhole they don't want to live in, but also attracting less than desirable entities to start moving in thanks to cheaper living costs, all for the sake of satisfying some vandal's urge to break the law and tag public property is totally not evil, not unacceptable, and everyone else is evil for wanting to stop the vandal.

You are absolutely correct. No need for further discussion. You're right, I'm wrong, no one is hurt by graffiti, the graffiti vandal is a hero. In fact the law against graffiti should be removed, everyone should be allowed to draw anything they want anywhere, and everyone should accept that having graffiti everywhere is the best aesthetic to have.

Lowering property value is trivial. Doesn't matter if someone's been paying off his mortgage for 30 years. It is not evil to halve his land value at all with vandalism.
Aesthetics is trivial. Doesn't matter if the vast majority in the town doesn't want to see graffiti in their town. It is not evil to constantly piss them off and make them waste money and time everyday to get rid of it.

Totally not evil.

That is correct. Totally not evil. I am glad that you decided to see reason in this discussion so that it could be resolved correctly.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

It can be used for Good or Evil but on its own the act of graffiti is Neutral, like all art. The actual conflict is between Law (only paint on approved surfaces) and Chaos

[Eladrinblade]

Let just say the adventurers find Graffiti in the city wall. The drawing is a symbol of Pelor, Corellon Latherian, Vecna and other deities. The adventurers are very intrigued by the drawing while another NPC considers the drawing to be offensive. So my question is Graffiti consider to be good, evil or just plain neutral? :confused:

Graffiti, on it's own, is just chaotic. It could technically be used in ways that make it align with other alignments.

[skunk3]

Let just say the adventurers find Graffiti in the city wall. The drawing is a symbol of Pelor, Corellon Latherian, Vecna and other deities. The adventurers are very intrigued by the drawing while another NPC considers the drawing to be offensive. So my question is Graffiti consider to be good, evil or just plain neutral? :confused:

As a graffiti writer myself since the mid-90's I'm gonna say that most graff doesn't fit into D&D terms like "chaotic" and "evil." However, I'll play along.

Since graffiti is ONLY graffiti if it is illegal, then we could reasonably say that it is chaotic. If it's legal, it's not graffiti.

As far as it being good or evil, I guess that entirely depends upon the intent behind the message and how well the graffiti was executed. Personally I don't think it's good OR evil, just chaotic. Graff is basically about expressing yourself and doing what you want, laws be damned. Also, whether or not the graff was put on someone's personal property or if it was written on public property. I personally don't go out and bomb like I used to (been arrested twice, not looking to get locked up again) but I will still hit some stuff up with markers, streakers, or slaps. It's ALWAYS public property though, never personal. Most graff writers actually follow certain 'rules' but I won't get into those now.

tl;dr - Chaotic? Yes. Good or evil? Maybe.

[Saint-Just]

As a graffiti writer myself since the mid-90's I'm gonna say that most graff doesn't fit into D&D terms like "chaotic" and "evil."

Most real-life actions doesn't fit. That never stopped the debates on the internet boards.

[Monsterpoodle]

I enjoy some of banski's work. It can make you think about modern society and it's failings. It is often illegal, and is therefore chaotic. Questioning society doesn't seem like a bad thing and may actually be good. Is it evil good or evil, meh.

As for the argument that graffiti turns nice neighbourhoods into bad ones seems wrong. I think graffiti is a symptom not a cause.