PDA

View Full Version : Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?



Pages : [1] 2

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-14, 10:21 PM
I know that good and evil characters hate each other and they're always fighting all the time but is it possible that they can get along?

Jason
2020-12-14, 10:25 PM
Short term with a common goal? Sure. Long-term no.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-14, 11:04 PM
Short term with a common goal? Sure. Long-term no.

Can you explain a bit more please. :smile:

denthor
2020-12-14, 11:13 PM
Ok I play a neutral evil sorcerer. The cleric in the group is chaotic good.

I have saved him 3 times. By saving myself. This fool is talking me up as a redemption case.

We get along I brought him to a meeting from a halfling he was there to witness a good deed I on the other hand was recovering money for thieves guild. Not a good act. His presence allowed me to case the place. If he had been fired upon. They didn't I would have had an evil deed on him.

So long as I do curb my activity we get along.

If I cast deeper slumber and then the next round coup de grace with my spear. He may turn on me at the least refuse to heal me magically.

If I go and slaughter the halfling he may have me leave the party if I was an NPC.

dancrilis
2020-12-14, 11:16 PM
Yes.

Good characters are often fairly judgemental so Evil characters might have to not be overt in their evil but then many evil characters aren't that overt to begin with.

But even when the evil character is not subtle they can still get along with good characters providing they share a long term common interest.
For instance a Good Druid and an Evil Druid might disagree on approaches to protecting a forest but if both agree it needs protecting they could be friends (or at least get along) and working together they might be very successful.

OldTrees1
2020-12-14, 11:54 PM
Yes.

Both in the short term, and the long term.

The main realization is that characters are people and people are complex. They may make compromises between their various objectives. To maintain their friendship the saint might forgo some pro bono work that the sinner would find pointless and the sinner might forgo some of their worse vices to accommodate the saint's frail stomach.

And that is assuming the characters are peers. They don't have to be. A BBEG might only be doing all this evil in order to provide a better life for their innocent child. Or a human fighter might be keeping a halfling ranger in line (see the site's webcomic).

Laughing Dog
2020-12-15, 12:10 AM
I know that good and evil characters hate each other and they're always fighting all the time but is it possible that they can get along?

Absolutely. They will need a shared value or goal, mind you, but they can definitely get along. It might be a shared alignment (I.E. a Lawful Good Angel and a Lawful Evil Devil teaming up to deal with a Balor), a common enemy (see last example), or something elses entirely.

For example:

_Out in the back end of Nowhere, there is the small village of Bogpeat. Bogpeat has a militia, which is led by a lawful evil marshal. The man is a harsh but fair commander, who loves his home and does all he can to keep it safe. If that means ordering some of his militia to their deaths, so be it. (He typically won't, there aren't enough people in Bogpeat to be able to throw away militia willy-nilly.)
_In Bogpeat also resides a chaotic good bard. He wants the village to prosper and it's people to be happy and healthy. As such he knows a few healing spells, and commonly performs at the local tavern. He dislikes the way the marshal treats the members of Bogpeat's militia, and often heals them from their punishments. The marshal doesn't like this, but also doesn't raise a fuss because he would rather have the militia be healthy and able to fight at full strength at a moment's notice. The bard also grits his teeth and looks the other way when the marshal takes a captured enemy to the edge of Bogpeat to torture/interrogate them.
_Neither man likes the other. They get along, because they both want Bogpeat to thrive and recognize the value the other brings. (The marshal sees the healing and morale from the bard, while the bard sees a strong and dedicated militia defending Bogpeat.)

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 01:47 AM
People of incompatible morality can "get along" as long as the situation does not draw attention to and require them to act in accordance of open conflict of their values.

They can also seem to "get along" when one or all parties are being intellectually dishonest or deceitful about their motives. A lot of scenarios where "good" and "evil" seem to get along are founded on all involved parties being hypocrites: the "good" is not all that good, the "evil" is not all that evil, they share common goals and common values and are more committed to those than their declared morality.

Batcathat
2020-12-15, 02:12 AM
I know that good and evil characters hate each other and they're always fighting all the time but is it possible that they can get along?

Yes, I think so. While I don't believe we have objective good and evil in the real world, we certainly have a lot of different opinions and sometimes people get along despite not really sharing a lot of values or opinions. I've been close friends with people I disagree with on most things and haven't been able to stand some people who agree with me on almost everything.

Of course, it depends a lot on the people in question. If the Good person is the super-judgemental type and/or the Evil person is the kicking puppies for funsies type, it probably won't work.

Satinavian
2020-12-15, 02:48 AM
Sure they can get along. I would even say they have better chances of getting along than pure evil groups, as "evil" often is linked to some kind of behavior many people of all alignments don't like and the more of them you have, the more likely a problem will occur.

The longest running D&D group i played in had a mixed good evil party. And it only created a problem once : One of the players wanted to multiclass into Paladin but we played 3.5 and the "don't associate with evil" clause would kick in. Before, one of the evil teammembers was his characters best friend with perfect teamwork but suddenly it was relevant.

Morty
2020-12-15, 04:15 AM
As usual, the question is too vague and unspecified to give a meaningful answer. Who are these good and evil people? Why do we call them good and evil? What are they doing? How much do they know about each other? What context are they interacting in? Once we've established that, we can say something of value.

noob
2020-12-15, 04:32 AM
Good and evil characters can get along forever.
You just need the evil character to not be a representation of ultimate evil which constantly and intentionally wreaks havoc on a wide scale(those evil characters usually can not get along evil ones either).

MoiMagnus
2020-12-15, 04:39 AM
I will assume the neutral zone is small enough to allow for "evil" characters that are not "I like to backstab peoples because seeing the world burn is fun".

(1) The good character might like/love the evil character so much they will do anything they can to redeem them. E.g in Avatar TLA, the initial antagonist (Zuko) is evil, but mentored by a good aligned character (Iroh). The mentor used to be evil too but redeemed himself, and now want to help his nephew to do the same.

(2) The other way around, an evil character might chose to maintain a good behaviour because they love/like the good character enough to do anything they can to remain with them.

The most common situation being a mix of the two. The evil character value enough their relationship with the good character enough to temperate their evil behaviour, while the good character might turn a blind eye on some of the evil character behaviour as he hopes they will eventually redeem themselves, or at least do more good than evil.

icefractal
2020-12-15, 04:53 AM
As usual, the question is too vague and unspecified to give a meaningful answer. Who are these good and evil people? Why do we call them good and evil? What are they doing? How much do they know about each other? What context are they interacting in? Once we've established that, we can say something of value.This. I mean to answer it trivially - yes, some good characters can get along with some evil characters. Some of them can't. But that's not really saying anything. :smalltongue:

I think sometimes people focus too much only on whether the party gets along on a personal level though. You can't really ignore evil in the long run and not be somewhat complicit yourself, unless it's evil in name only.

Like imagine:
"So I know this guy, and he's a serial killer."
"I haven't tipped off the police though, there are bigger fish to fry."
"And besides, he's never tried to kill me or anyone I know personally."
"I don't help him with the murders, of course!"
"I mean, I do share an apartment with him, and we're co-owners in a business, and I helped him with his YouTube channel, but that's it."

NichG
2020-12-15, 04:53 AM
People of incompatible morality can "get along" as long as the situation does not draw attention to and require them to act in accordance of open conflict of their values.

They can also seem to "get along" when one or all parties are being intellectually dishonest or deceitful about their motives. A lot of scenarios where "good" and "evil" seem to get along are founded on all involved parties being hypocrites: the "good" is not all that good, the "evil" is not all that evil, they share common goals and common values and are more committed to those than their declared morality.

It helps that alignment doesn't require declared morality. You can certainly have a character who does bad things regularly without actively singing the praises of evil or putting forth explicit moral justifications mandating those actions. Similarly, a character might be inclined to be self-sacrificingly helpful to others and disinclined towards acts that cause suffering or harm without their explicit reason being the morality of the actions. 'I like helping people so I do', 'I'm happier when the people around me are happy, so why would I do something to make them suffer?', etc.

If the particular actions that got the evil person their alignment don't threaten the community that the generally good person is a part of, then alignment can be a non-issue between them. 'Yeah, Fred killed his own son, that's really sad and I bet he's struggling with it. Why should that mean that I abandon him and stop being his friend?'

Pleh
2020-12-15, 05:35 AM
I mean, alignment by itself barely touches on the conclusion about how two characters will interact. You need a lot more information than that.

For one thing, how fanatical are they? A good character vould simply be altruistic and an idealist, or they could be an aggressive, borderline murderhobo type of church inquisitor. Likewise, an evil character can be a mustache twirling enemy of all life, or just a pragmatic survivor who ultimately puts his own needs before others.

As others have pointed out, we have to also establish goals and motivations. Even when they would normally be natural enemies, the CG vigilante and the LE dictator commonly team up against a larger threat to society, because both camps place a high priority on the security of civilization (if for very different reasons).

Alignment is really adjacent to the question of mutual cooperation. Determine personality, bonds, flaws, and ideals (regardless what system you are playing), and then use those to determine a character's goals, motivations, alignment, and their willingness to cooperate

Glorthindel
2020-12-15, 05:46 AM
I find good and evil characters can exist perfectly fine in the same party. I have played an evil character in a majority good party, and it is easy to make work. Because it was clear my number one concern was the safety of my team mates. Sure, we had differences in opinion on how we treat prisoners, other peoples property, and what constitutes an innocent, but at the end of the day, I could only accumulate the wealth and power I desired, by having a group of people I could trust implicitly not to stab me in my sleep, and guard me from the beings whose knowledge I sought to plunder. And I could only do that by not treading too heavily on their own values and beliefs. In turn they were willing to overlook my occasional callousness and pragmatism.

Trust is the key. Adventurers by their nature go in to life and death situations daily, and if you are going to do that, you have to be absolutely confident you can trust the guy at your back. Because this guy is going to be in your blind spot when you fight, he will be watching over you when you sleep, he will be holding the rope you are using to climb down a cliff face, and it will be his word you will be relying on when he says "this door isn't trapped". If there is even an ounce of distrust, your character would be unwilling to place his life so regularly in the hands of another, and in that case, you wouldn't be willing to step out the door with him. Sure, an evil character might be self-serving, but your are not served by hanging around heavily armed combat specialists who do not trust you - establishing and maintaining trust with your collegues is the most self-serving thing you can do in such situations!

That doesn't mean an evil character has to be 'boring' or hide his nature to hang out with a good party. No matter how good your companions are, there will be times when they find the good approach to resolve a situation just that little bit too hard or time consuming. That's when you step in and offer the more expedient option. Sure, sometimes you have to slightly bend the truth, but there will be plenty of times when a good character will allow the devil on his shoulder to convince him. This especially works if you are good friends out of game - in a past session, my friends were laughing out of game at the somewhat twisted version of events I was spinning to justify taking the faster and more ruthless option, while painting it as the only right and logical course of action (when it of course wasn't). I find it removes the element of distrust when you are "evil in plain sight". If you don't hide being that bit more ruthless and pragmatic, and openly suggest less palatable solutions to problem, then your allies don't need to worry about you hiding evil plans.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 06:17 AM
It helps that alignment doesn't require declared morality.

*snort*

Of course it doesn't because the Alignment system is about measuring a player character's actual actions and weighing them independently of any declaration.

I wasn't talking about that.

I'm talking of much more general human behaviour where people claim they are for this or against that, but when push comes to shove, fail to act in accordance. You know. Everyday hypocrisy. Like openly claiming you're against bad behaviour X, then when your nominal friend does X, brushing it aside, pretending they didn't really mean it and trying to forget about it, because social cost of taking action against your nominal friend would be too much effort.

noob
2020-12-15, 06:34 AM
I mean, alignment by itself barely touches on the conclusion about how two characters will interact. You need a lot more information than that.

For one thing, how fanatical are they? A good character vould simply be altruistic and an idealist, or they could be an aggressive, borderline murderhobo type of church inquisitor. Likewise, an evil character can be a mustache twirling enemy of all life, or just a pragmatic survivor who ultimately puts his own needs before others.

As others have pointed out, we have to also establish goals and motivations. Even when they would normally be natural enemies, the CG vigilante and the LE dictator commonly team up against a larger threat to society, because both camps place a high priority on the security of civilization (if for very different reasons).

Alignment is really adjacent to the question of mutual cooperation. Determine personality, bonds, flaws, and ideals (regardless what system you are playing), and then use those to determine a character's goals, motivations, alignment, and their willingness to cooperate

A pragmatic survivor that puts their own needs first is technically neutral if it is a npc(there is a lot of things that are evil only when you are a player character)

Satinavian
2020-12-15, 07:05 AM
*snort*

Of course it doesn't because the Alignment system is about measuring a player character's actual actions and weighing them independently of any declaration.

I wasn't talking about that.

I'm talking of much more general human behaviour where people claim they are for this or against that, but when push comes to shove, fail to act in accordance. You know. Everyday hypocrisy. Like openly claiming you're against bad behaviour X, then when your nominal friend does X, brushing it aside, pretending they didn't really mean it and trying to forget about it, because social cost of taking action against your nominal friend would be too much effort.
But that is the thing. Alignment describes action.

Siplificated :

You can't be good if you do Evil thing X.
But you can very well be good if you don't care whether other people do Evil thing X or not.


And if you are good but don't care about X and your partner is Evil because he regularly does X, you can easily work together without anyone being a hypocrite.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-15, 07:43 AM
I know that good and evil characters hate each other and they're always fighting all the time but is it possible that they can get along?
It's extremely difficult to get along with evil people because they're selfish and will betray your trust if they have that opportunity. It's what evil is. Deep down all evil people care about is themselves and sometimes they don't even care about that.

This is why good people, people who care about others, have constant problems with evil. Best case scenario the good people can convince the evil ones to change for the better. Worst case you lock the evil people up before they harm others.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 08:11 AM
But that is the thing. Alignment describes action.

Siplificated :

You can't be good if you do Evil thing X.
But you can very well be good if you don't care whether other people do Evil thing X or not.


And if you are good but don't care about X and your partner is Evil because he regularly does X, you can easily work together without anyone being a hypocrite.

Willingly "turning a blind eye" to out-of-alignment actions, is an action in the context of the alignment system. You can't knowingly not care about your partner's misconduct in the way you describe without it impacting on your alignment.

This is still not what I was talking about. I was talking about people's declared morality conflicting with their behaviour: where "good" get along with "evil" because no-one genuinely acts according to conflicting values. This thing obviously happens in games and real life both, before needing to take any alignment system into account.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-15, 09:00 AM
It's extremely difficult to get along with evil people because they're selfish and will betray your trust if they have that opportunity. It's what evil is. Deep down all evil people care about is themselves and sometimes they don't even care about that.

It's a very restrictive view of evilness.

Where do you put the slave owner which is the most honest and trustful person (with peoples of his race), always helpful and generous with stranger (of his race), and fighting for the peace and prosperity of the kingdom, except that he has plentiful of slaves (or other race) that he considers as animals he owns fully and entirely, and exploit them up to their last breath for extra money?

Since slavery is evil as per D&D rules, he would be evil by RAW. But, assuming you're part of the good race, he will not backstab you or try to exploit you personally, and might even sacrifice himself and/or his fortune to protect you in an act of generosity.

But then, maybe you would classify him as neutral, keeping the evil alignment only for actual psychopaths incapable of empathy with anyone other than themselves. In which case yes, any relationship with an evil character is a lost cause.

NichG
2020-12-15, 09:05 AM
*snort*

Of course it doesn't because the Alignment system is about measuring a player character's actual actions and weighing them independently of any declaration.

I wasn't talking about that.

I'm talking of much more general human behaviour where people claim they are for this or against that, but when push comes to shove, fail to act in accordance. You know. Everyday hypocrisy. Like openly claiming you're against bad behaviour X, then when your nominal friend does X, brushing it aside, pretending they didn't really mean it and trying to forget about it, because social cost of taking action against your nominal friend would be too much effort.

People aren't really privy to the reasons they do things, so often when they're asked to explain their stance, the words are a local approximation to how they feel in that context and not a rule that they follow. I don't know if I'd call it hypocrisy if someone acts a certain way, is called upon to explain that action, and then acts inconsistently with the evoked explanation in the future. Its the fundamental failure of post-hoc explanation, but it's only hypocrisy if someone actively pushes that explanation as a stance or expectation on the behavior of others.

And while that's something to be expected of paladins and clerics whose calling is fundamentally to be community role models of some form, there's no reason why other characters have to define their moral code verbally first and then follow it rather than just acting in the moment.

And if you're not doing things in the context of stated codes and violations, it opens up many more ways to relate to the behavior of others rather than just deciding to be 'for it' or 'against it'.

Democratus
2020-12-15, 09:47 AM
Your alignment is how you behave towards people you don't care about.

Evil characters can love their innocent children. And the children can love them back.

Same goes for friends, lovers, and others who they consider important/close to them.

Evil != sociopathic

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 09:49 AM
Nonsense post-hoc rationalizations of behaviour are one of the classic examples of hypocrisy, so you're wasting a lot of words to not even disagree with me. Bringing up paladins or clerics is completely pointless, because a persob doesn't have to be either to make moral declarations.

NichG
2020-12-15, 10:06 AM
Nonsense post-hoc rationalizations of behaviour are one of the classic examples of hypocrisy, so you're wasting a lot of words to not even disagree with me. Bringing up paladins or clerics is completely pointless, because a persob doesn't have to be either to make moral declarations.

A person doesn't have to make moral declarations at all.

Xervous
2020-12-15, 10:20 AM
As stated initially there are no requirements on knowledge of the others actions. The unscrupulous Miller could be loved by his family and friends all the while tricking others out of their coin or extra grain. There is no paladinesque mandate that the friends and family rabidly police the actions of those around them in order to fall into their neat little Good category. They act on principles of kindness and selflessness in dealing with those around them both friends and foreigners and so get assigned the Good label. The Miller acts selfishly to better him and his at the expense of others and so gets assigned evil

MoiMagnus
2020-12-15, 10:22 AM
Nonsense post-hoc rationalizations of behaviour are one of the classic examples of hypocrisy

I don't think he was talking about the same post-hoc rationalization as you do.

Example:
I believe that THING is bad <= The rationalisation I think NichG is talking about.
But my friend does THING but that's ok because of REASON <= The rationalisation you seems to be talking about.

When you make a moral declaration, you are rationalising your thoughts and trying to find a simple and concise way to present them, but necessarily approximative.

PS: This discussion really make me think about game AIs. When you code a game AI, you will put some negative values to some actions to discourage the AI from taking them, but (1) other positive factors might compensate for those negative values in some contexts (2) special procedures will downright ignore those values in exceptional situations.

Quertus
2020-12-15, 10:33 AM
Can, say, siblings with different political, religious, moral, or ethical values get along? Absolutely!

Can siblings with similar political, religious, moral, and ethical values fight? Absolutely!

Alignment has very little bearing as a predictor of such behaviors.


Yes.

Both in the short term, and the long term.

The main realization is that characters are people and people are complex.

Agreed. Characters and people are so much more than alignment caricatures.


Sure they can get along. I would even say they have better chances of getting along than pure evil groups, as "evil" often is linked to some kind of behavior .

"Good" is also linked to some kind of behavior - for adventurers, that is usually "killing anything that disagrees with us, and calling it 'evil'.".

As good characters can disagree with one another, I find that good characters are usually bad for party cohesion.


If the particular actions that got the evil person their alignment don't threaten the community that the generally good person is a part of, then alignment can be a non-issue between them. 'Yeah, Fred killed his own son, that's really sad and I bet he's struggling with it. Why should that mean that I abandon him and stop being his friend?'


It's extremely difficult to get along with evil people because they're selfish and will betray your trust if they have that opportunity. It's what evil is. Deep down all evil people care about is themselves and sometimes they don't even care about that.

Rather than Fred, how about this example:

Imagine two "defenders of the people". Both love their xenophobic clansmen. They work side by side defending them from external threats.

One is good, the other evil. The evil one would murder the babies of their enemies, poison their enemies' wells, sell their enemies disease-infested blankets, etc. The good one would not.

They can get along perfectly as best friends for a lifetime. Or they could have a falling out - possibly over "alignment", possibly over a girl.

Alignment is not a synonym for personality.


Your alignment is how you behave towards people you don't care about.

Evil characters can love their innocent children. And the children can love them back.

Same goes for friends, lovers, and others who they consider important/close to them.

Evil != sociopathic

I vote this "best answer in thread".

kyoryu
2020-12-15, 11:12 AM
It's extremely difficult to get along with evil people because they're selfish and will betray your trust if they have that opportunity. It's what evil is. Deep down all evil people care about is themselves and sometimes they don't even care about that.

This is why good people, people who care about others, have constant problems with evil. Best case scenario the good people can convince the evil ones to change for the better. Worst case you lock the evil people up before they harm others.

That's why Good can get along with Evil so long as their interests are aligned.

Guizonde
2020-12-15, 11:43 AM
for what it's worth, there's an alignment test that goes around, and a few friends and i did it out of boredom. it did reflect pretty closely what we thought we were. i'm pretty solidly chaotic good irl (don't care about laws at all, have given my shirt off my back to a needier person out of altruism), my best friend is loyal evil, being pretty selfish and willing to screw over people to make a few euros by reading the fine print. people thought we were married we are so close and work well together. another couple of best friends in my merry band are both loyal good and loyal evil. very "by the book" kinds of people with different goals, and we get along fine, if my constant outside the box thinking and rule-breaking make their teeth itch sometimes, just as much as it frustrates me that they want to do things "the proper way" rather than the most expedient solution. this proves that there is a basis in real life for good and evil being friends.

in my roleplaying experience, we've played across the charts. in 3.5 i played a radiant servant of pelor (neutral good alignment mandatory) and was on my way to sainthood. the party wizard was loyal evil bordering on neutral evil. he helped me on my road to sainthood out of loyalty and friendship, and i had his back when whatever evil faction or race inevitably tried to kill him. we both disapproved of each other's tendencies (roaming healer and mafioso, respectively), but when there was a job, we worked wonderfully together. outside of the job, we'd go about our merry business individually, and meet up at the tavern to break bread together. think of it this way: it's kind of like having someone else that disagrees with you. you can either be entrenched in your positions and be unpleasant, or you can agree to disagree. i'd like to call that the "adamant" versus "acceptant" dychotomy. you can have friendly serial killers, and despicable do-gooders. the sniper in team fortress is quite friendly despite enjoying murder, and iron man is pretty unpleasant despite litterally saving the world.

Jason
2020-12-15, 12:43 PM
Can you explain a bit more please. :smile:

Certainly.
Alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Being evil in alignment means that you engage in mostly evil actions, and if you continue to engage in mostly evil actions you will maintain an evil alignment.

Good-aligned characters are interested in limiting suffering and, in short, preventing evil actions. Turning a blind eye to the evil actions of their companions just because they are their companions is an alignment violation. Do it often enough and you won't be good-aligned anymore.

With a common goal, allowing some petty low-level evil from your companions in exchange for preventing much greater evil can be acceptable in the short term. On a long-term basis this won't fly. If the party continues to adventure together than either the evil characters will have to give up performing evil actions, and therefore change their alignment away from evil; or the Good-aligned characters will have to decide that they don't care about others committing evil acts after all, and therefore change their alignment away from good.

Belkar is a prime example of this. In order to stop a greater evil Roy let him join the team as the token evil teammate, but because Belkar was constantly prevented from performing evil actions and eventually decided to "fake character development" in order to remain with the team he has in fact shifted his alignment away from evil. It would not surprise me at all to find that a detect evil cast on him now would not read Belkar as evil. Maintaining chaotic-evil behavior around a bunch of Lawful and Neutral Good types proved to be impossible.
Consistantly acting as if you aren't evil will eventually make you not-evil. That's the way alignment works.

Conradine
2020-12-15, 12:49 PM
Of course, because the Evil enjoys much more flexibility than the Good.

To be Good, you must constantly strive, fight temptation and do your best.
To be Neutral you must at least behave decent.

But to be Evil, it's enough to do something horrible once and never seek redemption.
Then you can behave affable , polite and even kind as much you want, as long you want.

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-15, 01:05 PM
A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

While quite reasonable, this is far from obviously the case for D&D alignment.
Since alignment rules are so vague, and rules for alignment change pretty much absent in later editions, one could easily argue that alignment doesn't care about the past as long as you've changed enough to not repeat the evil action given the same circumstances.
[In other words, you don't need to atone or pay retribution for your evil acts to come back to the neutral alignment, you just need to stop doing evil acts on a regular basis]

Jason
2020-12-15, 01:20 PM
Of course, because the Evil enjoys much more flexibility than the Good.

To be Good, you must constantly strive, fight temptation and do your best.
To be Neutral you must at least behave decent.

But to be Evil, it's enough to do something horrible once and never seek redemption.
Then you can behave affable , polite and even kind as much you want, as long you want.

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.
Debatable. Such an act probably is enough to prevent you ever being regarded as good-aligned, but a single extremely evil act followed by a lifetime of good acts will shift you at least to neutral, dont you think?
Then again, good believes big time in redemption. You might be able to make it to good-aligned after all, with suitable repentance.

kyoryu
2020-12-15, 01:29 PM
Debatable. Such an act probably is enough to prevent you ever being regarded as good-aligned, but a single extremely evil act followed by a lifetime of good acts will shift you at least to neutral, dont you think?
Then again, good believes big time in redemption. You might be able to make it to good-aligned after all, with suitable repentance.

Yeah, I'd say that it would require:

1) Forgoing further evil acts
2) Atonement and recompense to the level that can be achieved

That would get you to neutral. To hit Good, you'd still need to do enough self-sacrificing things to get from Neutral to Good anyway.

Mastikator
2020-12-15, 01:53 PM
Of course, because the Evil enjoys much more flexibility than the Good.

To be Good, you must constantly strive, fight temptation and do your best.
To be Neutral you must at least behave decent.

But to be Evil, it's enough to do something horrible once and never seek redemption.
Then you can behave affable , polite and even kind as much you want, as long you want.

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

A character who gets along with someone they know raped and strangled a cheerleader and isn't even remorseful about it wouldn't really be good. If they have the power to bring the rapist to justice and choose not to then there better be a very good reason. A neutral person may tolerate or even get along with them, a stupid neutral may even trust them.

Xervous
2020-12-15, 02:07 PM
A character who gets along with someone they know raped and strangled a cheerleader and isn't even remorseful about it wouldn't really be good. If they have the power to bring the rapist to justice and choose not to then there better be a very good reason. A neutral person may tolerate or even get along with them, a stupid neutral may even trust them.

And what if they don’t know? The person in question is still Evil in absence of the Good individual’s understanding. I don’t see alignment responsibility being levied on the good individual for things outside of their control/awareness.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 02:17 PM
A person doesn't have to make moral declarations at all.

Yes... and this has zero relevance to what I've said. It has barely any relevance to the thread, because doing this is generally a bad way to get along with people. Moral beliefs of other people have social worth, people want to know those beliefs and they can go as far as demand outward demonstration of those beliefs. If you don't speak out when someone asks your stance on thievery or murder, it will be a bit suspicuous after the Nth time you've neglected to comment. Also, other people are more than willing to consider actions as declarations, so no getting away by just playing mute. The other cultists may become leery if you refuse to sacrifice sufficient amounts of baby virgin goats to your dark lord. :smalltongue:

---


I don't think he was talking about the same post-hoc rationalization as you do.

The relevant passage is this:


I don't know if I'd call it hypocrisy if someone acts a certain way, is called upon to explain that action, and then acts inconsistently with the evoked explanation in the future.

Explaining your actions one way, then acting in a way that calls that explanation into question, is a classic example of hypocrisy. If you remove the moral angle, then it's a case of you being wrong of your motivations. Neither paints a flattering of the person in question. Trying to write it off as "fundamental failure of post-hoc reasoning" doesn't make it better. This kind of flakiness is frequently looked upon badly in societies, that's why we have a damning word for it.

Mastikator
2020-12-15, 02:20 PM
And what if they don’t know? The person in question is still Evil in absence of the Good individual’s understanding. I don’t see alignment responsibility being levied on the good individual for things outside of their control/awareness.

Me neither.

Satinavian
2020-12-15, 02:26 PM
Certainly.
Alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Being evil in alignment means that you engage in mostly evil actions, and if you continue to engage in mostly evil actions you will maintain an evil alignment. You don't have to do mostly evil actions. Many popular villains have one particular vice which leads to corresponding actions. And that doesn't even have to be relevant that often.

Good-aligned characters are interested in limiting suffering and, in short, preventing evil actions. Turning a blind eye to the evil actions of their companions just because they are their companions is an alignment violation. Do it often enough and you won't be good-aligned anymore.People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others. In general party members don't have authority over other party members.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 02:42 PM
People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others.

Only true of specific ethical outlooks that D&D would consider non-Lawful. Like, this isn't even a Good versus Evil thing - Evil people, especially Lawful Evil people, can and do hold people responsible for actions of others, sometimes including themselves.

Like, the lead cultists knows the dark lord will hold them responsible if sufficient number of baby virgin goats is not sacrificed, and you can bet lead cultist will not look kindly on you if you let your sibling cultist slack off in sacrificial duties.


In general party members don't have authority over other party members.

This is a metagame conceit which has no reason to be reflected in-game and is not all that relevant to the thread topic. Come on, you've never seen a real party leader?

Jason
2020-12-15, 03:06 PM
You don't have to do mostly evil actions. Many popular villains have one particular vice which leads to corresponding actions. And that doesn't even have to be relevant that often.
True. "Mostly" could mean either lots of little petty evil actions or a few really big evil actions or some mixture of the two. In any case, someone of evil alignment is doing more overall evil than good.


People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others. In general party members don't have authority over other party members.
Refusing to stop good actions can still be considered evil, or at least neutral, but refusing to stop evil actions cannot be considered good.

Democratus
2020-12-15, 03:12 PM
A character who gets along with someone they know raped and strangled a cheerleader and isn't even remorseful about it wouldn't really be good.

Patently untrue.

Loving someone, no matter what they have done, and befriending them despite their failings clearly describes a Good person - with a capital "G".

Beatific love is the very definition of Good.

Satinavian
2020-12-15, 03:14 PM
Only true of specific ethical outlooks that D&D would consider non-Lawful. Like, this isn't even a Good versus Evil thing - Evil people, especially Lawful Evil people, can and do hold people responsible for actions of others, sometimes including themselves. It is true as far as the cosmos is concerned. Your alignment depends on your actions, not those of your coworkers, siblings or other associates.


Come on, you've never seen a real party leader?It happens, but is not the default mode. And even if it happens, it is as likely that the evil PC is the leader as it is that the good one is. Or neither.

Jason
2020-12-15, 03:14 PM
Patently untrue.

Loving someone, no matter what they have done, and befriending them despite their failings clearly describes a Good person - with a capital "G".

Beatific love is the very definition of Good.

But a truly good person also tries to prevent harm, and views evil actions as harmful, so they may truly love a person while still acting to prevent them from further harming themselves or others with evil acts.

Democratus
2020-12-15, 03:20 PM
But a truly good person also tries to prevent harm, and views evil actions as harmful, so they may truly love a person while still acting to prevent them from further harming themselves or others with evil acts.

Agreed. And as their friend they might act to prevent further harm. But whatever harm they committed in the past wouldn't prevent them from caring about the perpetrator.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 03:32 PM
It is true as far as the cosmos is concerned. Your alignment depends on your actions, not those of your coworkers, siblings or other associates.

But whether you "get along" with your coworkers, sibling and other associates tends to depend on them, so group accountability and responsibility are sort of relevant to the question. :smalltongue:

Also, again, turning a blind eye to out-of-alignment actions is an action in the context of the alignment system. Negligence impacts both Good - Evil and Law - Chaos axes.

Jason
2020-12-15, 03:33 PM
Agreed. And as their friend they might act to prevent further harm. But whatever harm they committed in the past wouldn't prevent them from caring about the perpetrator.
Agreed.
If a lawful good character physically restrains their friend from killing someone, arrests them, and testifies against them at their trial, and then keeps an eye on them to prevent escape attempts until they have served their sentence it can all still be honestly motivated out of love and care for their friend's welfare.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 03:39 PM
Protip: when your definition of "getting along" with someone involves putting them in prison or a straitjacket, you may have stretched the concept a bit too far. :smalltongue:

Jason
2020-12-15, 03:44 PM
Protip: when your definition of "getting along" with someone involves putting them in prison or a straitjacket, you may have stretched the concept a bit too far. :smalltongue:

Which is why I said it doesn't really work long-term. Either the good guy has to stop being good or the evil guy has to stop being evil. Sometimes forcibly.

Satinavian
2020-12-15, 03:49 PM
Agreed.
If a lawful good character physically restrains their friend from killing someone, arrests them, and testifies against them at their trial, and then keeps an eye on them to prevent escape attempts until they have served their sentence it can all still be honestly motivated out of love and care for their friend's welfare.
Now you are talking about crimes which is completely different from doing evil.

Pleh
2020-12-15, 03:54 PM
A pragmatic survivor that puts their own needs first is technically neutral if it is a npc(there is a lot of things that are evil only when you are a player character)

Meh. My point stands. The ability to cooperate is still more dependent on how strongly goals are aligned than how close alignment is.

Jason
2020-12-15, 03:55 PM
Now you are talking about crimes which is completely different from doing evil.
Different in details but not different in general concept.
A lawful neutral character may choose not to act to restrain his friend from committing acts that are evil but not unlawful, but a good character must act to prevent a friend from doing evil whether the action is lawful or not, unless a greater evil is averted by their inaction than the evil being committed.

Satinavian
2020-12-15, 05:08 PM
but a good character must act to prevent a friend from doing evil I disgree and i am pretty sure such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the rules.

Jason
2020-12-15, 06:06 PM
I disgree and i am pretty sure such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the rules.
Who said any of this was in the rules? :smallsmile:

It's certainly not in the 5th edition rules, where alignment barely receives any description.

Earlier editions had a lot more detail and discussion on what would and wouldn't be considered good or evil behavior. The AD&D DMG had a section that said that good-aligned characters shouldn't be allowed to get away with "looking the other way" while other party members did something evil.

NichG
2020-12-15, 06:14 PM
Yes... and this has zero relevance to what I've said. It has barely any relevance to the thread, because doing this is generally a bad way to get along with people. Moral beliefs of other people have social worth, people want to know those beliefs and they can go as far as demand outward demonstration of those beliefs. If you don't speak out when someone asks your stance on thievery or murder, it will be a bit suspicuous after the Nth time you've neglected to comment. Also, other people are more than willing to consider actions as declarations, so no getting away by just playing mute. The other cultists may become leery if you refuse to sacrifice sufficient amounts of baby virgin goats to your dark lord. :smalltongue:


That's on those people then; it has nothing to do with alignment.

If you say you're Good because you don't kill people, but you befriend someone who kills people, it's a non-sequitur: you being Good has nothing to do with you declaring for Good not does it have anything to do with your verbal justifications for why you should be considered that way, or whether those justifications accurately describe your actual morals.

Whether it's 'unflattering' or 'badly looked on by societies' doesn't matter to actually maintaining the alignment except perhaps in the case of Lawful.

A wanderer who goes around helping those in need and sacrificing to save others meets a career assassin on the road who doesn't care who they hurt but is only motivated by money. The wanderer pays the assassin to be their bodyguard but makes 'no killing' a condition of the contract.

The assassin is Evil whether they claim that or not. The Wanderer is Good whether they claim that or not. To someone who says 'isn't it hypocritical of you to travel with a murderer when you help people?', the wanderer responds 'I travel with a murderer and I help people; call that whatever you like'.

I don't think the Wanderer is being a hypocrite in this example, or being inconsistent about their morals. The problem is the bystander insisting on a false dichotomy.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-15, 08:25 PM
It's a very restrictive view of evilness.

Where do you put the slave owner which is the most honest and trustful person (with peoples of his race), always helpful and generous with stranger (of his race), and fighting for the peace and prosperity of the kingdom, except that he has plentiful of slaves (or other race) that he considers as animals he owns fully and entirely, and exploit them up to their last breath for extra money?

Since slavery is evil as per D&D rules, he would be evil by RAW. But, assuming you're part of the good race, he will not backstab you or try to exploit you personally, and might even sacrifice himself and/or his fortune to protect you in an act of generosity.

But then, maybe you would classify him as neutral, keeping the evil alignment only for actual psychopaths incapable of empathy with anyone other than themselves. In which case yes, any relationship with an evil character is a lost cause.

Slave owners are evil because we as humans, and many fictional societies, have recognized slavery as evil. Doesn't matter how "nice" the slave-owners are, they're participating in an evil act.

If someone enslaved your family member, how noble would that be, despite their "nice" appeal? No matter how nice they treated non-slaves, the situation that they held human beings in bondage against their will is okay with you?

Call evil what it is. And, yeah, a slave-owner, as a businessperson, would cut your throat to protect their "business". History reflects this. Why would they lose thousands or millions of dollars because they "like you"?

No one would, of that mentality, do that. Thinking they would is naive. You think evil doesn't have distinct characteristics.

You are wrong.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-15, 08:28 PM
That's why Good can get along with Evil so long as their interests are aligned.
But, their interests (human dignity) are not aligned. Evil thinks only of itself, Good considers the welfare of others.

They only conflict.

Duff
2020-12-15, 08:48 PM
As most people have said - "Yes"

I'll add that this works better if the characters value the relationship. "He's an evil git, but he's my brother"

Vahnavoi
2020-12-15, 10:49 PM
That's on those people then; it has nothing to do with alignment.

Sure, sure, people wanting to know morals of others and how they act on that information has nothing to with alignment... wait, no, yes it does, when you're asking if they get along. I was describing one of the common, practical ways for it to happen, and now you're fishing for an example that falls outside those bounds... first, I don't understand why, second, your example is increasingly bad. A Good person employing a known Evil person, by the time other peoole are questioning them about it, is begging for trouble. Their "getting along" with their assassin bodyguard has a social cost that undermines that very endeavor. A reasonable Good person, when confronted by other Good people, will at least consider finding a bodyguard who is not an assassin.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-15, 11:47 PM
for what it's worth, there's an alignment test that goes around, and a few friends and i did it out of boredom. it did reflect pretty closely what we thought we were. I'm a pretty solidly chaotic good girl (don't care about laws at all, have given my shirt off my back to a needier person out of altruism), my best friend is loyal evil, being pretty selfish and willing to screw over people to make a few euros by reading the fine print. people thought we were married we are so close and work well together. another couple of best friends in my merry band are both loyal good and loyal evil. very "by the book" kinds of people with different goals, and we get along fine if my constant outside the box thinking and rule-breaking make their teeth itch sometimes, just as much as it frustrates me that they want to do things "the proper way" rather than the most expedient solution. this proves that there is a basis in real life for good and evil being friends.

in my roleplaying experience, we've played across the charts. in 3.5 i played a radiant servant of pelor (neutral good alignment mandatory) and was on my way to sainthood. the party wizard was loyal evil bordering on neutral evil. he helped me on my road to sainthood out of loyalty and friendship, and i had his back when whatever evil faction or race inevitably tried to kill him. we both disapproved of each other's tendencies (roaming healer and mafioso, respectively), but when there was a job, we worked wonderfully together. outside of the job, we'd go about our merry business individually, and meet up at the tavern to break bread together. think of it this way: it's kind of like having someone else that disagrees with you. you can either be entrenched in your positions and be unpleasant, or you can agree to disagree. I'd like to call that the "adamant" versus "acceptant" dichotomy. you can have friendly serial killers and despicable do-gooders. the sniper in the team fortress is quite friendly despite enjoying murder, and iron man is pretty unpleasant despite literally saving the world.

I got Lawful Good so many times on the test when I finally got to Chaotic Good.

NichG
2020-12-16, 12:04 AM
Sure, sure, people wanting to know morals of others and how they act on that information has nothing to with alignment... wait, no, yes it does, when you're asking if they get along. I was describing one of the common, practical ways for it to happen, and now you're fishing for an example that falls outside those bounds... first, I don't understand why, second, your example is increasingly bad. A Good person employing a known Evil person, by the time other peoole are questioning them about it, is begging for trouble. Their "getting along" with their assassin bodyguard has a social cost that undermines that very endeavor. A reasonable Good person, when confronted by other Good people, will at least consider finding a bodyguard who is not an assassin.

There's a difference between 'there can be a person who needs to know the morals of others around them' and 'all people without exception always prioritize declarations of moral stances over all other aspects of their relationships with other people'. A city guard asks someone to swear an oath to be against murder? Sure, that's an interaction that can happen.

But if, say, I'm forming a gaming group with a bunch of people who are going to be my friends, I don't start with: "Okay, before we can play, I need you to outline your moral and ethical frameworks and I'm going to grill you about them for a bit to make sure you're self-consistent and that your beliefs are compatible with my world view." That's a caricature. I sit down at the table with them and play some games. I might find out that they actually have some really creepy interests or whatever - but given mature adults, even if I think they're unduly obsessed with fantasies about cannibalism or something, we can do things like reach an agreement to leave those fantasies for a different table or even that I'll tolerate them and give them some opportunities to imply that they've been eating people offscreen but I'm not going to run scenes about it or whatever.

In the wanderer/assassin example, the idea that the way society views the wanderer's behavior is central is a very Lawful viewpoint, but actually caving to that pressure would be indirectly responsible for people getting killed. I'd argue the Wanderer would be more of a hypocrite to fire the assassin (and thereby release them from the non-lethal part of the contract) than to keep them employed. The Wanderer has found a way to resolve the moral issue of the Assassin having no compunctions about killing people in a way that neither compromises their own morals, nor does it compromise the things the Assassin values. The idea that evil must be punished rather than just prevented is a particular social more that, in this case, the Wanderer does not share; in terms of alignment implications, it might mean that they're non-Lawful, but it has no bearing upon whether they're Good.

Mastikator
2020-12-16, 12:58 AM
Patently untrue.

Loving someone, no matter what they have done, and befriending them despite their failings clearly describes a Good person - with a capital "G".

Beatific love is the very definition of Good.

There's nothing good about failing to see the suffering someone causes other people. There's nothing good about turning a blind eye to stark raving evil. Beatific love to unremorseful rape and murder is pretty far from good. It's not even neutral.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-16, 01:01 AM
There's a difference between 'there can be a person who needs to know the morals of others around them' and 'all people without exception always prioritize declarations of moral stances over all other aspects of their relationships with other people'. A city guard asks someone to swear an oath to be against murder? Sure, that's an interaction that can happen.

Nobody made the "all people" claim. In fact, the whole point of hypocrisy is that people frequently don't. You are, once again, wasting a lot of words to not even disagree with me.


.
In the wanderer/assassin example, the idea that the way society views the wanderer's behavior is central is a very Lawful viewpoint, but actually caving to that pressure would be indirectly responsible for people getting killed. I'd argue the Wanderer would be more of a hypocrite to fire the assassin (and thereby release them from the non-lethal part of the contract) than to keep them employed. The Wanderer has found a way to resolve the moral issue of the Assassin having no compunctions about killing people in a way that neither compromises their own morals, nor does it compromise the things the Assassin values. The idea that evil must be punished rather than just prevented is a particular social more that, in this case, the Wanderer does not share; in terms of alignment implications, it might mean that they're non-Lawful, but it has no bearing upon whether they're Good.

That's a rationalization a Good character could give that might hold, or it might not. But what you're missing here is that the assassin agreeing to not kill people and going around helping a known do-gooder is only dubiously Evil by alignment rules. If this arrangement persists, a case can be made the assassin has drifted over to Neutral and has functionally quit being an assassin. Your supposed solution to Good and Evil getting along presumes a specific and suspicuously agreeable Evil person. That's the other half of my hypocrisy argument: "evil" people who aren't all that evil.

NichG
2020-12-16, 01:24 AM
Nobody made the "all people" claim. In fact, the whole point of hypocrisy is that people frequently don't. You are, once again, wasting a lot of words to not even disagree with me.

That's a rationalization a Good character could give that might hold, or it might not. But what you're missing here is that the assassin agreeing to not kill people and going around helping a known do-gooder is only dubiously Evil by alignment rules. If this arrangement persists, a case can be made the assassin has drifted over to Neutral and has functionally quit being an assassin. Your supposed solution to Good and Evil getting along presumes a specific and suspicuously agreeable Evil person. That's the other half of my hypocrisy argument: "evil" people who aren't all that evil.

I really think the error you're making is to take first Good or Evil and then assume that a person is motivated by the desire to be Good or the desire to be Evil, and that somehow when they don't act in a way that is 100% aligned with those philosophical poles they're 'being hypocrites'.

But people are just people and are motivated as they are - alignment then describes the balance of their actions, weighed however it works in the particular cosmology you're working with. If you insist on projecting them onto those two philosophical poles, neither of which they necessarily declare for or espouse, then I don't see any hypocrisy in them. It's not someone's responsibility to fit neatly into a particular moral framework you prefer. Or to put it another way, it sounds to me that in the way you're counting actions, everyone who doesn't declare for an alignment will end up being Neutral despite whatever actions or tendencies they have over the course of their life, because you're requiring active commitment to all aspects of Evilness to be Evil and all aspects of Goodness to be Good and so on.

That's not totally inconsistent with how AD&D handled things, going as far as to have 'alignment languages' and to explicitly say that people in D&D-land are almost never neutral and are actively espousing their alignments. But by 3ed and 3.5ed, it had gone much more of a route of it being possible to be 'incidentally evil' even without having any personal positive commitment to a philosophy of Evil. Or even 'accidentally evil' due to things like casting Deathwatch being technically evil acts. In 4ed 'unaligned' was a thing, but that went away again in 5ed for sentient beings I guess. So since you can't 'not have an alignment' in practice, to me the vast majority of characters should be of this 'incidentally aligned' type - they don't go through life thinking 'I am going to be particularly Chaotic Neutral today', they just go through life and act. And as a result of their general tendencies and circumstances some may balance towards E or G or L or C or whatever, but that doesn't obligate them to take on other aspects of those alignments that don't happen to mesh with their actual motivations and behaviors. It just means that they're more complex people than archetypes of a 2-letter code. That's not hypocrisy, that's just the consequence of an external observer's oversimplification of the person.

icefractal
2020-12-16, 01:54 AM
I might find out that they actually have some really creepy interests or whatever - but given mature adults, even if I think they're unduly obsessed with fantasies about cannibalism or something, we can do things like reach an agreement to leave those fantasies for a different table or even that I'll tolerate them and give them some opportunities to imply that they've been eating people offscreen but I'm not going to run scenes about it or whatever.Yes, but that's just someone being creepy, not evil. What if they were an actual cannibal? Like, they literally stalk, kill, and eat people? But they promise not to eat you or any of the other players in the group. Still comfortable with having them there?

I mean, a lot of "evil" PCs are actually just neutral. They're creepy, or edgy, or somewhat of a jerk, and if an unwanted moral dilemma comes up they can say "Hah! I don't give a ****!", but they don't do anything evil on-screen and their past evil deeds or future evil goals are kept vague enough to ignore. Sure, you can get along with them fine, because they're not really evil in a way that matters.

But take somebody like the "My flatmate and business partner is a serial killer, and I'm ok with that" guy from earlier in the thread. Would you consider him a good person? And if anything, being in an adventuring party together is an even stronger connection than that. You're not just tolerating the evil character's presence, you're keeping them alive and helping them grow significantly more powerful.

hamishspence
2020-12-16, 01:57 AM
I prefer the "Evil alignment is common, and does not require extremely severe evil acts" approach that Eberron takes.

Not every Evil character has to be a serial killer, after all - some can just be bullies.

Batcathat
2020-12-16, 02:20 AM
But, their interests (human dignity) are not aligned. Evil thinks only of itself, Good considers the welfare of others.

Even if that's true, that doesn't mean their interests can never overlap in practice. After all, something that affects me personally is likely to affect the people around me as well and vice versa, so a lot of issues big and small would likely unite the Good and Evil, in a setting where such objective morality existed.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-16, 03:59 AM
I really think the error you're making is to take first Good or Evil and then assume that a person is motivated by the desire to be Good or the desire to be Evil, and that somehow when they don't act in a way that is 100% aligned with those philosophical poles they're 'being hypocrites'.

There's no error, someone not acting according to their declared motivations is what hypocrisy means. Your error is presuming I'm the one doing the declaring, when I was making a point of what people do themselves.


But people are just people and are motivated as they are - alignment then describes the balance of their actions, weighed however it works in the particular cosmology you're working with. If you insist on projecting them onto those two philosophical poles, neither of which they necessarily declare for or espouse, then I don't see any hypocrisy in them. It's not someone's responsibility to fit neatly into a particular moral framework you prefer. Or to put it another way, it sounds to me that in the way you're counting actions, everyone who doesn't declare for an alignment will end up being Neutral despite whatever actions or tendencies they have over the course of their life, because you're requiring active commitment to all aspects of Evilness to be Evil and all aspects of Goodness to be Good and so on.

Wrong on every count. I specifically said alignment tracks action independent of declaration, so lack of declaration will not predestine Neutrality in any shape or form. I also agreed it's possible to avoid accusations of hypocrisy by not making any comment on it at all... I just also pointed that this is a crappy way to "get along" with people.

"Commitment to all aspects" of an alignment isn't what I've been talking about at any point. What I have talked about is that willingly turning a blind eye is an action in the alignment system. Negligence is complicity, it impacts both axes of the system. There's one alignment that's all about individual freedom and self-definition over any group responsibility, but that's Chaotic Neutral, not any Good alignment.


That's not totally inconsistent with how AD&D handled things, going as far as to have 'alignment languages' and to explicitly say that people in D&D-land are almost never neutral and are actively espousing their alignments. But by 3ed and 3.5ed, it had gone much more of a route of it being possible to be 'incidentally evil' even without having any personal positive commitment to a philosophy of Evil. Or even 'accidentally evil' due to things like casting Deathwatch being technically evil acts. In 4ed 'unaligned' was a thing, but that went away again in 5ed for sentient beings I guess. So since you can't 'not have an alignment' in practice, to me the vast majority of characters should be of this 'incidentally aligned' type - they don't go through life thinking 'I am going to be particularly Chaotic Neutral today', they just go through life and act. And as a result of their general tendencies and circumstances some may balance towards E or G or L or C or whatever, but that doesn't obligate them to take on other aspects of those alignments that don't happen to mesh with their actual motivations and behaviors. It just means that they're more complex people than archetypes of a 2-letter code. That's not hypocrisy, that's just the consequence of an external observer's oversimplification of the person.

Of course I'd go back to 1st edition AD&D, because it's the one edition that explains the system in a way that makes sense. :smalltongue: For one, it states verbatim that actions speak louder than words; the way you're "incidentally evil" in AD&D is by declaring you have a non-evil alignment in character creation and then failing to live up to it. This is not actually different in 2nd and 3rd editions, they merely subtly changed explanations of the alignment axes (2nd) or failed to explain them in a conscise way (3rd). 4th and 5th edition aren't even worth talking about, because alignment system is vestigial in them.

Your point about complexity is complete nonsense. This whole "drifting within an alignment category" was pioneered by AD&D 1st edition, it outright gives you examples of how to handle that and says that a character can be "basically good in their neutralcy", etc. But it also said the above thing about turning the blind eye, so you cannot consistently "not care" about out-of-alignment actions of your associates. It furthermore said that general agreement exists within alignment categories only, so if you have two characters getting along over extended periods despite them being of nominally different, especially nominally opposed, alignments, then by the rules that calls into question whether these characters are of actually different alignment. A Wanderer who honestly doesn't care about Evil actions by their workers is probably not Good, an Assassin who essentially accepts a contractual obligation to stop being an assassin probably isn't Evil, they aren't an example of Good and Evil getting along, they're an example of basically decent Neutral person getting along with another Neutral person with a sordid past.

Mastikator
2020-12-16, 05:45 AM
I prefer the "Evil alignment is common, and does not require extremely severe evil acts" approach that Eberron takes.

Not every Evil character has to be a serial killer, after all - some can just be bullies.

Same. And I'd add that there's a difference between tolerating a bully and getting along with a bully. Tolerating because you don't have the power to improve the situation is something a good character could do. Getting along with a known bully means condoning it, which is just not good.

I don't think good and evil characters can get along, I think they can tolerate each other if they have a shared problem AND a shared solution. (otherwise they would be natural enemies) And even then it would still depend on the problem, the problem they face would have to be bigger than the problem the evil character create (their evil actions are a problem to the good character).
The only exception being one that was brought up: the evil character is affable and their evil deeds are unknown to the good character. But that means that as far as the good character knows the evil character isn't evil.

NichG
2020-12-16, 05:46 AM
Yes, but that's just someone being creepy, not evil. What if they were an actual cannibal? Like, they literally stalk, kill, and eat people? But they promise not to eat you or any of the other players in the group. Still comfortable with having them there?


Viscerally no, but if I think about it there are people who probably cause more aggregate harm than a cannibal who kills someone every so often who I would be comfortable with, just because the kind of harm they cause isn't viscerally threatening or immediately squicky. I'm not exactly sure how to count how many deaths a given investor or CEO or lawyer could be held accountable for through e.g. aggregate economic effects, but just because of the scale of operations even minor moments of disregard could starve more people than the cannibal ever would. Would I play a tabletop game with the CEO of an oil company or tobacco company or something? I think I could do. Could I play a tabletop game with a soldier who took part in some questionable things while at war or in a conflicted area? I think I could do. In neither case would I be condoning those specific parts of their life, and if they were really pushing those aspects of their life into the relationship then that would be a problem (the CEO constantly bragging about increase in sales in the 12-14 demographic would definitely not be welcome, nor would someone who was obviously trying to use my tacit approval to absolve themselves by e.g. telling stories about how other people are worse or asking me to reaffirm that what they did was okay) but just having those things as parts of who they are wouldn't make getting along into an outright impossibility for me.



But take somebody like the "My flatmate and business partner is a serial killer, and I'm ok with that" guy from earlier in the thread. Would you consider him a good person? And if anything, being in an adventuring party together is an even stronger connection than that. You're not just tolerating the evil character's presence, you're keeping them alive and helping them grow significantly more powerful.

I would not hold it against them as to whether they're a good person or not. Business partner probably pushes things for me, and the specific phrase 'I'm ok with that' pushes things for me, the former because its increasing the serial killer's ability to kill and the latter because that is direct approval of the action rather than recognizing a separation between the relationship the person has with their flatmate and the serial killer activities. But it wouldn't take much to find an okay variant. A psychologist who treats a serial killer and has a cordial relationship with them and helps them have what they need to be comfortable and in a mentally good place would unequivocably be a good person to me, despite the fact that they're on persistent friendly footing with someone I think is a bad person, and is not so hard to imagine.


There's no error, someone not acting according to their declared motivations is what hypocrisy means. Your error is presuming I'm the one doing the declaring, when I was making a point of what people do themselves.

Wrong on every count. I specifically said alignment tracks action independent of declaration, so lack of declaration will not predestine Neutrality in any shape or form. I also agreed it's possible to avoid accusations of hypocrisy by not making any comment on it at all... I just also pointed that this is a crappy way to "get along" with people.

"Commitment to all aspects" of an alignment isn't what I've been talking about at any point. What I have talked about is that willingly turning a blind eye is an action in the alignment system. Negligence is complicity, it impacts both axes of the system. There's one alignment that's all about individual freedom and self-definition over any group responsibility, but that's Chaotic Neutral, not any Good alignment.

Of course I'd go back to 1st edition AD&D, because it's the one edition that explains the system in a way that makes sense. :smalltongue: For one, it states verbatim that actions speak louder than words; the way you're "incidentally evil" in AD&D is by declaring you have a non-evil alignment in character creation and then failing to live up to it. This is not actually different in 2nd and 3rd editions, they merely subtly changed explanations of the alignment axes (2nd) or failed to explain them in a conscise way (3rd). 4th and 5th edition aren't even worth talking about, because alignment system is vestigial in them.

Your point about complexity is complete nonsense. This whole "difting within an alignment category" was pioneered by AD&D 1st edition, it outright gives you examples of how to handle and says that a character can be "basically good in their neutralcy", etc. But it also said the above thing about turning the blind eye, so you cannot consistently "not care" about out-of-alignment of your associates. It furthermore said that general agreement exists within alignment categories, so if you have two characters getting along over extended periods despite them being of nominally different, especially nominally opposed, alignments, then by the rules that calls into question whether these characters are of actually different alignment. A Wanderer who honestly doesn't care about Evil actions by their workers is probably not Good, an Assassin who essentially accepts a contractual obligation to stop being an assassin probabbly isn't Evil, they aren't an example of Good and Evil getting along, they're an example of basically decent Neutral person getting along with another Neutral person with a sordid past.

This last thing is why I'm getting a read from you that you'd probably consider nearly 100% of people Neutral, outside of really extreme caricatures.

Lets say you have someone whose only defining trait, for sake of argument, is that they get along with literally everyone who will let them. Happy to call an angel or a demon lord friend, murderer, saint, or king. I think the rule of 'if two people get long over extended periods they're the same alignment' would mean that there can be no non-neutral entities in a world in which this character exists and manages to survive and sustain those interactions. The fact that they get along persistently with both the angel and demon would mean that the angel and demon must both be the same alignment as the character, so they all must be the same as each-other.

And implicitly deleting alignment by projecting everything to Neutral does I suppose resolve the question of whether Good and Evil can get along: they can't get along if there are no Good or Evil characters to get along with.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-16, 06:51 AM
Such thought exercise has no practical meaning for any game, nor my opinions of alignment, because such a character is neither psychologically nor pragmatically plausible, and flatly inadmissible under any sane reading of system rules.

Satinavian
2020-12-16, 07:15 AM
Can a vegetarian hang out with a non-Vegetarian or even be his friend?

Does that mean he risks losing his status as 'vegetaian' for doing so ?

Does it mean, it would be an apt description to characterize that vegetarian as "being ok with eating meat" ?



That is the proper analogy.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-16, 07:27 AM
Not proper analogy at all; diet choice doesn't impact on alignment. :smalltongue:

Mastikator
2020-12-16, 08:04 AM
Can a vegetarian hang out with a non-Vegetarian or even be his friend?

Does that mean he risks losing his status as 'vegetaian' for doing so ?

Does it mean, it would be an apt description to characterize that vegetarian as "being ok with eating meat" ?



That is the proper analogy.

A proper analogy would be to replace "hang out" with "have over for dinner". Can a vegetarian cook non-vegetarian food for their non-vegetarian friend and still call themselves vegetarian in good faith? I would say "no".

Even if we accept the definition of vegetarian as "being ok with eating meat", a vegetarian has almost no power to stop others from eating meat. They can choose to tolerate it without condoning it, but to cook meat for someone else IS to condone it and then you are okay with eating meat.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-16, 08:42 AM
OP, you might want a preliminary read of The Righteous Mind. Essentially a psychologist whose body of research is in the psychology of human morality examines why it is that people who are fundamentally “good” can be bitterly, viciously divided over most political and religious concepts. And that often being on their side in one or two categories they consider most important is more than enough to justify any other exigencies or failings.

Basically, yes, you can have good and evil people getting along and even liking each other, if they are in pursuit of goals that aren’t just mutually serving (tolerance), but that one or both sides believe is morally fundamental.

And otherwise good people will learn to hate each other passionately if they believe some moral basis is being disregarded by the other party.

And heavens forbid you trip over some one else’s idea of “fair”, which is almost guaranteed to redeem any action or condemn any other regardless of what we would like to believe is our moral grounding.

Jason
2020-12-16, 08:49 AM
I don't think good and evil characters can get along, I think they can tolerate each other if they have a shared problem AND a shared solution. (otherwise they would be natural enemies) And even then it would still depend on the problem, the problem they face would have to be bigger than the problem the evil character create (their evil actions are a problem to the good character).
Sounds very much like we agree. Toleration is possible with a shared short-term goal. Long-term co-existence in an adventuring party is not unless one party or the other starts shifting their alignment towards neutral.
Edit: And in part that is because adventuring parties allow characters to pursue their goals and become more powerful while defending each other. Allowing evil to pursue it's goals and become more powerful while defending it is by definition not a good action.

Mastikator
2020-12-16, 08:56 AM
Sounds very much like we agree. Toleration is possible with a shared short-term goal. Long-term co-existence in an adventuring party is not unless one party or the other starts shifting their alignment towards neutral.

A long term situation might exist, for example "a god killing snarl is threatening to annihilate the world and kill us all, we must stop an epic powerful lich and his evil cleric right hand from acquiring his power, so I the good and righteous fighter will put up with this despicable evil ranger since he's very useful for this goal".

I've heard some games campaigns revolve around thwarting long term Armageddon level threat. So you could have a good and an evil character in the party then. Over time I think you're right that one of them is going to have to give in a bit, if nothing else but because tolerance is work that can get tiring.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-16, 08:56 AM
Can a vegetarian hang out with a non-Vegetarian or even be his friend?

Does that mean he risks losing his status as 'vegetarian' for doing so?

Does it mean, it would be an apt description to characterize that vegetarian as "being ok with eating meat"?



That is the proper analogy.

I have a few vegan friends and they accept me for who I am for eating meat and I accept them for who they are and we get along very well.

Jason
2020-12-16, 09:06 AM
A long term situation might exist, for example "a god killing snarl is threatening to annihilate the world and kill us all, we must stop an epic powerful lich and his evil cleric right hand from acquiring his power, so I the good and righteous fighter will put up with this despicable evil ranger since he's very useful for this goal".

I've heard some games campaigns revolve around thwarting long term Armageddon level threat. So you could have a good and an evil character in the party then. Over time I think you're right that one of them is going to have to give in a bit, if nothing else but because tolerance is work that can get tiring.

Which illustrates my point. They could tolerate the difference short-term. But one or the other side in the Order had to shift alignment in order for them to continue working together over a long campaign, and Belkar has shifted towards neutral.

Conradine
2020-12-16, 09:22 AM
Debatable. Such an act probably is enough to prevent you ever being regarded as good-aligned, but a single extremely evil act followed by a lifetime of good acts will shift you at least to neutral, dont you think?



Without at the very least feel atrocious remorse about the deed? No.

If a person feel nothing except smug satisfaction thinking about how he got away with that horrible deed, he'll stay Evil even after 50 years of behaving civilized.

In my opinion, the thing that defines more the Evil alignment is ( lack of ) remorse.

That's why I never considered my character Shazuko ( drow, rogue, True Neutral ) evil, even if he killed civilians: because not only he stopped as soon as he could get away from drow society, he was tortured by those memories for decades.




Belkar has shifted towards neutral.

He murdered a gnome in cold blood just to take his donkey.
Unless he starts feeling remorse, he'll stay Evil forever.

Batcathat
2020-12-16, 09:26 AM
Without at the very least feel atrocious remorse about the deed? No.

If a person feel nothing except smug satisfaction thinking about how he got away with that horrible deed, he'll stay Evil even after 50 years of behaving civilized.

In my opinion, the thing that defines more the Evil alignment is ( lack of ) remorse.

So the person who kills fifty people and feel really bad about it is less Evil than the person who kills fifty people and don't feel remorse? I don't see why. Remorse might stop someone from doing what caused it again, but on its own I don't think it makes someone morally better.

Xervous
2020-12-16, 09:26 AM
Not proper analogy at all; diet choice doesn't impact on alignment. :smalltongue:

I’ve encountered vegans that would beg to differ, but their zeal might disqualify the discussion from this forum for bordering on religious.

Jason
2020-12-16, 09:31 AM
I have a few vegan friends and they accept me for who I am for eating meat and I accept them for who they are and we get along very well.
Vegan vs. omnivore is not really a good vs. evil analogy. More like good vs. neutral, and that's assuming it's a vegan who geniuinely wishes to reduce animal suffering and not someone who is vegan because it's trendy or they expect health benefits (neutral) or because they want to virtue signal to everyone else how morally superior they are (at least selfish, possiby evil).
A Vegan good vs. evil analogy would be like a Vegan who genuinely wants to relieve animal suffering working together with, defending, and supporting someone who owns and works in something like an abbattoir or a mink farm, and does so because they enjoy their work.

Conradine
2020-12-16, 09:39 AM
So the person who kills fifty people and feel really bad about it is less Evil than the person who kills fifty people and don't feel remorse? I


Yes, he's less evil.

If he feels so bad, chances are he was forced to act under duress or extreme circumstances. Also if he truly feels so bad, he will probably never do that again.

That does not means he should be pardoned or trusted.




Remorse might stop someone from doing what caused it again, but on its own I don't think it makes someone morally better.

All morality is subjective, but IMO the grey zone begins with remorse.
I can't tell who is Neutral or Good but I can tell with no doubt that those who do Evil without remorse are Evil themselves.
Even if they did it in the past.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-16, 09:41 AM
Vegan vs. omnivore is not really a good vs. evil analogy. More like good vs. neutral, and that's assuming it's a vegan who geniuinely wishes to reduce animal suffering and not someone who is vegan because it's trendy or they expect health benefits (neutral) or because they want to virtue signal to everyone else how morally superior they are (at least selfish, possiby evil).
A Vegan good vs. evil analogy would be like a Vegan who genuinely wants to relieve animal suffering working together with, defending, and supporting someone who owns and works in something like an abbattoir or a mink farm, and does so because they enjoy their work.

I never said it was a good vs. evil analogy and I think vegan vs. omnivore is a neutral vs. neutral analogy.

Batcathat
2020-12-16, 09:52 AM
Yes, he's less evil.

If he feels so bad, chances are he was forced to act under duress or extreme circumstances. Also if he truly feels so bad, he will probably never do that again.

Yes, having acted under extreme circumstances and not doing it again would both make it better but feeling bad isn't a guarantee of either. It's entirely possible that the person who did something horrible because they thought they had no choice feels much better about it than the person who knows they did it for a bad reason.

Conradine
2020-12-16, 09:55 AM
As I said, there are shades of grey...

the only thing I'm sure about is that the complete ( or almost complete ) lack of remorse is a clear symphtom of Evil.

Satinavian
2020-12-16, 09:56 AM
An analogy is not the same as an example.

Jason
2020-12-16, 10:33 AM
As I said, there are shades of grey...

the only thing I'm sure about is that the complete ( or almost complete ) lack of remorse is a clear symphtom of Evil.
I would agree. Even a good person who had very good reasons for killing someone, like a man defending his home and family from an armed robber who broke in, would still feel remorse and wonder if there had been a better way to resolve the situation that wouldn't have involved having to kill someone.

For the one time murderer who never kills again but forever treasures his memory of the one time he did murder, yeah he probably would still be evil. But I think such a person is an extreme case. Someone who murders usually either commits other crimes or eventually feels sorrow, remorse, etc.

Democratus
2020-12-16, 11:20 AM
There is a variety of Good that is total love and acceptance, no matter what.

A god of such Good might be sad when a mortal commits evil acts, but they still love them and stay with them no matter what - hoping that they will see the light and change.

The same can also be true of one Good mortal with another Evil mortal. The good mortal can love the evil mortal and be with them whenever needed. They can be unhappy about the evil committed by the evil mortal, and still be there for them whenever needed.

They can believe that offering their love and friendship without condition and without pressure or condemnation is the only way to set an example and follow the path of good. They hope that by giving such love and support to the evil mortal it will change their heart over time. Maybe it will and maybe it won't.

This is another kind of good character who can be with an evil character long term.

Ashiel
2020-12-16, 12:01 PM
I know that good and evil characters hate each other and they're always fighting all the time but is it possible that they can get along?
Characters? Yes.
Players? Maybe not. :smalltongue:

There's a pretty wide range of Good and Evil. A wide enough range that they can indeed overlap, or even be friends, or love each other.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-16, 12:01 PM
Even if that's true, that doesn't mean their interests can never overlap in practice. After all, something that affects me personally is likely to affect the people around me as well and vice versa, so a lot of issues big and small would likely unite the Good and Evil, in a setting where such objective morality existed.

Of course there will be events that profit both good and evil people. War, for example.

But, the OP centers around the relationship of Good and Evil. If we focus perhaps on a party of D&D or Shadowrun adventurers of both good and evil persona, then, that's when the selfish nature of evil collides with the more altruistic motives of good.

Like what to do with treasure: Give some or all of it to struggling townfolk (good), or, keep it for ourselves ignoring the townfolk's problems (evil).

Plus, it's the wider discussion of the spread of evil and the effects it has on a society. Perhaps like a drug-trade and how it can decimate a community. That's evil because people are profiting from the deleterious effects addiction has on humanity.

Both playing and running rpgs, I've only seen evil characters as a problem for the party. But, a party of only evil criminals can work depending on the Session 0 guidelines.

Jason
2020-12-16, 12:03 PM
There is a variety of Good that is total love and acceptance, no matter what.

A god of such Good might be sad when a mortal commits evil acts, but they still love them and stay with them no matter what - hoping that they will see the light and change.

The same can also be true of one Good mortal with another Evil mortal. The good mortal can love the evil mortal and be with them whenever needed. They can be unhappy about the evil committed by the evil mortal, and still be there for them whenever needed.

They can believe that offering their love and friendship without condition and without pressure or condemnation is the only way to set an example and follow the path of good. They hope that by giving such love and support to the evil mortal it will change their heart over time. Maybe it will and maybe it won't.

This is another kind of good character who can be with an evil character long term.

If this character never tries to stop the evil character from going out and murdering innocent people every night except by "being a good example" to the murderer then no, they aren't in fact a good person. Just a loving and caring person.

A truly good person would care about the welfare of the innocent victims they don't know as well as the murderer they know and love.

Batcathat
2020-12-16, 12:16 PM
Like what to do with treasure: Give some or all of it to struggling townfolk (good), or, keep it for ourselves ignoring the townfolk's problems (evil).

That is only a problem if one or both sides wish to force their behavior on the other side. Such people certainly exist, but in my experience (both in game and in reality) there are a lot of people willing to live and let live. It's certainly a possible reason for conflict but it won't make it a certainty.

Democratus
2020-12-16, 12:43 PM
If this character never tries to stop the evil character from going out and murdering innocent people every night except by "being a good example" to the murderer then no, they aren't in fact a good person. Just a loving and caring person.

A truly good person would care about the welfare of the innocent victims they don't know as well as the murderer they know and love.

No. It means that they have a goal and a strategy in the service of good. It may or may not work.

If the argument is that you can't be good unless all your attempts at good are successful - the whole discussion is a non starter.

Jason
2020-12-16, 12:58 PM
No. It means that they have a goal and a strategy in the service of good. It may or may not work.

If the argument is that you can't be good unless all your attempts at good are successful - the whole discussion is a non starter.

The argument is that to be good you have to try to stop evil from happening. "Being a good example and continuing to provide comfort and support to someone who refuses to stop doing evil" sounds too passive to me to really be considered good. It comes too close to enabling the person's evil.

You can love someone unconditionally and still take action to stop them from continuing to do evil. Any parent should know this.

Clistenes
2020-12-16, 01:26 PM
There are many different types of good characters and many different types of evil characters.

There are good characters that are self-righteous and judgemental, and others that are tolerant and open-minded.

There are good characters that are masochist-like wannabe martyrs, and others who won't allow others to take advantage of them under any circumstances.

There are good characters who are pragmatist enough to work with people they despise, and others who can't compromise.

There are good characters who are kinda hypocritical and will turn a blind eye and rationalize the behavior of evil people they like, and others who will put them in their **** list after the first infraction...

There are evil characters who are honorable and loyal to their team, and others who will backstab you even if doing so will screw them badly too...

There are evil characters who indiscriminately hurt everybody around them, and others who only target a very specific group (a serial killer who tortures and kills only little girls under eight is evil as hell, even if he is nice to everybody else...).

There are evil characters who are rational, disciplined and brave, and can see the advantages in playing the hero for long periods of time. There are evil characters who can't control themselves and will hurt others all the time.

There are evil characters who are pragmatical and rational, and will do evil only when it is beneficial to them, and others who do it for the lulz.


Good characters aren't required to act like Lawful Stupid Paladins or Stupid Good anime characters, and Evil characters aren't required to be mustache-twirling, cackling, insane cartoonish villains...

So yes, given the right circumstances, evil and good characters can get along for long period of time. Hell, they may not even realize that they have different alignments.

If Bob is a rabid elf-hater who will kill any elf he encounter so long as he isn't caught, he is Evil, but he probably will look like merely prejudiced against elves to the rest of the party he is dungeon-delving with (they won't actually watch him hurt any elf ever...). And if Johnny the Lawful Good adventurer is a pragmatist, open-minded, tolerant guy he won't leave Bob's party just because the latter talks **** about elves all the time... he will probably think "oh, well, he is kinda racist and prejudiced against elves, but we need him to get out of here alive, so I will better get along with him...".

Willie the Duck
2020-12-16, 02:04 PM
The argument is that to be good you have to try to stop evil from happening. "Being a good example and continuing to provide comfort and support to someone who refuses to stop doing evil" sonuds too passive to me to really be considered good. It comes too close to enabling the person's evil.

You can love someone unconditionally and still take action to stop them from continuing to do evil. Any parent should know this.

Exactly how proactive someone has to be in going out and preventing the evil acts of others certainly seems to be a major point of contention for the thread. There's certainly real world analogs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory) to the conundrum.

Quertus
2020-12-16, 02:28 PM
Was it ever stated anywhere that this thread was about D&D? :smallconfused: Good and evil do exist in other RPGs, too. :smalltongue:


You can love someone unconditionally and still take action to stop them from continuing to do evil. Any parent should know this.

What I pictured when you said that:


”Bobby, am I stabbing your sister in the eye?"

"…no."

"Then why are you stabbing your sister in the eye, rather than following my example?"

"Because it's fun. I just love the way she screams when I do it."

Although I haven't seen that particular example, I certainly *have* seen kids do all kinds of :smalleek:

I find that nearly 100% of humanity engages in actions I find unconscionably evil (even by D&D-style definitions of causing and enjoying harm, let alone 2e evil of "selfishness", which became 3e neutral). I really don't know that it's even humanly *possible* to simultaneously a) care about all of humanity, and b) attempt to stop their every act of evil, given how ubiquitously ever-present that evil is.

Never mind how parents react to strangers trying to give their kinda morality lessons :smalltongue:

So I'm not sure that this stance is really practical, IRL or in a game. I'm not seeing how to make the logistics work.

So… I guess I'll have to side with "being an example" and "being ready to help" as a more practical take on that style of good. Unless you care to explain a more practical alternate implementation.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-16, 03:08 PM
That is only a problem if one or both sides wish to force their behavior on the other side. Such people certainly exist, but in my experience (both in game and in reality) there are a lot of people willing to live and let live. It's certainly a possible reason for conflict but it won't make it a certainty.
How does evil and good NOT force their behavior on the other side? You make your argument as if evil doesn't perform as evil. Evil characters express evil traits.

You talk about "live and let live". Good people trying to live their lives among evil people trying to exploit good people. How do you defend one group working against the other? How is that any sense of "community"? Please explain how people interested in themselves work well with people interested in the greater community?

You're talking about neutrality which isn't the discussion. The discussion is evil working with good and the difficulty of harmonizing the two.

What is evil and what is good? What are the differences?

gijoemike
2020-12-16, 03:22 PM
It's extremely difficult to get along with evil people because they're selfish and will betray your trust if they have that opportunity. It's what evil is. Deep down all evil people care about is themselves and sometimes they don't even care about that.

This is why good people, people who care about others, have constant problems with evil. Best case scenario the good people can convince the evil ones to change for the better. Worst case you lock the evil people up before they harm others.

That is a very poorly understood version of evil. You present any and all evil to be extremely backstab corruption feral animal instinct type characters. That is only an extreme form of CE.

The mafia hitman care about the family and honors the deals of the ruling member.

The corrupt politician does whatever he can be any means necessary for his town and himself. He isn't 100% sum-o-wich evil.

Both of these are evil but can easily work with a party of PCs. The good PCs just don't like them. But they get along.

Batcathat
2020-12-16, 03:27 PM
How does evil and good NOT force their behavior on the other side?

Regardless of a person's morality, they don't automatically try to make others behave the same way. Take your example of what to do with the party's treasure and the struggling townsfolk, there's nothing stopping the good party members from donating their money and the evil members from keeping theirs. Nor is there anything forcing either side to try and "convert" the other side.


You make your argument as if evil doesn't perform as evil. Evil characters express evil traits.

I have plenty of friends who do or say things I don't agree with, as long as they don't try to make me do or say the same we don't have to get into a conflict about it. Some people might think it's their moral duty to force their values on others, but it's not mandatory for any alignment.


You talk about "live and let live". Good people trying to live their lives among evil people trying to exploit good people. How do you defend one group working against the other? How is that any sense of "community"? Please explain how people interested in themselves work well with people interested in the greater community?

You argue as if evil people act evil against everyone all the time. An evil party member might be okay with murdering and stealing, but that doesn't mean they will try and murder or steal from the other party members. In my experience, people can overlook a lot of bad qualities in others.


You're talking about neutrality which isn't the discussion. The discussion is evil working with good and the difficulty of harmonizing the two.

Yes, and I'm saying that there's nothing stopping them from working together as long as their goals don't directly conflict (but that's true of good and good or evil and evil, too).

Again, I'm not saying there can't be conflict because of differing morality and world view, I'm saying it's not a certainty.


What is evil and what is good? What are the differences?

Perspective, usually.

Well, not in D&D. There morality is objectively definable and neatly categorized. Still nothing that says they have to fight, though.

Willie the Duck
2020-12-16, 03:28 PM
Was it ever stated anywhere that this thread was about D&D? :smallconfused: Good and evil do exist in other RPGs, too. :smalltongue:
OP has made a number of threads on the subject of how various media characters map to the D&D alignment axis. It is not unreasonable to assume that was the intent of the initial question (for whatever that is worth).

NichG
2020-12-16, 03:32 PM
How does evil and good NOT force their behavior on the other side? You make your argument as if evil doesn't perform as evil. Evil characters express evil traits.


Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. A character who expresses evil traits is Evil, not vice versa. Someone who tortures enemy soldiers isn't obligated to steal food from orphans or kick puppies.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-16, 03:38 PM
OP has made several threads on the subject of how various media characters map to the D&D alignment axis. It is not unreasonable to assume that was the intent of the initial question (for whatever that is worth).

Yes, I did, and thank you for mentioning me. My whole question was can Good and Evil characters get along and got a number of different answers from so many members in this thread.

icefractal
2020-12-16, 03:55 PM
You argue as if evil people act evil against everyone all the time. An evil party member might be okay with murdering and stealing, but that doesn't mean they will try and murder or steal from the other party members. In my experience, people can overlook a lot of bad qualities in others.
So, this is a perfect example of what I meant by too much focus on whether they're non-backstabby on a personal level. "He's not murdering or stealing from me, so it's not a problem" is a neutral attitude at best, not a good one.

Which is not to say there aren't various reasons a good and evil character could work together short-term, and even some that would make sense long-term. But if a character thinks "the rest of the world outside the party doesn't really matter", that character's not good-aligned.


And since a non-murderous example was requested:
Corrupt cop who plants drugs on people he doesn't like so he can seize their stuff via asset forfeiture. Yeah, I would judge someone for continuing to be that guy's friend after knowing what he does.

awa
2020-12-16, 03:57 PM
Imagine a good person with no power, a level 1 commoner living in a society that is largely CE, the strong do what they want. They are befriended by someone who is evil aligned with a few class levels. Our evil character only cares about his friends and if someone one hurts one of his friends he will inflict as much harm on them and their friends as his relative power allows. Not only is the harm he inflicts on his enemies distinctly disproportionate if he can get away with it, but he takes great joy in the inflicting.

our good character knows his friend is violent and dangerous and that makes them uncomfortable but they basically never see it so its relatively abstract and allows him to rationalize it away. He hates conflict, and while they are friends they are not equal in any meaningful sense (class, stats, wealth, social rank ect), he would be uncomfortable trying to oppose his more domineering friend. Instead he does good acts where he can, spending his time and effort to the limits of his abilities where it will make a difference rather than squandering it against the force of his society or alienating his friend which harms him but helps no one.

On top of that the good character has an excellent reason to be grateful to their evil friend, their family of level 1 commoners is protected by the aegis of the evil friends violence. People don't want to mess with him for fear of his friend. People are good at justifying the things they need to stay alive.

A second factor our evil friend may be less evil than the majority of the people around him making him appear less bad in context. Maybe hes a raider who robs and kills but he only gets vicious if you threaten his friends and family while the other raiders like to torture all the people they raid just because its hilarious to watch them scream.


Beyond that people don't often think in terms of alignment and are neither vulcans or robots they do not always act with logic. Any battered spouse that still loves their abuser is a clear example of the potential for good and evil to get along.

Batcathat
2020-12-16, 04:38 PM
So, this is a perfect example of what I meant by too much focus on whether they're non-backstabby on a personal level. "He's not murdering or stealing from me, so it's not a problem" is a neutral attitude at best, not a good one.

Possibly. But I don't think it's an attitude that'd change their alignment on its own, I don't think a good character (or neutral or evil) have to be 100 percent within their alignments and personally I wouldn't change someone's alignment for overlooking someone's nasty ways.

Conradine
2020-12-16, 04:41 PM
Corrupt cop who plants drugs on people he doesn't like so he can seize their stuff via asset forfeiture. Yeah, I would judge someone for continuing to be that guy's friend after knowing what he does.


And if he stopped doing that 15 years ago ( but never repented and keeps his nice house bought with dirty money )?

Tvtyrant
2020-12-16, 05:24 PM
I know that good and evil characters hate each other and they're always fighting all the time but is it possible that they can get along?

Well, sure.

Good person wants to stop evil empire from conquering world.

Evil person wants to stop evil empire from shutting down their human sacrifice cult.

As long as there is an evil empire they can work together.

On a less snidely whiplash kind of evil, it would be pretty common. Timothy Someguy is a jerk and really doesn't care about the lives of other people. He works with Evelyn Thatgirl who wants to help everyone because he is being paid by the quest giver. Someguy is Evil, in that he wants the world to be a worse place for others and sets out to do it, but he does it quite legally and it is relatively small evils. He demands payment for saving an orphanage, lets the kid sidekick get injured out of neglect, kills the team horse out of anger when it throws a shoe in the wilds, etc. No one likes him, but he doesn't actually interfere with their goals or do anything truly despicable.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-16, 10:19 PM
Well, sure.

A good person wants to stop evil empires from conquering the world.

An evil person wants to stop the evil empire from shutting down their human sacrifice cult.

As long as there is an evil empire they can work together.

On a less snidely whiplash kind of evil, it would be pretty common. Timothy Someguy is a jerk and doesn't care about the lives of other people. He works with Evelyn That girl who wants to help everyone because he is being paid by the quest giver. Someguy is Evil, in that he wants the world to be a worse place for others and sets out to do it, but he does it quite legally and it is a relatively small evil. He demands payment for saving an orphanage, lets the kid sidekick get injured out of neglect, kills the team horse out of anger when it throws a shoe in the wilds, etc. No one likes him, but he doesn't interfere with their goals or do anything truly despicable.

Are Timothy and Evelyn copyrighted by any chance because I want to add them to my solo game. :biggrin:

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-17, 12:07 AM
The vegan thing is actually quite a handy reference point. Presumably the vegans in question believe that eating meat is an immoral act on account of it causing suffering, etc., etc. They clearly believe that it is morally correct to refrain from causing said pain. (Their motives for said beliefs , as always, run the gamut). They are surrounded by people like you, me, and OP who happily eat meat without a second thought.

We, to their moral philosophy, are actively engaging in causing suffering in a manner they have rejected as cruel and unnecessary, largely for our own convenience and pleasure - particularly in a world where many protein alternatives are available.

But they are surrounded by us carnivores and our system. They can go through their entire lives putting themselves in a societal fringe, or they can make peace with the fact that the best they can do is be good by themselves and tolerate everyone else. How they rationalize that is up to them, but it usually takes the form of tolerance and deciding it’s not a irreconcilable flaw in people like OP. They presumably would have a much harder time dealing with the world if they reacted to meat eating the same way they did to, say, human traffickers.

I mention this because the interesting thought experiment is if they achieved a moral majority, BMH (and us other carnivores) might be looking at prison sentences for burgers. No doubt in that case they would not tolerate OP, but rather scorn him and declare him evil.

In contrast, there are parts of the world that forum policy won’t let me specifically name, where the keeping of pre-adolescent boys in sex slavery is more or less treated the like meat eating for us. There’s a few people who might disagree with it, but at most they personally abstain. They certainly have a live and let live attitude towards it happening, and pay no more attention to the matter than a vegan does to his friend eating a steak. We here in the west of course would lock these people up in a heartbeat as more or less the personification of evil, and condemn in the strongest terms possible (with a strong chance of conspiracy charges) anyone who had “accepted them for who they are.” I don’t think anyone on this board would argue that our jailing or even execution of that type of person was anything but righteous.

So why the sudden escalation between meat and horrific crimes? Because it turns out that one of the easiest ways for Good and Evil to get along is to put a power differential in place. There is a human tendency to normalize morality in accordance with what the likely effect of resisting Evil/Good will be. And I don’t mean a cold calculating “play along, but our day is nigh!” I mean that literally the needle on the outrage caused gets so tamped down by the need to accept and rationalize acts if we want to participate in society that very quickly objective Evil/Good can become a non-issue by being marginal and near irrelevant for a given act.

Which is, of course, just how easy it is to get Good and Evil characters working together. You’re good but live in Evil Lulz land? Chances are you’ll pretty quickly change your definition of evil even though the rule book won’t. Your evil and live in the Good and True land? Eventually you’ll find a way to rationalize most Good behavior as really letting you do your evil thang.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 12:23 AM
The vegan thing is actually quite a handy reference point. Presumably the vegans in question believe that eating meat is an immoral act on account of it causing suffering, etc., etc. They clearly believe that it is morally correct to refrain from causing said pain. (Their motives for said beliefs , as always, run the gamut). They are surrounded by people like you, me, and OP who happily eat meat without a second thought.

We, to their moral philosophy, are actively engaging in causing suffering in a manner they have rejected as cruel and unnecessary, largely for our own convenience and pleasure - particularly in a world where many protein alternatives are available.

But they are surrounded by us carnivores and our system. They can go through their entire lives putting themselves in a societal fringe, or they can make peace with the fact that the best they can do is be good by themselves and tolerate everyone else. How they rationalize that is up to them, but it usually takes the form of tolerance and deciding it’s not a irreconcilable flaw in people like OP. They presumably would have a much harder time dealing with the world if they reacted to meat eating the same way they did to, say, human traffickers.

I mention this because the interesting thought experiment is if they achieved a moral majority, BMH (and us other carnivores) might be looking at prison sentences for burgers. No doubt in that case they would not tolerate OP, but rather scorn him and declare him evil.

In contrast, there are parts of the world that forum policy won’t let me specifically name, where the keeping of pre-adolescent boys in sex slavery is more or less treated the like meat eating for us. There’s a few people who might disagree with it, but at most they personally abstain. They certainly have a live and let live attitude towards it happening, and pay no more attention to the matter than a vegan does to his friend eating a steak. We here in the west of course would lock these people up in a heartbeat as more or less the personification of evil, and condemn in the strongest terms possible (with a strong chance of conspiracy charges) anyone who had “accepted them for who they are.” I don’t think anyone on this board would argue that our jailing or even execution of that type of person was anything but righteous.

So why the sudden escalation between meat and horrific crimes? Because it turns out that one of the easiest ways for Good and Evil to get along is to put a power differential in place. There is a human tendency to normalize morality in accordance with what the likely effect of resisting Evil/Good will be. And I don’t mean a cold calculating “play along, but our day is nigh!” I mean that literally the needle on the outrage caused gets so tamped down by the need to accept and rationalize acts if we want to participate in society that very quickly objective Evil/Good can become a non-issue by being marginal and near irrelevant for a given act.

Which is, of course, just how easy it is to get Good and Evil characters working together. You’re good but live in Evil Lulz land? Chances are you’ll pretty quickly change your definition of evil even though the rule book won’t. Your evil and live in the Good and True land? Eventually you’ll find a way to rationalize most Good behavior as really letting you do your evil thang.
I tried to be vegan at one point and I lasted only a single day. I just realized being vegan isn't for me. I need my meat to survive.

NichG
2020-12-17, 12:34 AM
I know a vegan whose response to being in that kind of social surrounding was to take the position that basically, as long as someone is willing to face the full process that they're engaging in when consuming animal products, thats a suitable pressure to be applying on society to change without just giving in and normalizing the behavior they think is wrong. If someone can look at e.g. animals being packed in so much in factory farms that some get crushed to death and lie on the cage floor for days rotting before they get cleaned away, and not flinch, then he won't give them a hard time going forward about their choices. But if someone has convinced themselves that there's no suffering involved in the eggs they eat or the milk they drink, he'll happily divest them of those illusions.

There are more ways to create change than to take a hardline us vs them stance.

But it's sort of funny because, if you map it to the context of this thread, in some sense it'd be an example of a Good person who gets along better with an Evil person who owns the fact that they are Evil without glorifying it, than an Evil person who claims to be Good. That seems paradoxical at first, but I suspect there's something to it. The Evil person claiming to be Good shifts the norms as to what is considered Good in their society, whereas the Evil person who will say 'don't be like me, kids' has much more contained social impacts.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 12:50 AM
I know a vegan whose response to being in that kind of social surrounding was to take the position that basically, as long as someone is willing to face the full process that they're engaging in when consuming animal products, that's a suitable pressure to be applying on society to change without just giving in and normalizing the behavior they think is wrong. If someone can look at e.g. animals being packed in so much in factory farms that some get crushed to death and lie on the cage floor for days rotting before they get cleaned away, and not flinch, then he won't give them a hard time going forward about their choices. But if someone has convinced themselves that there's no suffering involved in the eggs they eat or the milk they drink, he'll happily divest them of those illusions.

There are more ways to create change than to take a hardline us vs them stance.

But it's sort of funny because, if you map it to the context of this thread, in some sense it'd be an example of a Good person who gets along better with an Evil person who owns the fact that they are Evil without glorifying it, than an Evil person who claims to be Good. That seems paradoxical at first, but I suspect there's something to it. The Evil person claiming to be Good shifts the norms as to what is considered Good in their society, whereas the Evil person who will say 'don't be like me, kids' has much more contained social impacts.

Just because Vegans cares strongly about animals doesn't mean they're all good. Vegans are neutral at best and they're also evil vegans as well.

NichG
2020-12-17, 01:07 AM
Just because Vegans cares strongly about animals doesn't mean they're all good. Vegans are neutral at best and they're also evil vegans as well.

Read it as 'people of the Vegan alignment can get along with people of the Carnivore alignment without just giving up and accepting their behavior'

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 01:18 AM
Read it as 'people of the Vegan alignment can get along with people of the Carnivore alignment without just giving up and accepting their behavior'

Well, that's their problem then. If they don't want to eat animals then that just fine by me. It's their personal choice. But if they going to tell me not to eat meat because they have this type of mindset which they have a problem with, then I don't want to associate with them. Some people are free to choose meat if they want to. Animals are here for a reason to eat. That's what we carnivores do.

Mastikator
2020-12-17, 01:34 AM
That is only a problem if one or both sides wish to force their behavior on the other side. Such people certainly exist, but in my experience (both in game and in reality) there are a lot of people willing to live and let live. It's certainly a possible reason for conflict but it won't make it a certainty.

Live and let live, not live and let murder. Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's harmful behavior that you do to other people. A neutral character may look the other side but a good character would only do nothing if that is all they can do.

NichG
2020-12-17, 01:39 AM
Well, that's their problem then. If they don't want to eat animals then that just fine by me. It's their personal choice. But if they going to tell me not to eat meat because they have this type of mindset which they have a problem with, then I don't want to associate with them. Some people are free to choose meat if they want to. Animals are here for a reason to eat. That's what we carnivores do.

Would you be able to get along with the particular guy I mentioned, who would say 'okay, I'll respect your choice to eat meat but only if you're willing to look at and understand how it's made and still make that choice'? (well it'd be more like he'd say, 'I won't respect your choice but I'll stop bothering you about it')

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 01:46 AM
Would you be able to get along with the particular guy I mentioned, who would say 'okay, I'll respect your choice to eat meat but only if you're willing to look at and understand how it's made and still make that choice'? (well it'd be more like he'd say, 'I won't respect your choice but I'll stop bothering you about it')

That depends if he doesn't shove his beliefs down my throat. As I said before if we have mutual respect then that's fine. Also, I even mentioned before some people chooses to eat meat because we carnivores need to survive. More importantly, I see many vegans who have this dogmatic mindset that tells other meat-eaters that eating meat is evil, so therefore not all vegans are as good as they claim to be.

Batcathat
2020-12-17, 02:20 AM
Live and let live, not live and let murder. Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's harmful behavior that you do to other people. A neutral character may look the other side but a good character would only do nothing if that is all they can do.

If it happened in front of them? Yes. But in my experience people are able to look past a lot of bad behavior in others as long as they don't have to look at it directly. I think some good characters would be quite able to get along with – even be friends with – people who they theoretically know does bad things, as long as they don't have to see it up close.

That's my theory, anyway. I doubt there are any canon sources that can confirm either way (though I could be mistaken).

hamishspence
2020-12-17, 02:25 AM
Good characters have a mandate to protect the innocent and (especially when LG) punish those who harm the innocent. While a strongly Good character shouldn't take this all the way into "committing evil deeds against these villains" - they're not exactly expected to protect villains from evildoers either.

As a result, a "The Punisher" type of evil character, whose evil deeds are purely focused on villains, can get along to a degree with a Good character who avoids committing evil deeds themselves.

Satinavian
2020-12-17, 02:31 AM
Live and let live, not live and let murder. Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's harmful behavior that you do to other people. A neutral character may look the other side but a good character would only do nothing if that is all they can do.
Now if you start looking at the harm done, that is another discussion than "being evil". No one likes or tolerates those that are harmful to their own society. Good people, neutral people, evil people tend to equally intolerant of threats and harms to their in-group.

And as for "harming enemies", only pacifists have a fundamental problem with that. Sure, there are rules in warfare, degrees of escalation, honor etc, ut most of that is more a Law-Chaos thing than a Good-Evil one.

And then there are many ways to be pretty evil without any obvious or big harm.

I remember once having a cleric of Evening Glory in the group. The (official) Goddess of 'Love beyond the grave' trying to create a place where the living and the undead could peocefully coexist and potentially love each other. This cleric regurlarly engaged in obviously evil acts like creating undead or casting spells strengthening undead like Desecrate. He also helped people commit suicide with the aim of becoming undead. And then there obviously also stuff that could be considered necrophilia. Per rules a lot of Evil deeds, regularly done without any remorse, so he counted as Evil, even if the goddess counts as neutral.

Batcathat
2020-12-17, 02:35 AM
As a result, a "The Punisher" type of evil character, whose evil deeds are purely focused on villains, can get along to a degree with a Good character who avoids committing evil deeds themselves.

Would someone like the Punisher even qualify as evil by D&D standards? Isn't killing brutally killing evil pretty much what most adventurers does, regardless of alignment? I'm not sure I see the difference between the Punisher raiding a house full of mobsters and killing everyone and a D&D party raiding a dungeon full of goblins and killing everyone.

Mastikator
2020-12-17, 02:56 AM
If it happened in front of them? Yes. But in my experience people are able to look past a lot of bad behavior in others as long as they don't have to look at it directly. I think some good characters would be quite able to get along with – even be friends with – people who they theoretically know does bad things, as long as they don't have to see it up close.

That's my theory, anyway. I doubt there are any canon sources that can confirm either way (though I could be mistaken).

Willing ignorance is no excuse (unlike unwilling ignorance). If character A has committed rape and murder, character A is not remorseful about it and may even brag about it in ways that don't get them in legal trouble, then character B should find character A vile, even if they didn't rape and murder in front of them.
Even if Character A is affable and poses no threat to character B, character B is either not able to get along with character A or not good.

You can replace character A's crimes with lesser evils like racism, bullying, exploitation. The only thing that will change for Character B is how extreme the circumstance has to be for B to tolerate A. But "being friends" is off the menu.

An example is that Roy is NOT friends with Belkar, he does NOT get along with him. He tolerates Belkar to the extent that Belkar is useful in destroying a greater evil, that is all. Belkar moving towards less evil has made Roy less hostile to him, but he's not friends with him like he was with Durkon.

Batcathat
2020-12-17, 03:05 AM
Willing ignorance is no excuse (unlike unwilling ignorance). If character A has committed rape and murder, character A is not remorseful about it and may even brag about it in ways that don't get them in legal trouble, then character B should find character A vile, even if they didn't rape and murder in front of them.
Even if Character A is affable and poses no threat to character B, character B is either not able to get along with character A or not good.

You can replace character A's crimes with lesser evils like racism, bullying, exploitation. The only thing that will change for Character B is how extreme the circumstance has to be for B to tolerate A. But "being friends" is off the menu.

I disagree. Though as I said, I don't think there's any canon "right" answer.


An example is that Roy is NOT friends with Belkar, he does NOT get along with him. He tolerates Belkar to the extent that Belkar is useful in destroying a greater evil, that is all. Belkar moving towards less evil has made Roy less hostile to him, but he's not friends with him like he was with Durkon.

Probably true. But I would argue that Elan is friends with Belkar and while Elan may be ditzy, even he isn't ignorant of Belkar's behavior. I'm not saying all good characters can be friends with all evil characters, I'm saying that some can.

Not to mention that Belkar, especially pre-character development, is pretty much the hardest type of chaotic stupid evil to be friends with, so he might not be the best example.

NichG
2020-12-17, 03:14 AM
Plus, acting in a Good way is different than Good holding positive aesthetics for someone. For example, someone could hate the experience of seeing evil acts done around them, want to shut down and destroy those acts, but still commit evil acts regularly themselves. Similarly someone could regularly and consistently help others, exhibit kindness and forgiveness and respect for life, and be self-sacrificing without externally glorifying self-sacrifice or being inherently disgusted by evil.

It's the difference between 'I do Good acts because they are Good' and 'I do acts (which happen to be Good) because those are the acts I want to do'. Being good and valuing goodness are related, but not the same thing.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-17, 08:10 AM
Re: vegan alignment getting along with carnivore alignment.

BMH, this all rather reinforces the point. Us carnivorous folk are doing something a true blue vegan disagrees with morally: killing and causing inhumane suffering so that we can have tasty steaks and thanksgiving Turkey rather than beyond burger and tofurkey. Basically, solely for our personal pleasure. (I love me a good medium rare steak)

I can hardly imagine anyone Good in the modern saying “well, so long as you’re willing to watch them go under, I guess it’s ok if you want to dump that shipping container of migrants into the sea”. And certainly the average westerner wouldn’t think it socially acceptable to say “hey! You want to get all preachy about me drowning migrants who were a risk to my business? You live your life, I’ll live mine!”.

But that is definitely our view on eating meat. “Good” people get along with “Evil” people out of the need not to fight an endless war against society. And vice versa, because do we really care if our friend doesn’t eat meat so long as they aren’t too preachy?

Drop in a society where slavery is widespread, or we sacrifice someone to the spider god in awesome public holidays that everyone loves, and you’ll get the same dynamic. Slavery and spider-god sacrifice become “nuisance evil”, and its, as we’ve seen, not too hard to get along over nuisance evil, for all the same reasons we get along over eating meat.

awa
2020-12-17, 08:32 AM
real humans aren't logical, they can like people who are terrible people even when that person is actually terrible to them. When the evil happens to an out group where they don't have to see it, it becomes so much easier. They make excuses, they rationalize they let their emotions guide them. Most people don't think in the terms of good and evil.

For those of you saying you can't be good if you tolerate evil, sure tolerating evil might not be a good act but a single evil/ neutral act doesn't make you good by that logic, it will be impossible to be good in a society that accepts an evil act. That goodness is exclusive to good societies.

Evil people often don't think they are evil and if their society agrees with them the good person might as well, even if they don't do the action in question. Not all people deeply investigate their moral position.

Imagine a good person in an evil society who believe torturing people is the right thing to do and that their inability to do so is a sign of weakness. They are not performing evil acts and are possibly even at risk to themselves by not doing so but because they believe they are in the wrong they don't reject those who do even if they cant bear to watch.

Willie the Duck
2020-12-17, 08:50 AM
I disagree. Though as I said, I don't think there's any canon "right" answer.

Given the variation with the D&D alignment system across time (to say nothing of real world ethics), that almost would have to be the case.

Jason
2020-12-17, 09:27 AM
Imagine a good person in an evil society who believe torturing people is the right thing to do and that their inability to do so is a sign of weakness. They are not performing evil acts and are possibly even at risk to themselves by not doing so but because they believe they are in the wrong they don't reject those who do even if they cant bear to watch.
Huckleberry Finn. Huck has been taught his whole life that slavery is right and that turning over a runaway slave is a good thing, but when he gets to know Jim her decides that if it's a good thing to turn him in then he, Huckleberry, chooses to be evil and go to Hell instead.

It should be omnivore, not carnivore. I eat steak, but I eat veggies too.

Tvtyrant
2020-12-17, 10:12 AM
Is there anyone who didn't know about R Kelley? Or doesn't vaguely know sneakers are made by children in sweat shops?

Heck I have relatives I would classify as evil.

There is so much evil that it is basically impossible to divorce yourself from it. Even a moral crusader doesn't have enough time to protest every evil they see daily.

hamishspence
2020-12-17, 12:32 PM
Would someone like the Punisher even qualify as evil by D&D standards?

Yes. He doesn't just "kill those deserving of death" - he tortures - and in D&D, nobody is "deserving of torture".

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 12:52 PM
Re: vegan alignment getting along with carnivore alignment.

BMH, this all rather reinforces the point. Us carnivorous folk are doing something a true blue vegan disagrees with morally: killing and causing inhumane suffering so that we can have tasty steaks and thanksgiving Turkey rather than beyond burger and tofurkey. Solely for our pleasure. (I love me a good medium-rare steak)

I can hardly imagine anyone Good in the modern saying “well, so long as you’re willing to watch them go under, I guess it’s ok if you want to dump that shipping container of migrants into the sea”. And certainly, the average westerner wouldn’t think it socially acceptable to say “hey! You want to get all preachy about me drowning migrants who were a risk to my business? You live your life, I’ll live mine!”.

But that is our view on eating meat. “Good” people get along with “Evil” people out of the need not to fight an endless war against society. And vice versa, because do we care if our friend doesn’t eat meat so long as they aren’t too preachy?

Drop-in a society where slavery is widespread, or we sacrifice someone to the spider god in awesome public holidays that everyone loves, and you’ll get the same dynamic. Slavery and spider-god sacrifice become “nuisance evil”, and it's, as we’ve seen, not too hard to get along over nuisance evil, for all the same reasons we get along over eating meat.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Look I don't have any problems with vegans at all but as long if don't they shove their beliefs down to my throat then we're cool.

Xervous
2020-12-17, 01:43 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. Look I don't have any problems with vegans at all but as long if don't they shove their beliefs down to my throat then we're cool.

Oh how I would echo this sentiment if the forum rules were otherwise.

At what point does exporting moral demands deviate from Good?

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 01:52 PM
Oh how I would echo this sentiment if the forum rules were otherwise.

At what point does exporting moral demands deviate from Good?

I don't know what you mean by that? :confused:

Grey Watcher
2020-12-17, 01:54 PM
I'd say that it depends heavily in how the characters are being played. If the Evil character is sort of a Snidely Whiplash type, regularly doing obvious acts of wickedness for wickedness's sake, then no. The Good character(s) will almost certainly find themselves too often in conflict to establish any sort of working relationship. Conversely, if the Good character is a Miko Miyazaki type, who tolerates no evil whatsoever in their presence, then that's again going to generate too much conflict.

If both characters are portrayed with a certain level of depth and complexity, I can see it working. Maybe the Good character feels more comfortable with the Evil one under their observation than just out there unsupervised. If the Evil character believes it's more in their interest to work with the Good character than to antagonize them, again, it can work.

Is it ever going to be a bestest-buddies situation? Highly unlikely. Even if they have some other bond (siblings, for example), their differing outlooks are going to be a source of some tension.

Xervous
2020-12-17, 02:33 PM
I don't know what you mean by that? :confused:

To roll with the vegan example (to hopefully dodge politics) let us consider the following examples. Assume that it is good to care about the treatment of animals.

Take Vegan V and Omnivore O.

For the first case V and O are of similar standing. Does V not commenting on O void V’s goodness? Does V merely commenting sustain goodness? Does V taking actions (Forcing or tricking O into encountering motivational material) in the interest of furthering their focus of goodness have justification that keeps V good? Would drastic actions to further the previous point (kidnapping and forcing O to watch things) void V’s goodness?

Now consider the case where V has authority or power over O. Does this change the cases of saying nothing or merely commenting? Does this justify intrusive measures V can take in the interest of their good because V has ethically sound means and motive? Does the presence of ethically sound means and motive cause V’s inaction to be non good implying a moral obligation to act? How far would be too far for V to exercise their power over O to bring about change?

We’re not going to solve this, morality and ethics will be debated for as long as humans live as a species at least.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 02:39 PM
To roll with the vegan example (to hopefully dodge politics) let us consider the following examples. Assume that it is good to care about the treatment of animals.

Take Vegan V and Omnivore O.

For the first case, V and O are of similar standing. Does V not commenting on Ovoid V’s goodness? Does V merely comment sustain goodness? Does V take actions (Forcing it tricking O into encountering motivational material) in the interest of furthering their focus of goodness have justification that keeps V good? Would drastic actions further the previous point (kidnapping and forcing O to watch things) void V’s goodness?

Now consider the case where V has authority or power over O. Does this change the cases of saying nothing or merely commenting? Does this justify intrusive measures V can take in the interest of their good because V has ethically sound means and motive? Does the presence of morally sound means and motive cause V’s inaction to be nongood implying a moral obligation to act? How far would be too far for V to exercise their power over O to bring about change?

We’re not going to solve this, morality and ethics will be debated for as long as humans live as a species at least.
Those are some good points but that's not going to change my viewpoints to stop eating meat. As the old saying goes: "Once a carnivore, always a carnivore."

Xervous
2020-12-17, 02:42 PM
Those are some good points but that's not going to change my viewpoints to stop eating meat. As the old saying goes: "Once a carnivore, always a carnivore."

You’d stop at some point up to and including me going Clockwork Orange on you. What point would be going too far? (I don’t expect a clear answer)

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 02:46 PM
You’d stop at some point up to and including me going Clockwork Orange on you. What point would be going too far? (I don’t expect a clear answer)

I don't get the reference. :confused:

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-17, 03:24 PM
BMH - knowing that you have certain real world considerations, a little bit of clarification:

Our O vs V discussion is a stand in for any number of moral positions where one side is “Good” and the other is “Evil”. For the discussion, we’re assuming Vegan moral philosophy is the view point, and thus V is inherently “Good”, while O is inherently “Evil”.

You can substitute in any number of other actions besides eating meat into the equation if you prefer.

The question becomes at what point does V tolerating O make V evil, what are V’s responsibilities, authorities, and limits in relation to O in order to retain their good status?

The answer to that is more or less the answer to if “good” and “evil” characters can get along.

As for clockwork orange, he is basically saying that at some point society could change you. If all your friends and everyone you knew thought eating meat was disgusting and wrong and wouldn’t dare be caught with a horrible person who did. If eating meat carried a prison sentence. If upon being discovered that you had the vile and base urge to eat meat, you were subjected intensive rehabilitation via biochemistry and psychotherapy. If meat eaters were forced into re-education camps where work, torture, brainwashing, misery, and continuous political indoctrination were used to cure you of your meat eating ways. For an RPG example, if you were magically mind controlled or had a bio-hacker rewrite your psyche.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 03:35 PM
BMH - knowing that you have certain real-world considerations, a little bit of clarification:

Our O vs V discussion is a stand-in for any number of moral positions where one side is “Good” and the other is “Evil”. For the discussion, we’re assuming Vegan moral philosophy is the viewpoint, and thus V is inherently “Good”, while O is inherently “Evil”.

You can substitute any number of other actions besides eating meat into the equation if you prefer.

The question becomes at what point does V tolerating Omake V evil, what are V’s responsibilities, authorities, and limits about O to retain their good status?

The answer to that is more or less the answer to if “good” and “evil” characters can get along.

So if the vegan viewpoint think that all carnivores are universally evil all because that they eat meat and don't care for the animals at all then how can the carnivores survived without meat then? I think it's unfair to say that not all carnivores are universally evil.

Xervous
2020-12-17, 04:00 PM
So if the vegan viewpoint think that all carnivores are universally evil all because that they eat meat and don't care for the animals at all then how can the carnivores survived without meat then? I think it's unfair to say that not all carnivores are universally evil.

That’s besides the point of discussion. We are looking at an omnivore that has a choice and starting with an assumption that vegan is morally good. You don’t have to agree with it, I don’t agree with it, but it’s a much safer topic than things that will bleed into politics.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-17, 04:02 PM
Carnivore being a catchy title for what Xervous more accurately identified as Omnivore. And is suspect they would say that there are any number of options for survival and food enjoyment that don’t involve cruelty, suffering, etc. (to which we would mostly roll our eyes and go back to eating our cheeseburger).

But that’s all rather irrelevant to the matter. The issue at hand is that yes, Good and Evil people can work, cooperate, and even be friendly. After all, you have friends who fundamentally believe your actions are amoral and involve near torture of animals in order to have a better meal, but they’re still your friends and don’t consider themselves evil.

Extrapolate the dynamic to any other number of situations - you can certainly find cases where things we would consider reprehensible and inhumane cause about as much commotion as eating meat in more parts of the world than we’d like to admit. And the people who would lecture against those acts are often considered pretentious overbearing twits in those areas...so...do with it as you will.

Jason
2020-12-17, 04:03 PM
I don't get the reference. :confused:
In A Clockwork Orange (lengthy summary follows):
Alex is a teenager who runs a small gang. Their favorite activities involve drinking drug-laced milk and then mugging people, combined with a little rape and an occasional rumble with other gangs. Alex is fully capable of seducing girls without force (shown in a scene where he does just that with two girls at a record shop) and he is quite intelligent, but he likes violence and rape. His one redeeming trait is that he loves the music of Beethoven (and he has a pet snake in the movie that he does seem to care for, but partly because his parents don't like snakes and it keeps them out of his room where he keeps everything he's taken off of mugging victims). His parents are willfully oblivious to his activities.
During a home invasion one night Alex rapes a woman while singing "Singing in the Rain" with her husband listening, after having beaten him severely. This comes up again later.
Eventually Alex's gang decides they are tired of him bossing them around and decide to turn him in. During a home invasion robbery they knock Alex out and leave him for the police, after he has already beaten the woman who lives there. When the police catch him they determine that Alex killed the woman, and Alex gets a heavy prison sentence.
In prison Alex pretends to be an model inmate, but he's really just biding his time to get back to what he loves again. He hears of an experimental technique - the Ludovico technique - that will allow him to be released early, and he volunteers even though the prison priest advises him not to.
The Ludovico technique is a form of aversion therapy. The subject strapped down and has an apparatus on his eyes to prevent him from looking away from a movie screen. He is given injections that make him feel ill while scenes of violence play on the screen, accompanied by Beethoven music. Alex objects to having Beethoven played while he undergoes the therapy, because "he never did anything to anyone" but the scientists ignore his pleas.
The therapy works, and Alex becomes incapable of attempting violence without getting violently ill. He is released. He discovers that his parents have let out his room and they refuse to allow him to return. His former gang have joined the police force, and when they see he can't resist they beat him up.
Fleeing from his victims, Alex finds a home that lets him in. The writer who lives there, Mr. Alexander, is confined to a wheelchair. He explains that he was injured during a home invasion during which his wife was raped. Alex recognizes the man as his victim but is not recognized in return, because he was wearing a mask at the time. When the writer finds out that Alex is the subject of the Ludovico technique he wants to interview him so he an write about the governments use of this new technique, which the writer considers abusive.
While staying at the home Alex takes a long bath, and sings "Singing in the Rain" while doing so. The writer recognizes his voice and realizes Alex is the one who put him in the wheelchair and caused his wife to leave him. He and his nurse (played by David Prowse in the movie) drug Alex and put him in an upstairs room with Beethoven's 9th Symphony playing on loud speakers until Alex can't take it any more and jumps out of the window.
Alex's suicide attempt becomes a government scandal. He receives a full pardon and the scientists (somehow) reverse the Ludovico conditioning. Alex returns to his evil ways.
The UK version of the book includes as the final chapter a grown-up Alex who has become a good citizen after all. The American version and the Kubrick movie leave this part out, and the implication is that Alex will continue to do evil until he is caught again.
In the novel, A Clockwork Orange is given as the title of the manuscript Mr. Alexander is working on. A clockwork orange is an example of something being ruined for its main purpose. Replacing an orange with a clockwork orange makes it no longer edible. Late in the book Alex says that a person who can't choose to be good or evil is nothing more than a clockwork orange - no longer a person.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-17, 04:12 PM
In A Clockwork Orange (lengthy summary follows):
Alex is a teenager who runs a small gang. Their favorite activities involve drinking drug-laced milk and then mugging people, combined with a little rape and an occasional rumble with other gangs. Alex is fully capable of seducing girls without force (shown in a scene where he does just that with two girls at a record shop) and he is quite intelligent, but he likes violence and rape. His one redeeming trait is that he loves the music of Beethoven (and he has a pet snake in the movie that he does seem to care for, but partly because his parents don't like snakes and it keeps them out of his room where he keeps everything he's taken off of mugging victims). His parents are willfully oblivious to his activities.
During a home invasion one night Alex rapes a woman while singing "Singing in the Rain" with her husband listening, after having beaten him severely. This comes up again later.
Eventually Alex's gang decides they are tired of him bossing them around and decide to turn him in. During a home invasion robbery they knock Alex out and leave him for the police, after he has already beaten the woman who lives there. When the police catch him they determine that Alex killed the woman, and Alex gets a heavy prison sentence.
In prison Alex pretends to be an model inmate, but he's really just biding his time to get back to what he loves again. He hears of an experimental technique - the Ludovico technique - that will allow him to be released early, and he volunteers even though the prison priest advises him not to.
The Ludovico technique is a form of aversion therapy. The subject strapped down and has an apparatus on his eyes to prevent him from looking away from a movie screen. He is given injections that make him feel ill while scenes of violence play on the screen, accompanied by Beethoven music. Alex objects to having Beethoven played while he undergoes the therapy, because "he never did anything to anyone" but the scientists ignore his pleas.
The therapy works, and Alex becomes incapable of attempting violence without getting violently ill. He is released. He discovers that his parents have let out his room and they refuse to allow him to return. His former gang have joined the police force, and when they see he can't resist they beat him up.
Fleeing from his victims, Alex finds a home that lets him in. The writer who lives there, Mr. Alexander, is confined to a wheelchair. He explains that he was injured during a home invasion during which his wife was raped. Alex recognizes the man as his victim but is not recognized in return, because he was wearing a mask at the time. When the writer finds out that Alex is the subject of the Ludovico technique he wants to interview him so he an write about the governments use of this new technique, which the writer considers abusive.
While staying at the home Alex takes a long bath, and sings "Singing in the Rain" while doing so. The writer recognizes his voice and realizes Alex is the one who put him in the wheelchair and caused his wife to leave him. He and his nurse (played by David Prowse in the movie) drug Alex and put him in an upstairs room with Beethoven's 9th Symphony playing on loud speakers until Alex can't take it any more and jumps out of the window.
Alex's suicide attempt becomes a government scandal. He receives a full pardon and the scientists (somehow) reverse the Ludovico conditioning. Alex returns to his evil ways.
The UK version of the book includes as the final chapter a grown-up Alex who has become a good citizen after all. The American version and the Kubrick movie leave this part out, and the implication is that Alex will continue to do evil until he is caught again.
In the novel, A Clockwork Orange is given as the title of the manuscript Mr. Alexander is working on. A clockwork orange is an example of something being ruined for its main purpose. Replacing an orange with a clockwork orange makes it no longer edible. Late in the book Alex says that a person who can't choose to be good or evil is nothing more than a clockwork orange - no longer a person.

Ok. Now I understand the reference a little more.

Conradine
2020-12-17, 04:17 PM
Live and let live, not live and let murder. Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's harmful behavior that you do to other people. A neutral character may look the other side but a good character would only do nothing if that is all they can do.

I totally agree that Evil is an action, not a thought.

I don't agree that Evil must be always active.
Or even most of times.

If you kill someone, you're still a murderer even 1.000 years later.

Democratus
2020-12-17, 04:58 PM
Good characters have a mandate to protect the innocent and (especially when LG) punish those who harm the innocent.

Strongly disagree.

A crusader has a mandate to do all of that.

A person can be good and passive. Or good and cowardly. Or good and believe that each being must find good on their own or not find it at all - and that final judgment is rendered in the afterlife anyway. After all, this is a known fact of the D&D universe.

awa
2020-12-17, 05:08 PM
Strongly disagree.

A crusader has a mandate to do all of that.

A person can be good and passive. Or good and cowardly. Or good and believe that each being must find good on their own or not find it at all - and that final judgment is rendered in the afterlife anyway. After all, this is a known fact of the D&D universe.

Yeah a doctor who spend all their free time providing free/discount medical aid to the poor is not neutral because they don't attempt to physically stop a heavily armed criminal. That's basically declaring you can't be good unless you are also a better combatant than any evil in the vicinity (or I suppose you could be a martyr, that however is usually exceptional behavior not the minimum threshold for good.)

icefractal
2020-12-17, 06:00 PM
I think there's a big difference between tolerating evil acts (especially when you don't have the power to effectively stop them), and continued working with someone in a way that will make both of you more powerful, and thus make that person able to accomplish more evil.

That's if they're continuing to do evil stuff, mind. Could a good character be forgiving enough to work with a person who's done heinous stuff in the past, doesn't anymore, but hasn't really repented either? Sure.

Likewise, could they work with an evil character out of necessity for a while, and afterward things remain basically unchanged? Also sure.

But, "I'm going to achieve fame, fortune, and power - and I'll bring this small-time bully and abuser with me ... to become a rich, powerful bully and abuser who can single-handedly slaughter the entire town watch if it comes to that." Well, it seems pretty questionable. You're actually making the problem worse by doing so.

This is mainly an issue for RPGs with significant power growth, like D&D. But since a lot of RPGs fall into that category, it's pretty relevant.

awa
2020-12-17, 06:13 PM
I think there's a big difference between tolerating evil acts (especially when you don't have the power to effectively stop them), and continued working with someone in a way that will make both of you more powerful, and thus make that person able to accomplish more evil.

That's if they're continuing to do evil stuff, mind. Could a good character be forgiving enough to work with a person who's done heinous stuff in the past, doesn't anymore, but hasn't really repented either? Sure.

Likewise, could they work with an evil character out of necessity for a while, and afterward things remain basically unchanged? Also sure.

But, "I'm going to achieve fame, fortune, and power - and I'll bring this small-time bully and abuser with me ... to become a rich, powerful bully and abuser who can single-handedly slaughter the entire town watch if it comes to that." Well, it seems pretty questionable. You're actually making the problem worse by doing so.

This is mainly an issue for RPGs with significant power growth, like D&D. But since a lot of RPGs fall into that category, it's pretty relevant.

And if the evil person is evil because he gleefully tortures, villains who are significantly worse then him and only helps people because he loves being praised (but still helps them)?

What if they use to be more evil but a good aligned friend caused them to be better, still not good enough to be neutral but better. Lets say he convinced them not to perform their worst act, not because its evil, an argument evil pc is unimpressed with but because it upsets good pc personally and despite being evil he still does care about his friend.
Our good character knows that if they stop being friends the evil character will go back to his worst behavior and may pick up new ones without a good role-model.

Our good pc could try and force the issue but then the bigger evil wins, either because one of them dies or because the party splits up and they are less able to oppose the worse foe.

Jason
2020-12-17, 07:05 PM
Yeah a doctor who spend all their free time providing free/discount medical aid to the poor is not neutral because they don't attempt to physically stop a heavily armed criminal. That's basically declaring you can't be good unless you are also a better combatant than any evil in the vicinity (or I suppose you could be a martyr, that however is usually exceptional behavior not the minimum threshold for good.)

The doctor can be good if he doesn't try to stop evil in hand-to-hand combat. He isn't good if he doesn't try to stop evil with the tools and methods he does have.

Tvtyrant
2020-12-17, 07:10 PM
And if the evil person is evil because he gleefully tortures, villains who are significantly worse then him and only helps people because he loves being praised (but still helps them)?

What if they use to be more evil but a good aligned friend caused them to be better, still not good enough to be neutral but better. Lets say he convinced them not to perform their worst act, not because its evil, an argument evil pc is unimpressed with but because it upsets good pc personally and despite being evil he still does care about his friend.
Our good character knows that if they stop being friends the evil character will go back to his worst behavior and may pick up new ones without a good role-model.

Our good pc could try and force the issue but then the bigger evil wins, either because one of them dies or because the party splits up and they are less able to oppose the worse foe.

I mean, Achilles is evil by D&D standards. He was praised as being a superior athlete and combatant, but he killed people because he wanted to be famous. I doubt anyone would have a hard time working with Achilles beyond his child like moods, he doesn't have a political bone in him. He kills for fame and sides with the popular side.

The evil racist elves from Order of the Stick as well. They hate and kill goblins, and specifically kill them because they are goblins. This is no doubt evil; if you lived where there aren't goblins could you tell the difference between them and any other jerk? Like maybe they talk about Elves being the best a lot and how cruddy goblins are, but their evil would only come out in a scenario where you are already killing goblins.

How do you tell the difference between evil and a scummy neutral person except in specific scenarios?

awa
2020-12-17, 07:17 PM
I mean, Achilles is evil by D&D standards. He was praised as being a superior athlete and combatant, but he killed people because he wanted to be famous. I doubt anyone would have a hard time working with Achilles beyond his child like moods, he doesn't have a political bone in him. He kills for fame and sides with the popular side.

The evil racist elves from Order of the Stick as well. They hate and kill goblins, and specifically kill them because they are goblins. This is no doubt evil; if you lived where there aren't goblins could you tell the difference between them and any other jerk? Like maybe they talk about Elves being the best a lot and how cruddy goblins are, but their evil would only come out in a scenario where you are already killing goblins.

How do you tell the difference between evil and a scummy neutral person except in specific scenarios?

I'm not certain how this is relevant to my comment specificaly, but in regards to the larger argument it seems to support my general position that it is possible for a good person to be friends with an evil person.


The doctor can be good if he doesn't try to stop evil in hand-to-hand combat. He isn't good if he doesn't try to stop evil with the tools and methods he does have.

So your argument is that in the real world their are effectively no good people? I mean every one around me is living in a 1st world country not rushing to impoverished war zones to sacrifice their time and resources. Our doctor might be living in a war torn country treating the wounded as an aid worker but because hes only helping people not fixing systemic problems by himself he not "good" enough? The bar you have described is far to high the amount of people that can claim to have reached it are a rounding error. Their are two many evil acts occurring all over the world all the time, it is literally impossible to try and stop them all, and worse trying can easily cause even bigger problems.

Tvtyrant
2020-12-17, 07:19 PM
I'm not certain how this is relevant to my comment specificaly, but in regards to the larger argument it seems to support my general position that it is possible for a good person to be friends with an evil person.

"And if the evil person is evil because he gleefully tortures, villains who are significantly worse then him and only helps people because he loves being praised (but still helps them)?"

I was adding the example of Achilles as someone who is evil but in an acceptable way, and then included other examples of it. I'm in full agreement with you.

Jason
2020-12-17, 08:03 PM
So your argument is that in the real world their are effectively no good people? I mean every one around me is living in a 1st world country not rushing to impoverished war zones to sacrifice their time and resources. Our doctor might be living in a war torn country treating the wounded as an aid worker but because hes only helping people not fixing systemic problems by himself he not "good" enough? The bar you have described is far to high the amount of people that can claim to have reached it are a rounding error. Their are two many evil acts occurring all over the world all the time, it is literally impossible to try and stop them all, and worse trying can easily cause even bigger problems.Straw man. You are taking it to an extreme that I wasn't.

I don't personally spend all my time and resources traveling to war zones and helping people, but I do sacrifice a decent portion of my time and resources to charities that do go into war zones and disaster areas and help people.
Most of my time is spent raising a family and providing for them, which is itself a good action, so long as I am raising good kids and not villains (I'm doing my best). The job with which I provide for them involves a fair amount of doing good as well.

awa
2020-12-17, 08:29 PM
Straw man. You are taking it to an extreme that I wasn't.

I don't personally spend all my time and resources traveling to war zones and helping people, but I do sacrifice a decent portion of my time and resources to charities that do go into war zones and disaster areas and help people.
Most of my time is spent raising a family and providing for them, which is itself a good action, so long as I am raising good kids and not villains (I'm doing my best). The job with which I provide for them involves a fair amount of doing good as well.

so is a doctor in a warzone caring for the wounded good even though he is not using his position to smuggle out refugees? He not stopping the evil even though their is a chance he could succeed.

You are not stopping evil even though you could, that's fine it sounds like your a good man and it just shows how flawed the argument is. Lots of bad stuff happens in the world and it's not your job to fix it.

icefractal
2020-12-17, 08:51 PM
So your argument is that in the real world their are effectively no good people? I mean every one around me is living in a 1st world country not rushing to impoverished war zones to sacrifice their time and resources. Our doctor might be living in a war torn country treating the wounded as an aid worker but because hes only helping people not fixing systemic problems by himself he not "good" enough? The bar you have described is far to high the amount of people that can claim to have reached it are a rounding error. Their are two many evil acts occurring all over the world all the time, it is literally impossible to try and stop them all, and worse trying can easily cause even bigger problems.It's impossible to stop them all, but that doesn't mean there's no point doing anything about any of them. And again, there's a big difference between "not personally stop" and "actively support".

Also, I would say the majority of people are neutral. And even with an even split, only a third would be good. So if "most people" aren't Good by a given metric, that doesn't mean the metric is wrong.

hamishspence
2020-12-18, 01:16 AM
Strongly disagree.

A crusader has a mandate to do all of that.

"Protect innocent life" is in the basic 3.5 description of Good:


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

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

"Punishing those who harm the innocent" is more a LG thing, true:


Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Jason
2020-12-18, 09:06 AM
I can fight crime by reporting it when I see it, helping people secure their homes (like calling them when I see they left their garage open), and defending my own home. I don't have to spend all my time and money trying to become Batman and actively seeking out criminals to beat up in order to be considered good-aligned.

awa
2020-12-18, 09:25 AM
and if you live/ are in a country where the police are the ones doing the crime? Do you stop being good if all you do is help people rather than fix the problem? It sounds to me like only people who have it easy are allowed to be good in that system.

OldTrees1
2020-12-18, 09:25 AM
I can fight crime by reporting it when I see it, helping people secure their homes (like calling them when I see they left their garage open), and defending my own home. I don't have to spend all my time and money trying to become Batman and actively seeking out criminals to beat up in order to be considered good-aligned.

Which is one of the reasons why Good and Evil characters can get along.
A character can be good without stopping all evil within their sphere of influence.
A character can be good without perfect knowledge of the moral character of all the characters they interact with.
A character can be evil without doing all evil within their sphere of influence.

Therefore, even in the long term, good and evil characters have the possibility to get along. Specific examples might or might not get along, or anywhere in between. They might get along due to imperfect information. They might get along because characters are more than their alignment and the relationship does not require the good character to actively support the evil the evil character does, and the good characters is not required to stop all evil.

awa
2020-12-18, 09:29 AM
Which is one of the reasons why Good and Evil characters can get along.
A character can be good without stopping all evil within their sphere of influence.
A character can be good without perfect knowledge of the moral character of all the characters they interact with.
A character can be evil without doing all evil within their sphere of influence.
Therefore, even in the long term, good and evil characters have the possibility to get along. Specific examples might or might not get along, or anywhere in between.

yes, combined with the fact that people are exceptionally good at lying to themselves.
Think how many times a killer is found out and his friends and family say they couldn't imagine he would do this despite sometimes literally saying he was going to do that thing.

Jason
2020-12-18, 10:06 AM
Which is one of the reasons why Good and Evil characters can get along.
A character can be good without stopping all evil within their sphere of influence.
A character can be good without perfect knowledge of the moral character of all the characters they interact with.
A character can be evil without doing all evil within their sphere of influence.

Therefore, even in the long term, good and evil characters have the possibility to get along. Specific examples might or might not get along, or anywhere in between. They might get along due to imperfect information. They might get along because characters are more than their alignment and the relationship does not require the good character to actively support the evil the evil character does, and the good characters is not required to stop all evil.

But when we're talking about adventuring parties we're not talking about just tolerating or getting along in a community, we're talking about people actively helping one another towards their goals. If those goals are morally opposed it can't last. One side or the other will have to change their goals.

noob
2020-12-18, 10:24 AM
But when we're talking about adventuring parties we're not talking about just tolerating or getting along in a community, we're talking about people actively helping one another towards their goals. If those goals are morally opposed it can't last. One side or the other will have to change their goals.
No we were not talking about adventuring parties.
This is a roleplaying games thread not a dnd thread so there is a lot of interactions that are not "being in a party and murdering stuff" and you can go along people in contexts other than being in a murder group.
If you had to be in an adventuring party to get along with someone the title would not be "Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?" but would be "Can Good Characters Get Along with anything at all?" because adventuring parties are a fundamentally not good thing: you use physical power to impose your will over the other violently and get paid for violence.

If you are in an adventuring party you probably are evil.

awa
2020-12-18, 10:34 AM
But when we're talking about adventuring parties we're not talking about just tolerating or getting along in a community, we're talking about people actively helping one another towards their goals. If those goals are morally opposed it can't last. One side or the other will have to change their goals.

For an adventuring party are the goals in opposition or merely the methods?
Evil overlord want to destroy world, both want to stop this, its just the why and the how are different not the what.

Good I fight the evil overlord to save the people with no thought of reward.

Evil I fight the evil overlord because if he destroys the world where will I keep my stuff. Also I'm getting payed.

OldTrees1
2020-12-18, 10:36 AM
But when we're talking about adventuring parties we're not talking about just tolerating or getting along in a community, we're talking about people actively helping one another towards their goals. If those goals are morally opposed it can't last. One side or the other will have to change their goals.

As others mentioned some of the topic is about a more general case. However you were talking about adventuring parties and I think my statement holds after some elaboration.

Yes, we are talking about people actively helping one another towards some of their goals. However good and evil characters can have some goals that are not opposed, even if they have others that are opposed.

1) Just because the party travels together does not mean everyone is involved in every goal. The impatient barbarian and the studious dungeoneer might disagree about the dungeoneer's goal of studying trap #26. So the barbarian continues onward. Just because they had 1 opposed goal did not mean they had to come to conflict over it. The same is true for morally opposed goals, provided you agree that good characters don't need to stop ALL evil within their sphere of influence.

2) Just because there are opposed goals does not mean there are not shared goals that muddy the issue. When playing chess I have a shared goal of both of us having fun and an opposed goal of trying to win. The opposed goal does not always trump the shared goal.

There is a burning orphanage. The good character wants to save the orphans. The evil character wants to save their orphan friends and send a message to the arsonist. They work together to save the evil character's orphan friends, then the good character continues saving the other orphans while the evil character "sends a message" to the arsonist. After sending the "message" the evil character returns to save their good character friend who is still in the burning orphanage. They continue to fight crimes because the evil character wants to protect their good aligned good friend from getting in over their head. But the evil character continues other pursuits on their own time, including but not limited to, revenge whenever the criminal was unlucky enough to pick on the evil character's family/friends.

Democratus
2020-12-18, 11:20 AM
"Protect innocent life" is in the basic 3.5 description of Good:


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

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


And this is not the definition in the AD&D DMG. It says "Cruelty and suffering are undesirable" but does not demand that action be taken to resolve them. It only speaks to the general outlook of the individual, the "broad ethos of thinking" rather than an obligation to action.

There are many different definitions of good.

A god can be all powerful and good, yet still allow evil to happen - and even love those who perpetrate evil. It doesn't change the fact that the god is good. A personification of selfless love (whether a deity or a character) is good. And they can be entirely passive - allowing free will for all, even those who are evil - and still be good.

Jason
2020-12-18, 11:23 AM
No we were not talking about adventuring parties.
This is a roleplaying games thread not a dnd thread so there is a lot of interactions that are not "being in a party and murdering stuff" and you can go along people in contexts other than being in a murder group.
If you had to be in an adventuring party to get along with someone the title would not be "Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?" but would be "Can Good Characters Get Along with anything at all?" because adventuring parties are a fundamentally not good thing: you use physical power to impose your will over the other violently and get paid for violence.

If you are in an adventuring party you probably are evil.
It's a pretty safe assumption that when we're talking about RPGs and "characters" that we are talking about adventuring parties, whether that's a group of D&D dungeon delivers or a super hero team or a starship crew, or some other group.

Violence = Evil?
So the Order of the Stick is fundamentally evil simply because they regularly use violence?

Satinavian
2020-12-18, 11:29 AM
But when we're talking about adventuring parties we're not talking about just tolerating or getting along in a community, we're talking about people actively helping one another towards their goals. If those goals are morally opposed it can't last. One side or the other will have to change their goals.
But are these goals actually opposed instead of just not perfectly matching ?

What are typical motivators of evil characters :

- I want to get rich and live a life in luxury
- I want to get revenge and don't care about forgiveness
- I want to get famous because i am a selfimportant prick and my pride demands so
- I want my (country, family, order, etc) to triumph over their enemies and am not interested in who is in the right nor am i picky about the means

Motivator for evil is nearly never evl for evils sake. It is usually just about selfish goals and willingness to cut corners to get there. It is rather easy to evil and good PCs in the same party which each rather indifferent instead of opposed to each others goals.

A potential problem in a party are usually the means, not the ends.

Jason
2020-12-18, 04:09 PM
But are these goals actually opposed instead of just not perfectly matching ?If both sides maintain their alignment they will eventually have opposing goals. That's why I have maintained that you can only keep opposing alignments in a given party short-term. Even if they keep the same long-term goals, eventually they will disagree on the methods to be used, and whether the means justifies them.


Motivator for evil is nearly never evl for evils sake. It is usually just about selfish goals and willingness to cut corners to get there. It is rather easy to evil and good PCs in the same party which each rather indifferent instead of opposed to each others goals.
In fact I would say that nobody real is motivated purely for evil's sake. They just have twisted notions of what is acceptable to get what would could be considered good goals. RPGs can introduce creatures that are motivated out of pure evil, but then we're talking fantasy rather than reality. Even Sauron was motivated at the beginning by a desire for order - something good in and of itself.


A potential problem in a party are usually the means, not the ends.
I agree, the means will be the first difference of opinion to come up. It is precisely because the evil character won't care about how much collateral harm their plans cause that the good character will eventually have to object and decide that their alliance is not worth it anymore.

OldTrees1
2020-12-18, 04:26 PM
If both sides maintain their alignment they will eventually have opposing goals. That's why I have maintained that you can only keep opposing alignments in a given party short-term. Even if they keep the same long-term goals, eventually they will disagree on the methods to be used, and whether the means justifies them.

But since they are characters they will have many goals rather than just 1 goal. So while you maintain they will eventually have opposing goals, I will maintain that is not an insurmountable hurdle for their relationship.

1) The Impatient Barbarian and the Studious Dungeoneer have opposing goals when it comes to traps. The Barbarian wants to push onwards one the trap is bypassed. The Dungeoneer wants to study the trap. While those goals are opposed, the characters resolve that opposition by temporarily splitting. The Barbarian pushes on while the Dungeoneer stays behind and studies. They rejoin later.

2) The Impatient Barbarian and the Studious Dungeoneer have opposing goals when it comes to books on traps. The Barbarian does not want the Dungeoneer to read the book and the Dungeoneer wants to read the book. They resolve that opposition by the Dungeoneer reading the book and the Barbarian being okay with not getting everything they want. You did say good does not need to stop "all" evil in their sphere of influence.

3) The Impatient Barbarian and the Studious Dungeoneer having opposing goals when it comes to which quest to take next. But they have plenty of shared goals about sticking together. So they resolve the opposition by find a compromise that satisfies most of their goals rather than stubborning fight on 1 issue at the expense of multiple shared goals.

These examples have parallels when it comes to evil & good, but since those are broad categories, I am using these amoral examples to keep generalization in mind.

However for a concrete example:
A party adventures together. When they get back to town one character goes to spend time helping at the orphanage and another character goes to steal from a noble's house. They regroup the next day to head out on the next quest to protect their world.

awa
2020-12-18, 04:31 PM
If both sides maintain their alignment they will eventually have opposing goals. That's why I have maintained that you can only keep opposing alignments in a given party short-term. Even if they keep the same long-term goals, eventually they will disagree on the methods to be used, and whether the means justifies them.


In fact I would say that nobody real is motivated purely for evil's sake. They just have twisted notions of what is acceptable to get what would could be considered good goals. RPGs can introduce creatures that are motivated out of pure evil, but then we're talking fantasy rather than reality. Even Sauron was motivated at the beginning by a desire for order - something good in and of itself.


I agree, the means will be the first difference of opinion to come up. It is precisely because the evil character won't care about how much collateral harm their plans cause that the good character will eventually have to object and decide that their alliance is not worth it anymore.

That's making a lot of unfounded assumptions, a difference of opinion is not guaranteed to end a friendship particularly if their are considerable outside factors pushing them together. Second a person can be evil in one way but not in another. An evil character could care about collateral damage if their evil is focused in another area. Many threats are long term problems, that dont go away, if they are fighting to keep an immortal evil at bay the evil PC may always be the lesser of two evils.

OldTrees1
2020-12-18, 04:37 PM
Many threats are long term problems, that dont go away, if they are fighting to keep an immortal evil at bay the evil PC may always be the lesser of two evils.

Imagine if people teamed up IRL to try to save everyone from the eventual heat death of the universe. Talk about long term problems.

noob
2020-12-18, 04:55 PM
Imagine if people teamed up IRL to try to save everyone form the eventual heat death of the universe. Talk about long term problems.

I think it is a brilliant idea.
Maybe form a club for that?
I should have thought about recruiting people for that earlier.
But since you got that idea before I am willing to join any club you make for that even if I throw poor innocent small animals for no good reason and that meanwhile you are a good aligned paladin(in fact if you are it would make me even more willing to join).

Democratus
2020-12-21, 09:18 AM
Imagine if people teamed up IRL to try to save everyone from the eventual heat death of the universe. Talk about long term problems.

Steven Baxter (iirc) wrote a book about just this. :smallcool:

Jason
2020-12-21, 10:18 AM
It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
"I care about the welfare of others over my own" and "I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want" are ultimately irreconcilable positions.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-21, 10:29 AM
Well, does not ultimately caring about the welfare of others actually make evil? If adventurer A goes out and conducts his morally sanctioned goblin slaughter and spends the proceeds on a life of luxury without another thought to the condition of the world, he’s neutral.

If B goes out and does the same sanctioned murdering in the name of the quest giver, then builds a hospital with the proceeds, he’s good.

I doubt B is in an irreconcilable position with A.

And for fun, adventurer C is smarter than all of them and corners the magic item market, giving him wealth untold. Despite not being a stellar person, he devotes a tiny trickle of his wealth to things like charity, but this is still massive doing more good with a flick of his quill than adventurer A could do in a lifetime...what’s C?

OldTrees1
2020-12-21, 10:55 AM
It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
"I care about the welfare of others over my own" and "I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want" are ultimately irreconcilable positions.

When those times happen, they resolve it and continue on. There are several ways to resolve it and these rare conflicts might be insignificant to the overall moral character of both people involved. Additionally, since these conflicts are rare and have several resolutions, they are not necessarily an obstacle to the ongoing relationship.

Also those positions are not irreconcilable. If the Evil Rogue cares about the Good Paladin, then they might care about the Good Paladin getting what they want to some extent. The Evil Rogue does not care about the welfare of these "others" as long as they get what they want (including the Paladin being happy to some extent). Aka the welfare of these "others" is a means to an end for the Evil Rogue.

Satinavian
2020-12-21, 11:00 AM
It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
Yes. When a conflict arises, either one of the sides has to give ground ot both to reach a compromise.

Why should those people be unable to talk about their problems reach a solution and continue to work together ? Most PCs are adults and should behave as such.


I have seen such combinations being successfull over whole campaigns. Just to claim that that can't be somhow is not really convincing.

Jason
2020-12-21, 11:14 AM
Yes. When a conflict arises, either one of the sides has to give ground ot both to reach a compromise.

Why should those people be unable to talk about their problems reach a solution and continue to work together ? Most PCs are adults and should behave as such.


I have seen such combinations being successfull over whole campaigns. Just to claim that that can't be somhow is not really convincing.

The compromise will either be "I will stop hurting others" or "I will stop carrying that you're hurting others" at which point alignment shifts happen and we're no longer talking about good and evil characters.

Satinavian
2020-12-21, 11:16 AM
No, the compromise will be something solving the problem at hand without either having to change fundamentally how they feel about it.

Mastikator
2020-12-21, 11:27 AM
When those times happen, they resolve it and continue on. There are several ways to resolve it and these rare conflicts might be insignificant to the overall moral character of both people involved. Additionally, since these conflicts are rare and have several resolutions, they are not necessarily an obstacle to the ongoing relationship.

Also those positions are not irreconcilable. If the Evil Rogue cares about the Good Paladin, then they might care about the Good Paladin getting what they want to some extent. The Evil Rogue does not care about the welfare of these "others" as long as they get what they want (including the Paladin being happy to some extent). Aka the welfare of these "others" is a means to an end for the Evil Rogue.

I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality. Neutral characters and good characters can very easily get along. Turning away from evil doesn't happen overnight, and should not be readily trusted due to evil deception, but it happens when evil characters stop doing evil stuff.

Edit- That is not to say that the evil character isn't guilty of having committed evil deeds in the past, and may potentially desire to make up for or receive justice for their deeds.

awa
2020-12-21, 11:47 AM
their is an added complexity that different books much less different editions have different opinions on what constitutes good and evil. For an extreme example a pair of rogues who kill murderous tyrants and slavers but one uses sneak attack and the other sneak attack +plus poison.

In some versions that would enough to be the difference between good and evil right there.

Mastikator
2020-12-21, 12:06 PM
their is an added complexity that different books much less different editions have different opinions on what constitutes good and evil. For an extreme example a pair of rogues who kill murderous tyrants and slavers but one uses sneak attack and the other sneak attack +plus poison.

In some versions that would enough to be the difference between good and evil right there.

I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-21, 12:15 PM
The compromise will either be "I will stop hurting others" or "I will stop carrying that you're hurting others" at which point alignment shifts happen and we're no longer talking about good and evil characters.

Once again, we're back at "it depends what's your definition of Evil/Good".
Peoples earlier in the thread have argued that an Evil character stopping to do evil things but not feeling any regret or need for redemption from their past deeds will still be Evil.

In this case, the Good character might be content with the Evil one not doing evil stuff any more. And assuming that the Evil's character is never caught back by his past with peoples directly asking for reparation, this can last until the end of their respective life.


I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

I'd say it depends on the poison. A poison giving a quick an painless death would even be of a good (or at least less evil) alignment, while a poison giving a painful and horrible death would be of an evil alignment (similarly on how chemical weapons are war crimes IRL)

Mastikator
2020-12-21, 12:23 PM
I'd say it depends on the poison. A poison giving a quick an painless death would even be of a good (or at least less evil) alignment, while a poison giving a painful and horrible death would be of an evil alignment (similarly on how chemical weapons are war crimes IRL)

Being stabbed is pretty painful too, I say this as a victim of multiple papercuts. (mostly due to my own stupidity)

Jason
2020-12-21, 12:23 PM
I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.
Use of poison was evil in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D as well. Its not just a 3e concept. The idea seems to be that use of poison is the same as using excessive violence or that poison causes additional pain to the victim.

Mastikator
2020-12-21, 12:31 PM
Use of poison was evil in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D as well. Its not just a 3e concept. The idea seems to be that use of poison is the same as using excessive violence or that poison causes additional pain to the victim.

That standard is not applied to metal swords then? Because I bet being impaled by a sword hurts REALLY bad. If you're going in for the kill then why would it matter if you're implanting a sharp metal or a poison into someone's body by force? Either way you're killing them. Killing is maximum violence. The notion that poison causes additional pain is entirely dependent on the poison, it may just as well reduce their pain before death. Making it a small mercy. Axiomatically declaring it evil is missing the trees for the forest. Look at the act, not the category of the act. Poison is no more or less evil than swords.

Batcathat
2020-12-21, 12:35 PM
That standard is not applied to metal swords then? Because I bet being impaled by a sword hurts REALLY bad. If you're going in for the kill then why would it matter if you're implanting a sharp metal or a poison into someone's body by force? Either way you're killing them. Killing is maximum violence. The notion that poison causes additional pain is entirely dependent on the poison, it may just as well reduce their pain before death. Making it a small mercy. Axiomatically declaring it evil is missing the trees for the forest. Look at the act, not the category of the act. Poison is no more or less evil than swords.

I suspect this ties into the idea of poison being a "dishonorable" way of killing someone, in the same vein as stabbing someone in the back being considered more "dishonorable"/"evil" than stabbing them in the front.

Jason
2020-12-21, 12:46 PM
Once again, we're back at "it depends what's your definition of Evil/Good".
Peoples earlier in the thread have argued that an Evil character stopping to do evil things but not feeling any regret or need for redemption from their past deeds will still be Evil.

In this case, the Good character might be content with the Evil one not doing evil stuff any more. And assuming that the Evil's character is never caught back by his past with peoples directly asking for reparation, this can last until the end of their respective life.
In the D&D sense alignment is primarily descriptive. If you don't do evil acts then you're not evil. "Alignment inertia" from particularly heinous acts or lots of petty evil acts might keep you technically still evil for awhile, but if you stop doing evil acts or actively pursue good actions you will eventually shift to neutral on the good-evil axis. Good works much the same way.

Regret is a real-world consideration, and a DM would probably take it into account an absence of regret as well for when alignment shifts out of evil, but actions are the primary determinant of alignment.

Mastikator
2020-12-21, 12:47 PM
I suspect this ties into the idea of poison being a "dishonorable" way of killing someone, in the same vein as stabbing someone in the back being considered more "dishonorable"/"evil" than stabbing them in the front.

Maybe, but in that case Sneak Attacks should count as evil in the same way, as should coup de grace. But they don't. So the concept is morally bankrupt. It's arbitrary. Just ignore that rule, it has nothing to do with morality besides using the same vocabulary. It's not relevant to the discussion

Democratus
2020-12-21, 12:49 PM
Maybe, but in that case Sneak Attacks should count as evil in the same way, as should coup de grace. But they don't. So the concept is morally bankrupt. It's arbitrary. Just ignore that rule, it has nothing to do with morality besides using the same vocabulary. It's not relevant to the discussion

Wow. This is straight out of Villain Monologues 101! :smallcool:

"Your concepts of good and evil are meaningless. Just vocabulary you use to justify your actions!"

Satinavian
2020-12-21, 12:55 PM
I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.
D&D is full of arbitrary declarations of things to be good or evil.

But it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. In most editions the poison user of the party is evil, pings as such to detect alignment spells, gets the treatment from Holy word and smite etc.

And this is pretty much a typical example of an evil PC. Most evil PCs are evil in some particular way and if the rest of the group does not care about this particular thing, then there is no conflict. That may be poison use, undead use, demons for summon monster or any of a very long list of pretty arbitrary "Evil" actions. And usually there is no remorse whatsoever.

hamishspence
2020-12-21, 12:59 PM
In the D&D sense alignment is primarily descriptive. If you don't do evil acts then you're not evil. "Alignment inertia" from particularly heinous acts or lots of petty evil acts might keep you technically still evil for awhile, but if you stop doing evil acts or actively pursue good actions you will eventually shift to neutral on the good-evil axis.

"The kind of personality that is willing to do evil acts" is more important than the acts themselves.

Anyone who has recently come under the influence of a Morality Undone spell , for example, detects as evil and is vulnerable to spells that affect evil characters, and so forth, despite not having done anything (yet).

This is because their personality has been changed by the spell.

OldTrees1
2020-12-21, 01:00 PM
The compromise will either be "I will stop hurting others" or "I will stop carrying that you're hurting others" at which point alignment shifts happen and we're no longer talking about good and evil characters.

This contradicts your position that "good does not need to stop all evil within their sphere of influence".

The compromise would be "I will not hurt that person at this time" or "I will tolerate that you are hurting that person at this time". OR it might be instead "I will accept the minor setback to my goals caused by your moral sacrifice because that contributes to one of my other goals".

As you can see, the compromise to resolve the conflict could easily be a limited compromise that is insignificant to the overall moral character of either individual. "On the road we will follow this compromise, but when we get to town you will go to the food bank and I will fulfill some of my other goals. We will meet back at the inn the next day."


I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality. Neutral characters and good characters can very easily get along. Turning away from evil doesn't happen overnight, and should not be readily trusted due to evil deception, but it happens when evil characters stop doing evil stuff.

Edit- That is not to say that the evil character isn't guilty of having committed evil deeds in the past, and may potentially desire to make up for or receive justice for their deeds.

I suggest you think about the loved ones (including lesser loves like friends and allies) of Evil characters more often. Caring about a select few people is a common trait in the most vile characters. Neutral and Good characters also commonly have that trait. And caring about someone often includes adopting some of their ends as means towards keeping them happy. And I will agree it is a good place to start a redemption conversation, but it is not enough to indicate anything about the current moral character of the individual.

Especially given the subthread context about how the Good and Evil character don't do everything together. There are unspecified evil goals the evil character does when alone. Those were left unspecified because they were not germaine to Jason's argument.

awa
2020-12-21, 01:02 PM
Even if it is more painful I could easily imagine a good character disagreeing with but working alongside a man who used say mustard gas to defeat the army of darkness and would do so again if the situation was the same.

Heck the evil pc might even see the suffering as a plus, a maimed solider is worse for morale and logistics than a dead one. But the evil pc only brings out the "big guns" when their is a sufficiently significant threat in which case both good and evil they need to work together anyway. In-between armies of darkness the evil pc isn't doing evil things hes just not doing enough good things to change his alignment.

Batcathat
2020-12-21, 01:05 PM
Maybe, but in that case Sneak Attacks should count as evil in the same way, as should coup de grace. But they don't. So the concept is morally bankrupt. It's arbitrary. Just ignore that rule, it has nothing to do with morality besides using the same vocabulary. It's not relevant to the discussion

Oh, sure. I'm not saying that it's in any way applied consistently, but then again morality systems - whether fictional or not - rarely are, in my experience. The idea of poison being a "dishonorable" or "cowardly" weapon is the most reasonable explanation I can think of to classify it as evil.

awa
2020-12-21, 01:07 PM
also the meta reason that we want bad guys to use poison but dont want pcs to do the same

NichG
2020-12-21, 01:14 PM
It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
"I care about the welfare of others over my own" and "I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want" are ultimately irreconcilable positions.

That particular pair of motives is easily resolved:

Evil: I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want.
Good: I care about the welfare of others, including yours. I'll help you pursue what you want, but I'll sacrifice of my self in order to clean up after your actions so that the welfare of others isn't adversely affected along the way.

It's harder if Evil actively and specifically wants to damage the welfare of others, because then there's actual opposition in goals. But something where one person cares about something and the other is apathetic about it is called a good collaboration or division of labor.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-21, 01:18 PM
I suspect this ties into the idea of poison being a "dishonorable" way of killing someone, in the same vein as stabbing someone in the back being considered more "dishonorable"/"evil" than stabbing them in the front.

Isn't that chaoticness rather than evilness? That looks pretty LE to me to murder peoples but only in "honourable ways".

Mastikator
2020-12-21, 01:43 PM
Wow. This is straight out of Villain Monologues 101! :smallcool:

"Your concepts of good and evil are meaningless. Just vocabulary you use to justify your actions!"Most perceptive. I sense greatness in you, join me and we will bring order to the galaxy!

---

D&D is full of arbitrary declarations of things to be good or evil.

But it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. In most editions the poison user of the party is evil, pings as such to detect alignment spells, gets the treatment from Holy word and smite etc.

And this is pretty much a typical example of an evil PC. Most evil PCs are evil in some particular way and if the rest of the group does not care about this particular thing, then there is no conflict. That may be poison use, undead use, demons for summon monster or any of a very long list of pretty arbitrary "Evil" actions. And usually there is no remorse whatsoever.I'm not sure I'm ready to accept tradition as an excuse for declaring something as evil. I'll grant you that some poisons probably are cruel and therefore probably evil. If you won't grant me that some poisons reduce suffering and therefore less evil than straight up murder then we have no common ground on the definition on good and evil.
(I'm imagining a situation where poison is used as a non-lethal method of neutralizing a foe you do not wish to kill. That is morally superior to murdering them with swords/arrows. I'm not open to changing my mind on this)

---


Oh, sure. I'm not saying that it's in any way applied consistently, but then again morality systems - whether fictional or not - rarely are, in my experience. The idea of poison being a "dishonorable" or "cowardly" weapon is the most reasonable explanation I can think of to classify it as evil.
I can accept the notion that poisons are dishonorable, as long as we agree that morality and honor are not exactly the same. I'll concede that there is significant overlap between "honor" and "good"

Batcathat
2020-12-21, 01:54 PM
I can accept the notion that poisons are dishonorable, as long as we agree that morality and honor are not exactly the same. I'll concede that there is significant overlap between "honor" and "good"

Perhaps I should have made it clear that I wasn't actually arguing in favor of poison being dishonorable or evil, just suggesting that might be have been the reason for how it's treated in D&D. I don't really care much for the notion of "honorable" behavior myself and every time I see a hero unwilling to stab their enemy in the back or some other sensible tactic because it would "make us as bad as them" I want to slap them.

So yes, I agree that in the real world there is a lot of overlap between "honor" and "good" in that both are entirely subjective lables. In D&D "good" at least is an objective force, maybe "honorable" is as well?

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-21, 04:03 PM
Well, since the grand daddy of modern fantasy cut his teeth in WWI, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that several means were probably considered far more evil in fantastic re-telling than perhaps in actual medieval views.

Poison, in particular, would stand out for the obvious gas related reasons. Especially as fantasy “you seize up and die blade coating poison” wasn’t really a thing, whereas “you get really sick and might die in a few days” would be far more common, rendering it far less practical than the RPG version.

Quertus
2020-12-21, 06:11 PM
No, the compromise will be something solving the problem at hand without either having to change fundamentally how they feel about it.

Can people who don't understand compromise get along long term? Probably not.


I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality. Neutral characters and good characters can very easily get along. Turning away from evil doesn't happen overnight, and should not be readily trusted due to evil deception, but it happens when evil characters stop doing evil stuff.

Edit- That is not to say that the evil character isn't guilty of having committed evil deeds in the past, and may potentially desire to make up for or receive justice for their deeds.

I'm playing… the girlfriend from "the waterboy". I'll happily kill anyone who in any way disadvantages anyone I care about.

I'm in the party, I care about the party. Someone is in your way; I ask, "want me to kill them for you?". You say "no", I don't kill them.

And so I'm… somehow *not* psychotic evil, just because I care about your happiness?


their is an added complexity that different books much less different editions have different opinions on what constitutes good and evil. For an extreme example a pair of rogues who kill murderous tyrants and slavers but one uses sneak attack and the other sneak attack +plus poison.

In some versions that would enough to be the difference between good and evil right there.


I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.


That standard is not applied to metal swords then? Because I bet being impaled by a sword hurts REALLY bad. If you're going in for the kill then why would it matter if you're implanting a sharp metal or a poison into someone's body by force? Either way you're killing them. Killing is maximum violence. The notion that poison causes additional pain is entirely dependent on the poison, it may just as well reduce their pain before death. Making it a small mercy. Axiomatically declaring it evil is missing the trees for the forest. Look at the act, not the category of the act. Poison is no more or less evil than swords.

Is this a thread about evil, or [evil]?

Poison has pretty much always been [evil].

Many of my characters voice similar sentiments - dead is dead, and poison is often a much more *merciful* death.

So, if anyone cares, I just write "evil" on my character sheet, and don't have to worry about someone trying to change my alignment, and I can get back to role-playing my character.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-21, 07:56 PM
All of this leads to a sort of addendum answer to the original question:

Good and evil characters in a game will find it much harder to get along in the game world than they would in the real world. Partially because of our proclivity for keeping situations simple enough to game and tell, but probably in a large part because the moral situations are free of any and all consequence.

If a player party decides to challenge the Evil Warlord of Evils in the name of Good, there is a tacit expectation with many systems that this will result in a series of level appropriate encounters and their eventual triumph. If they decide to act in an altruistic or option restricting manner, they know it’ll all work out in the end. They will not suffer social opprobrium, or find that their version of Good isn’t wanted here. The GM will not have the Warlord of Evil decide to erase sixty hours of adventuring with an off handed flick and require you to roll new sheets, shrugging his shoulders and saying that’s why there’s not many Team Good Guys attacking Evil Man. And when you fight “honorably”, you might have a moldy tougher time, but won’t lose.

The reverse is also true of course: “Evil” parties don’t get curb stomped by a posse. And burning down that orphanage may prove you’re evil, but isn’t likely to have any consequences besides putting you against the do gooders you were already scripted to fight.

NPCs of course exist as the foil.

So it’s a world without consequence. All moral decisions exist solely and completely in the realm of people’s views on a matter unarbitrated by any connection to reality or effect - making it far less likely they’ll get along. The internet is of course an excellent example of how vehemently people with no actual skin in the game will fight over the smallest issues, let alone something as lofty as righteousness. You have the same effect on RPG-land.

Mastikator
2020-12-22, 01:51 AM
I'm playing… the girlfriend from "the waterboy". I'll happily kill anyone who in any way disadvantages anyone I care about.

I'm in the party, I care about the party. Someone is in your way; I ask, "want me to kill them for you?". You say "no", I don't kill them.

And so I'm… somehow *not* psychotic evil, just because I care about your happiness?

Cool strawman. Happily killing as a first resort to "disadvantage" is psychotically evil. That's capital E Evil.

The context you chose ignored here was that in the short term good and evil can co-exist. But not in the long term without one of them moving their alignment.

What you describe is a short term situation. What I was taking about was a long term situation. These are not the same.

A long term version of your strawman would be if the waterboy girlfriend asks "want me to kill them for you" and you say "no" and then you never kill anyone ever again. That's less evil. See how it makes sense if you just don't strawman someone?

OldTrees1
2020-12-22, 03:02 AM
Cool strawman. Happily killing as a first resort to "disadvantage" is psychotically evil. That's capital E Evil.

The context you chose ignored here was that in the short term good and evil can co-exist. But not in the long term without one of them moving their alignment.

What you describe is a short term situation. What I was taking about was a long term situation. These are not the same.

A long term version of your strawman would be if the waterboy girlfriend asks "want me to kill them for you" and you say "no" and then you never kill anyone ever again. That's less evil. See how it makes sense if you just don't strawman someone?

Um, while they did exaggerate your claim, their psycho is within the bounds of my generic example.

1) Wait, so they are "capital E Evil" and "less evil" at the same time? They are still happy to kill as a first resort to their partner being "disadvantaged". Hmm tangent*

2) I would point out that we can't assume that the psycho never kills again. They just don't do so in this type of circumstance. One of my main points to Jason was that characters can have morally significant behaviour that is outside of the multiple character conflicts. It seems you understand this can't be assumed, because you added the assumption as a qualifier.

3) Whether either side needs to move their alignment in the long term is currently being debated. I don't think it is unreasonable for quertus to not presume that premise. I am not presuming that premise either, they already could have been at a stable long term compromise.



* An interesting side thought with only tangential relevance. It might be an interesting but I did not think it worth a subthread.

When using descriptive alignment, we could be doing one of 2 things. In both cases we are assigning the alignment based upon the characterization of the character rather than vice versa. However we could be examining the past or the present. If we only consider past intent/action/consequence we get a picture of who they were. To consider the present we can consider how they would act now in various possible circumstances. These methods would say different things about this psycho. The past metric might see no murders. The present metric would still observe the psycho is willing to murder whenever their partner fails to say "no". The line gets blurry when we use a moral theory that considers intent to also be morally significant, but it seems like you were using an action or consequence based moral theory.

Mastikator
2020-12-22, 03:25 AM
Um, while they did exaggerate your claim, their psycho is within the bounds of my generic example.

1) Wait, so they are "capital E Evil" and "less evil" at the same time? They are still happy to kill as a first resort to their partner being "disadvantaged". Hmm tangent*

2) I would point out that we can't assume that the psycho never kills again. They just don't do so in this type of circumstance. One of my main points to Jason was that characters can have morally significant behaviour that is outside of the multiple character conflicts. It seems you understand this can't be assumed, because you added the assumption as a qualifier.

3) Whether either side needs to move their alignment in the long term is currently being debated. I don't think it is unreasonable for quertus to not presume that premise. I am not presuming that premise either, they already could have been at a stable long term compromise.



* An interesting side thought with only tangential relevance. It might be an interesting but I did not think it worth a subthread.

When using descriptive alignment, we could be doing one of 2 things. In both cases we are assigning the alignment based upon the characterization of the character rather than vice versa. However we could be examining the past or the present. If we only consider past intent/action/consequence we get a picture of who they were. To consider the present we can consider how they would act now in various possible circumstances. These methods would say different things about this psycho. The past metric might see no murders. The present metric would still observe the psycho is willing to murder whenever their partner fails to say "no". The line gets blurry when we use a moral theory that considers intent to also be morally significant, but it seems like you were using an action or consequence based moral theory.

No. The future and the now are not the "same time". I'll leave it at that. These strawman arguments only take away from the conversation.

OldTrees1
2020-12-22, 04:03 AM
No. The future and the now are not the "same time". I'll leave it at that. These strawman arguments only take away from the conversation.

I do not see how that response follows from my post. Quertus' psycho would still be willing to kill as a first resort to their partner being disadvantaged. In the past. In the present. In the future. If the partner ever fails to say "no", then the psycho will murder. However if you are closing this subthread on claims of strawmen, then I will conclude that you have not convinced me of your claim about my more general case of evil character that cares about a good character. That should neatly wrap up that subthread at its start.


I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality.

The evil character is still evil, even in the long term. I'll leave it at that.

Mastikator
2020-12-22, 05:23 AM
I do not see how that response follows from my post. Quertus' psycho would still be willing to kill as a first resort to their partner being disadvantaged. In the past. In the present. In the future. If the partner ever fails to say "no", then the psycho will murder. However if you are closing this subthread on claims of strawmen, then I will conclude that you have not convinced me of your claim about my more general case of evil character that cares about a good character. That should neatly wrap up that subthread at its start.



The evil character is still evil, even in the long term. I'll leave it at that.

Here's a personal challenge, see if you can find out how that response follows by re-reading and interpreting my previous posts. If you can do it you will probably be able to understand what I'm saying. Before that there isn't any point in having this conversation.

OldTrees1
2020-12-22, 05:50 AM
Here's a personal challenge, see if you can find out how that response follows by re-reading and interpreting my previous posts. If you can do it you will probably be able to understand what I'm saying. Before that there isn't any point in having this conversation.

The forum rules prohibit posters from claiming others misread or similar responses to point out a misunderstanding. As such my hands are severely tied if there was a miscommunication involved here.

However the forum does allow me to say I did reread your post, and the prior posts you were responding to. I reread them many times prior to posting the first time. And I did so again before posting this.

Quertus' psycho is a possible concrete example of my more general example. Both of those examples have characters that did not change their behaviour in the long term. So it seems strange for you to assign them different degrees of evil when they have not changed between your judgements. Yes the present and the future are not the same, but the characterization is the same at both points so the moral character of the character would be the same at both points.

Quertus' psycho would still be willing to kill as a first resort to their partner being disadvantaged. In the past. In the present. In the future. If the partner ever fails to say "no", then the psycho will murder. Given that invariant, it seemed odd that you assigned it 2 different judgements. You then replying that "present =/= future" did not follow from a question about a multiple contradictory judgements being assigned to a temporal invariant. That said, it was a question. I wanted to hear more of your reasoning after I clarified the the behavior was the same in the past/present/future. (Sidenote: If you read the footnote/aside then you will see one of my hypotheses for a difference. But that was meant to be totally optional reading.)

Quertus
2020-12-22, 06:38 AM
Cool strawman. Happily killing as a first resort to "disadvantage" is psychotically evil. That's capital E Evil.

The context you chose ignored here was that in the short term good and evil can co-exist. But not in the long term without one of them moving their alignment.

What you describe is a short term situation. What I was taking about was a long term situation. These are not the same.

A long term version of your strawman would be if the waterboy girlfriend asks "want me to kill them for you" and you say "no" and then you never kill anyone ever again. That's less evil. See how it makes sense if you just don't strawman someone?

Two years into the campaign, she's still asking, "want me to kill them for you", and you're still answering "no".

No change of moral stance on the part of either party, long-term coexistence.

Also, being an adventurer, she doubtless had kills aplenty in those two years. But, fine, between adventures with you, she could also have had an adventure with a party that said "yes" at least once. So even "and never kills again" needn't be true.

That should meet all of your criteria, and I'm not seeing your conclusion as valid.

Mastikator
2020-12-22, 08:35 AM
Two years into the campaign, she's still asking, "want me to kill them for you", and you're still answering "no".

No change of moral stance on the part of either party, long-term coexistence.

Also, being an adventurer, she doubtless had kills aplenty in those two years. But, fine, between adventures with you, she could also have had an adventure with a party that said "yes" at least once. So even "and never kills again" needn't be true.

That should meet all of your criteria, and I'm not seeing your conclusion as valid.

Then I'm not seeing the other as good in that scenario. I mean you can stipulate that he's good "just because", and that he likes her "just because" but at that point you're really just hollowing out the meaning of calling someone good. He has to consistently do good, consistently make a big effort to avoid doing evil (nobody is perfect, but trying is important).

Are we talking about actual characters, either real people or PCs that could play out in an actual game? The scenario you set up strains credulity

Democratus
2020-12-22, 08:59 AM
He has to consistently do good, consistently make a big effort to avoid doing evil (nobody is perfect, but trying is important).

That's not the only definition of good. And it is clearly not the one being used by many posters here.

We circle back to the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of "good" and "evil" in this thread. Thus many posts talk right past each other.

Frankly, I think the question has been definitively answered. A parent/child relationship is an excellent example of people who will get along for very long periods of time despite drastic differences in disposition or world view.

There exist relationships so strong that they are beyond the good/evil divide.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-22, 08:44 PM
That is a very poorly understood version of evil. You present any and all evil to be extremely backstab corruption feral animal instinct type characters. That is only an extreme form of CE.

The mafia hitman care about the family and honors the deals of the ruling member.

The corrupt politician does whatever he can be any means necessary for his town and himself. He isn't 100% sum-o-wich evil.

Both of these are evil but can easily work with a party of PCs. The good PCs just don't like them. But they get along.

No. Because they only work with good to serve their own devices.

Evil only cares about itself. By definition. Try and tell me about any evil character that didn't have selfish motives.

Give me one.

I like Darth Vader, but his selfish motive was Luke. It allowed him to betray the Emperor.

Hannibal Lecter was sound. Clarice and his love for her was selfish.

Certainly the Joker was exempt. But, his love of Batman and what he represented was selfish.

Verbal Kint and his respect for Dean Keaton. It shaped how he dealt with Agent Kuyan. Kaiser respected Keaton's love of Edie. He used it to manipulate him.

There's no such thing as an evil character that has nobel motivations.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-22, 09:00 PM
Talk about evil as a stand alone aspect. How do good characters deal with it?

How can I, trying to help people, deal with someone only interested in themselves? How does evil say " yeah, let's help these people", while focusing on themselves

How does evil work?

OldTrees1
2020-12-22, 09:27 PM
No. Because they only work with good to serve their own devices.

Evil only cares about itself. By definition. Try and tell me about any evil character that didn't have selfish motives.

Give me one.

I like Darth Vader, but his selfish motive was Luke. It allowed him to betray the Emperor.

Hannibal Lecter was sound. Clarice and his love for her was selfish.

Certainly the Joker was exempt. But, his love of Batman and what he represented was selfish.

Verbal Kint and his respect for Dean Keaton. It shaped how he dealt with Agent Kuyan. Kaiser respected Keaton's love of Edie. He used it to manipulate him.

There's no such thing as an evil character that has nobel motivations.


Talk about evil as a stand alone aspect. How do good characters deal with it?

How can I, trying to help people, deal with someone only interested in themselves? How does evil say " yeah, let's help these people", while focusing on themselves

How does evil work?

It sounds like you are claiming "If a character cares about even a single other individual, then they can't be Evil".

So if a character has a loved one (child, sibling, parent, partner) that they care about, they can't be Evil?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes And sometimes that is genuine love.

Mr Freeze is primarily motivated by his love for Nora Fries. Your claim would hold that because he cares about someone beyond himself, therefore he can't be Evil regardless of the murders. I do not agree with that line of logic.

This is not to say Evil does not care about itself. Even Good cares about itself. However, like Good, Evil can care about things other than itself.

How does evil work? They have motivations. Some of those motivations can be caring for another person. Some of those motivations are self interested. How can you deal with someone with motivations? Find ways to align the task with their motivations.


To beat a dead horse here are some more examples of Evil caring about another person:
Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender loves her father.
Xanatos from Gargoyles loves Foxx, "at least as much as anyone as smart as either of them can love another person", and both of them love their baby Alexander.
Cheshire from Young Justice cares about her sister Artemis .
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 cares about his daughter Tora Ziyal.

Lord Raziere
2020-12-22, 11:29 PM
No. Because they only work with good to serve their own devices.

Evil only cares about itself. By definition. Try and tell me about any evil character that didn't have selfish motives.

Give me one.

I like Darth Vader, but his selfish motive was Luke. It allowed him to betray the Emperor.

Hannibal Lecter was sound. Clarice and his love for her was selfish.

Certainly the Joker was exempt. But, his love of Batman and what he represented was selfish.

Verbal Kint and his respect for Dean Keaton. It shaped how he dealt with Agent Kuyan. Kaiser respected Keaton's love of Edie. He used it to manipulate him.

There's no such thing as an evil character that has nobel motivations.

Ahem.....if I may start listing characters that are both evil but either have noble intentions, loved ones or are well intentioned extremists:
Ozymandias, Lelouch vi Britannia, Artorius Collbrande, Lord Yggdrasil, Nagato, Obito, Madara, Itachi Uchiha, Claudia from Dragon Prince, Kiritsugu Emiya, Artemis Fowl at first, Asgore, Blunt from Freefall, Prosecutor Godot, Damon Gant, Miles Edgeworth at first, Stain, Mewtwo and N from Pokemon, all the villains of TTGL, V from V for Vendetta, Dr. Halsey from Halo, Ganondorf (his original motive was to free the Gerudo from the desert), Van Grants, The Lord Ruler, and of course one of the originals: Magneto.

why list only one when I can provide as much evidence as I possibly can?

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-23, 07:24 PM
It sounds like you are claiming "If a character cares about even a single other individual, then they can't be Evil".

So if a character has a loved one (child, sibling, parent, partner) that they care about, they can't be Evil?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes And sometimes that is genuine love.

Mr Freeze is primarily motivated by his love for Nora Fries. Your claim would hold that because he cares about someone beyond himself, therefore he can't be Evil regardless of the murders. I do not agree with that line of logic.

This is not to say Evil does not care about itself. Even Good cares about itself. However, like Good, Evil can care about things other than itself.

How does evil work? They have motivations. Some of those motivations can be caring for another person. Some of those motivations are self interested. How can you deal with someone with motivations? Find ways to align the task with their motivations.


To beat a dead horse here are some more examples of Evil caring about another person:
Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender loves her father.
Xanatos from Gargoyles loves Foxx, "at least as much as anyone as smart as either of them can love another person", and both of them love their baby Alexander.
Cheshire from Young Justice cares about her sister Artemis .
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 cares about his daughter Tora Ziyal.
Nice examples I'm sure that only make my point: evil characters are self-serving regardless of who they love. They use love as justification for the evil they do. Please stop trying to equate evil to good. They cannot be expressed in a moral way as "the same".

Evil breaks moral laws to accomplish itself. Good fulfills moral laws.


Ahem.....if I may start listing characters that are both evil but either have noble intentions, loved ones or are well intentioned extremists:
Ozymandias, Lelouch vi Britannia, Artorius Collbrande, Lord Yggdrasil, Nagato, Obito, Madara, Itachi Uchiha, Claudia from Dragon Prince, Kiritsugu Emiya, Artemis Fowl at first, Asgore, Blunt from Freefall, Prosecutor Godot, Damon Gant, Miles Edgeworth at first, Stain, Mewtwo and N from Pokemon, all the villains of TTGL, V from V for Vendetta, Dr. Halsey from Halo, Ganondorf (his original motive was to free the Gerudo from the desert), Van Grants, The Lord Ruler, and of course one of the originals: Magneto.

why list only one when I can provide as much evidence as I possibly can?
Nice list but evil still remains evil.

Lord Raziere
2020-12-23, 07:58 PM
Nice examples I'm sure that only make my point: evil characters are self-serving regardless of who they love. They use love as justification for the evil they do. Please stop trying to equate evil to good. They cannot be expressed in a moral way as "the same".

Evil breaks moral laws to accomplish itself. Good fulfills moral laws.


Nice list but evil still remains evil.

Yes evil is evil. this is not something we disagree on.

what we disagree on is love and selflessness being inherently good. to use some of the better examples of my list:

Blunt is a robot who believes that robots are dangerous to humanity- and is fully willing to die along with the rest of the robots to protect humanity. he is an extremist who has no illusions that his extremism will lead to his own doom and accepts its as the price to pay for whats really important to him. he is a martyr to his cause, completely selfless, denying even his own survival instinct the most basic of needs so that he can do this- he is as selfless as one can possibly be. and its completely wrong because robots in Freefall while obedient to humanity are sapient like anyone else. he is not a hypocrite secretly wanting others to die while he remains alive, he is not wishing to secretly control all other robots to take over, he is completely genuine in his solution of destroying robots to save humanity.

Claudia uses dark evil magic to sacrifice a living creature to bring back her brother, then uses it again to bring back her father who is acting as an evil vizier taking over their country from its rightful one the whole time, simply because she loves them, as well tricking her brother with an illusion. her love and loyalty to her family is actually a bad thing as its blinds her to the actual good she has been set against, putting her father's wellbeing before her own and everyone elses.

Itachi Uchiha did nothing but do things for the sake of the greater good: he killed almost his entire family to prevent a civil war and became known as a mass murderer and criminal because of it, so he infiltrated a criminal organization afterwards to hopefully figure out their plan so that he could tell everyone what they're up to, but then mentally tortured the brother he loved to make him want to kill him so that he could die for what he done by the hands of his own brother. again he is a martyr who believes he should die for what he has done- and does because he has an illness, but after his death his actions only cause things to go off the rails from what he intended.

evil is evil but evil =/= selfish or incapable of love. there are many ways love, martyrdom and seemingly selfless causes can be completely wrong and twisted as selfishness.

OldTrees1
2020-12-23, 09:39 PM
Nice examples I'm sure that only make my point: evil characters are self-serving regardless of who they love. They use love as justification for the evil they do. Please stop trying to equate evil to good. They cannot be expressed in a moral way as "the same".

Evil breaks moral laws to accomplish itself. Good fulfills moral laws.


Nice list but evil still remains evil.

Evil still remains evil and evil is not good. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that evil characters are people and they can love. They can care about more than "just themselves".

Evil is willing to break moral laws to accomplish its ends. But they can have selfless ends. You called this "they use love as a justification for the evil they do" but the actual examples underlines my point that they can care about people beyond themselves.

Mr Freeze has done more evil in his pursuit of the selfless end of saving Nora Fries than he did for the selfish ends of self preservation.

Evil characters are not aliens. They can love. They can have selfless ends. But they are willing to use immoral means to accomplish those ends.

Jason
2020-12-24, 01:55 PM
Evil still remains evil and evil is not good. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that evil characters are people and they can love. They can care about more than "just themselves".

Evil is willing to break moral laws to accomplish its ends. But they can have selfless ends. You called this "they use love as a justification for the evil they do" but the actual examples underlines my point that they can care about people beyond themselves.

Mr Freeze has done more evil in his pursuit of the selfless end of saving Nora Fries than he did for the selfish ends of self preservation.

Evil characters are not aliens. They can love. They can have selfless ends. But they are willing to use immoral means to accomplish those ends.

Mr. Freeze is evil because he values the life of Nora Fries above that of anyone else. It's an unhealthy obsession, and ultimately a selfish one. He values her life because she belonged to him, as his wife.

icefractal
2020-12-24, 03:24 PM
I just don't think the evil = selfish thing holds up as a rule. Yes, the majority of evil characters are selfish, but there are a number of archetypes which are evil without that. For example:
* Honest believer in an evil ideology - Bob believes that Nurgle is the true path, and goes around spreading disease to lead people to salvation.
* Champions one group over others to an evil extent - Richard is the mayor of a small town, and really cares about it. Cares about it so much that he'll poison the wells of other towns that threaten to compete economically, he'll assassinate people and kick off civil unrest that kills thousands more so that a king friendly to his town takes the throne, and if necessarily he'll sacrifice innocent people to demons for the necessary power to protect it. You could call this "selfish" because he personally cares about the town, but by that metric most heroes are selfish too.
* Self-destructive - Lord Edge hasn't felt anything but emptiness since what happened to his family. He lashes out at the world not because that helps him (it really doesn't, he's been on the run for years as a result), not even because he enjoys it (only emptiness, as mentioned), but because nobody else deserves happiness either.

Jason
2020-12-24, 05:14 PM
I just don't think the evil = selfish thing holds up as a rule. Yes, the majority of evil characters are selfish, but there are a number of archetypes which are evil without that. For example:
* Honest believer in an evil ideology - Bob believes that Nurgle is the true path, and goes around spreading disease to lead people to salvation.
Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.

* Champions one group over others to an evil extent - Richard is the mayor of a small town, and really cares about it. Cares about it so much that he'll poison the wells of other towns that threaten to compete economically, he'll assassinate people and kick off civil unrest that kills thousands more so that a king friendly to his town takes the throne, and if necessarily he'll sacrifice innocent people to demons for the necessary power to protect it. You could call this "selfish" because he personally cares about the town, but by that metric most heroes are selfish too.I do call that selfish. Actively destroying other towns is a bit more selfish than a friendly competition between villages.

* Self-destructive - Lord Edge hasn't felt anything but emptiness since what happened to his family. He lashes out at the world not because that helps him (it really doesn't, he's been on the run for years as a result), not even because he enjoys it (only emptiness, as mentioned), but because nobody else deserves happiness either.This type of evil is selfish because they are desiring others to suffer as they are suffering.

Selfishness is in fact a pretty good metric for evil.

Batcathat
2020-12-24, 05:42 PM
Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.

Doesn't "believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not" describe a lot of paladins and other do-gooders as well, though? Not all of them, certaintly, but some of them.

Jason
2020-12-24, 05:59 PM
Doesn't "believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not" describe a lot of paladins and other do-gooders as well, though? Not all of them, certaintly, but some of them.
Sometimes, sure.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-24, 06:42 PM
Yes evil is evil. this is not something we disagree on.

what we disagree on is love and selflessness being inherently good. to use some of the better examples of my list:

Blunt is a robot who believes that robots are dangerous to humanity- and is fully willing to die along with the rest of the robots to protect humanity. he is an extremist who has no illusions that his extremism will lead to his own doom and accepts its as the price to pay for whats really important to him. he is a martyr to his cause, completely selfless, denying even his own survival instinct the most basic of needs so that he can do this- he is as selfless as one can possibly be. and its completely wrong because robots in Freefall while obedient to humanity are sapient like anyone else. he is not a hypocrite secretly wanting others to die while he remains alive, he is not wishing to secretly control all other robots to take over, he is completely genuine in his solution of destroying robots to save humanity.

Claudia uses dark evil magic to sacrifice a living creature to bring back her brother, then uses it again to bring back her father who is acting as an evil vizier taking over their country from its rightful one the whole time, simply because she loves them, as well tricking her brother with an illusion. her love and loyalty to her family is actually a bad thing as its blinds her to the actual good she has been set against, putting her father's wellbeing before her own and everyone elses.

Itachi Uchiha did nothing but do things for the sake of the greater good: he killed almost his entire family to prevent a civil war and became known as a mass murderer and criminal because of it, so he infiltrated a criminal organization afterwards to hopefully figure out their plan so that he could tell everyone what they're up to, but then mentally tortured the brother he loved to make him want to kill him so that he could die for what he done by the hands of his own brother. again he is a martyr who believes he should die for what he has done- and does because he has an illness, but after his death his actions only cause things to go off the rails from what he intended.

evil is evil but evil =/= selfish or incapable of love. there are many ways love, martyrdom and seemingly selfless causes can be completely wrong and twisted as selfishness.
You don't have to explain love as a selfish pleasure.

Hannibal Lecter is evil, but he expressed a deep love for Clarice that broke his evil nature.

Darth Vader is evil, but he expressed a deep love for Luke that broke his evil nature.

I'm not saying evil characters can't possibly amend themselves, but I am saying without that amending character that makes them change their ways, they are evil.

They need a reason to change. If you don't provide it, the adventure has no reason to change gears.

Bartmanhomer
2020-12-24, 06:47 PM
What about when Kylo kissed Rey? They expressed their love for each other in the Star Wars movies.

Lord Raziere
2020-12-24, 07:51 PM
Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.
I do call that selfish. Actively destroying other towns is a bit more selfish than a friendly competition between villages.
This type of evil is selfish because they are desiring others to suffer as they are suffering.

Selfishness is in fact a pretty good metric for evil.

I dunno thats really stretching the definition there:


self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

note the lacking of consideration for others. these characters are all about considering others and how other peoples profit or pleasure, they are just wrong about how to do that properly or want those people to not profit or be pleased. they are considering other people in a negative way. thats not technically selfish. "everyone needs more pain their life to be happy" is not a selfish motivation, because your thinking about other people at all and how they can be benefited, but is still evil because it implies inflicting pain. negative consideration =/= seflishness.

OldTrees1
2020-12-24, 10:52 PM
Mr. Freeze is evil because he values the life of Nora Fries above that of anyone else. It's an unhealthy obsession, and ultimately a selfish one. He values her life because she belonged to him, as his wife.

You might want to learn more about Mr. Freeze. He values her life because he cares for her. It is not this twisted possessive love you are claiming it is. Yes, he is evil because he values her life above that of anyone else, and is willing to kill others to help her. However it is not selfish. Mr. Freeze has willingly lost almost everything merely to fail to save a woman that he cares about. However I will agree that it is unhealthy, Mr Freeze cannot save Nora Fries, and so the struggle to achieve this impossible selfless end is an unhealthy goal.

However if you don't like the Mr. Freeze example, take your pick of the countless selfless loves that various evil characters have had. I linked to tv tropes for a reason. It is common enough to be a trope, or even a cliché.

Using evil means to accomplish a selfless end is evil. It is okay to accept that evil people are people and thus can also care for others. Likewise, having 1 genuine loving relationship does not offset evil deeds the character does elsewhere. It is okay to accept that evil people are people and thus can also care for others.

Quertus
2020-12-25, 11:26 AM
Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.
I do call that selfish. Actively destroying other towns is a bit more selfish than a friendly competition between villages.
This type of evil is selfish because they are desiring others to suffer as they are suffering.

Selfishness is in fact a pretty good metric for evil.

By this logic, I fear that everyone is selfish. And therefore, everyone is evil.

I think most would contend that it's what one is willing to *do* about one's more selfish desires that demarks one's position on the spectrum of evil.

Tanarii
2020-12-25, 11:37 AM
These discussions always remind me that people bring so much personal morality into discussions about Alignments. But one of the biggest is how they view the 'line' of where to put good and evil on a sliding scale.

Some folks seem to feel if you're not, say, 90% Good (capital G) most of the time you're not good. Sometimes that's paired with 90% Evil (cap E) is evil. Alternately, it's can be paired with one truly Evil (cap E) damns you forever, or Fall From Grace thinking. Regardless, all that middle ground stuff apparently doesn't count. These folks may even feel that a sliding scale doesn't exist for morality.

Others seem be be more in like a sliding scale of behavior where 0-33% is evil, 34-67% is neutral, and 68+ is good. All the middle space counts.

Then on top of that, there is good or evil being about specific actions having good or evil "weight", or overall behavior with no individual actions having alignment "weight". If you're playing D&D 3e for example it's the former. In D&D 5e it's the latter.

OldTrees1
2020-12-25, 12:32 PM
These discussions always remind me that people bring so much personal morality into discussions about Alignments. But one of the biggest is how they view the 'line' of where to put good and evil on a sliding scale.

Some folks seem to feel if you're not, say, 90% Good (capital G) most of the time you're not good. Sometimes that's paired with 90% Evil (cap E) is evil. Alternately, it's can be paired with one truly Evil (cap E) damns you forever, or Fall From Grace thinking. Regardless, all that middle ground stuff apparently doesn't count. These folks may even feel that a sliding scale doesn't exist for morality.

Others seem be be more in like a sliding scale of behavior where 0-33% is evil, 34-67% is neutral, and 68+ is good. All the middle space counts.

Then on top of that, there is good or evil being about specific actions having good or evil "weight", or overall behavior with no individual actions having alignment "weight". If you're playing D&D 3e for example it's the former. In D&D 5e it's the latter.

A good elaboration. The more polarized you make the minimum conditions, the less likely the two characters are to get along, and the shorter the duration they will tolerate each other. Make it polarized enough and the characters might only get along for a short coffee break every week rather than joint quests with a day of downtime in between.

Tanarii
2020-12-25, 12:39 PM
A good elaboration. The more polarized you make the minimum conditions, the less likely the two characters are to get along, and the shorter the duration they will tolerate each other. Make it polarized enough and the characters might only get along for a short coffee break every week rather than joint quests with a day of downtime in between.Yup. Another way of putting it:

A saint might try to redeem a baby murderer, but probably won't get along with them.

But someone that occasionally gives money to help the poor might get along fine with someone that regularly five finger discounts at the local store.

Some people won't see the latter as good and evil, because it's not Good and Evil like the former. So to speak.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-25, 12:47 PM
Evil still remains evil and evil is not good. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that evil characters are people and they can love. They can care about more than "just themselves".

Evil is willing to break moral laws to accomplish its ends. But they can have selfless ends. You called this "they use love as a justification for the evil they do" but the actual examples underlines my point that they can care about people beyond themselves.

Mr Freeze has done more evil in his pursuit of the selfless end of saving Nora Fries than he did for the selfish ends of self preservation.

Evil characters are not aliens. They can love. They can have selfless ends. But they are willing to use immoral means to accomplish those ends.
And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.

OldTrees1
2020-12-25, 01:10 PM
And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.

I would not use absolutes, but I agree that, as a rule of thumb, this is an obstacle to overcome.

If Person A adopts some of Person B's ends as ends because they are Person B's ends, that can help.
If Person A adopts some of Person B's ends as means to Person A's end of improving/maintaining Person B's well being, that can help.
If Person A adopts some of Person B's ends as means of continuing to receive Person B's support towards some of Person A's ends, that can help.

Those are 3 (there might be more) foundations for a long term relationship (family, partner, friend, ally, etc). While I would classify the 1st and 2nd as forms of love, the 3rd is primarily self serving.

However you will notice that these amoral reasons for cooperation are usually only brought up about evil characters. Evil needs a reason to truly cooperate because the don't see that as an inherent end in itself. Certain evil characters will have reasons to cooperate (maybe even one of these reasons), but the cooperation hinges on there being a reason.

An aside:
Of course there is also the rare evil that is completely selfless and tragically mistaken about morality. They have tragically mistaken beliefs about morality, but are trying to do what they believe is right for the sake of everyone. That kind of evil is primarily selfless rather than self serving. I am fine ignoring these exceptions for now.

icefractal
2020-12-25, 05:00 PM
These discussions always remind me that people bring so much personal morality into discussions about Alignments. But one of the biggest is how they view the 'line' of where to put good and evil on a sliding scale.
I think trying to determine it based only on a single factor (like net impact on the world, or single worst action taken) is always going to hit edge cases and not very well match what most people think of as good/evil people.

If I was trying to calculate an "alignment rating" based on actions, it would probably have these all as contributing factors:
* Net impact on the world
* Best action taken
* Worst action taken
* Threshold to commit notably evil acts (like, stabbing someone to save your child's life vs stabbing someone to get a nicer car).
* Frequency of good vs evil acts

And that's even assuming there was a concrete definition of how good / evil a given act was. The point is that it's complicated and philosophers have tried and failed to pin down a universal definition for millennia.

For which reason I wouldn't put alignment in a TTRPG at all, TBH. But even if it weren't there, the basic question would still remain - given that not all characters would work together, to what extent should people elide that for the sake of gameplay vs revising the characters for a better fit?

Quertus
2020-12-25, 05:40 PM
And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.

Thank you for pointing out why that has several times been exactly my example, as part of my insistence that they absolutely can get along.

That they sometimes can't for certain configurations of individual good and evil characters is completely irrelevant to the fact that some of them can.

Tanarii
2020-12-25, 05:56 PM
And that's even assuming there was a concrete definition of how good / evil a given act was. The point is that it's complicated and philosophers have tried and failed to pin down a universal definition for millennia.
Probably why 5e ditched the idea of good or evil acts pretty much completely, and instead went with typical, but not consistent required, associated behavior instead.

Which is why when combined with the rest of the personality system, it's the best and most useful D&D alignment system yet.

Conradine
2020-12-28, 11:29 AM
Although it's difficult to draw a clear line in the grey zone, I think some actions are unquestionably Evil, with no need of great knowledge of philosophy or theology.

To inflict grievous harm and suffering for pure pleasure is Evil, clear cut.

NichG
2020-12-28, 11:38 AM
Although it's difficult to draw a clear line in the grey zone, I think some actions are unquestionably Evil, with no need of great knowledge of philosophy or theology.

To inflict grievous harm and suffering for pure pleasure is Evil, clear cut.

You've included both action and motivation here though. Could you draw such a line for an act where grievous harm and suffering are the result but where you don't know why that act was committed? For example, if it could be for pleasure, rage, sense of duty, sense of justice, utilitarian calculation, lack of control due to mental illness, total ignorance of the consequences, or even as a result of being actively deceived, but you can't tell.

For what it's worth, in all cases I'd probably still consider the person dangerous to their community, which is a function that judgement about evil can serve for a society. But I'd expect many moral systems to say 'someone not in control of their own actions can't be morally responsible for those actions'.

Democratus
2020-12-28, 11:41 AM
Although it's difficult to draw a clear line in the grey zone, I think some actions are unquestionably Evil, with no need of great knowledge of philosophy or theology.

Actions are not, in and of themselves, evil or good.

Some motivations can be unquestionably Evil.

Duff
2020-12-28, 08:52 PM
A lot of the "no" answers seem to assume a person who will tolerate evil is not good, and/or a person who's evil is always being evil.
I don't think either of those apply, neither by D&D alignments nor by real world morality.

In the real world, not tolerating a moderate amount of evil is often impractical -
We vote for the less corrupt politician rather than devote ourselves to getting someone who isn't corrupt into power because that would take over our life
We work for the company that does whatever dodgy stuff they can get away with because we need the job
We don't investigate our team's star athlete for drug cheating, partly because we like winning, but mostly because if we get it wrong, we're in trouble with the law

I don't think any or even all of those would make a generally good person "Not good"
And I don't think a D&D character with that level of tolerance of evil couldn't be of good alignment.

A good person wouldn't work in the office for the corrupt politician, but they could play basketball with them OK in their local league

Underground
2020-12-29, 05:14 AM
I'm a bit baffled this thread is NOT about Belkar and NOT about Elan's father. :smallwink: Both cases of evil people who more or less get along with good people.

The way I see it, in reallife we call a person that has clearly more good than evil traits good, a person which has a sort of balance nice/neutral/nasty, and a person which clearly has more evil than good traits evil. With certain acts, such as murder, are making you evil by default.

So yes good and evil can get along, if the circumstances are right.

This is about reallife though.

Tanarii
2020-12-29, 08:59 AM
The way I see it, in reallife we call a person that has clearly more good than evil traits good, a person which has a sort of balance nice/neutral/nasty, and a person which clearly has more evil than good traits evil. With certain acts, such as murder, are making you evil by default.

It's important to remember alignment doesn't exist IRL, so even putting aside forum rules, there isn't much point in comparing to it.