PDA

View Full Version : There are actually 10 D&D alignments. Discuss.



Mr. Friendly
2007-11-09, 07:59 AM
Inspired by the difficult alignment thread, it got me thinking there are really 10 D&D alignments.

Lawful Evil/Good/Neutral
Chaotic Evil/Good/Neutral
Neutral Evil/Good

Then comes the 9th alignment: Neutral

and the 10th: True Neutral

While they are technically the same from a mechanical standpoint, they are pretty far apart in roleplaying and philosophy.

Neutral is the average person and the average animal. They don't really care, they are out to protect themselves and their interests, but won't go out of their way to help or hinder anyone.

True Neutral on the other hand is the active "Neutral Crusader" who seeks to bring balance to everything. So they are actively Helping/Hindering everyone as is needed.

That's a pretty significant deviation within one alignment.

Functionally I don't think it makes any difference within the game, with the exception of a Helm of Opposite Alignment, which I could see case for having it shift a Neutral "Bystander" to a True Neutral "Crusader" and vice versa.

It is however an interesting philosophical discussion.

Catch
2007-11-09, 08:08 AM
I think that varying degrees of severity are applicable to all alignments, though.

Consider the Lawful Good village mayor who keeps his people civil and cooperating compared to a vengeful Paladin, hellbent on smiting evil whatever form it takes. The same goes for the Chaotic Evil thief who loves the thrill of breaking and entering. He's radically different from the megalomaniac Wizard who demands ultimate power no matter the cost. There's a big difference, yet the alignment is the same.

It all comes down to your perceived duty and goal in life. Alignment just shows your moral leanings; it doesn't necessarily predict how you'll act on them, though.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 08:08 AM
I never bought that whole Crusading True Neutral thing.
It makes sense if you see alignments as political affiliations, sure. If Good means simply "I joined Bahamut in his fight against Tiamat", and you can be a rapist or a murderer or whatever as long as you're doing it to orcs, then fine. You can think that deep down, Bahamut's rule would suck as much as Tiamat's and play one side against the other.

But if alignments govern behavior rather than politics, then what would it mean to be Crusading Neutral? That you don't want too many murders, but you don't want too few? You want people to give charity... but if too many people are being too kind/nice then you better encourage asshattery and theft in order to stop this rampant happiness? I'd call that a special type of evil, not of neutral.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-09, 08:30 AM
Well, that's my point though. The description of the "nine" alignments as per the PHB; which even allowing for RP and minor outlook differentials within a single alignment, neutral and "True Neutral" are miles apart. One passively does nothing, the other actively does everything. At least, that's how it reads to me.

Duke of URL
2007-11-09, 08:32 AM
You could just as easily say that there are , for example, two Neutral Good alignments -- one where the character actively seeks balance between law and chaos and another where issues of law and chaos don't matter in the cause of good.

People have enough problems with understanding alignments to make it more complicated, in my opinion.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-09, 08:39 AM
You could just as easily say that there are , for example, two Neutral Good alignments -- one where the character actively seeks balance between law and chaos and another where issues of law and chaos don't matter in the cause of good.

People have enough problems with understanding alignments to make it more complicated, in my opinion.

This was intended neither as a rules discussion, nor to help or hinder people with interpretations of alignments (neutral you might say), nor even as a discussion of how an alignment should or should not be played but rather as a philosophical discussion about alignment.

As for your example of the two NG characters, even if one did passively ignore Law/Chaos while the other actively crusaded to balance them, they are both still tempered by their Good nature. Thus the greater Good still must be served. There is no such requirement on the Neutral character.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-09, 08:41 AM
Well, frankly, there's also a huge difference between Lawful Good :roy:, and Lawful Good :miko:. Does that make eleven, then? Or fourteen?

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-09, 08:45 AM
I think you're misunderstanding the TN crusader. It doesn't say that they advocate an even balance of good and evil deeds. That would probably be a rather eccentric lawful evil, really.

What they do advocate is a 'balanced' neutral perspective. They think good is as bad as evil, but not that good should be counterweighted by evil. Both the good and the evil need to go away for the neutral to be satisfied. There is one point about advocating a balance between good and evil. But that was for each individual, and it's reasonable to say that they also favor a balance in each act.

The difference between active and passive true neutral is really that a passive true neutral may well disapprove of or be unaware of their own neutrality.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 08:55 AM
What they do advocate is a 'balanced' neutral perspective. They think good is as bad as evil, but not that good should be counterweighted by evil. Both the good and the evil need to go away for the neutral to be satisfied.

So it is as important to stomp out charity, love, and hugs as it is to stomp out theft and hatred?

Tengu
2007-11-09, 08:56 AM
True Neutral Crusader has a prerequesite of being completely retarded, possessing a moral system that makes all other armchair philosophers laugh at you. Such characters probably carry notebooks with themselves where they check the balance of their good and evil deeds:
"Hmm, I have just kicked a puppy, so I must help an old lady cross the road now. I also must go on a small murderous rampage to balance the fact that I saved that hamlet from goblins last Wednesday."

Aris Katsaris
2007-11-09, 09:10 AM
Well, frankly, there's also a huge difference between Lawful Good :roy:, and Lawful Good :miko:. Does that make eleven, then? Or fourteen?

Roy is Actively Good, but only Passively Lawful -- he goes out of his way to do good things, but doesn't go out of his way to enforce either a personal code of honour or the community's legal system on others.

Miko is Actively Lawful -- she seeks to enforce what she feels her duty or her gods command.

Haley is Actively Good and Passively Chaotic - goes out of her way to do good things, but chaotic is simply part of her personality, she doesn't actively seek it out.

Belkar is Actively Evil and Actively Chaotic - he enjoys chaos and disrupting order for its own sake. (see for example when he preferred putting things on fire compared to Haley's more orderly approach).

Other alignments as I perceive them:
Elan: Actively Good, Actively Chaotic
Durkon: Actively Good, Actively Lawful
Nale: Actively Evil, Passively Lawful
Varsuvius: Passively Neutral. (she is balanced, she doesn't seek to enforce balance)
Roy's dad: Passively Good, Passively Lawful

Fishy
2007-11-09, 09:11 AM
The alignment system is one of the three stupidest things about D&D.

That said, in a universe where 'Killing halflings' is Evil, but 'Killing Goblins' is Good, there's room for a philosophical position of 'Stop it, both of you'- which I guess you could call True Neutral.

Tengu
2007-11-09, 09:22 AM
Killing goblins usually is good because, you know, you are defending someone from them. Just entering a peaceful goblin village and slaughtering all denizens is not good.

Fishy
2007-11-09, 09:27 AM
Zombies, then.

Hallavast
2007-11-09, 09:35 AM
I agree. True Neutral is indeed different from Neutral. The balance crusader is not retarded or otherwise deficient of logical thought. Nor is he evil. We as humans are simply culturally biased against this kind of thinking. We can't see the big picture. If there is indeed a reason that there must be a balance between some semi-tangible force of good and one of evil, would we be able to percieve it anyway?

As an example, I will use an idea from the Avatar series by Troy Denning. In Fae Run the new god of the dead, Kelemvor has been granting pardons and asylum for those who die without faith in the gods but ar otherwise good people. The broad effect of this would be that people are no longer afraid of dying without faith in any god, and so many turn from the gods (who in turn lose power and control over the world and some messed up **** starts to happen). So, by sentencing a faithless soul to their doom regardless of the content of thier character, Kelemvor preserves the balance and the world can continue to go on.

So a true neutral person would not excercise this idea on such a small scope as to "kick a puppy to balance out saving someone from a mugger earlier that day". They would instead make sure that a general balance is kept within the town between the forces of good and evil. If one side is about to totally dominate the other in a specific region, the true neutral person would take small steps to counterbalance this herneation of power.

It's the same idea that without a sensation of "warm", there can be no "cold". And by lighting a candle, you cast a shadow. Everything in moderation and nothing in excess. For every high there is a low, and for every to there is a fro. If everyone was a millionaire, then nobody would be rich. A story without conflict is rather lame, and a hero without a villain is nonexistent.

In this great story of life, some are forced to play the part of evil and some the part of good. True Neutral characters are the ones that realize we need moderation between the two for the story to go on.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 09:36 AM
You mean, ensuring that human corpses get a proper burial? Isn't that considered a good thing in every society?

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-09, 09:36 AM
So it is as important to stomp out charity, love, and hugs as it is to stomp out theft and hatred?
Well, charity maybe. Love and suchlike is probably not objectionable in most TNs. Self-sacrifice for individual relationships is well within the scope of neutral.

But...essentially yes. Probably doesn't call for the same means, but for activist neutrality to work you have to take the premise that Good is a bad thing too. I haven't read any, but from what I've heard Ayn Rand might be a good reference for this perspective.

It's easier to make the case, though, when good is constantly and violently uprooting evil without regard for side effects.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 09:49 AM
I haven't read any, but from what I've heard Ayn Rand might be a good reference for this perspective.

It's easier to make the case, though, when good is constantly and violently uprooting evil without regard for side effects.

No, this does not describe Ayn Rand at all. She advocates against charity, but only because she thinks it destroys self-reliance and is illogical, and otherwise antithetical to human flourishing. Actual followers of her are usually NG, but the standard English definitions of her words would be LE. She is not a useful example because she's confusing to most people.

As to good uprooting evil without regard for side effects... well, good people (or neutral, or evil) can certain oppose other good peoples' haste. But if you have a principled position of supporting evil as a counterweight to goodness (and for the sake of making peoples' stories more interesting), you're being evil, not neutral.

Hallavast
2007-11-09, 09:49 AM
You mean, ensuring that human corpses get a proper burial? Isn't that considered a good thing in every society?

Uh. No. Kelemvor is the god of the dead. He rules his own plane. This plane is where people go when they die if they are either a worshiper of Kelemvor, or a faithless soul. The punishment for the faithless is that they form the wall of souls surrounding the city of the dead (not a pleasant fate). Kelemvor tried to change this by saying that even if you don't follow the gods, you can still live peacefully in my city if you were a generally good person. This caused people to lose fear of dying without faith, and so some stopped worshiping the gods altogether (which, on a large enough scale, would lead to the destruction of the world).

So, by doing something evil (damning a good soul to a version of hell), Kelemvor helps protect the world.

Edit: sorry, Riff. I didn't realize you weren't addressing my ealier post. :smallredface:

I will leave this here for clarification though...

Fishy
2007-11-09, 09:51 AM
You mean, ensuring that human corpses get a proper burial? Isn't that considered a good thing in every society?

Not even among humans, actually.

Not if you have complete and total assurance that the fate Grandpa's soul is pretty much independant of his body. Not if eating the corpse is a sign of respect, or if you feel the need to return the biomatter to the ecosystem, or if zombies are tilling your fields and feeding your village, or any thousand things.


Kelemvor tried to change this by saying that even if you don't follow the gods, you can still live peacefully in my city if you were a generally good person. This caused people to lose fear of dying without faith, and so some stopped worshiping the gods altogether (which, on a large enough scale, would lead to the destruction of the world).

So, by doing something evil (damning a good soul to a version of hell), Kelemvor helps protect the world.

That's... really stupid. If he's going to inspire faith through fear (which is already morally questionable), why didn't he tell the humans that the world would die if they stopped worshipping?

Duke of URL
2007-11-09, 09:58 AM
As for your example of the two NG characters, even if one did passively ignore Law/Chaos while the other actively crusaded to balance them, they are both still tempered by their Good nature. Thus the greater Good still must be served. There is no such requirement on the Neutral character.

Yes, there is. The crusading "true neutral" still has to temper issues of law and chaos with those of good and evil. Just because the NG, LN, CN, or NE folks are skewed on one axis or another doesn't change the fact that on the non-skewed axis, there is a difference between active balance and inactive indifference.

If you're really trying to represent the difference between active vs. passive neutrality, then let me suggest that passive neutrality (on either axis) is not a Neutral alignment, but rather no alignment at all. A NG whose law/chaos view is ambivalent would simply have an alignment of "Good". A TN who either lacked the capacity (e.g., a non-intelligent animal) or the passion to care about issues of law and chaos or good and evil would essentially be unaligned.


So it is as important to stomp out charity, love, and hugs as it is to stomp out theft and hatred?

Sure, why not? From a Neutral (good/evil axis) viewpoint, the former leads to creating a sense of dependency and the denial of the responsibilities of the individual; the latter acts step on the rights of the individual.

It's easier to accept, perhaps, on the Law/Chaos axis -- rigid rules/codes are too restrictive, but anarchy is likewise unacceptable.

Hallavast
2007-11-09, 10:08 AM
That's... really stupid. If he's going to inspire faith through fear (which is already morally questionable),

K. He didn't make the rules for his job (and he isn't the first god of the dead).
Also, morality is apparently not a goal that the creator of Toril (Ao) was striving for, as it is subjective in his eyes.


why didn't he tell the humans that the world would die if they stopped worshipping?

How can you get an entire planet to listen to you just by telling them something? Even a god couldn't do that. You need some kind of reinforcement, or most people just tell you to piss off.

Edit: Another important part of this story that I forgot to mention is that, by not going through with damning good souls, Kelemvor also made it so that some people were no longer afraid to die (like soldiers). So battles were beginning to be fought differently as well. This further messed up the world.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 10:14 AM
Sure, why not? From a Neutral (good/evil axis) viewpoint, the former leads to creating a sense of dependency and the denial of the responsibilities of the individual; the latter acts step on the rights of the individual.

It's easier to accept, perhaps, on the Law/Chaos axis -- rigid rules/codes are too restrictive, but anarchy is likewise unacceptable.

Well, with the Law/Chaos axis, this makes more sense. There is something you believe in, it's a worthwhile thing to be believing in, and you strive to promote it. So that makes you Good. You could easily do it in a Neutral Good way. Note that you could as easily be an LG or CG person promoting this NG goal.

But as for Good/Evil... what is motivating you? If you want to ensure that people avoid dependency, and to promote personal responsibility... those are Good aims. Just like in my religion, the highest form of charity is to help someone start a business.

I mean, there are goals that people crusade for, which are neither good nor evil. Like some people work hard to promote stamp-collecting. So in that sense you could be a neutral crusader. But to crusade for balance? I mean, "Death to all Fanatics" is a great bumper sticker and all, but...

Fixer
2007-11-09, 10:14 AM
I made a post a while back about neutrality. Never did get enough feedback to complete it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3318285#post3318285)

I must disagree that there are 10 alignments. There are simply degrees of the 9 alignments. Some are more passionate than others about their particular ethical or moral belief. Those more passionate then have decisions on how to demonstrate their passions, either by active enforcement or by role-model.

So, I suppose, two degrees of each ethical and alignment choice as well as two means of demonstrating each choice. So... (4+4+4+4+2+2+2+2+1)x2 is 50 various methods of demonstrating ones' beliefs.

These would be the active enforcement stereotypes:
{table]|Strong Good|Weak Good|Neutral|Weak Evil|Strong Evil
Strong Lawful|Paladin|Noble Police|Regular Police|Dirty Police|Corrupt Bureaucrat
Weak Lawful|Paladin|Noble Police|Regular Police|Crooked Cop|Criminal Enforcers
Neutral|Really Nice People|Mostly Nice People|Balancers|Mostly Mean People|Really Mean People
Weak Chaotic|Social Activists|Opportunistic Helpers|Opportunistic Criminals|Mean Gang Members|Cruel Gang Members
Strong Chaotic|Robin Hood-types|Freedom Fighters|Active Criminals|Solo Career Criminals|Mostly Psychopaths[/table]

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-09, 10:17 AM
I might also point out Gods have above epic powers. D'you think Gods can't do a Worldwide telepathic bond spell?

Riffington
2007-11-09, 10:22 AM
I made a post a while back about neutrality. Never did get enough feedback to complete it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3318285#post3318285)


I remember seeing it, and thinking "golly there's a lot of traits there that neutral people might have, but so might non-neutral people". I don't know that there'll ever be a unified theory of what is sort of the "miscellaneous" alignment.

Fishy
2007-11-09, 10:26 AM
How can you get an entire planet to listen to you just by telling them something? Even a god couldn't do that. You need some kind of reinforcement, or most people just tell you to piss off.

The entire world apparently got the message that Kelemvor was damning people.


Edit: Another important part of this story that I forgot to mention is that, by not going through with damning good souls, Kelemvor also made it so that some people were no longer afraid to die (like soldiers). So battles were beginning to be fought differently as well. This further messed up the world.

But is that 'messed up', truly, or 'changing to reflect the new reality?' The status quo isn't necessarially a good thing, particularly if there really is an infinite afterlife.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive, but it just seems to me that underneath the fantasy trappings, this is a 'god works in mysterious ways' story, and I just can't stand those.

Fixer
2007-11-09, 10:27 AM
I remember seeing it, and thinking "golly there's a lot of traits there that neutral people might have, but so might non-neutral people". I don't know that there'll ever be a unified theory of what is sort of the "miscellaneous" alignment.
Well, yeah. A neutral good person will have some aspects of neutrality, a Neutral Evil person will have similar aspects of neutrality, a Chaotic Neutral person will have an entirely different aspect of neutrality, etc.

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-09, 10:37 AM
No, this does not describe Ayn Rand at all. She advocates against charity, but only because she thinks it destroys self-reliance and is illogical, and otherwise antithetical to human flourishing. Actual followers of her are usually NG, but the standard English definitions of her words would be LE. She is not a useful example because she's confusing to most people.
Um, while I may be one of the confused, your statement about why she advocates against charity seems well within the bounds of neutral thinking. So I don't see your disagreement here. You could claim that that's a 'good' motivation for radically defying traditional Good principles, but I'm not seeing the self-sacrifice here. Which means that socially favorable or not, we're looking at neutral.

As to good uprooting evil without regard for side effects... well, good people (or neutral, or evil) can certain oppose other good peoples' haste. But if you have a principled position of supporting evil as a counterweight to goodness (and for the sake of making peoples' stories more interesting), you're being evil, not neutral.
However, this may be it. I explicitly rejected the notion that active neutral means counterweighting good with evil. Good and evil are both the enemy. That doesn't mean, in general, that you help one enemy or the other so that the foes on both sides are more symmetric.

Hallavast
2007-11-09, 10:39 AM
The entire world apparently got the message that Kelemvor was damning people.

I would assume this is because there was evidence to this effect. You can't prove the world will die without the world actually dying, unfortunately... Also, there are some groups of people that actually want the world to die, so telling them how to do it wouldn't be productive.



But is that 'messed up', truly, or 'changing to reflect the new reality?' The status quo isn't necessarially a good thing, particularly if there really is an infinite afterlife.
It was "messed up" in the eyes of Ao (whom I personally don't like), because this would eventually destroy the way he wanted the world to work. Whether this is good or bad is almost certainly unknowable.



I'm sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive, but it just seems to me that underneath the fantasy trappings, this is a 'god works in mysterious ways' story, and I just can't stand those.

I don't mind you coming off as abrasive. Frankly it's one of the few ways to "come off" that I actually understand. And in Fae run, I don't think the whole "god works in mysterious ways" thing is put there to stop us from questioning the motives of higher beings. I think it's there because Ao has a secret agenda.

But like I said, just because something is alien to us doesnt mean it is illogical. It probably just means there is something about it that we don't know yet. That's what I believe about True Neutrality. I just wish I could figure out what the unknown bit is. I don't think anyone on earth knows, though.

Sergeantbrother
2007-11-09, 10:42 AM
Its my opinion that the crusader of neutrality would actually have a Lawful Evil alignment. Its essentially some form of bizarre religion or philosophy that emphasizes a balance between good and evil and between law and chaos. But the crusader so strictly adheres to this belief that its lawful - sure the crusader may oppose things that seem overly lawful but only does so in obedience to his own moral system to which he strictly adheres. Thus, being a crusader for neutrality is lawful.

Its evil because the crusader doesn't let morality get in the way of achieving his balance. If he must kill a virtuous paladin to balance good and evil he does so. If innocent people must suffer for balance to happen, then the crusader causes suffering. Killing a good person and an evil person doesn't make you neutral, it makes you evil. The crusader puts his own religious beliefs and philosophical goals above the common good and welfare of others - even though he places some value in balance existing it still doesn't excuse harming innocent people to achieve that valued balance.

Thus the "True Neutral" crusader is in fact Lawful Evil.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 10:43 AM
Goodness does not require self-sacrifice. Also, I can't really argue Rand with the D&D alignment system. It turns catgirls into laser beams of pure antimatter.

AslanCross
2007-11-09, 11:12 AM
I always saw True Neutral as broad enough to encompass the ambivalently TN and the philosophically TN. It includes those who don't care as well as those who care too much for the balance.

MCerberus
2007-11-09, 11:14 AM
Don't forget Chaotic is somehow vaguely evil in the DnD alignment system and we have to remember CS and LS (chaotic and lawful stupid).

Duke of URL
2007-11-09, 12:13 PM
Goodness does not require self-sacrifice.
My reading of D&D "good" is that it places the welfare of others over the welfare of one's self. It doesn't require actually sacrificing one's self, but a truly "good" character should accept that as a viable option.

Indon
2007-11-09, 12:15 PM
I don't think I view TN _quite_ the same as others in this thread.

Firstly, a TN'er does not neccessarily need to perform evil acts to advance his cause. Sure, he could help the goblins raze the decadent human city. Or, he could help the goblins unite and prosper, and they would naturally go razing nearby human cities just because that's what goblins do. The TN'er performs only good acts, and leaves the benefactors with the freedom to choose what to do with them; though many of his benefactors may choose evil, they are not obliged to.

The destruction of the nearby decadent human city is just a happy coincidence to providing races viewed as 'evil' with a fair shake in the world.

Free Will can play a big role in True Neutrality. Only when situations are balanced can the choice between good and evil (dependence and independence), or law and chaos (slavery and freedom) truly be made.

Really, TN, like any other alignment, can be played in multiple ways. If not for TN being 2'nd edition's version of "Neutral Neutral", it really wouldn't merit being described as an alignment of its' own.

But the D&D culture picks up things from its' legacy.

Aris Katsaris
2007-11-09, 01:54 PM
People haven't mentioned the most prominent example of a TN crusader -- the GM himself.

When a GM creates an evil powerful lich, but at the same time gives the good characters the tools to vanquish him, isn't that the most obvious example of a TN mentality, trying to balance the good and the bad sides?

You can extend this mentality to TN characters, if they perceive their own world as the gamefield in which souls enjoy themselves. They help promote evil, when an abundance of goodness wouldn't be challenging enough -- they help promote good, when an abundance of evil would make it too hard to overcome.

TN crusaders want everyone to live in interesting times. Whether that's good or evil, depends on your philosophical viewpoint.

MCerberus
2007-11-09, 02:04 PM
Or you could go with the Druid example of thinking that the natural order needs to be in balance. You could protect farmers from raiding bandits stealing their crops one day (because that would mean a net loss for the environment with the farmers having to replant without the seeds from their harvest and hunting more in the meantime causing damage) a LG act, and then murder a group of hunters the next who have been hunting too much and have caused some massive ****. CE.

One day you could subvert the evil authority figure who is taking too many materials too quickly for a war effort (CG), and other time strike fear into the hearts of some settlers in order to make sure they know not to go too far in getting materials to build their livelihoods (LE).

JaxGaret
2007-11-09, 02:13 PM
Don't forget Chaotic is somehow vaguely evil in the DnD alignment system

Explain your viewpoint sir/madam.


Well, with the Law/Chaos axis, this makes more sense. There is something you believe in, it's a worthwhile thing to be believing in, and you strive to promote it. So that makes you Good. You could easily do it in a Neutral Good way. Note that you could as easily be an LG or CG person promoting this NG goal.

But as for Good/Evil... what is motivating you? If you want to ensure that people avoid dependency, and to promote personal responsibility... those are Good aims. Just like in my religion, the highest form of charity is to help someone start a business.

I mean, there are goals that people crusade for, which are neither good nor evil. Like some people work hard to promote stamp-collecting. So in that sense you could be a neutral crusader. But to crusade for balance? I mean, "Death to all Fanatics" is a great bumper sticker and all, but...

First a quick aside: there is a variant Paladin called the Incarnate who has Detect Imbalance and Smite Extremist as alternate Detect/Smite abilities. They both work on anyone who is strongly aligned on both axes - LG, CG, LE, CE. They also have an affinity with the Elements.

Now, on the the point of balancing Good/Evil as a TN Crusader. It's possible that the TNC believes that a society needs both Good and Evil elements to thrive. To go the extreme - a society of completely benevolent altruists is going to get plowed over by the neighboring Evil society bent on usurping their lands - thus Evil (or simply Evil acts as part of a balancing Neutrality) does have a place in the world, as a preservatory power.

jamroar
2007-11-09, 02:27 PM
First a quick aside: there is a variant Paladin called the Incarnate who has Detect Imbalance and Smite Extremist as alternate Detect/Smite abilities. They both work on anyone who is strongly aligned on both axes - LG, CG, LE, CE. They also have an affinity with the Elements.


Only in D&D can you say the line "Death to all Extremists!" with a straight face. :smallamused:

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 02:35 PM
Now, on the the point of balancing Good/Evil as a TN Crusader. It's possible that the TNC believes that a society needs both Good and Evil elements to thrive. To go the extreme - a society of completely benevolent altruists is going to get plowed over by the neighboring Evil society bent on usurping their lands - thus Evil (or simply Evil acts as part of a balancing Neutrality) does have a place in the world, as a preservatory power.

There can also be the progressive view for balance. Not only do good and evil need eachother to survive but for progress to happen there must be both clashing with eachother but neither winning. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

Also, I think one of the main disconnects on many alignment topics, and here in particular, is the notion that evil characters don't do things for reasons they see as good. There is no moral relativism in the D&D universe and actions rather than intentions are the main determining factor in alignment. Just because you have a good cause in mind (like, say, leveling the playing field for all races ala Redcloak) doesn't make you good. If you think a goal is good, but do both good and evil deeds to promote it, you are very probably neutral despite your goal.


Only in D&D can you say the line "Death to all Extremists!" with a straight face. :smallamused:

Nah, you can say it anywhere... just at the end of the day you will need to kinfe yourself last.

Duke of URL
2007-11-09, 02:55 PM
It's possible that the TNC believes that a society needs both Good and Evil elements to thrive. To go the extreme - a society of completely benevolent altruists is going to get plowed over by the neighboring Evil society bent on usurping their lands - thus Evil (or simply Evil acts as part of a balancing Neutrality) does have a place in the world, as a preservatory power.

Although on a personal note, I would say that it only takes a small amount of evil to offset a larger amount of good. That is not necessarily a D&D concept of good and evil, though.

Indon
2007-11-09, 03:09 PM
Explain your viewpoint sir/madam.


I would say that Chaos, being inherently anti-establishment, is more strongly associated with evil among good societies, and good among evil societies.

Most D&D PC races have inherently good societies (i.e. their MM description has "mostly good" or "usually good").



First a quick aside: there is a variant Paladin called the Incarnate who has Detect Imbalance and Smite Extremist as alternate Detect/Smite abilities. They both work on anyone who is strongly aligned on both axes - LG, CG, LE, CE. They also have an affinity with the Elements.


The Incarnate isn't a variant Paladin so much as it is a Paladin equivalent, for the Incarnum magic variant. Though, is it the Incarnate, or the Soulborn, who needs to have an extreme alignment? I forget.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 03:22 PM
I would say that Chaos, being inherently anti-establishment, is more strongly associated with evil among good societies, and good among evil societies.

What, exactly, is your evidence for that? I can think of many, many evil societies that viewed antiestablishment sentiments as the height of evil and executed people for it.

Or do you simply mean that each society (good or evil) tends to take a negative view of antiestablishment sentiments?



Most D&D PC races have inherently good societies (i.e. their MM description has "mostly good" or "usually good").


That's because the marketing expectation of the game is that people will want to play heroes who go out and do good things. Hence the races intended for play tend to have good societies.

Notably though, humans, which everyone playing the game is (I think) are usually neutral.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 03:23 PM
To go the extreme - a society of completely benevolent altruists is going to get plowed over by the neighboring Evil society bent on usurping their lands - thus Evil (or simply Evil acts as part of a balancing Neutrality) does have a place in the world, as a preservatory power.

This is a strong argument for violence, not for evil. Good people can and do defend themselves.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 03:26 PM
This is a strong argument for violence, not for evil. Good people can and do defend themselves.

Explain why vows of Non-violence and Peace are Exaled feats if they are not considered 'morally better' or 'more good' in the D&D schema?

Riffington
2007-11-09, 03:27 PM
the BOED is really dumb.
Also, pacifism is a very common stupidity for good people, much less common for evil people.

JaxGaret
2007-11-09, 03:37 PM
Also, pacifism is a very common stupidity for good people, much less common for evil people.

What's wrong with pacifism? If everyone were a pacifist, it would be ideal...

That's the point I was trying to make with the TNC. They may believe that world-wide pacifism is an impossible pipe dream, whereas a Good person hopes that someday everyone will be Good, or at least non-Evil (I imagine they would hope that, or they would not be Good) and that Evil will be no more.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 03:48 PM
the BOED is really dumb.
Also, pacifism is a very common stupidity for good people, much less common for evil people.

BOED may be 'dumb' and you may not personally agree with the way that D&D sets up it's alignment system (I don't) but BOED and BOVD are WotC books that specifically deal with and clearly lay out in their introductions how alignments work in the D&D world and how good and evil are defined. Since we are discussing good and evil as it is defined in D&D 3.5 that BoeD may or may not be stupid really has no bearing on the argument. BOED and BOVD are clear examples of how the system in question is set up.

Also, and I'm skirting the board rules here by responding to your second comment, pacifism is not stupidity. Many good things have been accomplished by peaceful resistance (boycotts, marches, sitins, etc.). I suspect you may have heard of a few examples of this. What's more, those who accomplished good without violence tend to be regarded by the world as better people than those who did it by violent means. MLK, Mandella and Ghandi are considered near saints by many. Few consider violent revolutionaries saintly, no matter how effective they may have been or how just their cause.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 03:51 PM
What's wrong with pacifism? If everyone were a pacifist, it would be ideal...


It isn't a stable Nash Equilibrium. And it doesn't fail gracefully. Once pacifism figures out a way to consistently defeat violent evil sorts, it'll be super though.

When Gandhi wrote his letter to the British people advocating they surrender to the Nazis, he was being an idiot. (or possibly worse, but I'll be charitable and say idiot)

Bluelantern
2007-11-09, 03:53 PM
I always thought that defeding neutrality was something that only Order would do, Chaos only carer about the moment, Good and Evil want to destroy each other, but Order want to keeps things the way the are or put some order on it :smallamused:. Only Order would do something just for the sake of doing it and keep te status quo.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 03:56 PM
To clarify, I highly recommend pacifistic means of getting your way. Lots of good has been done by nonviolent means. Much more than has been done by violent means. But you have to be willing to take up arms against people who are an immediate violent threat. If the Elves are encroaching on your mines, by all means you should have nonviolent protests. If the orcs are slaughtering your allies, you need some swords.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 03:59 PM
When Gandhi wrote his letter to the British people advocating they surrender to the Nazis, he was being an idiot. (or possibly worse, but I'll be charitable and say idiot)

Perhaps, but has anyone said his actions toward the British were idiotic? And even given the letter, which was impractical, does that diminish his status in history as a supremely moral person?


I always thought that defeding neutrality was something that only Order would do, Chaos only carer about the moment, Good and Evil want to destroy each other, but Order want to keeps things the way the are or put some order on it :smallamused:. Only Order would do something just for the sake of doing it and keep te status quo.

Why does balance need to mean the same thing as 'status quo'? Things being the same as they always have been is not the same concept as things being perpetually in balance against eachother.

Besides, you are saying that order would support chaos there, since the status quo includes chaos.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 04:12 PM
Perhaps, but has anyone said his actions toward the British were idiotic?

No. It is not idiotic to use pacifistic means when they are possible. Only if you think that pacifism will defend you against all threats, then you are an idiot.

JaxGaret
2007-11-09, 04:12 PM
It isn't a stable Nash Equilibrium. And it doesn't fail gracefully. Once pacifism figures out a way to consistently defeat violent evil sorts, it'll be super though.

Right, but you weren't talking about whether or not pacifism was an ESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy).

You just made the blanket statement that pacifism is stupid.


When Gandhi wrote his letter to the British people advocating they surrender to the Nazis, he was being an idiot. (or possibly worse, but I'll be charitable and say idiot)

The Gandhi Nobody Knows (http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt).

That doesn't change a thing about pacifism as an ideal.

Indon
2007-11-09, 04:15 PM
What, exactly, is your evidence for that? I can think of many, many evil societies that viewed antiestablishment sentiments as the height of evil and executed people for it.

Or do you simply mean that each society (good or evil) tends to take a negative view of antiestablishment sentiments?


I meant in D&D. Since a society that has an alignment is more likely to reject members of a different alignment, and vice-versa, chaotic members of a culture are more likely to hold a different alignment than their parent culture.



That's because the marketing expectation of the game is that people will want to play heroes who go out and do good things. Hence the races intended for play tend to have good societies.

Notably though, humans, which everyone playing the game is (I think) are usually neutral.

But even human societies where players come from generally tend towards good; evil societies are monster-fodder. :P

But it's the combination of those two factors - Chaos is viewed as being against the norm of most cultures, the norm of most PC cultures is Good - that generates the Chaos=Evil bias.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 04:17 PM
Right, but you weren't talking about whether or not pacifism was an ESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy).

You just made the blanket statement that pacifism is stupid.


That is exactly what I was talking about. When I said that pacifism is stupid, what I meant/mean is that it is stupid to think that all problems can be solved without the use of violence. If you have a different definition than me (mine is the extreme version: pacifism = refusal to use force even when it is necessary to defend the lives of people you care about) then your definition of pacifism may not be stupid.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-09, 04:42 PM
I made a post a while back about neutrality. Never did get enough feedback to complete it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3318285#post3318285)

I must disagree that there are 10 alignments. There are simply degrees of the 9 alignments. Some are more passionate than others about their particular ethical or moral belief. Those more passionate then have decisions on how to demonstrate their passions, either by active enforcement or by role-model.

So, I suppose, two degrees of each ethical and alignment choice as well as two means of demonstrating each choice. So... (4+4+4+4+2+2+2+2+1)x2 is 50 various methods of demonstrating ones' beliefs.

These would be the active enforcement stereotypes:
{table]|Strong Good|Weak Good|Neutral|Weak Evil|Strong Evil
Strong Lawful|Paladin|Noble Police|Regular Police|Dirty Police|Corrupt Bureaucrat
Weak Lawful|Paladin|Noble Police|Regular Police|Crooked Cop|Criminal Enforcers
Neutral|Really Nice People|Mostly Nice People|Balancers|Mostly Mean People|Really Mean People
Weak Chaotic|Social Activists|Opportunistic Helpers|Opportunistic Criminals|Mean Gang Members|Cruel Gang Members
Strong Chaotic|Robin Hood-types|Freedom Fighters|Active Criminals|Solo Career Criminals|Mostly Psychopaths[/table]

That's a pretty good chart. I see my own Naenre in it, right there under "Active Criminals." Never trust a drow?

That's right. Never trust a drow. :smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 04:50 PM
The Gandhi Nobody Knows (http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt).

That doesn't change a thing about pacifism as an ideal.

Or that everyone will remember the saintly picture of Ghandi rather than the historically accurate one. I'm cool with that. It also doesn't change the force of my point that the Ghandi image is viewed that way and as more moral.


I meant in D&D. Since a society that has an alignment is more likely to reject members of a different alignment, and vice-versa

True.


chaotic members of a culture are more likely to hold a different alignment than their parent culture.

Only if the culture is primarilly lawful. A lawful elf might be rejected by the typical elven community.


But even human societies where players come from generally tend towards good; evil societies are monster-fodder. :P

That's a bias from the marketing side I mentioned before. Most players are expected to want to play good chracters, hence most player backgrounds (other than those who want to play an emo 'I'm rejecting my culture' theme) are good cultures. That doesn't mean that by RAW they predominantly are good, just that individual games tend to make them that way in their campagin setting. Lawful is usually the case in practice too I'll admit, but that's because America (where the majority of players are I think) is, believe it or not, a pretty lawful culture, so the cultures we create in our fiction tend to mirror our own a bit.

There is no reason it needs to be that way. Elves are usually Chaotic Good. Gnomes, neutral good. Halfings, neutral. Come to think of it, the only PHB race that's lawful good are Dwarves...



But it's the combination of those two factors - Chaos is viewed as being against the norm of most cultures, the norm of most PC cultures is Good - that generates the Chaos=Evil bias.

Depends upon the culture. Complete and utter chaos is agaist most cultures but a larger balance of personal freedom rather than government authority (which on the D&D scale is a 'chaotic' culture) isn't any more unusually than a tottally governed one, like the Formian. I think that it varys from group to group and setting to setting. The rules certianly don't mean it must be that way. Most of the human cultures I set up in my games are various kinds of neutral.


That is exactly what I was talking about. When I said that pacifism is stupid, what I meant/mean is that it is stupid to think that all problems can be solved without the use of violence. If you have a different definition than me (mine is the extreme version: pacifism = refusal to use force even when it is necessary to defend the lives of people you care about) then your definition of pacifism may not be stupid.

To get back to the point we started this on, BOED and pacifism being Exalted and beating the orcs with a stick not so much I've realized our disconnect here. You are equating 'good' with sucessful ends, a consequentialist philosophy. D&D does not have a consequentialist ethical set up. It is a natural law set up. Some things actions are good, some actions are better, some actions are evil, some more evil on the basis of the action alone. The ends do not justify the means in D&D, if they did Redcloak would be LN or LG. The evil act of slaughtering the orcs might be balanced out by the good act of saving the town (you might even net a gain on the goodness scale) but killing the orcs is still an evil act, hence why not killing them and solving the problem by peaceful or non-deadly means would be exalted.

Indon
2007-11-09, 05:11 PM
There is no reason it needs to be that way. Elves are usually Chaotic Good. Gnomes, neutral good. Halfings, neutral. Come to think of it, the only PHB race that's lawful good are Dwarves...


I agree. D&D doesn't have the Chaos=Evil bias, with the exception of a few suppliments. It's the players that hold that bias, because they largely play Lawful and Good societies, and, as you imply, because D&D's players often think that to a degree, Lawful is Good.

But, we're becoming pretty distant from the concept of True Neutral, aren't we?

EvilElitest
2007-11-09, 05:22 PM
Inspired by the difficult alignment thread, it got me thinking there are really 10 D&D alignments.

Lawful Evil/Good/Neutral
Chaotic Evil/Good/Neutral
Neutral Evil/Good

Then comes the 9th alignment: Neutral

and the 10th: True Neutral

While they are technically the same from a mechanical standpoint, they are pretty far apart in roleplaying and philosophy.

Neutral is the average person and the average animal. They don't really care, they are out to protect themselves and their interests, but won't go out of their way to help or hinder anyone.

True Neutral on the other hand is the active "Neutral Crusader" who seeks to bring balance to everything. So they are actively Helping/Hindering everyone as is needed.

That's a pretty significant deviation within one alignment.

Functionally I don't think it makes any difference within the game, with the exception of a Helm of Opposite Alignment, which I could see case for having it shift a Neutral "Bystander" to a True Neutral "Crusader" and vice versa.

It is however an interesting philosophical discussion.
I actually ,like that idea. I've been thinking this for a while
from,
EE

shadow_archmagi
2007-11-09, 05:46 PM
Hearing all this discussion, I see a few basic beliefs about Neutral beginning to develop.

1. The Builder: The neutralist wants good and evil to constantly be more or less equal, so that no matter how powerful one side gets, it will never completely vanquish the other, creating an endless war.

2. The Breaker: The neutralist wants good and evil to both be annihilated to create a world of entirely Neutral people.

3. The Kreia: The neutral wants to ensure the survival and improvement of himself, and the world. This is best achieved through conflict and struggle, so charity would be considered an Evil, as it deprives the other of a chance to struggle to improve.

MCerberus
2007-11-09, 05:49 PM
and 4. Undecided, who will eventually change alignment based on how their word view develops or stay moderate.

Jayabalard
2007-11-09, 06:04 PM
Well, that's my point though. The description of the "nine" alignments as per the PHB; which even allowing for RP and minor outlook differentials within a single alignment, neutral and "True Neutral" are miles apart. One passively does nothing, the other actively does everything. At least, that's how it reads to me.since alignment is a reflection of the character rather than something that controls the character, it's not really relevant how they get to be neutral.

Riffington
2007-11-09, 08:38 PM
here. You are equating 'good' with sucessful ends, a consequentialist philosophy.

No, you must have misread multiple times. I am equating stupid with consistently unsuccesful ends. To reiterate: extreme pacifism is a common stupidity amongst good people, and a much rarer stupidity amongst evil people. It is not in and of itself good or evil, but is strongly correlated with good.

JaxGaret
2007-11-09, 11:31 PM
No, you must have misread multiple times. I am equating stupid with consistently unsuccesful ends. To reiterate: extreme pacifism is a common stupidity amongst good people, and a much rarer stupidity amongst evil people. It is not in and of itself good or evil, but is strongly correlated with good.

It seems like you're not saying that pacifism as a concept or use of pacifism is stupid; you are saying only that the active practice of blind pacifism is stupid, correct?

I do think that pacifism registers slightly Good on the scale.

Mikeavelli
2007-11-10, 12:35 AM
The Concept of the "True Neutral Crusader" started waay back at the Beginning of D&D, because that's how Gary Gygax decided his PC, Mordenkainen, should behave.

To date, he's the only one I've ever heard of who played True neutral that way, as opposed to a "I just don't care" alignment.

Alignments gained a lot more prominance in the 2nd edition Planescape setting, which featured the philosophical aspects of D&D a lot more prominantly. It also expanded on the exemplar races (Fiends, Celestials, Slaadi, Modrons, etc.) - which is where the "Chaos is tinged with Evil" concept gained the most steam, since the Chaos exemplars, giant demon-frogs called Slaadi, almost always showed up as enemies to be chopped up into tiny bits.

The spokesthing for Chaos, Xanxost, was infamous for eating things and making us think it was evil for it. It wasn't really evil, just hungry.

The Rilmani, exemplars of True Neutrality, existed to keep the balance in check. This really took off in the fan community in regards to flavor text, but I can't remember a single adventure that ever featured them prominantly defending the balance. It's just a concept that's so weird most writers can't get a handle on how to fit it logically into the story.

Nowadays, with the Philosophy-lite version of fluff we've got to deal with, the True Neutral crusader is an outdated concept that I predict won't even make it into 4th edition. It had a good run though.

Riffington
2007-11-10, 01:06 AM
It seems like you're not saying that pacifism as a concept or use of pacifism is stupid; you are saying only that the active practice of blind pacifism is stupid, correct?

I do think that pacifism registers slightly Good on the scale.

Correct: pacifism is a great concept in theory, and focused applications are often/usually a good idea. Only when it prevents you from defending yourself/others from violent attackers is it stupid. Also I agree that in general it correlates with Good, but it depends on the circumstances.

#Raptor
2007-11-10, 01:14 PM
I also view N and TN as being different.

Neutral... well, doesn't really care about anything but himself.

TN are Balancers.
There actually might be 2 kinds of TN characters (if not even more).

For one, the character that acts TN in small scale. Kick a puppy here, help a grandma over the street there. He'll try to do just about as many good acts as evil ones, about as much lawful ones as chaotic ones.
(Julia might be a good example for this, see comic 343 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html).)

The other is the TN "Crusader" type. Trys to get a worldwide balance of good and evil, law and chaos. I.E. if the predominant alignment would be CG, he'd try to strenghten the forces of evil and the forces of lawfulness. The other way arround if LE is the predominant alignment.
A TN character like this could very well fight for, lets say, the goals of law and good for his whole life if CE would be the predominant alignment over the whole span of his life. However, he could very well switch sides if his fight for the opposite of the predominant alignment was going a little bit too well, and now theres a unbalance in the other direction.
Such a character could be a "Paladin of Balance".

MCerberus
2007-11-10, 01:33 PM
Such a character could be a "Paladin of Balance".

and then have them want to mainly deal with the power of natural forces.... oh wait.


Unfortunately most people who write "TN" as their alignment for a druid are BS (bloodthirsty stupid).

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-10, 01:57 PM
We must remember an official example of TN for previous editions:

"A druid, for example, could team up with a warband of the local baron's troops to exterminate a band of vicious gnolls, and switch sides just as the gnolls were about to lose".


So yeah. Active endorsement, anybody?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-10, 01:57 PM
While they are technically the same from a mechanical standpoint, they are pretty far apart in roleplaying and philosophy.

No, see, there are actually NINE D&D alignments; they just can embody more than one stereotyped, narrow-minded, tired concept. No, really. You can have two Lawful Good people who are very far apart in roleplaying and philosophy, even to the point of people viewing them as nigh-opposites (as is the case with two of my strongly LG characters). Or 3. Or a hundred. That doesn't mean I make 1, 3, or 100 new alignments for those people.

Your problem, Mr. Friendly, is that you can't think outside the straitjacket, and you need to realize is that the alignment system seperates *every personality type in existence* into 9 very broad categories.