Shades of Evil

[endur]

One of the issues with the D&D alignment system is it doesn't do a good job of differentiating between different shades of evil.

For example, the following could all have the same alignment:
1) A thief that has never killed, just stolen from others;
2) A bank robber that will kill if necessary in order to steal;
3) An assassin who is paid to kill;
4) A serial killer who kills for fun;
5) A demon worshipping cultist who sacrifices others;
6) A vampire that drinks blood in order to survive;
7) A demon that slaughters humans because it is bored.

[Rakoa]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Just that this is a thing that exists?

[Nobot]

I always thought thieves could be neutral. I would even consider the bank robber who is willing to kill and the assassin who is paid to kill to be candidates for neutral, depending on who they rob and kill and what they do with the proceeds. Perhaps even good in a Robin Hoodish way...

But I agree, no shades of evil. I'm not a big fan of the alignment system...

[Geddy2112]

This is why there is a law/chaos axis. I will agree there are small e characters, big E characters, and then completely and utterly irredeemable monsters.
#1 is probably not evil, as stealing is a chaotic act, not an evil one.
#2 and #3 are not hard evil, probably a lowercase e.
#6 might not be evil at all(if you put aside the undead/vampires are inherently evil). What if they don't kill, or feed on willing subjects/buy the blood. What if they live on animal blood?

[DireSickFish]

I think 3.5 did the best with Shades of Evil. They had the Nightstalker and Shadows as well as a few other shades. In 5e they only have the Shadow so far that I'm aware of. Hopefully the release a Nightstalker in MM2. With the Shadovar having lived in the shadow plane it would be nice to do a Nethril plot involving evil Shades of Evil.

[Aetol]

This is why there is a law/chaos axis. I will agree there are small e characters, big E characters, and then completely and utterly irredeemable monsters.
#1 is probably not evil, as stealing is a chaotic act, not an evil one.
#2 and #3 are not hard evil, probably a lowercase e.
#6 might not be evil at all(if you put aside the undead/vampires are inherently evil). What if they don't kill, or feed on willing subjects/buy the blood. What if they live on animal blood?

On the small-e / big-E thing : shouldn't that be reversed ? Alignments are usually capitalized, so those who fall under the broad Evil alignment are "Evil", while the true psychopaths are "evil". A professional killer might be Evil (he kills for money) but not evil (he's a good person otherwise).

@DireSickFish : you didn't read the discussion at all, did you ?

[Thisguy_]

I think 3.5 did the best with Shades of Evil. They had the Nightstalker and Shadows as well as a few other shades.

Does a Wight not count?



On-subject, I'd say a Vampire who actively chooses not to kill but also doesn't reveal his or herself and takes blood as needed without consent is a True Neutral character (and I would rate most vampires as such), because their motivations are non-destructive and entirely self-serving. They drink to survive, and killing their food supply would be self-destructive. Therefore, they have a motivation from the self both to not kill and to steal the life partially, carefully, and calculatedly from their cattle. Depending on whether they are sadistic about it, they could fall to evil, and if they particularly enjoy living outside of the law of man or nature, they could win a Chaotic tag. It really all depends.

Alignment is all about subjectivity in the end. Objective evil is a mechanical definition so much as objective good is, and neither fits our definition in the real world, which is a subjective one. After all, summoning and binding evil outsiders to do deeds (good or otherwise) is seen as an inherently evil act in D&D-likes.

[wumpus]

The only real issue I see is that "smite evil" [and other evil/good bane] hits all "evil" equally.

In the beginning the World was modified from a wargame. This made a lot of PCs and NPCs unhappy and has widely been regarded as a bad move. Alignments were originally "red" and "blue" in the wargames. This was changed to "lawful" and "chaotic" in 0e D&D (and BECMI) and evolved into "good" and "evil".

Note that there exist rules for "Exalted" and "Vile". My suggestion, remove the standard alignments (expect to either drop Paladin or perhaps buff "smite evil" in some way) and make "Exalted" and "Vile" a bit more common: paladins are exalted at level 1. Grab the old "spells come from gods" rules from AD&D and expect clerics to be exalted/vile before receiving certain spell levels. Make resurrecting such alignments "complicated" (gods have to consent to losing the soul).

[nedz]

I expected a list of types, or degrees, of evil — 50 of them.

[Segev]

Utterly irrelevant tangent, but when I was in a theater and first saw a trailer for 50 Shades of Gray, my initial thought on seeing "Gray Industries" and the smartly dressed but sinister individual looking quite young and handsome was, "Are they making a 'Portrait of Dorian Gray' movie? That'd be awesome!"

Imagine my disappointment when I realized. Though I did lean over to my friend and whisper, "Twilight fanfiction."

Which I got to top with the next trailer, which was for the Dracula movie, by leaning over to my friend and AGAIN saying, "Twilight fanfiction." We may have laughed a little loudly for a theater at that. >_> <_<

I STILL think a Portrait of Dorian Gray movie could be very cool, if done well.

[Red Fel]

I STILL think a Portrait of Dorian Gray movie could be very cool, if done well.

It was.

Ooh, Angela, you never age, you simply become more regal.

*ahem* But I digress... What's this about Evil?

[Segev]

What's this about Evil?

Something about how being willing to kill to steal versus killing for hire versus killing for kicks are different "kinds" of evil.

I think it's adequately covered by the nuances of applying the ethical axis, myself, though there ARE "degrees." They just aren't granularly defined.

[nedz]

Utterly irrelevant tangent, but when I was in a theater and first saw a trailer for 50 Shades of Gray, my initial thought on seeing "Gray Industries" and the smartly dressed but sinister individual looking quite young and handsome was, "Are they making a 'Portrait of Dorian Gray' movie? That'd be awesome!"

Imagine my disappointment when I realized. Though I did lean over to my friend and whisper, "Twilight fanfiction."

Which I got to top with the next trailer, which was for the Dracula movie, by leaning over to my friend and AGAIN saying, "Twilight fanfiction." We may have laughed a little loudly for a theater at that. >_> <_<

I STILL think a Portrait of Dorian Gray movie could be very cool, if done well.

The Picture of Dorian Gray I think you mean ?

It's been done: 24 times :-
1910, 1913, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1945, 1961(twice), 1969, 1970, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1983, 2001, 2003, 2004(twice), 2006, 2007, 2009(twice) and 2014

[Red Fel]

Something about how being willing to kill to steal versus killing for hire versus killing for kicks are different "kinds" of evil.

I think it's adequately covered by the nuances of applying the ethical axis, myself, though there ARE "degrees." They just aren't granularly defined.

While I agree that there are layers of Evil, I question whether they should have so distinct a mechanical impact as to require labeling.

Because that's the thing - the difference between "I murder people for money" and "I murder people because I like it" is so nuanced that it may as well be "I have red hair with dark highlights" versus "I have brown hair with black highlights" or however highlights in hair work. I wouldn't know, jet black and horns pretty much work themselves out.

The point is, there is a distinction between, say, "I steal to live" and "I murder for fun," sure. And there is a difference between "I kill at the order of my king" and "I killed my king," obviously. As has been mentioned, the ethical axis takes care of a lot of it. But the subtle, nuanced levels, while infinitely entertaining, aren't important enough in terms of what needs to go on a character sheet, for the most part.

[endur]

The point is, there is a distinction between, say, "I steal to live" and "I murder for fun," sure. And there is a difference between "I kill at the order of my king" and "I killed my king," obviously. As has been mentioned, the ethical axis takes care of a lot of it. But the subtle, nuanced levels, while infinitely entertaining, aren't important enough in terms of what needs to go on a character sheet, for the most part.

I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, whereas the demon summoning cultists want to over throw the current king. And the Demons want to destroy everything.

The Axis might make the Assassins Guild ne, the Cultists ce, and the Demons CE.

But I think maybe we need at least two CEs or a degree of CE, just like you might have two LGs (LG regular and LG Exalted).

This might be more important in situations where Good and Evil are working together against opposing forces, as opposed to a traditional all goods vs. all evils.

[Red Fel]

I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, whereas the demon summoning cultists want to over throw the current king. And the Demons want to destroy everything.

The Axis might make the Assassins Guild ne, the Cultists ce, and the Demons CE.

Well, let me ask you this: What's the difference, mechanically, between ce and CE? Because if there's not one, then it's a distinction without a difference, like when I put "six and a half feet, green eyes, tattoos," as opposed to "five foot nothing, blue eyes, bald," on a character sheet.

[Strigon]

I'm assuming we're talking about D&D here, as that's the only system I know of with that particular alignment system. (Right there at the top of the page...)

The thing is, in D&D, Good and Evil are very real forces. An individual who is Evil has some magical/mystical difference from someone who is not. As such, something is either Evil or it is not, just as an object can either be metal or not, red or not, and biological or not, and how you can be guilty of a crime or not.
Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense to have varying degrees of evil/good, but I am saying that, D&D cosmology being what it is, the all-or-nothing approach does make a certain amount of sense as well. Is Evil emanating from this person? Yes? They're Evil! Same goes for Good, Lawful and Chaotic.

[Slipperychicken]

We shouldn't have rules manuals trying to tell us right and wrong in the first place. That's a job for your mind, not a game book. What the books should do instead is convey the arguments and attitudes of people and groups in-universe, highlight disagreements and their impact on the world, and create potential to use those conflicts in the game. That gives guidelines for portraying characters with different viewpoints, and doesn't use word of god to shut down all dissent.

For one example of a game that does a pretty good job weaving these things in alongside rules, we have Shadowrun. Even for the most unambiguous black-and-white judgements, like that of blood magic, it suffices to describe the general moral outrage toward practitioners, the near-universal illegality of its practice, and arguments for why some people do it anyway. At no point is it necessary for the game to declare it evil.

[Strigon]

We shouldn't have rules manuals trying to tell us right and wrong in the first place. That's a job for your mind, not a game book. What the books should do instead is convey the arguments and attitudes of people and groups in-universe, highlight disagreements and their impact on the world, and create potential to use those conflicts in the game. That gives guidelines for portraying characters with different viewpoints, and doesn't use word of god to shut down all dissent.

For one example of a game that does a pretty good job weaving these things in alongside rules, we have Shadowrun. Even for the most unambiguous black-and-white judgements, like that of blood magic, it suffices to describe the general moral outrage toward practitioners, the near-universal illegality of its practice, and arguments for why some people do it anyway. At no point is it necessary for the game to declare it evil.

Well this goes right back to the thing about Evil and Good being real things in D&D; they physically exist; they have a discernible presence. In order for that to be true, living beings have to be actually objectively Good or Evil, and in order for that to be true, actions have to be objectively good or Evil.

[goto124]

But this is a fantasy world where Good and Evil are literal cosmic forces and produce magical effexts that are seen and felt.

I have not seen how it can be done without turning the world into a black and white thing.

[Slipperychicken]

Well this goes right back to the thing about Evil and Good being real things in D&D; they physically exist; they have a discernible presence. In order for that to be true, living beings have to be actually objectively Good or Evil, and in order for that to be true, actions have to be objectively good or Evil.

That is indeed the case in prior D&D editions, and I am saying that it should not be so.

Even D&D 5th has begun to move away from that paradigm, minimizing the impact of alignment and making it harder to observe.

[goto124]

That is indeed the case in prior D&D editions, and I am saying that it should not be so.

So black & white morality is required in a world of objective good/evil, and the players and GM will have to run along with it in such a system?

Is there really no room for nuance?

[Strigon]

That is indeed the case in prior D&D editions, and I am saying that it should not be so.

Even D&D 5th has begun to move away from that paradigm, minimizing the impact of alignment and making it harder to observe.

Why is it you believe that?
I've never felt anything was wrong with the alignment system I can't believe I wrote that whole sentence before stopping myself...

I've never felt that the alignment system overstepped its bounds in saying that these things are objectively Evil in this world, and these things are objectively Good. As far as I can tell, it's never force-fed you any moral beliefs, and even the Evil acts can be the right thing to do at some points.

Besides, undoing that alignment system would require a massive overhaul of the planes and outsiders; without objective Evil, Devils and Demons can't be made of Evil. If they aren't made of Evil, then either you have to give them no free will, or find a way around that issue to make them still serve as a major villain/bad guy; the same is true with Angels and the like.

[Malifice]

1) A thief that has never killed, just stolen from others;

CN.

A bank robber that will kill if necessary in order to steal;

NE

3) An assassin who is paid to kill;

C, N or LE

4) A serial killer who kills for fun;

CE

5) A demon worshipping cultist who sacrifices others;

CE

A vampire that drinks blood in order to survive;

NE

7) A demon that slaughters humans because it is bored.

CE

[Malifice]

I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, whereas the demon summoning cultists want to over throw the current king. And the Demons want to destroy everything.

The Axis might make the Assassins Guild ne, the Cultists ce, and the Demons CE.

But I think maybe we need at least two CEs or a degree of CE, just like you might have two LGs (LG regular and LG Exalted).

This might be more important in situations where Good and Evil are working together against opposing forces, as opposed to a traditional all goods vs. all evils.

Doing evil things for the greater good still makes you an evil person.

[nedz]

I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, ...

Ah, Machiavelli.
This is LN — the ends justify the means, it's for the greater good, and other clichés.

[Red Fel]

So black & white morality is required in a world of objective good/evil, and the players and GM will have to run along with it in such a system?

Is there really no room for nuance?

It's not that there is no room for nuance; it's that there is no point.

In a system without alignment, or one where there is no mechanical impact of alignment whatsoever, whether a character is Good or Evil or Purple is a matter of academics. It matters as much as hair color. So whether you're mildly Evil, generally Evil, hideously Evil, or me, it really makes no difference. It's a nice personal touch, and impacts how you play your character, but the label doesn't matter.

In a system with hard-coded, arbitrary alignments with clear mechanical impact, you have your choice of those provided. In D&D 3.5, that means you have nine choices. So while there is a difference between LG and LE, or TN and CN, there is no real mechanical difference between LE, lE, Le, and le. They're all Lawful, all Evil. It may influence, again, how you play the character, but about as much as your ability to provide an accent or your character's perfectly reasonable genocidal hatred of Kender.

That's the point. There is nuance, and room for nuance, from an RP perspective. You can always layer complexity in how you play your character. But the label doesn't matter, because it has no mechanical impact. It's like trying to describe the particular shade of green of your Orc's skin. He's an Orc, he's green, we get that; what unique shade has no impact on the game.

[Segev]

I will preface this by saying that I do not actually think this is a good idea, certainly not with D&D as written.

However, if you really wanted to make the nuances notable, you would probably have to institute some sort of "alignment points" system whereby actions move you along granulated tick marks on the moral and ethical axes. Then, to give that mechanical teeth that make being 75% good different from being 80% good, you'd have those points be factors in damage codes, save bonuses and penalties, etc. when exposed to magics and other effects which interact with alignment.

Blasphemy, for example, might do damage based on how many Good Points a target creature has, hurting more the more Good you are.

This seems way too complicated for how D&D uses alignment, but it's a potential system to give nuance more mechanical meaning. It would then be worth keeping track of whether you were Fagin, Sykes, Asmodeus, Red Fel, or your average used politician salesman in terms of HOW evil you are. Because holy word would actually affect each of those differently.

As it stands, since all of them (except maybe, arguably, Fagin) are evil, it'd affect them all the same way (barring (un)successful saves).

[CharonsHelper]

Frankly - I can see and argument for making it more nuanced... if the system was more focused upon alignment than it is. But really - going too detailed would break KISS too hard.

Do you really want to keep track of how much more evil the assassin is who enjoys his work vs. the assassin who feels guilty and donates 1/2 his $ to an orphanage - but not guilty enough to stop being a killer for anyone with the coin.

Both are evil. Enough said.

[Segev]

Oddly, one COULD make a case for an LN assassin. He's really a stealth executioner. He kills people who have been found guilty in absentia after having been given due process (and a chance to prove themselves innocent if they would have shown up). And he represents a mostly-LN system, not a corrupt LE one. (He might even represent an LG one.) He kills people because they are found guilty of capital crimes, but he does it as an assassin because those people elude the traditional arresting forces.

If he's a private citizen who does this for hire (perhaps as a bounty hunter), he still can be LN if he follows the law and does not do it for anything other than money and justice.

I could even make a case for it being possible to design him as an LG character. He does an unpleasant job, but when a paladin kills a bad guy, so does he.