True Stupid?

[Paragon Badger]

Can a character be too dumb to not even register on the Alignment scale?

Look at Thog, for instance. Thog commits evil acts, yes... but he did so at the insistence of Nale or to please Nale. Clearly Nale caters to Thog (By playing candyland with him and other such things that Thog finds entertaining. ) and though Thog found pleasure in evil acts ("Resistence is fun!"), he also clearly finds pleasure in non evil acts.

Heck, Thog commits no evil acts by himself while he was with Elan (perhaps a few chaotic actions, but that could be explained by Elan's corrupting influence. )

I honestly believe that, as a character, Thog is unable to tell right from wrong. :-P

So that begs the question, can a character be, on account of the inability to tell right from wrong, true neutral even if they actively help and/or kill for an evil aligned character?

It's clearly not mind-control. Thog's doing this of his own volition, sure...

So here's another question. Can a character be evil, but it's not their fault? Not in any way are they to blame, but they are still evil?

Does a character's alignment change if they are unable to comprehend, on a basic level, what they are doing is right or wrong?

And if so, do you have the right to kill them? ;-) Does a Paladin?

Would a Paladin shift a few points to evil for killing an evil character 'because it is their duty' who cannot comprehend that what they are doing is wrong?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Jack Mann]

I'm not sure how well Thog applies, but yes, one can be so stupid that one doesn't have a real alignment. For example, animals aren't capable of moral or immoral actions in D&D, so they always have an alignment of true neutral (the dustbin of alignments). The only way creatures of animal intelligence or lower have an alignment is when they're intrinsically linked to that alignment in some way (creatures with the evil subtype, undead).

Where, exactly, the cut-off point should be is up to you, of course, as a DM.

[Indon]

Regarding Thog, I'd say he's CG, but with extremely low wisdom. He can be manipulated into almost anything, but he generally has to think it a "good" action first, like saving puppies.

Edit: And regarding the alignments, well, I'd honestly say it would be based on character, but technically you can have as low as a 3 int while still having an alignment. Any lower and you aren't really humanoid anymore.

[Glyphic]

"And if so, do you have the right to kill them? ;-) Does a Paladin?

Would a Paladin shift a few points to evil for killing an evil character 'because it is their duty' who cannot comprehend that what they are doing is wrong?"

Before this explodes into Paladin moral code thing, Not all paladins are required to act the same way. But -generally- whe you evoke Lawful good paladins, they don't go around and kill people for not understanding. It's that whole patience and virtue thing. For a specific example, look how Hinjo Handles Miko when she goes nuts. He doesn't kill he, though she does challenge him to some duel of Honor. Even when she's beaten into submission, she isn't killed for not understanding.

[Morty]

Yeah, I'd say it's possible for someone to be evil by someone else's fault. But Thog isn't good example of this- he relishes killing policemen and breaking stuff, and have no moral qualms about killing people Nale tells him to, despite having enough intelligence to have morals.
Better example would be an orphan in poor district of the city, forced to steal and do other amoral things to survive. Or an orc or goblin, who's evil not because of choice, but because all his kin are evil.

[Redblade]

Well while I agree with the gist of what your saying I would also say Thog was a bad example. I would say that he was amoral independently of being idiotic.
... And as for his love of puppy's... puppy's are loyal to Thog, and even a monster needs to be loved

I have also heard of quite a few character concepts based around the idea of an evil character who is convinced there actually doing good (i.e. disproportionate punishment for minor crimes).

I think it would be plausible (well, relatively plausible) to have a good character who was convinced he was doing evil (i.e. going round the village giving children sweets thinking he was being evil because it would rot there teeth later in life.)

[de-trick]

oh my DM had a NPC like this before but good instead of evil. He was a Iron golem that was turned into a human but he stayed the same size but had the mind of a kid of 8, he did not understand good and evil but knew that his friend stalwart was right and same with the hell hounds(hell hound were the elite guards of city both stalwart and the golem kid were members)so if they attacked someone that was the enemy, but not telling good and evil apart was bad if someone could get between stalwart and the golem anarchy could happen

[Greyen]

Someone raised in an amoral society would be regarded as evil in a moral society. Not his fualt just the rules he grew up with. If stealing was ok where he was from then culturally he might by NG in his people's eyes. Where as in a more "normal" society that holds a different moral standard, like "no stealing" would see him as evil.

Alignment to me is a viewpoint exercise. If you are stealing to eat and feed your family, because you are broke, are you evil? You are stealing, stealing is generally considered evil.

As for the primary question of can someone be too dumb to register on the alignment scale, my answer is yes. Like Jack said above animals all register as TN. If a dog gets rabies and goes all Cujo killing folks, is it evil or just sick. Sick is my answer. But then again somepeople consider killers and rapists to just be sick. I think they are wrong but this is the wrong forum for that discussion.

If a person who is mentally handicapped for some reason is doing maliscious acts would the be evil or just acting out due to their handicap. I really don't think it matters, a sick dog is put down (killed) before it can do more harm. You can see where I am going with that.

[Kioran]

I think the gravity of alignment is definitely impacted by intelligence - people with the capacity to think through their acts or contemplate reasons make decisions which are more solidly founded in their alignment. Being too stupid to really decide doesn´t invalidate your choices, but very possibly makes them less heroic or less meaningful - which is why I think Roy is more good than Elan, even though they both have the same tendency to act good.
That said, however stupid, as long as can be considered sentient, you have an alignment. You remain smiteable. And at a certain juncture can be held responsible, though you might have more leeway.....

[Saph]

Can a character be too dumb to not even register on the Alignment scale?

Yes, but they have to be Int 2 or less.

Anyone with an Int score of 3 or higher has human intelligence, not animal intelligence, and they play by the rules of the alignment system like everyone else, which makes Thog-types CE. Stupidity is not generally considered an acceptable defence for murder. :P

- Saph

[Tengu]

The name of this thread reminds me of how TN was defined before 3.x - you know, balancing each good act with an evil one, making sure all the forces around you are equally strong, et cetera. I have no idea how possible is it to create a feasable character who acts like that and does not have a mental illness.

By the way, could anyone explain why animals are TN, not CN?

[AslanCross]

I tend to see stealing and lying as more of chaotic actions than evil actions. It's the intention that can swing them toward the evil or good axis. Being so poor that you have to steal to feed your family can possibly (though arguably) be seen as a chaotic good act, since you are putting yourself at risk to provide for your family. Stealing for your own profit but not wanting to harm people who get in your way (and possibly harming them if they try to harm you) might be more of chaotic neutral (as far as I can tell, financial profit is a TN motivation), while breaking into someone's house and murdering the person inside to get his money is definitely chaotic and evil. You want to get that money for yourself to the exclusion of the well-being of all others; that's definitely evil.

Mechanics-wise, I don't think a creature can be so dumb that he or she will ping as TN. For example, zombies are completely mindless, but they're still neutral evil. Their inclinations are to kill and devour anything that lives--that's definitely evil. While animals (which generally have no more than 2 INT) are always neutral, I tend to think it's because of the way they act, not the way they think. Their actions are based on whatever is needed at the time. It's not a manner of ideology or incapacity to develop a moral standard--it's general behavior.

Nevertheless, I think that characters (whose INT generally does not go below 2) who are stupid may still have a way of behaving that is non-TN. I think they might tend to be CN, actually, wanting things their way and not seeing how others think or are affected.

[Saph]

By the way, could anyone explain why animals are TN, not CN?

Because they're not smart enough to have an alignment, so they get dumped in the "Does Not Apply" one.

I've never seen animals as all that chaotic, but it depends what pets you have in the house, I guess.

- Saph

[AslanCross]

I think animals are TN because they still have order of some kind. Many mammals have tight family structures, though they don't really do this because the law says so---they do it because they need to survive. While they don't have codified laws and civilized society, they don't do whatever they want. (Which, IMO, is Chaotic Neutral unless it involves malice, where it becomes Chaotic Evil) They do whatever they need to survive.

[Morty]

Animals don't have alignment because they don't think. They act on instinct, in the same way their progenitors did. To have an alignment, you have to know what you're doing and do that on purpose. Zombies are mindless too, but since they're the product of evil magic, they're evil.

[Icewalker]

The cut off point is 3. Sentience starts there. I think it's 2 and 1, although 3 may be included, but you can't be a character and the alignment is neutral.

[SurlySeraph]

Doing evil because you don't know right from wrong is less evil than if you realized that what you were doing was wrong, but it's still evil. Whether an action is evil depends both on its intended results and on its actual results. Someone who does evil out of stupidity has neutral intentions but causes evil resutlts - and the average of a neutral act and an evil act is evil.

[Telonius]

The fact that you don't have a mind doesn't, by itself, disqualify you from being evil. Zombies, for example, are always Neutral Evil. But that's because of what they are, not because of what they choose to do. There's nothing about Thog that makes him inherently evil, though; and his INT seems to be slightly above 2.

[Fhaolan]

By the way, could anyone explain why animals are TN, not CN?

They should actually label animals as 'N/A' instead of TN, if they intended that to be the 'does not apply' alignment. I think that would reduce the confusion. But that's just my opinion.

If you go by animal behaviour, there are several animals that would fit the role of LN (Pack and herd animals). And there are many that would work as CN (Frogs and other animals that do not raise their own young).

[TroyXavier]

The following shouldn't have alignments
Animals
Vermin
Constructs (excepting Living of course)

These are on a case-by-case basis
Elementals
Undead

Everything else should have an alignment.

And Thog is curely evil. He may be "cute" but he's definitely evil.

[de-trick]

Also children because they do not know the difference between good and bad because they are too young to know the difference


also funny thought a CE frog

the paladin smites it for being evil

then the druid attacks the paladin for killing a helpless animal

[tainsouvra]

I would say that, no, they can't really be that stupid and still be a viable character.

I agree that, in principle, it is possible to be that stupid. Creatures with animal intelligence (1-2) should be treated as having neutral alignment regardless of their actions, because the non-immediate consequences of their actions are likely beyond their understanding. Templates may add an alignment onto them, according to the rules of templates, but the alignment is due to their template rather than related to their intelligence.

I do not believe that, in practice, it matters that it is possible to be that stupid. Creatures with human intelligence, even very low for a human (3+), do know right from wrong, at least within the same boundaries as the rest of us (upbringing, etc). They might not grasp the full consequences of the actions they take in terms of how it will relate to themselves in the distant future, but they do know that their actions will result in another person being severely hurt in the short term, and that it is wrong to do so, for example.

While comics, movies, and some DM's plots might involve characters who are too stupid to even understand the basic concept of evil, I feel pretty confident in saying that any character that qualifies as having enough intelligence to be playable (3+) understands the basic concept of right-from-wrong. From a game perspective, the alignment rules are pretty clear about it, and also from a real-life perspective it's clear. I'm currently employed with an agency that works with individuals with significant developmental disabilities, and regularly am in contact with individuals who would not qualify as playable characters--and they know right from wrong, at least on a basic level. No playable character, short of the DM overriding the rules and reality, should be "too dumb to register on the alignment scale".

[ALOR]

I would point to the quote in my signature as proof that thog is evil

"Oh, little ice cream friends! thog delays boredom-driven rampage only for you!"

i think clearly a "boredom-driven rampage" is evil.

however i do think the idea of someone to stupid to realise that what thier doing is "evil" would be a cool idea to play

[....]

Alignment to me is a viewpoint exercise. If you are stealing to eat and feed your family, because you are broke, are you evil? You are stealing, stealing is generally considered evil.

Not in D&D world.

There the gods know who's good and evil and thats that. In D&D those are objective things.

[Leliel]

I'm not sure how well Thog applies, but yes, one can be so stupid that one doesn't have a real alignment. For example, animals aren't capable of moral or immoral actions in D&D, so they always have an alignment of true neutral (the dustbin of alignments). The only way creatures of animal intelligence or lower have an alignment is when they're intrinsically linked to that alignment in some way (creatures with the evil subtype, undead).

Where, exactly, the cut-off point should be is up to you, of course, as a DM.

The bolded part is only true in 3.5, and only beacuse players fight undead a lot. There is no other reason, and is probably debatable(plus, it is not even true. Ghosts. Any Alignment).

Other then that, good point.

[Leliel]

[QUOTE=Greyen;3012902]

Alignment to me is a viewpoint exercise. If you are stealing to eat and feed your family, because you are broke, are you evil? You are stealing, stealing is generally considered evil.
[QUOTE]

No, you are Chaotic. You need to feed your family, so it is justified.

Stealing so that you can willingly support a Chinese Triad...that is Evil and probably Lawful(As you are part of an organization).

[Wolfgang]

The fact that you don't have a mind doesn't, by itself, disqualify you from being evil. Zombies, for example, are always Neutral Evil. But that's because of what they are, not because of what they choose to do. There's nothing about Thog that makes him inherently evil, though; and his INT seems to be slightly above 2.

Nothing about Thog makes him inherently evil? He enjoys murdering people, a lot. Nothing about that is not evil. Any Int score above 2 is smart enough to know this, Thog simply chooses to ignore it in favor of doing what he wants and having fun.

[psychoticbarber]

Yes, but they have to be Int 2 or less.

Anyone with an Int score of 3 or higher has human intelligence, not animal intelligence, and they play by the rules of the alignment system like everyone else, which makes Thog-types CE. Stupidity is not generally considered an acceptable defence for murder. :P

- Saph

Okay, while I agree, I feel as though I need to draw the distinction between Good, Evil, and the Legal System.

To quote Admiral Adama from the contemporary Battlestar Galactica: "Not guilty doesn't mean 'innocent'."

While stupidity is not generally considered an acceptable defense for murder, the burden of proof lies on imperfect, human attourneys, and a jury of the defendant's "peers" (Ignoring the discussion on what constitutes a "peer"...). A guilty party may be found "not guilty" if the evidence doesn't support the case.

In D&D, the alignment system is pretty objective, and the universe (or the Gods, or whatever), KNOWS whether or not you're guilty.

To say again, I agree with you, but the two topics aren't really the same thing.

[Jack Mann]

Stupidity is not generally considered an acceptable defence for murder. :P

- Saph

Actually, in the real world, it is. If someone is stupid (or crazy) enough, then they're not competent to stand trial. They aren't legally responsible for their own actions.

Of course, they'll still be locked up, but that's to protect them from their own actions, not as punishment, and in theory, they'll be better treated than people in a real prison. Treated as patients rather than criminals.

[tainsouvra]

Actually, in the real world, it is. If someone is stupid (or crazy) enough, then they're not competent to stand trial. They aren't legally responsible for their own actions.

Of course, they'll still be locked up, but that's to protect them from their own actions, not as punishment, and in theory, they'll be better treated than people in a real prison. Treated as patients rather than criminals.

Indeed--"just guilty", "guilty and mentally ill", and "not guilty due to insanity" are three completely different results, even if they all get you locked up somewhere.