Motive Vs. Action

[Fiery Justice]

Okay, my brother and I had a bit of an argument last night over a character concept of mine, the rough principle is below:
The character is a greedy, selfish man at heart, and doesn't really care about anyone else as much as himself.

Fortunately, he has very high mental stats and, when he sits down to figure out how to be happy forever, he decides that he should hook up with Pelor and serve him, because he may live for say, eighty years max, and then he dies and goes off to the Elysium fields (which is a place of such bliss no one wants to leave) and gets his just (he's been a good person in action) reward.

Now, I was of the firm contention that this man, while a greedy, selfish bastard, was Neutral Good. And my brother insisted that this man was Lawful Evil. Who's right?

[daggaz]

I usually dont even post on alignment threads, but I like this one.

I would actually side with your brother. He is basically lying and living a false life, for his own personal benefits. Its not like demon-evil, but it isn't good. He is certaintly not of a good alignment. I would say he is Lawful Evil, at best Lawful Neutral (if you think his actions should outweigh his heartfelt motives), but not good. The Lawful part comes in, because he would have to be very regular and strict regarding his actions, thru his whole life, always reigning in his true desires. Otherwise, he knows he has not a chance.

Also, Pelor would see through his motives anyways, he IS a god, he would never gain entry into the Elysium Fields.

[KIDS]

Ah, the joy of another alignment debate... I think both ways would be absolutely fine as long as one person wouldn't go Gestapo over another. However, we often see people who think themselves worthy of playing others' characters and bowl over their concepts... wait, I'm ranting.

The character you describe is an interesting concept. I think that Motive represents alignment more than action, but action stems from motive so it is quite natural. i.e. someone who thinks evil but never does anything evil could be described as say, neutral evil. However, it wouldn't give anyone a reason to smite him or a paladin to be mad at him because he's never did anything evil. Note the difference between "though evil" and "done evil".

I would look at this like quite a nice idea of Pascal's wager. I think that since the man has such (evil) motives but does mostly good things, then obviously his motives aren't as strong. I would never say good alignment, but True Neutral serves just fine. It's not evil either, because he worships Pelor and follows his doctrine. Think of it as two parts negating each other. Note that you can't be a cleric of Pelor as a TN person though.

However, I think that it doesn't really matter and that TN is a reasonable compromise that describes both sides rather well.

p.s. if happiness to you represents a harmonic, peaceful and loving life on Elysium, then obviously you are not as evil as you might style yourself. An evil peson would likely scoff at that in a nihilistic fashion or just think of it as "weak".

[Kaelaroth]

He is Lawful Neutral. Although he may not be a nice person, by trying to acquire personal joy for himself, he is willing to scarifice his mortal life to do good and happy for other people at the possible cost of his own mortal happiness. And like Roy, at least he's trying.

[Catch]

While it's certainly possible that a greedy selfish person could worship a good deity for personal gain--admittedly, this isn't a bad idea in a world where religion is fact--but I contend that such a person would not be able to gain divine gifts from such a lip-service style of faith. I doubt very much that someone who is diametrically opposed to a religion's alignment in their heart would make it through the priesthood, no matter how convincing their words are. I could see a character having a skewed perspective of good being true to the faith--Pre-Fall Miko, for example--but someone who is only pretending to be good wouldn't fool a god or the church for very long.

I'd call your character Lawful or Neutral Evil, on principle of the "all for me" perspective. Good implies an intention of going out of your way to help others and that he doesn't appear to have. If he wasn't a member of the priesthood, I think it'd be more feasible, though I wouldn't make any bets on his final destination.

[Captain van der Decken]

Isn't this the way otherwise apathetic neutral characters are persuaded to worship good gods? "Be nice to people and do what Pelor says, and you get to go to heaven."

[Riffington]

Action shapes thought. At first he may be greedy and selfish. But if he genuinely acts like Pelor asks him to - does acts of charity and goes through joyful motions when he sees others benefit - his motives will change.
He will begin to develop habits of generosity, and in acting as if he loves his fellow man, he will begin to love his fellow man.

In short: he may start down the road for selfish reasons, but if he keeps to that road he will become good.

[Mr.Moron]

Sounds pretty firmly neutral to me, probably TN maybe LN. This is my take on alignment:

Good: Helps others, does so for the sake of helping others.
Neutral: Doesn't help or hurt others outside the demands of one's own survival.
Evil: Hurts others outside of the times it's absolutely needed.

Lawful: Operates based on a defined set of personal or social rules. Follows these rules for the sake of following them. The rules, whatever they are mean something in and of itself.
Neutral: Follows rules and codes as needed, but doesn't value or resent them. Doesn't discard or try to suppress impulse or instinct, but doesn't always treat them as right.
Chaotic: Operates on impulse or instinct. Resents abstract rules or guidelines, wants every decision to be its own. Treats any structure beyond what is complete necessary as limiting and arbitrary.

He can't be "Good" because good requires him to help others just to be helping others. Anything "Good" he does for the sake of getting into a nifty afterlife comes out as purely "Neutral" mark on his alignment.

Trying to play the rules is a somewhat Lawful trait. However, he it seems to me he more values what the rules can do for him, rather than the rules themselves. Again, sounding pretty neutral.

[Squatting_Monk]

There's a difference, I think, between pretending to be good and being good for selfish reasons. Consider:

1. Child A obeys his parents' rules when they're watching him because he doesn't want to get in trouble. When they're not looking, however...
2. Child B obeys his parents' rules because he wants and values their affection.
3. Child C obeys his parents' rules because he knows that it's the right thing to do.

Of course, the motives of Child C are the best and are what we would expect of the traditional Neutral Good character. However, the motives of Child B are still better than those of Child A. While Child A is only pretending to be good to avoid punishment, Child B is actually being good for his own benefit.

Because of my particular religious convictions (which I will not delve into here for the sake of forum rules), I believe that all people are essentially evil. Even the good ones have to fight an evil nature. Thus, it is not your nature that ultimately matters, but what you do despite your nature.

I play a drow paladin of Torm (have I lost all credibility with you yet? ) who's similar to the character you've described. She has no concept of justice or honor, but, through a pact she made with Torm, she is forced to act in a just and honorable manner in exchange for her life. Inside, she sees the Tormish doctrines as foolish and weak, since she cannot understand the logic behind them. Still, she follows them to the best of her ability, whether she understands them or not. If I had to pick an alignment for her thoughts, I would peg her very solidly as Neutral Evil. But her actions are very obviously Lawful Good, so she maintains her paladinhood.

[NecroRebel]

Good: Helps others, does so for the sake of helping others.
Neutral: Doesn't help or hurt others outside the demands of one's own survival.
Evil: Hurts others outside of the times it's absolutely needed.

Lawful: Operates based on a defined set of personal or social rules. Follows these rules for the sake of following them. The rules, whatever they are mean something in and of itself.
Neutral: Follows rules and codes as needed, but doesn't value or resent them. Doesn't discard or try to suppress impulse or instinct, but doesn't always treat them as right.
Chaotic: Operates on impulse or instinct. Resents abstract rules or guidelines, wants every decision to be its own. Treats any structure beyond what is complete necessary as limiting and arbitrary.

The Evil part here seems a bit extreme to me... It implies that Evil people can't have friendships or other meaningful relationships because they just hurt everyone. I'd say that Evil just has no problems with hurting others when it benefits them rather than hurts others except when it doesn't benefit them.

I agree, though... The OP's character is pretty firmly true neutral with leanings towards Law and Evil. He does Good acts solely for his own benefit due to it fitting within a god's rules. If he could get the same reward without those acts, he wouldn't do them, and if he thought he could get away with an Evil act that benefitted him and still get the reward, he'd do that.

[Mr.Moron]

The Evil part here seems a bit extreme to me... It implies that Evil people can't have friendships or other meaningful relationships because they just hurt everyone. I'd say that Evil just has no problems with hurting others when it benefits them rather than hurts others except when it doesn't benefit them.

Evil characters can have friendships and meaningful relationships. They just aren't as evil as somebody who does all the exact same evil things, but even to his momma. I see alignment as an axis system with something like a score between 0-100 on lawful/chaotic and good/evil.

A guy who kicks puppies, eats babies and sets villages on fire, and uses his father as foot stool might be a 2 on the good/evil axis.

A guy who kicks puppies, eats babies, and sets villages on fire but always treats his family with respect and kindness might be a 3-4 on the good/evil axis. Still an evil bastard, but hey at least he loves somebody.

[Valairn]

Here is something to take into account. No one does anything for entirely selfless motives. Everything people do that they consider good, they do because they believe it is good, whether it actually is good or not, is hard to gauge. Now this man may be selfish, but most people are, I mean seriously how many people believe in a faith without thinking that they will be rewarded for following it. For Christians its Heaven, same with Muslims. For Hindus and Buddhists there is enlightenment or being reincarnated as something in a better position than they were in this life. No one does good things entirely for the sake of it. We all have our motives, our own personal motives, which may be influenced by greater ideas, but in the end we all do them for our own reasons.

This goes back to the Paladin who must kill a child to save the world conundrum, the Paladin may be doing a greater good, but he is committing a minor evil. He still falls. This is the opposite, an "evil" man does good his whole life, while containing a minor "evil" motive in his heart. He still goes to Elysium. Motives are wonderful, but motives do not prove our character, actions do.

[Squatting_Monk]

Evil characters can have friendships and meaningful relationships. They just aren't as evil as somebody who does all the exact same evil things, but even to his momma. I see alignment as an axis system with something like a score between 0-100 on lawful/chaotic and good/evil.

This is a very valid point. Often in D&D we like to dehumanize evil characters (especially NPCs) because it makes it easier to hate them. Very seldom do you meet a person who's totally evil and depraved to the extent that, say, a demon or a devil is (or if you do, your DM is very poor at creating an emotional response). Well-played evil characters should always have well-defined values and limits. Not every evil person eats babies, after all.

I read an example one time of an evil character who was a selfish bastard and hated his hometown (his primary goal was to burn it to the ground and hire an evil cleric to curse it so no one could ever live there again). At the same time, he was a chivalrous fellow who always treated women with respect, despite how horribly he treated everyone else.

Similarly, an assassin may kill for money, but also have a personal code that prevents him from killing anyone who's not a mark. Evil? Yes. Baby-eater? No.

On the flip-side, can one be good without being a saint? Absolutely. You don't have to be self-sacrificial in your goodness to be good, just as you don't have to be fiendishly evil to be evil.

[Raolin_Fenix]

At worst, the OP's character is Neutral. To pseudo-quote an earlier OOTS, Chaotic means to a Lawful end strikes me as distinctly Neutral. Similarly, Evil means to a Good end is Neutral, and by the same token, Good means to an Evil end must be Neutral.

Moreover, though, the so-called Evil in this case is purely in the dude's head. It's not going to hurt anyone else for him to go to Elysium -- it's just going to advance him. There's no rule against Good people advancing themselves, so long as it doesn't impose cost to others -- just as there's no rule against Chaotic and Neutral Good people stealing from those who can afford the loss and giving to those who need it more.

The OP's character isn't committing any Evil actions, and that's the most important factor. He's doing Good things, and he's not doing them out of some farfetched plot to gain people's trust, seize power for himself, and crush underfoot those people.

Motive doesn't trump action; intent trumps action. A Paladin can save the damsel in distress, not knowing that she is in fact a vile succubus who, once rescued, will go on to destroy the world. The Paladin's intent was purely Good, even though it led to Evil beyond his control.

This character's motives may be selfish, but he does not intend Evil to come of his actions. Indeed, he intends only Good to come of his actions, because he wants to go to Elysium. He has looked at his alternatives with coldly detached logic, and, unlike most people who do the same, he has made the conscious choice to serve the cause of Good. He has baser instincts, suffers drastic temptation to commit Evil acts... but ignores them, and instead focuses on Good. Isn't that what being Good-aligned is all about? Just like a really courageous person is the one who's scared senseless but still does what he has to?

I'd agree, ultimately, with the original poster. This guy is Neutral Good. If your DM forces him anywhere below True Neutral, he's doing you a vast injustice.

[Mr.Moron]

Similarly, Evil means to a Good end is Neutral, and by the same token, Good means to an Evil end must be Neutral.

Eh. I can see your logic, but I don't quite agree. Certainly this is a subjective sort of thing but I don't think good and evil work quite the same way as law and chaos. I'd say an evil means to a good end is neutral IF and only if, it was either A) The only way to a "Greater Good" and/or B) The person was unaware of the evil at the time.

I think any means to an evil end is always evil.

[Pyroconstruct]

I think it's generally not logical for evil gods to have afterlives that their followers wouldn't like - as mentioned, if Pascal's Wager isn't even a wager in this cosmology, there wouldn't be any evil characters, because it violates their own self-interest. If a given cosmology has worshippers of the God of Good getting an eternal party in the afterlife and worshippers of the God of Evil being mangled by hellhounds for all eternity...who's going to worship the God of Evil? I think some of this has to do with people trying to project Christian cosmology onto D&D cosmologies, but it just doesn't work.

[Lord Tataraus]

My thoughts: First off, ask yourself if he ever indulges or thinks strongly of one of the vices. Then do the same for the virtues. If he indulges in more vices than virtues, he is evil. If he indulges in more virtues than vices, he is good. If he indulges equally than neutral. Of course if he was charitable once, that doesn't count it has to be often. I would say that this man is obviously greedy, so strike one for evil. However, he does not act on it, so temperance, strike one for good. This is all we really know about and maybe that is all, so I'd say LN.

[Fiery Justice]

Actually, the Elysium Fields are so beautifully glorious that, after living there for about 30 weeks, even clerics won't be able to even want to leave. Because everything is beautiful, everyone gets along, and all the food probably also tastes really good. He's using a human definition of happiness (I'm content, life is good, and nothing goes wrong) that is totally fulfilled by Elysium.

Its worth noting I never intend to play this character, he's just background info in my backstory, but he has to go to Elysium (or some other place that makes him happy I suppose, so maybe celestia, but not likely to make him super happy. Then again, he's the sorta guy who would climb straight up the mountain to enlightenment.)

Granted, the character is somewhat inspired by the line, "You have a duty Belkar, a duty to serve the greater you."

Now, I happen to be of the opinion that the character, were he to live a long and healthy life, would ultimately have his motives changed by his actions (which are good, and therefore infinitely more satisfactory then evil ones.). Naturally, I killed him before he turned twenty one. In his short time, he worked at the parish and helped out by healing, praying, cleaning, maintaining the road, and admonishing the people to turn towards good and away from evil.

To Explain The Evil Gods Motives:
Evil gods don't reward their servants because they can devour their servants and gain power and because they are sadists. More importantly, what would a happy evil afterlife be anyway? Even if you stuck if you stuck all your evil people into a perfect situation, their greed, ambition, and lack of self control made them willing to worship an evil god in the first place they'd all rot it up.

The whole issue is that the evil gods aren't charitable, nothing is free with them. There is no reward for doing right, because they don't believe in a right, not even evil. They treat useful servants well, but in the end their tools. If a servant proves useless then he is done away. Evil worshippers have come to the conclusion that evil is gonna win, so their gonna be evil, grasping, monsters, trying to get enough to stand alone against any threat.

[Kaelik]

Your whole view on Evil Gods makes the point mute. If evil Gods didn't reward their servants they would have no worshipers. They would not exist.

In any universe where the evil gods don't reward their worshipers with the type of afterlife they want (whether that be a place to perpetually fight with other worshipers or a place to permanently torture other creatures) Evil gods would have no worshipers. And would cease to exist. If your world has any worshipers of Bane then the fact is that Bane must provide them with the Afterlife they desire.

[Fiery Justice]

Not true, you are presuming wisdom on the part of men, which is so rare that hardly a man has it. Foolish people in our world, who fully believe in a heaven and a hell, would willingly go to hell. If they had just this one thing...

[Lord Tataraus]

Your whole view on Evil Gods makes the point mute. If evil Gods didn't reward their servants they would have no worshipers. They would not exist.

In any universe where the evil gods don't reward their worshipers with the type of afterlife they want (whether that be a place to perpetually fight with other worshipers or a place to permanently torture other creatures) Evil gods would have no worshipers. And would cease to exist. If your world has any worshipers of Bane then the fact is that Bane must provide them with the Afterlife they desire.

Exactly. Even if the afterlife isn't eternal happiness (it would probably get old) there has to be some significant reward or everyone would worship good gods to get into the perfect afterlife. Why would they do otherwise? Even if they had the idea of evil will win, wouldn't they still want eternal happiness?

[Lord Tataraus]

Sorry for the double post but...

Not true, you are presuming wisdom on the part of men, which is so rare that hardly a man has it. Foolish people in our world, who fully believe in a heaven and a hell, would willingly go to hell. If they had just this one thing...

True, but the number of people like that are so few, there might be like 1 evil god and he would be extremely weak since his power is directly related to the number of and strength of his followers. Also, unlike the real world, in D&D worshiping an evil god or good god gives you real results and equal power. In the real world, worshiping a good god does not give you destructive powers, but some believe that worshiping evil will get you power. This is completely different with actual magic.

[Green Bean]

Your whole view on Evil Gods makes the point mute. If evil Gods didn't reward their servants they would have no worshipers. They would not exist.

In any universe where the evil gods don't reward their worshipers with the type of afterlife they want (whether that be a place to perpetually fight with other worshipers or a place to permanently torture other creatures) Evil gods would have no worshipers. And would cease to exist. If your world has any worshipers of Bane then the fact is that Bane must provide them with the Afterlife they desire.

Of course, you're assuming the average bad guy knows that his afterlife is going to be unpleasant. Not everyone has access to a Plane Shift spell, and evil gods will have no problem lying to their clerics. Heck, servants who can get a preview of what's in store for them probably get told that it's the punishment for those who screwed up.

[Fiery Justice]

Its remarkably easy to sell the, "Good is Evil" thing also. I mean, look at those crazy paladins, they kill people for doing evil right? What if they found out you were cheating on your wife? Surely you'd be sent here anyway right? Besides, we can help you, we won't hurt you, we just want you to have some power, and we all want is your soul. Hey, we're giving you power anyway, if this goes well you can get it back, all you have to do is return with some interest the ten gold pieces we are gonna give you.

Plus, in order to get into the heavens, you have to do what the gods say, which so very few people do. And while it is in fact easy to be forgiven, its really easy to sell the "they'll never forgive you, who would forgive a worthless wretch like you?" which swiftly leads to, "So you might as well sell me your soul and, hey, I'll give you some gold, power, and importance."

Then they use the power they've accumulated to repeat and so on and so on, forever.

[Squatting_Monk]

Of course, you're assuming the average bad guy knows that his afterlife is going to be unpleasant. Not everyone has access to a Plane Shift spell, and evil gods will have no problem lying to their clerics. Heck, servants who can get a preview of what's in store for them probably get told that it's the punishment for those who screwed up.

This is one of the problems with D&D, or at least with how religion is usually implemented. In the interests of clear rules, it's assumed that religion works a particular way. People of a certain alignment (or patrons of a particular god) always go to a certain plane when they die. It's a given, therefore everyone in the world knows it. This sucks a lot of the mystery and theology out of the game world. It makes it easy for the players, but it lacks verisimilitude.

If we assume that evil gods can successfully convince their would-be followers that they will provide them with eternal happiness, we must also assume that the details of the afterlife are unknown, or at least don't follow clear-cut rules. In a world where the gods are active, this is unlikely.

An active pantheon assumes the details of the afterlife will be well-known, at least to the clergy. Now, there's still the possibility that evil gods can gain followers either through fear (since your mortal life is far more real and present to you than your eternal life, you'd best submit to Bane, lest he make your life a living hell) or through a sort of Faustian power-in-exchange-for-your-soul thing; and that's besides the maniacs who don't care what happens to their immortal soul because they're crazed into supporting that god. Granted, they're going to be less popular than the good gods, but doesn't that match the real world?

[Kaelik]

Surely you'd be sent here anyway right?

Except that this is contrary to the well known facts of the universe. Good people belong to good gods. Minor actions don't change alignment (I think you are trying to read too much Christianity into DnD. No one needs to be saved or redeemed, even if you kill someone, as long as you didn't do it just because you still aren't evil.) Therefore, people get to go to X heaven. Also, by your logic all evil people would never perform evil actions and would go to good gods. And only weak spineless cowards would ever be sent to the evil gods.

This of course all ignores the fact that DnD specifically tells us what the afterlife is like on both sides and makes it very clear that evil people get to live in an awesome place where they can be evil as much as the want and it kicks ass.

And of course everyone knows all this because Contact Other Plane/Commune/other divinations mean that all the people can find out all this information.

[Fiery Justice]

You don't get it. Brass is an exception, because he sat down and thought, not just on the afterlife, but on the nature of the gods, of actions, and of morality. Anyone who sat down and thought would seriously throw in with the good god. But very few people do. And those who do so and throw in with evil Are powerful enough to become demons and devils and so it doesn't really matter anyway. They get to be as evil as they like.

[Lord Tataraus]

You don't get it. Brass is an exception, because he sat down and thought, not just on the afterlife, but on the nature of the gods, of actions, and of morality. Anyone who sat down and thought would seriously throw in with the good god. But very few people do. And those who do so and throw in with evil Are powerful enough to become demons and devils and so it doesn't really matter anyway. They get to be as evil as they like.

Wait. Stop. Does 'Brass' live in a normal D&D world? OR does he belong to one of your own? If he belongs to your on world, you decide whats happens and we have no say in it. If he lives in a normal D&D world, every point about evil gods rewarding their followers with great afterlives is correct by RAW. You can't argue against what's set in stone, you have to use a new stone which we know nothing about and have no say in. Basically what I'm trying to say is that your points are just plain invalid for a moral discussion on this board.

[Fiery Justice]

I have no idea what your talking about. Standard DnD Cosmology sucks to be evil in. I happen to have Fiendish Codex II sitting right next to me and, as it happens, all LE characters are tortured, thoroughly ruined, have their identities stripped off, and are then turned into creatures that are mindless, powerless, and in constant physical torture.

Its bad to be a bad guy in DnD.

[Captain van der Decken]

Worshippers of evil gods don't just go to hell (Although if the evil god lives in hell, it does, but there's more to it that that) - they continue to serve as the god's minions, as demons or devils and the like. As far as I remember, that is.
Edit: Ah, I remember now, that'd be the afterlife you get in Faerun.

It'd be kinda stupid on behalf of the god if he didn't keep any of his servants.