A New Way Of Looking At Good And Evil

[Lysander]

One thing always bothered me about stark polar good and evil. It just seems like an odd thing in a cosmos of balanced forces.

Order and chaos, it makes sense to balance those. Neither is "right". One is about recurring systems and conformity. The other is about change and uniqueness. Both can be good or bad in different contexts. The concept can apply to people or inanimate objects.

But good and evil? The universe is balanced between being a jerk and helping little old ladies cross the street? How does that apply to objects? Does an evil mountain make you climb it out of spite while the good mountain does it to give you some exercise? And why is balance needed? That's like asking whether better or worse is better. People NEED both chaos and order. People NEED good. What do we NEED evil for?

Here's my solution. Good and evil no longer are defined as "being a nice person" or "being a jerk". Instead they are defined as selflessness and selfishness.

A good person cares for others. An evil person cares for themselves. Both good and evil are needed in a person to live a balanced life.

A purely good creature only exists to improve the lot of others. They have no personal ambition. Do you have goals for yourself? Want to write a book? Travel the world? Taste new foods? Get a better job? Find a new apartment? Those are selfish desires, and represent the evil in you. Anyone completely good is such a devoted single minded person they spend all day volunteering in soup kitchens and have no time for hobbies or fun. They're inspiring but also dreadfully boring and bleak.

A purely evil creature only exists to improve their own condition. This doesn't necessarily mean they want to HURT others. A bodybuilder's quest for perfection is an aspect of evil as much as a conqueror's quest for power, since they both involve focusing on yourself rather than others. The reason evil gets a bad rap is that if your objective is to look out for #1 then you aren't against hurting others if that will further your goals. But it depends on what those goals are. If you want to rule the world you'll probably kill a lot of people and be traditionally evil. If you want to be the world's most influential wine critic, you probably won't be traditionally evil, just aloof and self centered.

Another reason evil is reviled is that if you don't care about the feelings of others, than yeah, you might have fun tormenting them. Sadists are always evil. But not everyone evil is a sadist.

In this system Devils and Demons don't necessarily care about hurting people (though it does amuse the ones that are sadists, and without a shred of good to hold them back many are). The ones that are indifferent cause great suffering because they have absolutely zero concern for anything other than increasing their own power, and the swiftest methods to power are usually ones that end up hurting many people. Why bother with employees when you can have slaves, and why have slaves when you can have zombie minions?

All living creatures have both good and evil in them. A hunter that kills a deer to feed his family is committing a selfish evil act in killing the deer, and a good one in helping those he loves. Loving his family is a good act. Wanting their love is an evil act. Evil is necessary for society to function, because without it people have no drive for self-improvement. Most leaders, doctors, scientists, and artists are driven to improve the world in part to gain recognition for themselves.

[Icewalker]

Yeah, I think that's about accurate to what good and evil are supposed to be, at least as I see them. Evil isn't kicking puppies, it's having no qualms against kicking a puppy if you find yourself with a beneficial reason to do so.

As to things like the bodybuilder focusing on himself, I'd say that's a little more variable. It's not evil to focus on oneself, it's evil to focus on oneself for oneself. If the bodybuilder is strengthening himself for the purpose of better punching evil folks in the face, then so be it. More of a means to an end than a qualifier in itself.

[AstralFire]

This looks less like good versus evil and more like yin versus yang. It's not quite the same, but I think it makes for a more interesting alignment axis.

If I had to do alignments myself, I'd probably make the two axes "Aggressive-Passive" and "Conscientious-Neurotic."

[hamishspence]

A purely good creature only exists to improve the lot of others. They have no personal ambition. Do you have goals for yourself? Want to write a book? Travel the world? Taste new foods? Get a better job? Find a new apartment? Those are selfish desires, and represent the evil in you. Anyone completely good is such a devoted single minded person they spend all day volunteering in soup kitchens and have no time for hobbies or fun. They're inspiring but also dreadfully boring and bleak.


They're also in danger of dying through overwork "no concern for self" would mean they wouldn't dare eat anything if somebody else is likely to need it more.

Calling it "good" and self-preservation "evil" stretches the words a bit much.

[Lysander]

As to things like the bodybuilder focusing on himself, I'd say that's a little more variable. It's not evil to focus on oneself, it's evil to focus on oneself for oneself. If the bodybuilder is strengthening himself for the purpose of better punching evil folks in the face, then so be it. More of a means to an end than a qualifier in itself.

That's absolutely true. Fighting evil zombies for treasure is evil, because you're doing it to enrich yourself not to kill evil zombies. But wait! You need treasure to buy a cure for your sick wife! So it's good again! But you love your wife because she's beautiful and makes you the envy of everyone else in town! You're evil again! But you also love her because she's pregnant and you want her to have healthy children! You're good! But you want children so they can carry on your name! You're evil! But it'll make your father happy! You're good! But you want him to be happy so he'll respect you! You're evil! Aaaaaaagh. That's the contradiction in everyday life.




They're also in danger of dying through overwork "no concern for self" would mean they wouldn't dare eat anything if somebody else is likely to need it more.

Calling it "good" and self-preservation "evil" stretches the words a bit much.

Well, it depends on the greater good and personal ethics. One good person might reason "more people will be helped if I live instead of this person". Another good person might be more prone to self-sacrifice, even if that isn't the logical step to maximize goodness. This is really where law and order step in. Does their code of honor require them to make a noble gesture and sacrifice themselves? Does it require them to logically maximize good by staying alive? Are they chaotic and able to react based on their emotions? That will determine what they do.

[Myiven]

I've been explicitely using the selfish/selfless evil/good axis you just described for a long time. Spot on!

I see the destructive manifestations of evil as more of an example of a chaotic or destructive personality indulging in selfish feel-good activities. Lawful Selfish may subjugate, but Chaotic Selfish might just enjoy killing. Hence serial killers with little sense of self preservation.

[Lysander]

I've been explicitely using the selfish/selfless evil/good axis you just described for a long time. Spot on!

I see the destructive manifestations of evil as more of an example of a chaotic or destructive personality indulging in selfish feel-good activities. Lawful Selfish may subjugate, but Chaotic Selfish might just enjoy killing. Hence serial killers with little sense of self preservation.

What I like about this system is how much variety it adds to each alignment. Chaotic Evil can describe:

A serial killer who enjoys destruction.
A stuck up party girl who just wants to go out dancing every night.
A self-centered heroic slayer of evil dragons.

Of course the killer will have MORE evil and pretty much no good in them, but all three are chaotic evil in that they vary their methods, have no code of honor, and care about their own benefit over others.

[hamishspence]

Most people would (in D&D) put the last 2 as Neutral rather than Evil- since in normal D&D selfishness isn't evil unless combined with active harm.

[Lysander]

Most people would (in D&D) put the last 2 as Neutral rather than Evil- since in normal D&D selfishness isn't evil unless combined with active harm.

It depends on the situation. For example, let's take the dragon slayer. He will go out and fight any monster that will earn him glory and helps many people. But:

Man: Help! Bandits are attacking the village!
Hero: What do I care about a few weak thieves and some worthless villagers?
Man: They're going to kill everyone!
Hero: *Yawn* Let me know when there's some sort of challenge worth a hero of my stature.

[Woodsman]

It depends on the situation. For example, let's take the dragon slayer. He will go out and fight any monster that will earn him glory and helps many people. But:

Man: Help! Bandits are attacking the village!
Hero: What do I care about a few weak thieves and some worthless villagers?
Man: They're going to kill everyone!
Hero: *Yawn* Let me know when there's some sort of challenge worth a hero of my stature.

That's rather CN.

I have a player like that. Only he saved the villagers first and asked for money later.

[hamishspence]

apparently, in 2nd ed, Chaotic Good was a bit like that- eager to fight evil, but fairly selfish and uninterested in the plight of those in trouble.

2nd ed had some pretty unusual alignments.

3rd ed, by contrast (in BoVD) at least had the concept of Evil by omission- if you know evil events are happening and you have the ability to stop them fairly easily, and don't, you bear some culpability.

[Steward]

I don't know about that. Making any action or thought that isn't completely selfless turn into Evil seems to be biased in favor of Evil against Good, and obviates the need for Neutrality. For example, how would you play a Good-aligned character in your world? Their personality is already prescribed for them; they have to be completely obsessed with helping others and aren't even allowed to have hobbies and quirks that only benefit themselves. That seems a little too dogmatic and overly-restrictive from a roleplaying perspective to me.

[hamishspence]

I have seen some theories that reversed them- attempts to make others perfectly selfless are at root evil- because self-interest is survival behaviour and trying to destroy it = trying to kill the person.

Not great philosophical theories, but they do raise an interesting counterview to the much commoner "all self-interested perspectives are at root evil" view.

[Voldecanter]

This is how I have always viewed Alignment .

[Lappy9000]

Alignment ideasI'm pretty sure that's how alignment was in default 3.5 D&D :smallconfused:

I don't think it was ever defind as "Good = Nice" and "Evil = Jerk." Just look at Miko :smallbiggrin:

[Milskidasith]

Selfishness is not evil. Selflessness is not good. Granted, they can be, but they aren't. It isn't "evil" to act in a way to preseve yourself, and it isn't good to act in a way that doesn't help your life. Committing suicide is selfless if you define it as doing something without intent of helping yourself, but it isn't necessarily good. Eating is selfish because you could give the food away, but it isn't evil to eat the food you earned and not starve.

[hamishspence]

Selfishness is not evil. Selflessness is not good. Granted, they can be, but they aren't. It isn't "evil" to act in a way to preserve yourself, and it isn't good to act in a way that doesn't help your life.

Even BoED, with its high premium on selflessness, is closer to this, than "self-interest is evil"

BoVD does say "if you have to sacrifice somebody else to preserve yourself, its still evil."

That is, acting to preserve yourself directly at the expense of others is evil.

Shooting the guy with the last lifebelt, if you can't swim, on a sinking ship, probably comes under this

[Kallisti]

I think some people are missing the point. Either that, or I have.

A character who is PURE good, yes, is completely selfless, and spends all day helping others until they collapse from exhaustion, and does this until they starve, because they always give away their food.

But to be Good, you don't have to be pure good. Someone who is charitable and always willing to help others, but still takes time to eat, sleep, hang with friends, and go fly-fishing on Fridays is still good, but not pure good.

The whole point is that everyone has some good and some evil in them, and that balance determines your alignment. It's okay to have some evil in you. Almost everyone does. No real person, and no real character, is purely, utterly selfless, and that's what this system is trying to take into account.

I think this is an elegant and sensible system, even if it does seem to lack neutrality. Someone who is almost balanced plays as neutral, but the way I read this, technically they'd have to be either good or evil. Pragmatic neutral characters who help others to benefit themselves are mildly evil now. But you know what? I'm fine with that.

[hamishspence]

Pragmatic neutral characters who help others to benefit themselves are mildly evil now. But you know what? I'm fine with that.

I'm not so keen on that- "neutral at best" but not evil, using BoED, was a rather fairer description.

[Kallisti]

True. I like the idea of neutrality. I'm just saying that under this system most of the ways neutral characters get played would technically be mildly evil.

The OP didn't really present mechanics, but if I used this system I'd include a "window of neutral" in the middle where your character counts as neutral mrchanically.

I said, "I'm fine with that" because this system makes more sense than a lot of alignment systems I've played under, and even if it eliminated neutral I'd still like it. Maybe I've just had the wrong GM's...

[hamishspence]

Ideal for this window, would be, the person who never (or almost never) tries to cause harm, and nearly always tries to cause help- the person who, while they see everything in terms of their own self-interest, also thinks "everything good they do returns to them threefold"

and helps others to be seen helping them- so that if they themselves are ever in trouble people will help them in turn- preserves environment because they like it that way (and a bad environment will have bad effects for them) and so on.

Such a person would, in terms of their effects on everyone around them, be almost indistinguishable from traditional D&D good person.

[Omegonthesane]

I think this is an elegant and sensible system, even if it does seem to lack neutrality. Someone who is almost balanced plays as neutral, but the way I read this, technically they'd have to be either good or evil. Pragmatic neutral characters who help others to benefit themselves are mildly evil now. But you know what? I'm fine with that.

The way I see it...

Mildly evil = Neutral. It takes an actually pretty horrible person to get an E on the alignment section under default. Under this, you'd have to be a lot more selfish than average, and/or a lot less caring about others.

Mildly good = Neutral. Unless you are really busting a gut to do good things (or in Lysander's system, to help other people) you probably don't get a G under Alignment. Which doesn't mean you have to be some kind of utterly selfless monk to the point of self-destruction, but it takes more than the odd charity donation and not screwing over everyone you see.

Or you could split the moral axis into 4 alignments, 2 of which count as Neutral until the time comes to decide whether you're chucked into Acheron or Baator. In fact, D&D already has terms for the extreme alignments - but we can't really use Exalted on the same axis as Evil...

In descending order from Elysium to Hades, how's Exalted -> Good -> Selfish -> Vile?

[hamishspence]

depends on what "pretty horrible" means- going by Fiendish Codex 2, the bullying schoolboy a la Flashman would qualify as evil- the merciless landlord, the unscrupulous trial lawyer.

Not necessarily deserving of death, any of these, but capable of fitting "default D&D evil" especially given that in PHB "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" implying roughly 1/3 of the human populace of a D&D world should be Evil.

The "selfishly Good" person probably has a "selflessly Evil" counterpart- one focussed on coercing others into behaving the same way as they do, or prone to "redistributing the wealth" enough that they believe a little misery among a few rich people is outweighed by a little increase in happiness among a lot of poor people.

[Omegonthesane]

depends on what "pretty horrible" means- going by Fiendish Codex 2, the bullying schoolboy a la Flashman would qualify as evil- the merciless landlord, the unscrupulous trial lawyer.
As far as I'm concerned the fluff of Fiendish Codex 2 doesn't exist. The gods revoked the Pact Primeval as soon as they realised it wasn't fit for purpose, and Asmodeus is only able to get those souls who are actually Lawful Evil, and he can't stop them from being rezzed.

And under the 4-alignment system I just proposed... they'd be Selfish, and therefore be risking Acheron at worst, unless they did some truly vile things. Bullying schoolboy escalating to rape or murder, for example, or unscrupulous lawyer intentionally letting an innocent take a murder rap for the mafia.


Not necessarily deserving of death, any of these, but capable of fitting "default D&D evil" especially given that in PHB "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" implying roughly 1/3 of the human populace of a D&D world should be Evil.
Given this is a thread about an alternate alignment system to make it clear what Good and Evil actually mean...

The yardstick I'd use under normal D&D is the bit I recall from the PHB, that an Evil character has no qualms whatsoever about killing people. Or "has willingly, wilfully, and unquestionably transgressed against any conceivable Good moral code, and has never repented for it".

[hamishspence]

true- its a different system- but if its too different, it may mystify players.

[Omegonthesane]

true- its a different system- but if its too different, it may mystify players.

Yeah. Anyone got a better name for Uber-Good than "Exalted" so I can put Evil back as the "Risking Acheron/Pandemonium" alignment? I considered "Holy" but D&D allows for atheist good guys...

[hamishspence]

I'd go with replacing Law and Chaos with Selfless and Selfish- Law in D&D has a strong tradition of "the good of others" Chaos "the good of self"

Evil versions of both can exist.

[Harperfan7]

See, I thought this was how it was. Which explains to me why so many people think the alignment system is bad, which I could never understand.

[Golden-Esque]

Defining Good versus Evil has always been difficult; it's part of what makes us mortal. Take the age-old scenario of the man who steals medicine he cannot afford to save his wife's life.

On one hand, the man stole something from another without proper compensation. That's bad. On the other hand, he saved a life with his theft. Saving lives is good. Stealing isn't.

This is particularly why your idea isn't reliable. Using your examples, since the man stole not for himself, but for others, he is Good. The shopkeep would disagree.

This is typically how I see the current Good and Evil system working.

Good People save lives, protect others, are kind, and show mercy. They are righteous and often put the needs of others before their own.

Evil People do not necessarily kill, but many would have no second thoughts if it furthered their own positions. Evil people can be cruel and tend to with hold mercy. However, the largest sign of evil is someone who puts their needs before the needs of others.

People who do good things for evil causes (selfishness etc) are evil. People who do evil things for good causes (e.g. torture) are neutral.

Alignments are a lot like salads. For example, you have lettuce of luxurious lifestyle, mixed in with compassion for family and friends, chopped carrots and love for an even more select few, with just a hind of a vengeful streak, all drizzled in a need to protect select others in order to maintain one's power. Isn't the Evil Mastermind Salad grand?!

[Mulletmanalive]

This looks less like good versus evil and more like yin versus yang. It's not quite the same, but I think it makes for a more interesting alignment axis.

Actually that's incorrect. The guy's points bear very little resemblence to the actual concept of taiji orientation, though i suppose on a New Age complete misunderstanding level, you're forgiven that.

Trying to assign behaviour connotations to Yin and Yang is practically impossible. My studies in Chinese philosophy have been mostly about how folks have made their declarations and then tried to link back to the concept.

On the other hand, i once saw a system that assigned alignment based on the material phases [wood, earth, fire, water, metal to give the usual sequence]

[Lysander]

True. I like the idea of neutrality. I'm just saying that under this system most of the ways neutral characters get played would technically be mildly evil.

The OP didn't really present mechanics, but if I used this system I'd include a "window of neutral" in the middle where your character counts as neutral mrchanically.

I said, "I'm fine with that" because this system makes more sense than a lot of alignment systems I've played under, and even if it eliminated neutral I'd still like it. Maybe I've just had the wrong GM's...

Here's how I view neutral on the good/evil axis here. It's either one of two things:

1) Equal parts of good and evil. You are selfless in some aspects, selfish in others. Most people fall under this. You love some people, hate others, give to charity, and strive to advance yourself. That is balance.
2) Minimal amounts of good or evil. It's an almost zen quality. You don't care about what happens to yourself or others. A monk who has given up all desire would fall under this.

Perhaps we should split neutral into two terms. The first, equal amounts of each, can be "Balanced". The second, absence of either, can be "Neutral."

So a Neutral Lawful would include a fair minded judge who cares more about applying the law than becoming emotionally invested.
A Balanced Lawful person would include a policeman who wants to protect society and help people, but also takes perverse pleasure in beating up criminals.

or alternatively

A Neutral Lawful person could be a mild mannered laborer who keeps out of trouble and doesn't want much.
A Balanced Lawful person could be a politician who wants to go down in history as a great leader (equal parts benevolence and ego).

The thing is, only the most extreme professions are stuck in one alignment combination. It's possible to be a Good Lawful judge and still fairly uphold the law in order to promote justice. Or be an Evil Lawful judge who fairly upholds the law because they value their own reputation as wise legal expert.

[Thatguyoverther]

I don't think that selfishness/selflessness is a good way to represent Good and Evil, mostly because I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act. Someone who volunteers to work in a soup kitchen does so because they get something out of it, a sense of accomplishment, alleviation of boredom, avoiding the negative sensation of guilt, satisfying a desire to be a more moral person, a general warm fuzzy feeling.

I think that evil has to be defined as sadism, or getting pleasure from inflicting or witnessing pain. Admittedly, few people would be considered evil by this definition, but I feel that that's pretty accurate. There are very few people that I would call evil, misguided sure, but not evil.

I also don't like the selfish/selfless idea because I could definitely see an evil character who was selfless. For example a BBEG might seek the destruction of all off reality, himself included.

[Lysander]

I don't think that selfishness/selflessness is a good way to represent Good and Evil, mostly because I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act. Someone who volunteers to work in a soup kitchen does so because they get something out of it, a sense of accomplishment, alleviation of boredom, avoiding the negative sensation of guilt, satisfying a desire to be a more moral person, a general warm fuzzy feeling.

I think that evil has to be defined as sadism, or getting pleasure from inflicting or witnessing pain. Admittedly, few people would be considered evil by this definition, but I feel that that's pretty accurate. There are very few people that I would call evil, misguided sure, but not evil.

The way I see it, everyone has good and evil in them. It's very hard to do a good deed without a slight ulterior motive. And it's very hard to be pure evil and not care about anyone or anything else. So most people fall on a spectrum of shades of gray. You can sin but still be mostly good. Likewise you can do good deeds but still be mostly evil.

A serial killer saves a kitten. He's still evil.
A kind nun holds an unfair grudge. She's still good.

Sadism, enjoying someone else's pain, is pure wickedness because it combines evil with an utter lack of good. A sadist A) puts their own entertainment first and B) shows no concern for the well being of others. That's a little different than an evil person who puts their own entertainment first but has enough good to not torture others.


------

On another topic, is it evil to not help others who need assistance? Yes. But it varies by situation.

Not dedicating your entire life to help others is very minimally evil, so minuscule it can't really throw you off of neutral/balanced. Most people are not Mother Teresa.
Not calling 911 on your cell phone out of laziness and letting a guy bleed to death in front of you is pretty evil.

[hamishspence]

Sadism, enjoying someone else's pain, is pure wickedness because it combines evil with an utter lack of good. A sadist A) puts their own entertainment first and B) shows no concern for the well being of others. That's a little different than an evil person who puts their own entertainment first but has enough good to not torture others.



In wartime, people's sadistic tendencies can become more overt than they would in peace.

The Milgram experiment shows how quickly people can start heurting others for fun if they are encouraged to do so.