PDA

View Full Version : Can you be neutral through extreme acts of both good & evil?



Pages : [1] 2

Douche
2018-02-06, 10:18 AM
When I played Fallout 3, I didn't dedicate myself to being either good or evil, I just went with whatever seemed right in context. I don't want to mention any spoilers, but lets just say I burned a tree with a flamethrower because it seemed like the simplest solution.

Anyway, I might've swung one way or another on the "karma meter" but overall I was a neutral character throughout the playthrough.

So my question is: in the paradigm of Good vs Evil - do you really have to be consistently neutral, or could you get away with some horrific acts of darkness as long as you balance them out with altruistic acts of selflessness? What I'm not asking about is "Is it okay to genocide orcs if you're protecting humans" because that's a dead horse I don't want to beat. Not "Do the ends justify the means" but rather "Is it okay to indulge in some evil acts as well as some good ones?"

I ask this because a DM of mine has ascribed me to being an evil character even though I am actually a good person. His NPCs are always being douchebags so I am forced to act in my own self interest by betraying them... but I also save refugees from a demon invasion so I'm kind of a good person. Also, I've never actually used violence as the first option - I always gave the NPCs the option to talk things out, and they end up being one-dimensional plot devices that exist solely as obstacles - so there is no reasoning with them, only DEATH EDIT: Don't focus on this too much, I don't want it to derail the big picture here

But to reiterate: I did save a bunch of helpless refugees and others who were not treated solely as obstacles by the DM.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 10:38 AM
I'm not going to weigh in on your specific character's alignment (sounds like there is a lot going on there).

But in general - if someone does a mix of extreme good & extreme evil - they're just an eccentric evil guy. Still very much evil.

I mean, if I'm an awesome teacher in an inner city school who gives my all and help raises kids up, that doesn't make up for the fact that I murder homeless people in my spare time as a stress reliever. Just... no! Evil guy. Not neutral - just evil.

The classic LE ruler does all sorts of good things. Roads/schools etc - but still evil.

Scripten
2018-02-06, 10:41 AM
This thread is going to go well. It sounds like the main problem you have is that your DM doesn't create particularly realistic encounters/NPCs and you're murderhoboing through the world. Questions of alignment insofar as D&D are concerned are not really that important.

If your character is only allowed by the DM to perform evil acts, then they're Evil, but you're also being railroaded. If you're just frustrated by the DM's NPCs and your character is killing annoying (but harmless/non-hostile) NPCs out of convenience/frustration, that's Neutral Evil. If you're killing every NPC you can because some of them are untrustworthy, then that would be Chaotic Evil. If you're killing people that betray you explicitly, that's where you could argue that your character is Neutral. (A Good character wouldn't kill out of frustration or due to betrayal, only in self defense.)

Saving orphans is a Good act, but it doesn't make you a Good person, so it's kind of a moot point. Remember, TTRPGs are not video games. There's no variable that adjusts by so many points when you commit a Good or Evil act. We can look at your character's actions and make reasonable judgements on their motive, intent, and justification and draw an alignment from that.

hamishspence
2018-02-06, 11:00 AM
I tend to the view that extreme acts of evil make it impossible to be Neutral. The only really "extreme act of good" is sacrificing your own life to save people you have no connection to - and the thing about this kind of sacrifice, is you can only do it once, whereas you can do extreme evil, many times.

However, there's plenty of precedent for "neutral through lots of minor acts of evil countering one's Good ones".

Douche
2018-02-06, 11:01 AM
This thread is going to go well. It sounds like the main problem you have is that your DM doesn't create particularly realistic encounters/NPCs and you're murderhoboing through the world. Questions of alignment insofar as D&D are concerned are not really that important.

If your character is only allowed by the DM to perform evil acts, then they're Evil, but you're also being railroaded. If you're just frustrated by the DM's NPCs and your character is killing annoying (but harmless/non-hostile) NPCs out of convenience/frustration, that's Neutral Evil. If you're killing every NPC you can because some of them are untrustworthy, then that would be Chaotic Evil. If you're killing people that betray you explicitly, that's where you could argue that your character is Neutral. (A Good character wouldn't kill out of frustration or due to betrayal, only in self defense.)

Saving orphans is a Good act, but it doesn't make you a Good person, so it's kind of a moot point. Remember, TTRPGs are not video games. There's no variable that adjusts by so many points when you commit a Good or Evil act. We can look at your character's actions and make reasonable judgements on their motive, intent, and justification and draw an alignment from that.

I think that's a simple way of looking at it. It reminds me of how certain countries would persecute you if you had even a small percentage of genetics from a different racial category.

Someone who solves their problems based on context is not evil. Removing obstacles does not make you evil, it just makes you assertive. If you think that being assertive is evil, then you should work on your assertiveness.

But whatever, I'm derailing my own thread now. I think I'll strikethrough all that stuff because the specificity is going to take us away from the big picture.

But like lets say that you help people become self sustaining & free, but you also help an evil megacorporation because they offer you a lot of money. There's both evil and good there. Your example is pointing to politicians who presumably help orphans for good PR. Except most of us will never experience that, either in real life or a regular D&D game.

I'm talking about an individual level. You can't just paint someone as evil because they indulge in evil acts. I'd say generally that most humans are good, but they also commit some evil. They're not causing the apocalypse, but they're also not preventing it... They're just human beings, on a much smaller scale. Maybe they don't tip at restaurants as much as they should, but they also usually give their spare change to homeless people - so it balances out. So in that sense, most humankind is neutral IMO.


I tend to the view that extreme acts of evil make it impossible to be Neutral. The only really "extreme act of good" is sacrificing your own life to save people you have no connection to - and the thing about this kind of sacrifice, is you can only do it once, whereas you can do extreme evil, many times.

However, there's plenty of precedent for "neutral through lots of minor acts of evil countering one's Good ones".

I worked at a summer camp once. The director would always tell us; when the kids write home - the positive stuff is always "Douche is a nice counselor. I have fun" but when it's something negative, then they write paragraphs and paragraphs, and the parents will know every single bad thing you did to their child.

The point is that negativity and our aversion to it is much more ingrained in our consciousness. But despite that, I don't agree with you. I don't think that the only extreme act of good is sacrifice. In fact, self-sacrifice is not the only way to be good. Sure, you're always sacrificing something when you do an altruistic act (time, money) but it doesn't have to be to your detriment. And it doesn't have to be your life.

I mean, if you're stopping a dragon from destroying a village & you easily crush it, does that diminish the goodness of the act? Like if you one-shot the dragon, it doesn't make you feel like it was an amazing act - but that doesn't change the fact that all those villagers would've died otherwise. I think that's an extreme act of good.

The point is that, like the campers, you're the one who does not express positivity enough

hamishspence
2018-02-06, 11:09 AM
3.5 Champions of Ruin said it best - neutral and even good characters might commit evil from time to time - but evil characters commit evil routinely - it's become their "go to" whenever they have a problem to solve.

Necroticplague
2018-02-06, 11:18 AM
There are no 'extreme acts of good'. There's no act so redeeming that it can cancel out a lifetime of foul deeds. Evil is inherently corrupting, it's easier to be Evil than Good. Thus, acts of extreme Evil exist, while acts of Good only go up to moderate levels. So someone who reaches the heights of Good and the lows of Evil both in their actions averages out to being Evil, simply because the low of the deepest evil is farther away from neutral than the most high of Good.

Now, it's entirely possible to be Neutral simply because both moderately good and moderately neutral actions are taken.

Jormengand
2018-02-06, 11:31 AM
In reality, good and evil and neutral people don't exist. Good and evil and neutral actions do, and benevolent and malevolent and ambivalent people do, and people who tend to do good things and people who tend to do evil things and people who tend to do neutral things and people who do both good and evil things all exist, but here's the thing: good and evil and neutral have to be prescriptive, not just descriptive, if there's to be any point in them. You should do good, you should not do evil, there is no should/should not value in neutrality. If they just exist to go "That action was good" and "That one was evil" and "Oh, that one over there was neutral" then they're just descriptions of things that went on, just like "That action was quick". Yeah, but the fact that it was quick doesn't imply anything about whether it was the right thing to do or not. There has to be some value judgment inherent in doing good or evil.

Benevolent, malevolent and ambivalent are similarly just descriptors of a person, like "Tall" or "Short" or "Angry". Sure, there may be right ways to react to someone being malevolent or tall or angry, but they aren't value judgments like "Good" or "Evil" that tell you "That's the kind of thing you should/shouldn't do", or in the case of people, "That's the kind of person you should/shouldn't be." But they're far more often read as "That's the kind of person you should treat well/badly."

That way lies retributionism - and with all of the complicated rules about what kinds of good and evil actions and in what proportion make you good or evil, unless you committed them on the first Tuesday after a full moon, it's all too easy to lump people whose skin doesn't shine as bright as yours or who kisses people like themselves in the "Evil" box without it really having to make sense. And of course, it implies that the correct way to deal with people doing wrong is to mistreat them, which... makes them more likely to continue to do wrong in the future. Nice job.

And honestly, loss aversion (or evil aversion) is just a weird cognitive bias anyway - the fact that we treat reduction in goodness as being more bad than increase in goodness is good, basically. If we just use personal goodness and evilness as a counter for total benefit of good acts minus total severity of evil acts, that does a variety of things - foremost among them, it doesn't shove murderers and other doers of significant evil in a "You can't be redeemed and everyone will hate you forever so there's no point being good from either moral or selfish reasons" box. The zero sum really can add up. But there's no reason to call people "Good" or "Evil" anyway without being exceptionally clear about exactly what you want that to mean.

And if you mean a specific RPG's take on good and evil, well, that's gonna change everything.

Segev
2018-02-06, 11:32 AM
Despite what computer game karma systems tend to tell you, you don't "make up" for evil by doing good. I mean, doing good as part of an atonement process is important, but simply saving an orphan for every widow you murder isn't going to make you "neutral."

The best analogy isn't one for which I can take credit, but I no longer remember where I first heard it:


If you mix half a pound of ice cream with half a pound of mud, you wind up with a pound of mud.

If you want to make ice cream, you first have to wash away the mud. Which takes, amongst other things, efforts not to just keep scooping up more mud while scooping up the ice cream.

Scripten
2018-02-06, 12:07 PM
Okay, so with the edit to the OP, I think we need to clarify a few things. First of all, why do you care what alignment your character has? Not that I'm implying you shouldn't, but it would help to know your goals for this discussion. Are you looking to avoid spells that check alignment or is it just a matter of rhetoric? Secondly, what system are you using? That can have a huge effect on the way alignment works.

Segev
2018-02-06, 12:10 PM
Nice. I'd say that's a good way of having actions still possibly carry alignment value (ie it's not just about overall behavior), but not being able to use a point scale to determine alignment. At least, not a simple one.

Certainly you could have one with all sorts of additional complex rules as to when you actually get to apply points of Law, Chaos, Good or Evil. Mostly around the Good and Evil I'd expect. But you could apply the same concept to Law. For example, after certain thresholds of Evil or Chaos, you have to atone for the Evil and Chaos you've caused (method tbd) before you can use Lawful or Good actions to go back above that threshold value on the "scale", capping you at a certain point.
(Note: I always assume Chaos and Evil will have negative values on these kind of scales. :smallamused:)

The easiest way to avoid a "value judgment" of one side being "negative" values would be to have good points and evil points, and law points and chaos points, and have your net lawfulness be "Law points - Chaos points," and your net chaoticness be "Chaos points - Law points," and the like.

But if you wanted to represent the mud/ice cream thing as evil/good, you'd probably have people start at Neutral, and earn "good points" for doing good. This could elevate them, up to some maximum amount of "good" that represents being "totally Good." Let's say a 0-100 scale. At 0 "good points," you're Neutral. At 100 "good points," you're as good as Good can be.

Evil, then, doesn't so much subtract "good points" as it shifts your entire "window." If you commit, say, a 2-point evil act, your whole window shifts down, so you now have a maximum of 98 "good points," a minimum of -2 "good points," and your "good point" total is reduced by 2 because your position in the window stayed the same, rather than because you "lost" two points. i.e., you're still X points above your minimum, but that minimum is now 2 lower than it was before.

There is no minimum below which your window cannot sink, either. Keep committing evil, and your window keeps sliding downwards, until your maximum "good point" score is less than 0.

Committing good acts might still put you at the top end of your window, but you just can't get where you need to be with evil holding you down. You have to actually atone for your evil, clean it up, wipe it away somehow, to elevate your window back to a point where you can be "good."



There's probably a better, more symmetric way to represent this, something perhaps that might let your window rise up so you can get above "100 good points" and have a minimum of higher than 0, but I have a hard time framing "less than no sins" as a concept.

Psyren
2018-02-06, 12:39 PM
I'm not going to weigh in on your specific character's alignment (sounds like there is a lot going on there).

But in general - if someone does a mix of extreme good & extreme evil - they're just an eccentric evil guy. Still very much evil.

I mean, if I'm an awesome teacher in an inner city school who gives my all and help raises kids up, that doesn't make up for the fact that I murder homeless people in my spare time as a stress reliever. Just... no! Evil guy. Not neutral - just evil.

The classic LE ruler does all sorts of good things. Roads/schools etc - but still evil.


Despite what computer game karma systems tend to tell you, you don't "make up" for evil by doing good. I mean, doing good as part of an atonement process is important, but simply saving an orphan for every widow you murder isn't going to make you "neutral."

The best analogy isn't one for which I can take credit, but I no longer remember where I first heard it:


If you mix half a pound of ice cream with half a pound of mud, you wind up with a pound of mud.

If you want to make ice cream, you first have to wash away the mud. Which takes, amongst other things, efforts not to just keep scooping up more mud while scooping up the ice cream.

These. You can't help X little old ladies cross the street to cancel out Y murders or even Y times beating your wife. Doing the latter, being someone capable of doing that, makes you evil - and you stay that way until you repent+atone+refrain going forward, all three.

This is not to say there is no good act powerful enough to cancel out a lifetime of evil, so you might as well not try, though. Just that each case has to be looked at individually, and you can't rely on any kind of simplistic and arbitrary point scale to make that determination.

Lapak
2018-02-06, 12:54 PM
This turned much more interesting than I expected. I like the shifting-window analogy for evil, because it gets a bit at why I think we weigh Evil actions more heavily than good ones: good actions generally require maintenance, and evil ones don’t.

Take the save-a-village thing: sure, saving their lives is Good. But they don’t STAY saved. An army could come over the horizon tomorrow, or a crop blight, or a storm. A teacher gives those kids a leg up, but they may fall into poverty or be struck by random violence. That blunts the value of the Good action if into happens: the potential Good was never actualized.

But Evil has a duration of Instantaneous. Kill a guy on a whim, and he stays dead without further intervention. All his possibilities are gone. (Even in a setting where death can be undone, the trauma cannot be.)

So you could also think of this as a scale where ‘Good’ points expire over time, but Evil sticks with you.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-06, 12:59 PM
Here's an example from fiction... I find the idea that Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker was "redeemed" at the end of ROTJ for saving one life -- that of his own son -- morally repugnant. Nope, sorry, that act doesn't even register as a blip compared to just the mass murder at Alderan, before even considering everything else he did starting with saving Palpatine from Windu, the murder of the Jedi children, and on from there.

Red Fel
2018-02-06, 01:13 PM
I'd look at it in terms of mindset. And the key aspect of mindset, as I see it, is this:

A person who finds acts of great Evil to be justifiable is Evil, full stop.

Observe the following contrast. You have your shining knight, champion of the downtrodden, slayer of dragons and rescuer of princesses, noble and chaste as they come, and perfect teeth to boot. Just a swell guy.

He is confronted by a town with the plague. He can try to save them, but risk the plague spreading and claiming more lives, or he can just throw his hands in the air because he just doesn't care, and order the place burned to the ground. He does the latter, justifying it as "the easiest solution."

He has just ordered the murder of an entire town because it was easy. Could he be justified? Perhaps, but he didn't even try. Didn't even consider the possibility. Killing them was simply expedient, so that's what he did. He is a monster.

Contrast him with your friendly neighborhood mob boss. He has ordered hits. He has ruined businesses and lives. He has dealt in drugs, alcohol, and human trafficking. He cheats at cards. He is not swell.

He opens an orphanage as a tax dodge. And to his credit, the operation is legitimate; aside from the fuzzy funding, it does a real public good. The kids have a safe place to sleep, good food, a decent education, and a chance at adoption. It's a truly good thing and he's given these kids a future.

He is still, however, a drug dealer. He still has people killed for speaking out of turn. He still peddles human flesh. This single act does not make him a good person, because he is still the sort of person who sees his other enterprises as "legitimate business." He is still a monster.

That's the thing. Whether it's one great act and a series of justified barbarisms, or a series of great acts and one true atrocity, the person who can justify Evil in his mind is Evil, full stop. Performing acts of "extreme Good," whether one or many, may balance some karmic scale, but it won't change the fact that this is a person who finds performing acts of Evil to be desirable in a given context.

Jormengand
2018-02-06, 01:15 PM
Here's an example from fiction... I find the idea that Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker was "redeemed" at the end of ROTJ for saving one life -- that of his own son -- morally repugnant. Nope, sorry, that act doesn't even register as a blip compared to just the mass murder at Alderan, before even considering everything else he did starting with saving Palpatine from Windu, the murder of the Jedi children, and on from there.

I think the important part isn't that he ended up "Making up" for the bad stuff he'd done but he'd turned from the kind of person who does evil things into the kind of person who does good things. And those are far more important than any kind of points tally (at least as far as whether you should be supported or opposed is concerned, as in, as far as how people should actually react to you is concerned. It's a little too late to worry about the younglings).


I'd look at it in terms of mindset. And the key aspect of mindset, as I see it, is this:

A person who finds acts of great Evil to be justifiable is Evil, full stop.

[...]

That's the thing. Whether it's one great act and a series of justified barbarisms, or a series of great acts and one true atrocity, the person who can justify Evil in his mind is Evil, full stop. Performing acts of "extreme Good," whether one or many, may balance some karmic scale, but it won't change the fact that this is a person who finds performing acts of Evil to be desirable in a given context.

That said, sometimes you get the whole murder-one-tyrant-to-save-his-subjects things where the ends don't just justify the means, they demand them. Not having the moral fortitude to trade one for many is bad, not good. Choosing to save people, knowing that there'll be blood on your hands, isn't evil - it's chaotic good.

Not that I expect Red Fel to approve of that.

Segev
2018-02-06, 01:16 PM
Here's an example from fiction... I find the idea that Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker was "redeemed" at the end of ROTJ for saving one life -- that of his own son -- morally repugnant. Nope, sorry, that act doesn't even register as a blip compared to just the mass murder at Alderan, before even considering everything else he did starting with saving Palpatine from Windu, the murder of the Jedi children, and on from there.

I am not really going to want to argue this strongly, but a case can be made that redemption isn't in the act, but in the change of mindset. That Vader didn't redeem himself by saving his son, but that he redeemed himself by truly repenting of his sins. Repenting that completely of so much wickedness in so short a time is...hard to sell, though. Because it's hard to do, and harder to do than most of us can imagine. The "death bed repentance" is a discredited trope for a reason. It CAN happen, and the anguish and trials and difficulty of it are all still there, compressed and condensed, but without probably an entire novel spent in just those few moments of genuine repentance, there's no way you're selling it to the outside observer. And few novels that could sell it would be INTERESTING to read.

So, it's theoretically possible that he really did achieve redemption there, and the salvation of his son was just the changed man doing the one act he could to try to act on his new, changed heart. But selling that is hard. The appearance is always going to be, "Yeah, um, betraying the emperor to save his son, and dying in the process, is what redeemed him." Which...can sell if you're just on a popcorn-and-movie level of enjoyment, but isn't going to withstand deeper analysis.

Scripten
2018-02-06, 01:20 PM
Here's an example from fiction... I find the idea that Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker was "redeemed" at the end of ROTJ for saving one life -- that of his own son -- morally repugnant. Nope, sorry, that act doesn't even register as a blip compared to just the mass murder at Alderan, before even considering everything else he did starting with saving Palpatine from Windu, the murder of the Jedi children, and on from there.

It's hard to really tell because the presence of the Force and its effects on those who use it are muddled in the fiction, but I think the reason this works in the setting is because Darth Vader is literally another person. As in, Anakin Skywalker fell to the Dark Side and literally became Vader from the perspective of the Force. But again, it's tough to really say because Star Wars can be... arbitrary at the best of times there.

EDIT: Also what Segev said.

Psyren
2018-02-06, 01:33 PM
Here's an example from fiction... I find the idea that Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker was "redeemed" at the end of ROTJ for saving one life -- that of his own son -- morally repugnant. Nope, sorry, that act doesn't even register as a blip compared to just the mass murder at Alderan, before even considering everything else he did starting with saving Palpatine from Windu, the murder of the Jedi children, and on from there.

At the risk of turning this into a Star Wars thread - whether you ultimately buy the calculus of that scene or not, please keep in mind that offing Palpatine saved far, far more lives than just Luke's. Even with the First Order eventually taking his place, one could argue that Palps being around could have meant no resistance at all. At the very least, Anakin's actions definitively dealt with the devil in front of them.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 01:45 PM
That said, sometimes you get the whole murder-one-tyrant-to-save-his-subjects things where the ends don't just justify the means, they demand them. Not having the moral fortitude to trade one for many is bad, not good. Choosing to save people, knowing that there'll be blood on your hands, isn't evil - it's chaotic good.

That would be using the flawed logic that

all killing = murder

I wouldn't consider the killing of such a tyrant to be murder to begin with, so there's no moral weighing to make. It's an execution.

Jormengand
2018-02-06, 03:00 PM
That would be using the flawed logic that

all killing = murder

I wouldn't consider the killing of such a tyrant to be murder to begin with, so there's no moral weighing to make. It's an execution.

Okay, but...

Ugh, just, the trolley problem. Anyone who would rather let the 5 die than kill the 1 then either has to deal with the Sorities Paradox of the fact that they would literally allow every other human being on the planet to die to keep their hands clean. Essentially, replace tyrant with innocent person (with a new context to make it make sense) or mind-controlled pawn of immortal tyrant (because let's face it we're probably talking about a fantasy RPG here and not actually real life).

(Also, killing people who have done wrong is still bad, as I mentioned at length upthread. It has a moral weighting - you're still killing someone.)

Red Fel
2018-02-06, 03:20 PM
(Also, killing people who have done wrong is still bad, as I mentioned at length upthread. It has a moral weighting - you're still killing someone.)

True, but even objective morality systems recognize a difference of scale. For example, killing someone asleep or helpless is Murder, which is usually Very Bad. Killing a whole lot of innocent people at once is Genocide, which is Super Bad. Killing someone who committed wrongs in the past, but is presently just hanging around, is Revenge, which is Still Pretty Bad. Killing someone pointing a knife at you is Self-Defense, which is Not So Bad, Really. Executing a criminal for crimes for which he was charged and found guilty, which the established setting recognizes as grounds for execution, and doing so with the sanction of the State, is Lawful Execution, which counts as Technically Acceptable, I Suppose. Killing someone about to complete a Doomsday Ritual is Heroism, which is Actually Quite Good, By Killing Standards.

True, not all Killing is Murder. We can't equivocate between, say, killing the murderous tyrant and committing genocide of innocents - the difference in scale is vast. They're both Killing, sure, and that's generally Not Great, Thanks, but in one case it's still a Pretty Decent Idea, All Things Considered, whereas the other case is pretty strictly Still Super Bad, You Ought To Have Realized That By Now.

Segev
2018-02-06, 03:25 PM
I tend to waffle a bit on what I'd do in the "Trolley Problem." I think, ultimately, it comes down to this, though: if you actually are the one who is supposed to be making these choices, then do your best.

It is, however, perfectly within the rights of the five guys on the one side of the track to try to get it to veer off onto the other track. And perfectly within the rights of the one guy on the other track to try to keep it from veering onto him. Possibly even to the point that he has a right to defend himself lethally against the trolley driver if said driver is going to turn it towards him.

At the same time, THREATENING the trolley driver with death if he DOES NOT send it careening towards another person instead of oneself is wrong.

Trolley problems are deliberately messy, is probably the only real conclusion one can make from them.

They also don't really answer the thesis question of this thread, which is whether you can achieve neutrality just by balancing extrema of good and evil.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 03:27 PM
(Also, killing people who have done wrong is still bad, as I mentioned at length upthread. It has a moral weighting - you're still killing someone.)

Here we're going to have to disagree. By that logic juries who sentence someone to death are evil. As is the judge. And the executioner. And soldiers in wars. And people using self defence...

So - no, I don't agree. Killing the Hitler/Genghis Khan style tyrant is inherently not evil. I don't consider it a lesser of two evils. It's plain old not evil in the first place. (Not good either - but definitely not evil.)

Murder=Evil, but not all killing is in that sub-category.

Jormengand
2018-02-06, 03:39 PM
True, but even objective morality systems recognize a difference of scale. For example, killing someone asleep or helpless is Murder, which is usually Very Bad. Killing a whole lot of innocent people at once is Genocide, which is Super Bad. Killing someone who committed wrongs in the past, but is presently just hanging around, is Revenge, which is Still Pretty Bad. Killing someone pointing a knife at you is Self-Defense, which is Not So Bad, Really. Executing a criminal for crimes for which he was charged and found guilty, which the established setting recognizes as grounds for execution, and doing so with the sanction of the State, is Lawful Execution, which counts as Technically Acceptable, I Suppose. Killing someone about to complete a Doomsday Ritual is Heroism, which is Actually Quite Good, By Killing Standards.
Here we're going to have to disagree. By that logic juries who sentence someone to death are evil. As is the judge. And the executioner. And soldiers in wars. And people using self defence...

So - no, I don't agree. Killing the Hitler/Genghis Khan style tyrant is inherently not evil. I don't consider it a lesser of two evils. It's plain old not evil in the first place. (Not good either - but definitely not evil.)

Murder=Evil, but not all killing is in that sub-category.

I mean, here's the thing. Killing someone who's asleep, helpless, or otherwise unable to fight you isn't evil - no more than killing them if they were able to fight you. It's chaotic. In fact, deliberately sabotaging your chances of success to give someone a fair fight on principle is something that I would see as a moral failure. Killing people who have done bad but are going to do good is no less bad than killing people who have done good and are going to continue to do good. The bad that they've done is already there, and it's not like it leaves a dark mark on their immortal soul or something: killing people who are going to do good is equally bad no matter what they might have done in the past.

But the real thing is that you really can play morality just by adding together the positives and negatives - killing one person to save two isn't good because it's justified, but because the negative effects of killing one person are overridden in duplicate by saving two. That's what I mean when I say "The ends do not justify the means. They demand them." Our job as moral agents is to make the most amount of good-minus-bad. As Birondelle from War of Omens puts it, "Sacrificing dozens, hundreds or thousands of lives to save the rest of humanity is not only justified, but the only sane choice."

Therefore, we shouldn't be looking for reasons why the situation justifies it ("It's okay to beat him, because he was a bad person anyway", "It's okay to kill him, because it was lawful execution", "It's okay to commit genocide, because I was only following orders."). We need reasons why the situation demands it ("I HAD TO kill him, in order to save other people's lives!" "I HAD TO fight back, or I would have been killed", "I HAD to steal it, it's for my sick son and I can't afford it!").

The main point, I guess, is this: Killing a tyrant isn't okay because he's bad and he "Deserved it". The idea of anyone deserving to be hurt is the kind of thing we should all have collectively got over back when the blood feud went out of fashion. It's okay because you're saving more lives in the process. But if you kill one tyrant to save two people, that's the same moral weighting as saving one person on their own.

Incidentally, I don't think that soldiers in wars are really morally justified either a lot of the time...

Psyren
2018-02-06, 03:40 PM
Well now we're drifting into the question of whether death penalties or militaries are morally justifiable. Which is a fine discussion to have, but it's inherently political, so it's pretty unlikely to fly on this specific forum.

Deophaun
2018-02-06, 03:45 PM
At the same time, THREATENING the trolley driver with death if he DOES NOT send it careening towards another person instead of oneself is wrong.
Disagree. It is definitely not a good thing, but any moral system that requires you to roll over and die is highly questionable, often leading to greater evils under the guise of "for the greater good." If the only possible way for you to survive is to threaten the trolley driver, it is permissible to threaten the trolley driver.

redwizard007
2018-02-06, 04:09 PM
Someone who solves their problems based on context is not evil. Removing obstacles does not make you evil, it just makes you assertive. If you think that being assertive is evil, then you should work on your assertiveness.

This is usually the rationale of my Evil characters.

Scripten
2018-02-06, 04:14 PM
This is usually the rationale of my Evil characters.

Yeah, especially when we're talking about killing people.

Rhedyn
2018-02-06, 04:37 PM
I think the problem is that Great acts of good are harder to come by than great acts of evil.

You could murder random hobos, but is sacrificing all material wealth to feed the poor really equivalent?

So most of such character's are understood as evil even if they are easier to get along with than actual evil beings.

redwizard007
2018-02-06, 04:38 PM
Disagree. It is definitely not a good thing, but any moral system that requires you to roll over and die is highly questionable, often leading to greater evils under the guise of "for the greater good." If the only possible way for you to survive is to threaten the trolley driver, it is permissible to threaten the trolley driver.

I think there is are some issues with this that are not being considered. First, is sacrifice. Second is religion. Neither requires much digging to find exceptions to the above argument. I'll actually tackle them in reverse order.

Religion, (often,) tells us that when a good person dies, that they receive a reward in some form or another. This mitigates the "evil" of taking a life "for the greater good." In many fantasy settings, the issue is even more pronounced due to concrete proof of the here after and divine agents.

Sacrifice, likewise, muddles the argument. If, say the man on the tracks is willing to sacrifice his own life to save five lives on the trolly, then is it evil to allow him to do so? This is a real world conundrum for combat medics, firemen, cops, bomb techs, etc. Sure, their death is in no way guaranteed, but if they haven't made peace with their own mortality, then they are fooling themselves. Are we allowing evil acts every time we allow a fireman to enter a burning building?

Thrudd
2018-02-06, 04:39 PM
Extreme acts of good and evil would at best make you swing from good to evil and back again. They don't cancel out and make you neutral. Of course, I agree with those that say the most extreme evil acts are much easier and more repeatable than good acts. One truly repugnant act might take a character the rest of their life to make up for, or require their self-sacrifice for a truly noble cause to outweigh it. So I don't think it would be practical to expect to be able to go back and forth in the way suggested. Can a good person fall to evil ways and then repent and come back again? Of course, but it likely is only going to happen once in their lifetime. Someone that regularly commits evil acts is plain evil, regardless. If they swing back and forth between acting like a saint one day and like a demon the next, they are evil and probably have some form of psychosis.

You are neutral if you don't go out of your way to do good, and also have some lines you won't cross. You might do selfish things, but you don't generally have the intent to cause suffering in others. You won't sacrifice for people outside your own circle of friends/family. You don't do anything "extreme", you take the path that is safest.

hamishspence
2018-02-06, 05:13 PM
You are neutral if you don't go out of your way to do good, and also have some lines you won't cross. You might do selfish things, but you don't generally have the intent to cause suffering in others. You won't sacrifice for people outside your own circle of friends/family. You don't do anything "extreme", you take the path that is safest.

The "neutral through constantly doing good and evil" thing does get mentioned in Heroes of Horror, as "flexible Neutral".


This is the kind of "antihero" who will sacrifice for people "outside his immediate circle" - and does so, a lot - but who also "draws lines" a bit differently from a regular Neutral character.

They still won't do anything that's "extreme evil" - but routine mild evil, of the "casting [evil] spells" kind among others - this is their meat and drink.

Less "acting like a saint one day and a demon the next" and more "acting both sinister yet also heroic".

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-06, 05:14 PM
I think there is are some issues with this that are not being considered. First, is sacrifice. Second is religion. Neither requires much digging to find exceptions to the above argument. I'll actually tackle them in reverse order.

Religion, (often,) tells us that when a good person dies, that they receive a reward in some form or another. This mitigates the "evil" of taking a life "for the greater good." In many fantasy settings, the issue is even more pronounced due to concrete proof of the here after and divine agents.


I'd say it doesn't, even in fantasy settings.



Sacrifice, likewise, muddles the argument. If, say the man on the tracks is willing to sacrifice his own life to save five lives on the trolly, then is it evil to allow him to do so? This is a real world conundrum for combat medics, firemen, cops, bomb techs, etc. Sure, their death is in no way guaranteed, but if they haven't made peace with their own mortality, then they are fooling themselves. Are we allowing evil acts every time we allow a fireman to enter a burning building?


We don't "allow" firemen to enter burning buildings, they choose, voluntarily, to enter those buildings.

The motto of the USAF's elite SAR unit (pararescuemen, "PJs") is "These Things We Do, That Others May Live." It's shortened to "that others may live" on the their insignia, and is often expressed in such a way as to acknowledge the willingness to risk life and limb to save the lives of others in peril.

Thrudd
2018-02-06, 05:22 PM
The "neutral through constantly doing good and evil" thing does get mentioned in Heroes of Horror, as "flexible Neutral".


This is the kind of "antihero" who will sacrifice for people "outside his immediate circle" - and does so, a lot - but who also "draws lines" a bit differently from a regular Neutral character.

They still won't do anything that's "extreme evil" - but routine mild evil, of the "casting [evil] spells" kind among others - this is their meat and drink.

Less "acting like a saint one day and a demon the next" and more "acting both sinister yet also heroic".

That is a different and specific to D&D form of "evil"- using magic specific to certain settings which is spiritually corrupting but that doesn't necessarily have an effect that causes immediate unjustified harm and suffering. Like creating undead servants, or using harm and curse spells instead of fireballs and magic missiles to hurt your enemies. D&D says it's evil and people that do it are evil- but what if the necromancer is actually really nice! Its not the same thing being talked about where characters are doing things that would be considered real-world evil.

hamishspence
2018-02-06, 05:34 PM
It's the most "supernatural" example - but there's other "minor acts of evil" besides that, which a "mostly nice" Neutral character might indulge in.

The point of the Neutral antihero is that they use evil means to good ends - but their means are so low on the Evilness (yet still evil) that the character's altruism becomes just as important as their Evil Means.

Thrudd
2018-02-06, 05:52 PM
It's the most "supernatural" example - but there's other "minor acts of evil" besides that, which a "mostly nice" Neutral character might indulge in.

The point of the Neutral antihero is that they use evil means to good ends - but their means are so low on the Evilness (yet still evil) that the character's altruism becomes just as important as their Evil Means.
What kind of "evil means" are we talking about? To me, "mild evil" generally either isn't actually evil, or isn't really mild. "Good ends" also very much are debatable when we're talking about someone willing to actually commit evil. If you're hurting people and enjoying it, you're evil, regardless of why you do it. If you're hurting people when you don't have to, you're evil no matter the ends. If you haven't crossed that line, I'd argue your acts are probably neutral.

hamishspence
2018-02-06, 06:13 PM
The classic "good ends" are anything strongly beneficial - saving lives, bringing hope, and so on.

Evil means - bullying, stealing, and so forth. Anything in the BoVD "evil deeds" section, or the Fiendish Codex 2 "Corrupt acts" section, qualifies, though. Things that would cause a paladin to Fall, but that the DM might not consider serious enough for the paladin to "instantly go to Evil alignment".

Evil characters are generally too selfish to do benevolent, self-sacrificing deeds. A character who lacks this selfishness, needs to do more to "get out of Neutral alignment" than a selfish character does.

That doesn't mean a "extremely self-sacrificing, altruistic character" can't be Evil - but there is a continuum.

Some will be Evil, some will be Neutral (too much in the way of Evil deeds to be Good, yet the deeds themselves are too minor to guarantee that the character is Evil.)

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 06:17 PM
It's the most "supernatural" example - but there's other "minor acts of evil" besides that, which a "mostly nice" Neutral character might indulge in.

The point of the Neutral antihero is that they use evil means to good ends - but their means are so low on the Evilness (yet still evil) that the character's altruism becomes just as important as their Evil Means.

I'm picturing Blade here - where he's willing to beat up (but not kill) innocents to escape the cops and keep hunting vamps.

hamishspence
2018-02-06, 06:19 PM
The example Heroes of Horror gave was Angel series compared to Buffy series - that Buffy is "regular heroes" (at least, mostly) whereas Angel is "flexible Neutral antiheroes".

Deophaun
2018-02-06, 06:29 PM
Sacrifice, likewise, muddles the argument. If, say the man on the tracks is willing to sacrifice his own life to save five lives on the trolly, then is it evil to allow him to do so?
Saying that you must not be forced to accept death is not the same as saying that you must be forced to live. Your argument does not speak to the point.

Bohandas
2018-02-06, 07:12 PM
I'm not going to weigh in on your specific character's alignment (sounds like there is a lot going on there).

But in general - if someone does a mix of extreme good & extreme evil - they're just an eccentric evil guy. Still very much evil.

I mean, if I'm an awesome teacher in an inner city school who gives my all and help raises kids up, that doesn't make up for the fact that I murder homeless people in my spare time as a stress reliever. Just... no! Evil guy. Not neutral - just evil.

What about someone who murders someone so that 4 sick orphans can get their heart, liver, and kidneys? Like some kind of deranged version of the trolley problem?

Edit:
Or killing 100000 people with weapons of mass destruction to prevent a war that will end half a million lives?

RazorChain
2018-02-06, 08:12 PM
I'm not going to weigh in on your specific character's alignment (sounds like there is a lot going on there).

But in general - if someone does a mix of extreme good & extreme evil - they're just an eccentric evil guy. Still very much evil.

I mean, if I'm an awesome teacher in an inner city school who gives my all and help raises kids up, that doesn't make up for the fact that I murder homeless people in my spare time as a stress reliever. Just... no! Evil guy. Not neutral - just evil.

The classic LE ruler does all sorts of good things. Roads/schools etc - but still evil.

If the homeless people were Evil then you'd be doing a good act....but you'd be breaking the law so I guess it would be categorized as Chaotic Good?

Douche
2018-02-06, 08:25 PM
To be clear guys, I never actually killed anyone except in self defense.

Let me give you an example: a bunch of heroes had a magic item that our benefactors wanted. It was a necromantic item, and our benefactors were a library that stored sacred artifacts. So we had to rendezvous with these guys who agreed to parlay with us, although they were dedicated to giving the necromantic item to their church - because their leader was a paladin.

So we met up with them and tried to convince them, but they were stonewalling us because the DM isn't good at negotiating - his characters are either too agreeable or not agreeable whatsoever. Now, this is a homebrew system... My character specializes in portals. So instead of just killing them and taking the item, I just created a portal and we mind controlled the leader through it (my ally was a mind controlly mage), back to the library where they could confiscate the item. Wow, peaceful solution, am I right?

I then told the paladins henchmen that there was no more need to fight, it's over now. You'll die if you oppose us. We're going to wash our hands of this now - see ya later. But then the DM had the paladin teleported back to us and initiated combat before we could do anything. Railroad!

Anyway that was a few months ago, and now the DM claims that our party is chaotic evil, even though we've done nothing but try to avoid conflict this whole time. Never mind the fact that I have to use a plot device to destroy an entire city and their whole army for trying to kill the refugees that I've taken under my care. But don't worry - I tricked them into evacuating the women & children first. More refugees to take under my wing, hehehe.

So yeah I think you can commit evil acts and still be benevolent.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-06, 08:30 PM
To be clear guys, I never actually killed anyone except in self defense.

Let me give you an example: a bunch of heroes had a magic item that our benefactors wanted. It was a necromantic item, and our benefactors were a library that stored sacred artifacts. So we had to rendezvous with these guys who agreed to parlay with us, although they were dedicated to giving the necromantic item to their church - because their leader was a paladin.

So we met up with them and tried to convince them, but they were stonewalling us because the DM isn't good at negotiating - his characters are either too agreeable or not agreeable whatsoever. Now, this is a homebrew system... My character specializes in portals. So instead of just killing them and taking the item, I just created a portal and we mind controlled the leader through it (my ally was a mind controlly mage), back to the library where they could confiscate the item. Wow, peaceful solution, am I right?

I then told the paladins henchmen that there was no more need to fight, it's over now. You'll die if you oppose us. We're going to wash our hands of this now - see ya later. But then the DM had the paladin teleported back to us and initiated combat before we could do anything. Railroad!

Anyway that was a few months ago, and now the DM claims that our party is chaotic evil, even though we've done nothing but try to avoid conflict this whole time. Never mind the fact that I have to use a plot device to destroy an entire city and their whole army for trying to kill the refugees that I've taken under my care. But don't worry - I tricked them into evacuating the women & children first. More refugees to take under my wing, hehehe.

So yeah I think you can commit evil acts and still be benevolent.

Evil is about your defaults. And all those listed defaults are evil. You default to the easy route for you, without concern for the thoughts and feelings of others or for the consequences.
The bold parts are classic evil--kidnapping and mind-control (denying autonomy), hostile action under flag of parley. Threats of violence. Etc.

Boci
2018-02-06, 11:05 PM
Evil is about your defaults. And all those listed defaults are evil. You default to the easy route for you, without concern for the thoughts and feelings of others or for the consequences.
The bold parts are classic evil--kidnapping and mind-control (denying autonomy), hostile action under flag of parley. Threats of violence. Etc.

"You'll die if you oppose us" is generally considered acceptable under the terms of parley. Its not a hostile action, its a threat, and given what happened, a factual statement about the relative strength of each side. It was the paladin who the was hostile, teleporting in and starting combat.

Mr Beer
2018-02-06, 11:46 PM
Well-controlled serial killers are often 'great guys' who do a lot for the neighbourhood, local church and charities. I guess if you help 1000s of people a little bit, it's OK to torture and murder a handful of people you view as worthless in your creepy basement? Oh wait no that's not Neutral at all, you're just Evil.

NichG
2018-02-07, 01:40 AM
In terms of D&D alignment, generally no with a couple of cheesy mechanical exceptions. BoED and BoVD have sections on this, but basically there are one-way horizons in the direction of evil, although various supernatural tricks or procedures can forcibly bring entities back across them.

In terms of how others act around you, e.g. 'could a character like this be tolerated in society?', also usually no but possibly with exceptions if your acts of extreme evil are very systematic or you can post-hoc justify them in a way that reassures people. Social perception of the morality of a character has a big component of 'is this guy going to randomly snap and kill me?' - if you show that you're extremely inconsistent, its going to be hard for people to feel that they can trust you enough to tolerate your presence. However, if you e.g. only commit those acts of extreme evil in a particular context (invading an enemy country, fighting against BBEGs trying to end the world, etc) people may be able to give you a pass because they will be confident enough in the pattern of your behavior to trust that they won't be harmed by it.

In terms of whether or not the character can sleep soundly at night, well, I guess that's up to them...

Bohandas
2018-02-07, 02:46 AM
The bold parts are classic evil--kidnapping and mind-control (denying autonomy)...

It should be noted that canonically the demigod Zagyg held the gods prisoner in his basement for several years without his alignment being dropped below chaotic neutral

Bohandas
2018-02-07, 02:51 AM
Evil means - bullying, stealing, and so forth. Anything in the BoVD "evil deeds" section, or the Fiendish Codex 2 "Corrupt acts" section, qualifies, though. Things that would cause a paladin to Fall, but that the DM might not consider serious enough for the paladin to "instantly go to Evil alignment".

Not everything that would cause a paladin to fall is evil. Poison, for example, is not evil (PHB page 219)

Clistenes
2018-02-07, 05:00 AM
I tend to the view that extreme acts of evil make it impossible to be Neutral. The only really "extreme act of good" is sacrificing your own life to save people you have no connection to - and the thing about this kind of sacrifice, is you can only do it once, whereas you can do extreme evil, many times.

However, there's plenty of precedent for "neutral through lots of minor acts of evil countering one's Good ones".

This.

A murderer and rapist who feeds the orphans is still evil. It would take truly extreme acts of self-sacrifice to push his alignment towards neutrality... I'm speaking of commiting suicide so his organs can save several other people...

But that would fall more into redemption, which requires a change of alignment and hence, of behaviour...

2D8HP
2018-02-07, 07:21 AM
....So my question is: in the paradigm of Good vs Evil - do you really have to be consistently neutral, or could you get away with some horrific acts of darkness as long as you balance them out with altruistic acts of selflessness?.....


It's up to the DM, if they care enough to have some in-game effects for "Alignment", which probably depends on what rules they're using.

So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."


AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."


D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."



A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.
Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

But the turning of a heavily house ruled Chainmail into what we now call a "role-playing game", brought character behavior in the mix:

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

Invisible Library [/I] series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.].

Part Two: Enter Good & Evil

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)






Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


So in general "Law" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons [b]which was a completely different game!
"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
:biggrin:

Part Three: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png
So...


ALIGNMENT

After generating the abilities of your character, selecting his or her race, and deciding upon a class, it is necessary to determine the alignment of the character. It is possible that the selection of the class your character will profess has predetermined alignment: a druid is neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are
disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as
human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!

:amused:

Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."


1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!

:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used).

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the Alignment
An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&D® game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their align-ments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.

But yeah there's some precedent for your idea that acts of altruism may be enough to "ping" as neutral despite some horrible acts committed:

"Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions"

- Gygax 1976 (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1)

But really?

For whatever reason you want to play a PC that does "some horrific acts of darkness", so write "Wolf" in the entry for Alignment on your PC's Character Record Sheet, and do what you want, keeping in mind that what behavior is deemed acceptable, both in and out of character, is up to each table.

Personally I find these re-occuring "I want my PC to do evil, but not be labeled Evil" types of inquiries odd.

Maybe you'd rather play Lamentations of the Flame Princess, or Stormbringer instead, and just have your PC aligned with Law, "The Balance"/Neutrality, or Chaos instead?

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-07, 07:52 AM
The answer under 1st edition AD&D rules is "only briefly, never consistently".

The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, for player characters, actual behavior dictates alignment, so extreme out-of-alignment action are grounds for the GM to change a character's alignment. Secondly, however, you cannot move to the opposite extreme alignment in one action, and cannot move directly to True Neutral from corner alignments (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil).

This means that a True Neutral character will swing towards either Neutral Good or Neutral Evil upon the first extreme action, where as Evil or Good characters may swing towards one of the Neutral alignments. However, there is no guarantee the next "extreme action" will precisely cancel the first one out, so depending on exact nature of the act and motive behind it, the formerly True Neutral character may drift towards some extreme alignment. The formerly non-neutral may return to their previous alignment or drift further away from it.

Exceptions only exist for magical intervention and insanity. The gods will also get angry with a character who is indecisive of their alignment, reflected in an XP penalty. Overall, there is no single alignment from the perspective of which serial extreme actions of opposite morals makes any kind of sense. Choosing to perform an extreme out-of-alignment action only makes sense if a character is supernaturally influenced, insane, or had a genuine change of morals and is in process of changing alignments.

Cealocanth
2018-02-07, 09:05 AM
Have you read Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? It's basically about how you cannot be neutral/ a good person by performing acts of good to outweigh acts of evil. The moral is basically that good does not outweigh evil, and evil does not outweigh good. They both just, are. You are punished for the evil you do regardless of if the evil is done for a good reason, or if you do good things to compensate for it.

Now, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with this philosophy, but the book does address the topic you're pondering here.

Segev
2018-02-07, 09:57 AM
So we met up with them and tried to convince them, but they were stonewalling us because the DM isn't good at negotiating - his characters are either too agreeable or not agreeable whatsoever. Now, this is a homebrew system... My character specializes in portals. So instead of just killing them and taking the item, I just created a portal and we mind controlled the leader through it (my ally was a mind controlly mage), back to the library where they could confiscate the item. Wow, peaceful solution, am I right?Mind controlling people into letting you have the item is no better than mugging them for it. It's not "peaceful." I could see definite argument for this being a Chaotic and Evil act. Chaotic because you met under terms to parley, and escalated to hostile aggression. Evil because, well, you're mugging them.


I then told the paladins henchmen that there was no more need to fight, it's over now. You'll die if you oppose us. We're going to wash our hands of this now - see ya later. But then the DM had the paladin teleported back to us and initiated combat before we could do anything. Railroad!I'm unclear as to what would have happened if the paladin teleported back and didn't initiate a fight, but most people would be pretty angry if you mind controlled them. He probably feared you'd mind control him again. You don't get to claim a moral high ground by initiating the use of force just because the other side has no response to your force other than lethal force of their own.


Anyway that was a few months ago, and now the DM claims that our party is chaotic evil, even though we've done nothing but try to avoid conflict this whole time. Never mind the fact that I have to use a plot device to destroy an entire city and their whole army for trying to kill the refugees that I've taken under my care. But don't worry - I tricked them into evacuating the women & children first. More refugees to take under my wing, hehehe.I think this story requires more information. Why did you need to destroy the city rather than escaping with your refugees?


So yeah I think you can commit evil acts and still be benevolent.Oh, sure. There's a saying that even relates to that: Hitler was kind to animals.

It's perfectly possible to be benevolent to those who are incapable of opposing you, while still being a tyrant.



Now, it sounds like your issue is that you're feeling set up to fail if you don't resort to evil. The paladin refuses to negotiate, so your only choices are "fail the mission" or "be evil." And it's a game, so you know OOC that you're not hurting real people, and you want to win, so why not use what you have to get the win?

This is an OOC problem. You should probably talk to your GM about it. Find out what he expected a "good aligned" party to do in those situations.

D+1
2018-02-07, 11:32 AM
First: Alignment in D&D is not real-world morality. Not even close. It is FICTION, dammit. It's fiction ADAPTED from MORE fiction. BADLY adapted. Talking about it as if it has important things to say about real-world morals, ethics, philosophy and religion is truly pitiable.

Two: Alignment in D&D has a purpose - for players it is to act as a roleplaying guide. Some PC's are alignment restricted and their actions should similarly be restricted if they want to keep their class and continue to be the fictional archetype that the player willingly CHOSE for the character to be. Most PC's are not restricted in alignment, but their behavior should still be reasonable and consistent. Alignment gives them a behavioral target to shoot for and helps describe how successful they are at behaving accordingly.

C: Choosing to do both extreme good and extreme evil does not make you neutral. It means you need to pick ONE alignment, and stop screwing around before your characters utterly inexplicable and nonsensical behavior becomes actually disruptive to the game.

IV: The description of true neutral and chaotic neutral in the 1E DMG are SO much useless crap. Really, all of the capsulated alignment descriptions are useless because they do nothing to serve the PURPOSE of alignment (as noted above) and instead only confuse it endlessly and subvert the very purpose with psychobabble. 2E was no better at all. 3E only somewhat so and at least sensibly classified alignment as DESCRIPTION of a character. 4E was just off the rails in all kinds of ways IMO and 5E I just don't care.


So my question is: in the paradigm of Good vs Evil - do you really have to be consistently neutral, or could you get away with some horrific acts of darkness as long as you balance them out with altruistic acts of selflessness?You have to be consistently neutral - which is to say NOT performing extreme acts of good or evil. Neutral is the MIDDLE GROUND between behavioral extremes, not the zero-sum total of constant extremism at both ends of the spectrum.



Not "Do the ends justify the means" but rather "Is it okay to indulge in some evil acts as well as some good ones?"Yes, despite the above it IS okay to do some evil and some good and still remain neutral - but those should be very few and far between if you want to remain neutral. If the middle ground is the alignment you chose then your actions should overwhelmingly BE the middle ground choices of behavior and NOT the extremes of behavior. But anomalies ARE permitted - even for alignment restricted characters. But the more extreme those anomalies are and the more often they occur the greater the implication is that your alignment is changing or should change to better fit your choices.

Bohandas
2018-02-07, 12:07 PM
From the Gygax article quoted above by 2D8HP

"Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral"

Douche
2018-02-07, 12:12 PM
This is an OOC problem. You should probably talk to your GM about it. Find out what he expected a "good aligned" party to do in those situations.

He expected us to go with the Paladin back to his home city, in a neighboring country, help him deliver the artifact to his boss, and then negotiate with his boss as to why the artifact was better off in the hands of the library's vault.

And we were only doing this as a favor to the library - a pit stop on our way to getting something we needed more.

hamishspence
2018-02-07, 12:19 PM
From the Gygax article quoted above by 2D8HP

"Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral"

Given that Human Sacrifice is portrayed as a pretty Vile thing to do in BoVD, I think it's safe to say that Gygaxian druids would be NE in "modern D&D."

2D8HP
2018-02-07, 12:44 PM
Given that Human Sacrifice is portrayed as a pretty Vile thing to do in BoVD, I think it's safe to say that Gygaxian druids would be NE in "modern D&D."


"Modern D&D"

BAH!

Time spent playin' video games killed real D&D!

In the old days we used to strike ourselves on the head repeatedly with blunt instruments while crooning "Brave Sir Robin" everytime our newest PC's were killed by housecats during the session, and we do it again when it happened with our next PC twenty minutes later!

That was real entertainment!

Boci
2018-02-07, 12:58 PM
Given that Human Sacrifice is portrayed as a pretty Vile thing to do in BoVD, I think it's safe to say that Gygaxian druids would be NE in "modern D&D."

In BoVD though the sacrifice text includes bonuses based on a knowledge religion check. It could be argued that is a necessary component of human sacrifices being evil. Certainly it doesn't rule out the possibility of a non-evil human sacrifice, since murder is also evil in BoVD, and good characters can do that.

Segev
2018-02-07, 01:12 PM
He expected us to go with the Paladin back to his home city, in a neighboring country, help him deliver the artifact to his boss, and then negotiate with his boss as to why the artifact was better off in the hands of the library's vault.

And we were only doing this as a favor to the library - a pit stop on our way to getting something we needed more.

On the one hand, that's pretty out of the way. And, if the paladin didn't offer that as a solution, even in an oblique way like, "Well, I have to deliver it to my lord, but if you can convince him to let you take it..." it's on the GM for not giving an apparent solution. After all, with the Paladin being so intractable, why would the party assume the lord would be any more cooperative?

But still, "it was inconvenient" doesn't excuse evil actions, and engaging in banditry for your own convenience is evil.

Boci
2018-02-07, 01:17 PM
On the one hand, that's pretty out of the way. And, if the paladin didn't offer that as a solution, even in an oblique way like, "Well, I have to deliver it to my lord, but if you can convince him to let you take it..." it's on the GM for not giving an apparent solution. After all, with the Paladin being so intractable, why would the party assume the lord would be any more cooperative?

But still, "it was inconvenient" doesn't excuse evil actions, and engaging in banditry for your own convenience is evil.

The item was necromantic though, so evil, you could argue you don't have a right to keep an evil magical item, even if you did find it. If their patron was better at keeping it safe then its entirely justifiable as not evil. For all the talk about the the sanctity of ones mind, dominate isn't an evil spell, so it can have non-evil uses. And "hand over that item" is a pretty tame use of it.

Segev
2018-02-07, 01:22 PM
The item was necromantic though, so evil, you could argue you don't have a right to keep an evil magical item, even if you did find it. If their patron was better at keeping it safe then its entirely justifiable as not evil. For all the talk about the the sanctity of ones mind, dominate isn't an evil spell, so it can have non-evil uses. And "hand over that item" is a pretty tame use of it.

Sure, but it's also a paladin who demonstrably hasn't fallen for his refusal to fork it over. And the OP's party had no more right to it than did the paladin, nor did the OP's library patron have more right than the paladin's lordly patron. If the OP had engaged in combat with the paladin and the paladin's party with the intent of KOing and stealing the item, that wouldn't have been any better than the mind control. And the paladin and party would have been just as justified in returning violence with violence.

The PCs were definitely the aggressors here, and against people who were not harming them. Thus, I can't disagree with the GM's assessment of the alignment demonstrated by their handling of this encounter. Assuming it is an objective accounting of the events that we've gotten, there's a deep-seated communications issue between the GM and the OP. There is also potentially some lack of GMing skill on the GM's part, which will mostly be improved with practice, and constructive advice.

Douche
2018-02-07, 01:26 PM
On the one hand, that's pretty out of the way. And, if the paladin didn't offer that as a solution, even in an oblique way like, "Well, I have to deliver it to my lord, but if you can convince him to let you take it..." it's on the GM for not giving an apparent solution. After all, with the Paladin being so intractable, why would the party assume the lord would be any more cooperative?

But still, "it was inconvenient" doesn't excuse evil actions, and engaging in banditry for your own convenience is evil.

Technically we just teleported him, along with the item, to meet our benefactor. We did not engage in banditry. All we did was put him in a situation where he could have a discussion with our boss.

If anything, that's super neutral. We upheld our end of the agreement in a unique way while not actually harming anyone. It was only when the benefactor teleported the paladin back that we were assailed and defended ourselves. And when I say "If you oppose us, you'll die" I mean that we gave the henchmen every opportunity to leave the situation peacefully, and it was their choice if they wanted to get into a fight. In other words, we only said "We're not afraid to defend ourselves"

Btw I find it strange that everyone keeps talking about Hitler and orphans, and yet has nothing to say about small scale stuff like not tipping but giving money to beggars.

Segev
2018-02-07, 01:52 PM
Technically we just teleported him, along with the item, to meet our benefactor. We did not engage in banditry. All we did was put him in a situation where he could have a discussion with our boss.As you told the story, you said you mind-controlled him through the portal. There was every reason to believe from that context that you also compelled him to give up the item. Anyway, we're getting incomplete and one-sided story here, so we can't really judge fairly.

My biggest point is that this is an OOC problem you need to discuss more thoroughly with your GM.


Btw I find it strange that everyone keeps talking about Hitler and orphans, and yet has nothing to say about small scale stuff like not tipping but giving money to beggars.The thread title asks about "extreme acts." I don't think "not tipping" and "giving (presumably small amounts of) money to beggars" qualify. :smalltongue:

Heck, "not tipping" isn't necessarily "evil" to begin with. It's not nice to fail to tip, but it's hardly a moral imperative.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-07, 02:45 PM
Yeah, seems like it you're not getting anything except pointless table arguments out of it, it's better to just skip Alignment.


These threads that pop up every few weeks or so are pretty much the same thing that I repeatedly saw Alignment turn into when used in actual play, back when I played D&D. It just wasn't ever worth the trouble.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-07, 03:16 PM
I like it both as a player and DM if it's pretty easy to point at something and say "That's evil. Don't do that please." And it's not complicated and leaves enough room for a broad variety of characters. For example, I do that with 5e Alignment behaviors. I point at them and say "don't regularly and consistently do that, in my judgement. If you do, I'll tell you to please knock it off." Of course, you can always go with the common alternative: don't be a disruptive a-hole.

Other than that, I'm totally down with the players picking an Alignment from the book, writing down the not-required nor-consistent associated Alignment behavior. Then using that as one of their personality motivations along with the other Personality Traits when making decisions for what their character does (aka role playing).

Or not. Up to them.


My approach as a GM is to have the other characters (PCs and NPCs) react to what the PC does, and have in-setting consequences for a character's in-setting actions. "The universe" doesn't have to care one whit about good and evil, but if a character goes around doing things that other characters consider objectionable, vile, taboo, etc, then those other characters are going to have something to say about it.

Part of this may be that I don't run systems/settings where PCs ever become godlings, immune to the laws of most polities, and answerable only to gods, epic monsters, and other godling adventurers. Or otherwise the characters start out as effectively immune to "mundane" law from the start, but answerable to a different society altogether.

And part of it might be from playing and running games like Vampire, where morality is complex and even characters with good motives and good ends in mind end up having to compromise on their means and methods just to survive. A particular vampire might still be a monster, but they're the least-objectionable monster "in the valley" and would only be replaced by someone far worse.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-02-07, 03:22 PM
A moment of laxity can blight a lifetime of faithful service.

To be good after doing evil requires devoting the rest of your life to redeeming yourself and righting all the wrongs you did and then some.

Segev
2018-02-07, 03:37 PM
A moment of laxity can blight a lifetime of faithful service.

To be good after doing evil requires devoting the rest of your life to redeeming yourself and righting all the wrongs you did and then some.

Yes and no. Everybody commits some evils. It's just...inevitable. Nobody is perfect. Part of redemption is putting it behind you. But the greater the evil, the harder the redemption, and making up for it is a significant part of the process.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-07, 04:01 PM
Yes, I do that too. But that's not sufficient to stop PCs from being Evil characters. Well, okay, it often is if the players are acting their typical stupid and thoughtless as to consequences way. But that holds true for any Alignment. :smallamused:

My point is, in my current campaign, I decided I wanted PCs to be Heroes and Guys-who-work-with-Heroes-because-reasons, and NPC Villians to be Villains. And didn't want PC Punisher-style anti-heroes. Because players are particularly bad at successfully pulling that off even when it isn't an open table campaign. To get the theme I wanted, banning Evil PCs was the way to go.

And 5e Alignment made that pretty easy. I don't have to worry about a list of "is this action evil" or "is that action evil". I just have to point players at a single general sentence and say "don't regularly act like that general behavior".


I have not had a chance to look at 5e Alignment in detail, my comments go back to AD&D through 3.5e. If it's just a list of "don't do this" and you can use it to make your campaign better, that's a good thing -- sounds like it works as a detailed but easy way to say "don't be evil" for your games.

Psyren
2018-02-07, 05:22 PM
Given that Human Sacrifice is portrayed as a pretty Vile thing to do in BoVD, I think it's safe to say that Gygaxian druids would be NE in "modern D&D."

Didn't Gygax also say that Paladins should go around murdering evildoers the minute they repent so they won't have time to backslide, and considered that a kindness?

Much like Lucas, I give props to the dude for the original creative spark, but large fantasy properties benefit from diversity of viewpoint at the helm and evolution over time.

Boci
2018-02-07, 05:34 PM
Didn't Gygax also say that Paladins should go around murdering evildoers the minute they repent so they won't have time to backslide, and considered that a kindness?

Much like Lucas, I give props to the dude for the original creative spark, but large fantasy properties benefit from diversity of viewpoint at the helm and evolution over time.

Still not as bad as "Nits breed lice", his answer to the orc children moral dilema, which I believe is also atributred to British army commanders talking about native America.

That said, both of the above are just stupid, but a setting with non-evil / evil light human sacrifice in it by contrast could certainly work and be quite interesting.

Rhedyn
2018-02-07, 05:39 PM
This comes to a question of ones goodness being a quality of character or one's utility to the whole.

An evil monster that must devour one soul a night could be considered a savior if his power is the only thing standing between the universe and complete annihilation. Trillions of souls saved for the price of one per day. Depending on the extent of this man's evil, he may even be considered good in the right content let alone neutral.

But if goodness is a quality, something that is earned through action and not utility, then great acts of evil cannot be balanced by great acts of good. Goodness requires sacrifice, redemption, forgiveness, and other special circumstances. Great Goodness tends to be a reaction to evil acts. Balancing the two becomes contradictory and leads more to inaction. Or more neutral like behavior in general.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-07, 08:04 PM
Still not as bad as "Nits breed lice", his answer to the orc children moral dilema,

That's really a setting question about whether orcs are irredeemably evil or merely predisposed.

Boci
2018-02-07, 08:46 PM
That's really a setting question about whether orcs are irredeemably evil or merely predisposed.

Probably still best not to use a line connected to an actual genocide though.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-07, 09:05 PM
Probably still best not to use a line connected to an actual genocide though.


John Milton Chivington. :roach:

Douche
2018-02-08, 10:00 AM
That's really a setting question about whether orcs are irredeemably evil or merely predisposed.

I wanted to avoid the Orc Problem in the OP for precisely this reason. I didn't want to discuss performing evil for the sake of good, I wanted to discuss performing both evil and good.

Suffice to say, the reason that it's okay to kill orcs by the dozen in LotR is because they don't have anything resembling an actual society. They are born out of the dirt, they don't have children or families. They are one-dimensional murdering machines. If they do have mothers & children (I don't rightly know anything outside the films tbh) then they are never shown - giving mankind the moral high ground when purging them from the world. Same goes for goblins.

But again, that's not what I'm talking about. Not that I want to be the total arbiter of the discussion here, just that I personally was not asking about "ends justify the means" crud.


The thread title asks about "extreme acts." I don't think "not tipping" and "giving (presumably small amounts of) money to beggars" qualify. :smalltongue:

Heck, "not tipping" isn't necessarily "evil" to begin with. It's not nice to fail to tip, but it's hardly a moral imperative.

But the point is that people are immediately jumping to genocide. There are other acts of evil that aren't so ingrained into public consciousness as being irredeemable that it suffocates all discussion.

The consensus seems to be that if you commit one act of evil, then that tars your character for life even if you do nice things for the rest of your time. I'm not talking about having a corny redemption arc where you have to spend your life trying to atone. I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.


These threads that pop up every few weeks or so are pretty much the same thing that I repeatedly saw Alignment turn into when used in actual play, back when I played D&D. It just wasn't ever worth the trouble.

It's kind of funny to me that people are talking about D&D alignment and it's definitions as if you guys are all part of some religion. Right at the beginning of the thread, people asked me what system I am playing, as if that has any bearing on morality. It seems kind of puritanical.

I guess I didn't make it clear enough but this is not tied to a system.


All in all, I'd just like to say that I don't agree with the consensus here. I think that someone who lives their life on their own terms - occasionally doing good, and occasionally doing evil - as the situation demands... that's not overall evil. That's just neutral. All I'm getting out of this thread are moral judgments (not towards myself, I don't care about that. Just generally) and it just makes me shake my head.

hamishspence
2018-02-08, 10:28 AM
I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.

Evil. That's how evil works - an evil guy might seem "good most of the time" but mass-murder, out of temper, without repentance, outweighs this massively.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 10:55 AM
The consensus seems to be that if you commit one act of evil, then that tars your character for life even if you do nice things for the rest of your time. I'm not talking about having a corny redemption arc where you have to spend your life trying to atone. I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.Is that supposed to be an example of "not that evil"? Because it seems more like an example of "absolutely monstrous evil", the kind of thing that WOULD tar you for the rest of your life.

I do agree that there are some things that are wrong and evil, but which wouldn't necessarily define you so completely that you could never escape them. If you killed someone in a fight (I'm talking like an avoidable barroom brawl here, not self-defense in a war or something), or diverted drugs from a dying person so that you could get high, those certainly weren't your proudest moments, but you can try to live a life that is otherwise decent, and I for one wouldn't say that you are irredeemably Lost.

The reason you are a getting a lot of people talking D&D morality or asking about system, by the way, is that D&D is really the only system (that I know of) that categorizes entire people with the stark labels of "definitely good", "definitely evil", "neutral", and so on. In other systems that don't have that mechanic (indeed in real life), we are more free to say this or that action you took was evil, and this action was good, and to judge the person based on the sum of those determinations. In D&D you have to sort through all that and distill all the complexity down one of nine descriptors (well you could make them non-aligned in some editions), and that's where you get the serious arguments.

The fact that your OP used the words good, evil, and neutral, and talked about orcs and paladins and DMs, also encouraged people to see your question through the D&D lens.

EDIT: It's such a nebulous question, too, that you aren't going to get any bedrock answers that lay out exactly how many dollars you have to tip your waiter to make up for a murder spree. In real life, if I met someone who was usually a totally great guy that donated thousands to charity and lived carbon neutral but, say, occasionally punched me in the stomach when we disagreed about something, and swerved his car to hit dogs on the road because he thought the splats were funny, I wouldn't say that person is overall kind of neutral. I'd say he was an *******. Then I'd call the police.

I wouldn't call that person "evil", but I certainly wouldn't say his extremes balance out so that I don't judge him negatively. He just does some good and some bad.

Now if his actions escalated and he blew up a town of people because they pissed him off, then I now have no problem calling him evil. :smalleek:

Psyren
2018-02-08, 10:58 AM
But the point is that people are immediately jumping to genocide. There are other acts of evil that aren't so ingrained into public consciousness as being irredeemable that it suffocates all discussion.

I gave a non-genocide example - someone who routinely batters their wife or children when frustrated. No matter what other charity he is doing in his life, he's evil.



The consensus seems to be that if you commit one act of evil, then that tars your character for life even if you do nice things for the rest of your time. I'm not talking about having a corny redemption arc where you have to spend your life trying to atone. I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.

For the reasons hamish mentioned, this guy would be evil.



All in all, I'd just like to say that I don't agree with the consensus here. I think that someone who lives their life on their own terms - occasionally doing good, and occasionally doing evil - as the situation demands... that's not overall evil. That's just neutral. All I'm getting out of this thread are moral judgments (not towards myself, I don't care about that. Just generally) and it just makes me shake my head.

Your problem is that you are using a very blanket term ("doing evil") which is vague to the point of meaninglessness. What matters for morality is the severity of an act, not its frequency. Someone who picks pockets in the poor district of town every week is still going to be less evil than someone who strangles a child for no reason once, and the former is easier to actually atone for - you can return what you stole, but you can't return the life and innocence you took.

Scripten
2018-02-08, 11:02 AM
The consensus seems to be that if you commit one act of evil, then that tars your character for life even if you do nice things for the rest of your time. I'm not talking about having a corny redemption arc where you have to spend your life trying to atone. I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.


As hamishspence said, that's an evil character. If a character is going around committing murder, then they are evil. Simple as that, really. As I stated in the very beginning of this thread, there's no variable with a counter of how many "good" things you've done versus how many "bad" things you've done. Once you cross the rubicon of murdering sentient beings, you're evil. Especially if we're talking about things like mass murder, such as blowing up a town.

Alignment discussions like these always make me feel rather unsettled by some posters on this forum. If you think that a person can commit mass murder because they're "pissed off" and justify it by how many puppies they've rescued, then I'm not sure we're going to have a productive discussion. That's, frankly, psychotic.



It's kind of funny to me that people are talking about D&D alignment and it's definitions as if you guys are all part of some religion. Right at the beginning of the thread, people asked me what system I am playing, as if that has any bearing on morality. It seems kind of puritanical.


In real life, people are not "Good" or "Evil" because objective, empiric morality doesn't exist. Morality is a subjective measure of how well a person fits into a social framework. Most people understand, at least on a base level, how to measure behaviors to align to the current zeitgeist of morality, but those standards change vastly depending on time period and culture and are subject to personal interpretation to a certain range. While the terms are useful for a subjective rating, it's not much use in a conversation with the goal of coming to some universal conclusion. I asked what system you're using because the constraints of the alignment system in a game are what define characters as "Good", "Neutral", and "Evil". Otherwise, this is nothing but an invitation to an endless morality debate where people argue between the various points on the spectrum of acceptable moral judgements.

And for what it's worth, I'd ping the characters you are describing as Evil in any RPG system with an alignment system (that I'm aware of) and consider them to be evil by my standards in a real life context.

Quertus
2018-02-08, 11:06 AM
Let me give you an example: a bunch of heroes had a magic item that our benefactors wanted. It was a necromantic item, and our benefactors were a library that stored sacred artifacts. So we had to rendezvous with these guys who agreed to parlay with us, although they were dedicated to giving the necromantic item to their church - because their leader was a paladin.

So we met up with them and tried to convince them, but they were stonewalling us because the DM isn't good at negotiating - his characters are either too agreeable or not agreeable whatsoever. Now, this is a homebrew system... My character specializes in portals. So instead of just killing them and taking the item, I just created a portal and we mind controlled the leader through it (my ally was a mind controlly mage), back to the library where they could confiscate the item. Wow, peaceful solution, am I right?

I then told the paladins henchmen that there was no more need to fight, it's over now. You'll die if you oppose us. We're going to wash our hands of this now - see ya later. But then the DM had the paladin teleported back to us and initiated combat before we could do anything. Railroad!

But don't worry - I tricked them into evacuating the women & children first. More refugees to take under my wing, hehehe.

Your character is evil. Let me say it again: your character is evil. Plenty of Playgrounders can explain it to you, if you are willing to listen. I think this sums it up, though:


Evil. That's how evil works - an evil guy might seem "good most of the time" but mass-murder, out of temper, without repentance, outweighs this massively.

However, OP, that's not what you asked. You asked if a character can be neutral by doing both good and evil. The answer is, it depends on which edition of D&D you're playing. So, which system are you using? Hmmm...


Now, this is a homebrew system...

Ok, WTF?! Seriously? You want a group unfamiliar with the arbitrary alignment system that your GM created to make rulings on it? Yeah, no. Unless your GM is utterly incompetent, decisions on how it works are left to the system's creator.

Of course, he chose to implement an alignment system, so it's a no-win scenario.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 11:16 AM
All I'm getting out of this thread are moral judgments (not towards myself, I don't care about that. Just generally) and it just makes me shake my head.If you didn't want moral judgments, I'm not sure why you started a thread entitled "Can you be neutral through extreme acts of both good & evil?" I'm pretty sure any answer that would qualify as on-topic is going to involve some moral judgments. :smalltongue:

Psyren
2018-02-08, 11:25 AM
If you didn't want moral judgments, I'm not sure why you started a thread entitled "Can you be neutral through extreme acts of both good & evil?" I'm pretty sure any answer that would qualify as on-topic is going to involve some moral judgments. :smalltongue:

"Please don't bring morality into muh alignment thread" seems to be a futile exercise indeed :smallbiggrin:

Segev
2018-02-08, 12:06 PM
But the point is that people are immediately jumping to genocide. There are other acts of evil that aren't so ingrained into public consciousness as being irredeemable that it suffocates all discussion."Extreme" is an adjective you used in the topic line. If you wanted people not to go to the extreme, you should choose a different adjective.


The consensus seems to be that if you commit one act of evil, then that tars your character for life even if you do nice things for the rest of your time. I'm not talking about having a corny redemption arc where you have to spend your life trying to atone. I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.Yep, that's pretty darned evil. Nope, you're not getting a pass for it if you're unrepentant and, say, would probably do it again if you got mad at another town.

I mean, you can have an affably evil mass murderer that people (especially safely behind the 4th wall) love. Look at Richard from Looking For Group. But that doesn't make them not evil.




All in all, I'd just like to say that I don't agree with the consensus here. I think that someone who lives their life on their own terms - occasionally doing good, and occasionally doing evil - as the situation demands... that's not overall evil. That's just neutral. All I'm getting out of this thread are moral judgments (not towards myself, I don't care about that. Just generally) and it just makes me shake my head.Nope, sorry. "I beat, kill, and torture people on my own terms, but I also give to charity and help out orphans so the deed to the mine that keeps their orphanage open isn't stolen," doesn't make you non-evil. Again: Hitler was kind to dogs and many Nazi bigwigs were good family men.

It's not "one act of evil" that forever stains you. It's that evil stains you to the degree of its evil, and unless you wash away the stain by striving to not be the kind of person who would commit that evil, you're never escaping it. You can be a wonderful person otherwise, but you still are stained.

Half a pound of ice cream mixed with half a pound of mud still just yields a pound of mud.


Evil. That's how evil works - an evil guy might seem "good most of the time" but mass-murder, out of temper, without repentance, outweighs this massively.Yep. Exactly.


In real life, people are not "Good" or "Evil" because objective, empiric morality doesn't exist. Morality is a subjective measure of how well a person fits into a social framework.
You're confusing "morality" and "ethics." If your social framework includes a right for the rich and powerful to kidnap, rape, torture, murder, and force death battles between the peasantry, poor, or other underclasses, that doesn't make this behavior moral. No matter how well it "fits into the social framework."

I've written theses on morality as objective independent of any religion on this forum before, so I won't belabor them again. I acknowledge that people disagree with me. But I will state that I do not agree that morality is subjective to the point that you can't identify a mass murderer as "evil" and a hard-working and generous preserver of life as "good." (Adding "what if that preserver-of-life is secretly also a mass murderer?" isn't being clever, by the way, when I'm not writing a lengthy thesis here.)

Bohandas
2018-02-08, 12:41 PM
Didn't Gygax also say that Paladins should go around murdering evildoers the minute they repent so they won't have time to backslide, and considered that a kindness?

Much like Lucas, I give props to the dude for the original creative spark, but large fantasy properties benefit from diversity of viewpoint at the helm and evolution over time.

In his defense, IIRC, cosmic good was originally deliberately written to be dysfunctional to justify staunchly characters like Mordenkainen.

I must admit though that I personally would have gone more along the Allegro the Panda everyone is high all the time or Friend Computer happiness is mandatory type routes to do dysfunctional goodness.

Bohandas
2018-02-08, 12:44 PM
Nope, sorry. "I beat, kill, and torture people on my own terms, but I also give to charity and help out orphans so the deed to the mine that keeps their orphanage open isn't stolen," doesn't make you non-evil.

What if they killed a person so dying orphans could get their organs. Like, five sick orphans, needing a heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. Trolley problem.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 01:01 PM
What if they killed a person so dying orphans could get their organs. Like, five sick orphans, needing a heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. Trolley problem.
But what if one of THOSE orphans was prophesied by the oracle of Apollo to become the next Necromancer Queen, and the person who was killed for their organs was more able to experience joy than any other person on the plane? And the person who was killed was an elf at the beginning of a healthy 700 year long life, while the orphans are all half orcs who probably won't live past 60. But also, one of the orphans is the last survivor of once proud culture and only remaining speaker of his native language, so allowing him to die is basically genocide.

Scripten
2018-02-08, 01:11 PM
You're confusing "morality" and "ethics." If your social framework includes a right for the rich and powerful to kidnap, rape, torture, murder, and force death battles between the peasantry, poor, or other underclasses, that doesn't make this behavior moral. No matter how well it "fits into the social framework."

That's not quite how I've understood that and I would argue that I did not conflate the two. The social framework is a system of "ethics", but morality is a subjective measure of how behaviors relate to that framework. You can't have an objective morality because there's no universal constant for it. Morality is by definition subjective and ethics is the framework upon which we base our morality.

I'm not saying that a person's morality measured by how fervently they follow the set of ethics of their society, but that an individual's basis for morality is impossible to determine without the premises provided by their society's ethics. If you do not have an initial premise that "bodily autonomy is a human right", then there is no springboard from which to determine that murder is wrong, for instance. You may have a gut feeling on right or wrong, but that is born of a mix of inherited and conditioned behaviors. Ethics and morality are constantly evolving, evidenced by the fact that we are all rightly repulsed by the idea that one's humanity is dependent on one's socioeconomic standing.



I've written theses on morality as objective independent of any religion on this forum before, so I won't belabor them again. I acknowledge that people disagree with me. But I will state that I do not agree that morality is subjective to the point that you can't identify a mass murderer as "evil" and a hard-working and generous preserver of life as "good." (Adding "what if that preserver-of-life is secretly also a mass murderer?" isn't being clever, by the way, when I'm not writing a lengthy thesis here.)

I certainly didn't claim any of that and in fact claimed the opposite. My explanation was to support my asking the OP what RPG alignment system they were using.

Segev
2018-02-08, 02:30 PM
What if they killed a person so dying orphans could get their organs. Like, five sick orphans, needing a heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. Trolley problem.Not a trolley problem. There are lots of possible alternate solutions, including beating up a DIFFERENT man for HIS organs. Trolley problems are constrained to a ludicrous degree on purpose.



I certainly didn't claim any of that and in fact claimed the opposite.I was reacting to your literal statement of "morality is subjective" as explanation for why nobody in the real world can be termed "good" or "evil." If I misunderstood what you meant, then I apologize.

Scripten
2018-02-08, 02:45 PM
I was reacting to your literal statement of "morality is subjective" as explanation for why nobody in the real world can be termed "good" or "evil." If I misunderstood what you meant, then I apologize.

No worries. I just wanted to make sure that I was coming across accurately.

Boci
2018-02-08, 03:02 PM
But I will state that I do not agree that morality is subjective to the point that you can't identify a mass murderer as "evil" and a hard-working and generous preserver of life as "good."

I highly doubt it. In idealized circamstances sure, but in the real world you don't have "mass murderers" so much as people who did many things, one of which may have been mass murder. Vlad "Tepes" Dracula for example, a mass murderer, was also a popular figure in Romania, to the point where Bram Stoker book was viewed unfavourable in the region, who did not like a famous figure of their history being turned into a monster. Mother Teressa was a hard-working and generous preserver of life and not secretly a mass murderer (that we know of), but her life's work has been called in question by some.

Douche
2018-02-08, 03:14 PM
"Extreme" is an adjective you used in the topic line. If you wanted people not to go to the extreme, you should choose a different adjective.

Yep, that's pretty darned evil. Nope, you're not getting a pass for it if you're unrepentant and, say, would probably do it again if you got mad at another town.

I mean, you can have an affably evil mass murderer that people (especially safely behind the 4th wall) love. Look at Richard from Looking For Group. But that doesn't make them not evil.



Nope, sorry. "I beat, kill, and torture people on my own terms, but I also give to charity and help out orphans so the deed to the mine that keeps their orphanage open isn't stolen," doesn't make you non-evil. Again: Hitler was kind to dogs and many Nazi bigwigs were good family men.

It's not "one act of evil" that forever stains you. It's that evil stains you to the degree of its evil, and unless you wash away the stain by striving to not be the kind of person who would commit that evil, you're never escaping it. You can be a wonderful person otherwise, but you still are stained.

Half a pound of ice cream mixed with half a pound of mud still just yields a pound of mud.

Yep. Exactly.


You're confusing "morality" and "ethics." If your social framework includes a right for the rich and powerful to kidnap, rape, torture, murder, and force death battles between the peasantry, poor, or other underclasses, that doesn't make this behavior moral. No matter how well it "fits into the social framework."

I've written theses on morality as objective independent of any religion on this forum before, so I won't belabor them again. I acknowledge that people disagree with me. But I will state that I do not agree that morality is subjective to the point that you can't identify a mass murderer as "evil" and a hard-working and generous preserver of life as "good." (Adding "what if that preserver-of-life is secretly also a mass murderer?" isn't being clever, by the way, when I'm not writing a lengthy thesis here.)

You seem to be really puritanical in your definitions of good & evil. That's not really someone I'd want to engage with. I imagine that you'd be like the priest who refuses to work with the mole people because they're support abortion, and you'd end up causing the apocalypse through your refusal to compromise. Which is pretty evil.

Also, that "mud and ice cream" analogy is dangerously close to racist societies that put you in a lower caste if you have even one drop of the lower ethnic group's blood in them. You sound like the Malfoys right now. Whether it's genetic or ideology, being a purist like this is disturbing, and I'd be much readier to call that person evil than someone who deals with things in context.

Anyway I don't want to be accused of personal attacks here, but your perspective leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Regardless, no real person, nor roleplayer is purely good nor purely evil. I stand by my belief that you can commit some good acts in some places, and some bad acts in others, and overall come out of it being neutral. Like, say, Martin Luther King Jr.

Boci
2018-02-08, 03:26 PM
Your analogies are a bit confused Douche. Segev is talking an indevidual moleperson, not the race as a whole. Comdeming one person as being evil is a lot different to condemning an entire race. And the attempts to "mud and icecream" out to be rascist are a little strained. The argument was half icescream half mud mixed together is not half-edible, not that a little pinch of mud will taint any quantity of icecream, as it would need to be for the rascism analogy to hold true.

Scripten
2018-02-08, 03:37 PM
You seem to be really puritanical in your definitions of good & evil. That's not really someone I'd want to engage with. I imagine that you'd be like the priest who refuses to work with the mole people because they're support abortion, and you'd end up causing the apocalypse through your refusal to compromise. Which is pretty evil.


For one thing, veering into politics and religion here, which is against forum rules. Moreover this has nothing to do with anything that anyone has said in this thread so I'm not sure what your point is.



Also, that "mud and ice cream" analogy is dangerously close to racist societies that put you in a lower caste if you have even one drop of the lower ethnic group's blood in them. You sound like the Malfoys right now. Whether it's genetic or ideology, being a purist like this is disturbing, and I'd be much readier to call that person evil than someone who deals with things in context.


"Mass murderers" is generally not considered an identity. Equating that with race or culture is ridiculous and, honestly, a bit repugnant. I find it questionable that this is a discussion in good faith, considering that you now seem to be on a soapbox defending murder. (Or should I call that "assertiveness"? The two seem conflated for some reason.) Perhaps I misunderstand your point?



Anyway I don't want to be accused of personal attacks here, but your perspective leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


You're not doing a very good job here if that's your goal. A good half of this post is attacking Segev personally. The other is... well, basically using a strained racial analogy to compare murderers to oppressed minorities in Harry Potter for some reason.



Regardless, no real person, nor roleplayer is purely good nor purely evil. I stand by my belief that you can commit some good acts in some places, and some bad acts in others, and overall come out of it being neutral. Like, say, Martin Luther King Jr.

Again, attempting to go down this path of conversation is dangerously close to breaking forum rules. I disagree but I have no intention of being baited.

kyoryu
2018-02-08, 03:37 PM
Here's how I look at it, generally:

Sentient creatures have natural rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) : Basically, you have yourself, your body, your time, and your mind, the products of those things, and the right to defend against active infringements of the same.

Infringing on this is evil. This does not create an obligation to protect the rights of others, merely an obligation to not violate them (outside of instances of self defense).

If you infringe sufficiently, especially without cause and without remorse, you are evil. You are not evil *because* of what you do, but rather only an evil person will infringe on others repeatedly, without cuase, and without remorse.

If you do not do this, and only occasionally infringe, or infringe only in cases of great need, and have appropriate remorse, you are neutral or good. A neutral person will act in their own best interests (and of their family and close circle) without infringing on the natural rights of others. A good person, on the other hand, will work for the betterment of others when not in their best interests. Doing good for others when it benefits you, or at least has no real cost, is not good. It is simply neutral. They key to goodness is sacrifice.

An Evil person can change, but it's not just by doing some good deeds so that the "credit card of evil" has a clean balance. They have to change who they are on a fundamental level, so that they are no longer the person who will happily infringe on others.

I find this works reasonably well. It doesn't require predicting the future, lines up with most "gut reactions" in the vast majority of cases, and the cases where it doesn't line up perfectly are very grey area cases anyway. While people might not agree with this as a general morality system (it's distinctly non-Utilitarian), I find that, at least, it's clear enough to make rulings on in-game, and useful at least for those purposes.

But to answer the question in the OP, no, if you perform extreme acts of evil, you are evil. Period. The second question (do you do good?) doesn't even get asked.

FabulousFizban
2018-02-08, 03:38 PM
swinging wildly like that seems more chaotic than anything

Segev
2018-02-08, 03:41 PM
Indeed. Note again that I am still responding to your topic, which uses the adjective "extreme," and refers to "balancing" at Neutral based on extrema of good and evil.

The amount of evil to which you get up is significant, here. Pecadillos are not laudible, but they're hardly going to make you horrific.

To speak to my own morals, we are all sinners. Every last one of us alive today. All but one of us alive, ever. Little kids and those sufficiently mentally damaged are absolved of their sins due to inability to understand what they do as wrong, but that's it.

I will not condemn others; it is not my place. I will judge whether or not I can deal with them based mainly on whether their actions and motives are liable to cause me harm. This isn't to judge them "evil," but to judge whether I can trust them not to screw me or those for whom I care over.

You're the one, Douche, injecting refusal to work with people into it. You're the one changing the formula to "even a drop" and conflating race with behavior (which is amazingly racist, by the way).

Yes, I can identify evil. Yes, if you want me to evaluate, I can, though it's not really my place except insofar as I am asked to. Yes, if you engage in horrific acts as well as amazingly beneficent acts, you're still evil.

Pretending that equates to something akin to the notion that catching Clark Kent jaywalking means I now think Superman is the worst kind of villain is intellectually dishonest.

Boci
2018-02-08, 04:11 PM
we are all sinners.

To quote John Oliver, "If you have never been fined for a municipal violation, then congratulations on not being caught".

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 04:16 PM
Also, that "mud and ice cream" analogy is dangerously close to racist societies that put you in a lower caste if you have even one drop of the lower ethnic group's blood in them. You sound like the Malfoys right now. Whether it's genetic or ideology, being a purist like this is disturbing, and I'd be much readier to call that person evil than someone who deals with things in context.Segev is more than capable of defending themself, and has, so I won't bother white-knighting even though I would be incredibly offended if you used that line on me. Instead, I will confine myself to saying that I find it specious, off-topic, and borderline against the rules of the board to cry racial prejudice when the discussion is about moral judgments of an individual's actions. If you stop trying to cross those wires, we can continue having a discussion about these things. If you keep at it, I'm liable to give up on my presumption of your good faith and decide you just want to troll, after all.

Douche
2018-02-08, 04:54 PM
so now I'm the puritanical one for saying that making absolute judgments on someone is puritanical.

That was a poor metaphor, I grant you. But the big picture, as I concluded in my last post, is that making an absolute judgment on someone is the greater evil. And while it seems like I targeted Segev personally, the reason I gave that disclaimer is because it is an idea that is prevalent in this thread generally. Segev just said it most eloquently which is why I chose to respond to him.

Mud an icecream implies that one drop taints the whole. I didn't call anyone racist, and if that's your conclusion then please try thinking of it in more abstract terms. Here's a different example: a guy falls in love with a woman, but then he learns that she had been with another man before him - so (by his logic) she is tainted and he dumps her. That's an absolute judgment. That is what your ice cream metaphor equates to. Also note that I made that comparison in post #5 of this thread and no one batted an eye until we reached the pearl clutching phase of this discussion.

Suffice to say, you guys were the ones to mention genocide and ethnicity first, and I said those topics suffocate discussion, so don't act like I'm the one who brought this stuff up.

MLK was a bad example, and I'm not going to provide any rationale. But by that logic you guys shouldn't be bringing up Hitler. I should use fictional characters from now on. Pretend I said Illidan Stormrage, then. Other than that, any real world parallels you guys found in my last post are your own inference.



"Mass murderers" is generally not considered an identity. Equating that with race or culture is ridiculous and, honestly, a bit repugnant. I find it questionable that this is a discussion in good faith, considering that you now seem to be on a soapbox defending murder. (Or should I call that "assertiveness"? The two seem conflated for some reason.) Perhaps I misunderstand your point?

You guys keep mentioning mass murder like I'm advocating for that. To be clear, we're still talking about games here. I just want to put that out there

The town exploding thing is one of the first quests in Fallout 3. You can do that on impulse and then go on to save the wasteland, and I still say that's neutral. In terms of your impact upon the world, it's actually a net positive.

So yeah, absolute statements. It's funny because most people would agree that most historical figures were not entirely good or evil, and might've had to commit heinous acts somewhere along the road. Or otherwise, they might've indulged in some nasty things, but they also did a lot of good for the world. Not Hitler helping animals - because we all agree that it was a net negative. Rather, a guy who ran an orphanage and was an adulterer.

I don't know anymore. I don't think that you guys are going to back down from your absolutist views, and I'm just going to keep getting strawmanned.

Suffice to say, we are still talking about games here, so killing people shouldn't carry the same moral weight as it does in real life.

Segev
2018-02-08, 04:59 PM
Again, you're moving goal posts and ignoring what's being said in favor of straw man arguments, Douche.

Did I say, "A drop of mud in a gallon of ice cream makes a gallon of mud?"

If I said that, please quote me.

And nobody's called you "puritanical." Just pointed out your own judgmentalism.

You're arguing an awful lot like Darth Ultron when people challenge his claims about Railroading.

Boci
2018-02-08, 05:11 PM
Mud an icecream implies that one drop taints the whole.

No it doesn't. It says half-icecream half mud isn't tasty. Which is true. Maybe this will help:

Did you know there can be cyanide in tap water? A quick google search tells me in the US, 0.2 mg/L of "free"(I assume this means unbonded) cyanide is considered acceptable. That does not mean the US is fine with 50% of the drinking water being cyanide, and no one reading it would assume so.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 05:15 PM
To be clear, we're still talking about games here. I just want to put that out thereHere's the thing. If your question is "do you think it's okay for me to play a sociopath in an RPG for fun?", then my answer is going to be, "Go for it!" Be the guy who nukes a bunch of innocent people because it seemed like it would be funny at the time, and later on liberates a town from a corrupt baron by risking your life fighting his whole army, also because it seemed like it would be fun. I'd play in that game. Hell, I've played that character.

If you then ask, "would you consider this person morally good?", then my answer would be "No, and keep him away from my children! They aren't nuke-proof". Doing things in a game don't carry the same moral weight as doing them in real life (he said to many cries of 'no ****!'), and depending on the style of the game you are playing and the level of escapism that you want, they might carry almost none at all. And that's fine.

But when you bring up the morality of all these actions, we're going to apply the same tests that we would to evaluating a person's actions in real life (with a few mods installed to include the effects that mind-control magic, divine intervention, and potential dire weasel attacks have on a system of morality). Setting someone on fire to steal their ice cream is an evil act in real life, and it's an evil act within a game, even if I've totally done that before and it was hilarious and I'd do it again (in a game, that is >.>).

But to move on to specific answers to your specific points.

It's funny because most people would agree that most historical figures were not entirely good or evil, and might've had to commit heinous acts somewhere along the road.Yeah, pretty much. A lot of historical figures were jerks who accomplished great things. I'd even go one further and so that NO human being has ever been entirely good or entirely evil, though plenty of people have done such horrible things without ever trying to atone that I feel no problem at all calling them evil. Not 100% evil, just too much evil mud mixed in for me to want to eat that ice cream.


The town exploding thing is one of the first quests in Fallout 3.Yeah that's pretty much evil. You are murdering innocent people because it's amusing. Again, it's evil within the game world. Obviously you, the player, didn't do anything wrong, it's just a game.


Suffice to say, we are still talking about games here, so killing people shouldn't carry the same moral weight as it does in real life.I'm basically certain that nobody was suggesting that acts taken in a game are as morally charged as the same act would be if carried out in real life. But just to be sure, yes, doing evil things in a game is fine, and if you have fun doing it (and your table is fine with that playstyle), then I wish you many fun slaughters! But don't expect people in the game world to buy the whole "I'm good because this is just a game to me and none of you are real people" argument. That's pretty much the definition of sociopathic behavior, and I doubt they'll be convinced.

Douche
2018-02-08, 05:35 PM
I'm on mobile now so I don't want to go through the effort of quoting excerpts

The reason I said we're still talking about games is that people are debating as if we're discussing real world morality when it comes to killing.

I didn't say you were a good person after nuking a town, I said you could be neutral, lol. I'm still having trouble understanding why someone can't save orphans and murder homeless people for fun, and overall be neutral. I'm not saying they're a mentally stable person... but the two acts should be able to roughly balance out in some fashion.

I mean, that orphan saver is definitely more of a good person than the guy who just murders homeless people. If I was forced to eat something, I'd rather eat ice cream & mud than pure mud.

I'm not strawmanning or moving goalposts, I'm merely clarifying my argument. Don't start with the meta arguments cuz if someone starts naming fallacies I'm going to throw a donkey off a bridge. I'm not the one who invoked Godwin's law and I actively tried to avoid that discussion. You just got hung up on my word choice.

Anyway whether it's a drop or 50/50, we're still talking about neutral. It seems to me like we're finding a compromise now. Before it seemed like you were saying that evil is evil, but now you have conceded that you can have a few drops - am I wrong?

So we're back at the original premise. Do you think that good and evil can be balanced out to become neutral? Forget the "extreme" part (because I was originally talking about the karma system in Fallout, that's where extreme came from). Forget the thresholds - can you balance good & evil to be neutral?

And then, taking it to a fantasy setting and putting our real world morality aside - then perhaps you could expand it to include heinous acts (again, by our standards)

Boci
2018-02-08, 05:41 PM
I mean, that orphan saver is definitely more of a good person than the guy who just murders homeless people. If I was forced to eat something, I'd rather eat ice cream & mud than pure mud.

But you aren't forced. Most people wouldn't eat icecream mid of their own free will, because despite being present in equal %-tages, thetaste of mud will spoil the taste of ice cream. Ditto on the homeless-murderer-come-orhpan-saver character idea.

If someone were to force me to choose, I would rather stay in the room with someone who murders homless and saves orphans rather than someone who just murders homesless, but I would still consider both to be evil by my understanding of morality.

Douche
2018-02-08, 05:47 PM
But you aren't forced. Most people wouldn't eat icecream mid of their own free will, because despite being present in equal %-tages, thetaste of mud will spoil the taste of ice cream. Ditto on the homeless-murderer-come-orhpan-saver character idea.

If someone were to force me to choose, I would rather stay in the room with someone who murders homless and saves orphans rather than someone who just murders homesless, but I would still consider both to be evil by my understanding of morality.

I dunno man I mean ice cream mud still has sugar in it. None of us have actually tried it. If it was high quality soil without any contaminants, you might not even taste the mud. Regardless, id eat it with the ice cream over pure mud.

Similarly, you would agree that the orphan saver is closer to neutral, right?

I feel like I've been forced into a corner here - people think I'm trying to call these people good. But I'm trying to say it's NEUTRAL

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 05:48 PM
I'm still having trouble understanding why someone can't save orphans and murder homeless people for fun, and overall be neutral.I'm sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best in your recovery.


I mean, that orphan saver is definitely more of a good person than the guy who just murders homeless people.Why won't you eat this mixture of 90% mud and 10% ice cream? It's better than 99% mud and 1% ice cream!


If I was forced to eat something, I'd rather eat ice cream & mud than pure mud.Me too, but that doesn't make the mess you are eating into tasty ice cream. It just means that you either have terribly low culinary standards or you are subject to the whim of a cruel god of hypotheticals (probably the same jerk who throws so many people in front of trolleys).


Don't start with the meta arguments cuz if someone starts naming fallacies I'm going to throw a donkey off a bridge.That's evil too, but if you donate at least $64,000 to the SPCA and adopt a rescue pet, your karma balance will be back to neutral.

/s

I'm sorry for being flippant, I'm probably being a jerk, but that first line had me cracking up and I couldn't help myself.

Boci
2018-02-08, 05:51 PM
I dunno man I mean ice cream mud still has sugar in it. None of us have actually tried it. If it was high quality soil without any contaminants, you might not even taste the mud.

I don't know what the soil quality of my local football pitch was like, but based on my expiriences there, I'm going to assume I could infact taste mud in my icecream in any significant levels.


Similarly, you would agree that the orphan saver is closer to neutral, right?

Morality is typically not a scale, so "closer to neutral" is a bit hard to judge. If someone who kills 2 homeless people for fun every weekend for fun closer to neutral than someone who kills 3 homeless for fun people every every weakend?

Douche
2018-02-08, 06:05 PM
Me too, but that doesn't make the mess you are eating into tasty ice cream. It just means that you either have terribly low culinary standards or you are subject to the whim of a cruel god of hypotheticals (probably the same jerk who throws so many people in front of trolleys).


But you do not disagree that it is tastier than pure mud. Ergo, neutral.

Boci
2018-02-08, 06:08 PM
But you do not disagree that it is tastier than pure mud. Ergo, neutral.

There are more options than neutral and evil here. There is also "slightly less yucky/evil than the other, but still yucky/evil".

Hitting someone 3 times with a baseball bat because they were taking too long ordering at the quie in front of you is evil. That doesn't mean hitting them twice is neutral, even though they are causing less harm.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-08, 06:33 PM
1) Looks at the name on the OP.
2) Looks at the history of new threads created by said.
3) Sees "moral calculus" ongoing.

Yeah...

Segev
2018-02-08, 06:37 PM
Nope. Still saying your character cannot nuke that town and then rescue a city from another mad nuker and call himself "neutral." He's a monster who nuked a town, by your own description "because he was mad."

Hannibal Lector is a villain, no matter how many orphanages he sponsors, no matter how many brilliant doctors he helps put through college, no matter how often his lectures literally turn lives that would have been wasted through suicide into the most productive of happy family men and women imaginable. None of that gives him a pass on killing and eating people he doesn't like. It doesn't make him really an okay guy who isn't a saint; it makes him a monster.

As long as "...and I'd do it again!" is part of the narrative of wicked deeds done, whether spoken or unspoken, the deeds stain the character in such a way that, if they're sufficiently wicked, make it impossible for him to be "neutral."

Neutrality is achieved by never rising above your base nature, but never diving down into depravity, either. You're a regular sinner, but they're minor peccadillos for the most part, and you actually feel bad about anything too bad that you do. And try to make up for it, or at least never, ever do it again.

It is NOT achieved by veering wildly back and forth between the most saint-like behavior possible and trying to figure out how to achieve a gigahitler in one action.

Just because we're talking about a game doesn't mean the character in the game is suddenly non-evil. Sure, the player is not guilty of actually committing those sins, since the game world doesn't (I hope) include real people who are really getting hurt. But that doesn't mean the character is neutral.

If a real world person acting that way in the real world would be evil, so is the character acting that way in the game.

Braininthejar2
2018-02-08, 06:38 PM
You can, and in some cases it can even be good roleplaying - but that's an entirely inhuman mindset to have.

Bohandas
2018-02-08, 06:56 PM
Regarding the mud and icecream thing you also need to take into consideration that many people will eat anything as long as you call it a "delicacy", including civet crap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak), rotten cheese with maggots growing in it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu), fruit that smells like a public restroom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durian), and tofu

Boci
2018-02-08, 07:01 PM
Regarding the mud and icecream thing you also need to take into consideration that many people will eat anything as long as you call it a "delicacy", including civet crap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak), rotten cheese with maggots growing in it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu), fruit that smells like a public restroom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durian), and tofu

You don't really need to take that into consideration, because its not relevant. The point is that equally balanced ingredients do not neccissarily produce a neutral result, not that social refinement can make people do silly things.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 07:38 PM
Regarding the mud and icecream thing you also need to take into consideration that many people will eat anything as long as you call it a "delicacy", including civet crap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak), rotten cheese with maggots growing in it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu), fruit that smells like a public restroom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durian), and tofuHow dare you. Tofu is delicious.

Durian is a blight on the face of all that is kind and decent though, so you can have that one.

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 07:38 PM
There is a well worn trope of the tortured hero. Someone who, in the past, made one mistake, and spends the rest of his life trying to atone for it, knowing that nothing he does ever truly can. No matter how many people he saves, it doesn't bring back the one he killed. I would contend that viewing people interchangeably in such a way that would make that trade work is itself an indication of evil alignment. It leads to the belief that you can balance the equation later and makes murder more attractive.

This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as redemption, just that redemption is not something you can ever earn. It is instead a product of grace; it is something given that you do not deserve. For a non-religious, pop-culture relevant example, see Luke and Darth Vader. Vader in no way shape or form deserved Luke risking everything to redeem him. That's grace.

Boci
2018-02-08, 07:44 PM
This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as redemption, just that redemption is not something you can ever earn. It is instead a product of grace; it is something given that you do not deserve. For a non-religious, pop-culture relevant example, see Luke and Darth Vader. Vader in no way shape or form deserved Luke risking everything to redeem him. That's grace.

Vader doesn't really redeem himself though, at least not in my opinion. He had a planet destroyed to make a point, and that's just what we saw in screen. Its great he made up with Luke before dying, but that just gives him a happy moment to die on with his son, it in no way redeems the numerous atrocities he committed as Darth Vader.

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 08:26 PM
Vader doesn't really redeem himself though, at least not in my opinion.
i... I just said he doesn't redeem himself. Luke redeems him.

And the force agrees. He's force ghost at the end.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-08, 08:32 PM
I've had this idea for an order of Paladins (in a less up-tight system than 3e D&D) made up of people who have committed horrific sins--betraying the people they're responsible for leading, attempted genocide, etc. They know without a shadow of a doubt that they are damned to whatever the Hell-equivalent of the setting is. They know this and accept it as nothing more than what they deserve. While they live, however, they pledge to do whatever they can so that no one else has to end up with that same fate. They willingly shoulder the necessary sins and traumas of life, protecting innocence and taking the blows of evil-doers to protect the weak, hunting down those that threaten the righteous, etc. They train so that when they die and the devils come for them, they can go to Hell and fight the fiends on their own turf, breaking down the gates of the Hells from within.

I call them the Sinner's Tears.


I am the tear of a sinner.
I am justly damned for my crimes.
But I fight so that no more tears must be shed.
For I am the last tear.

Just a random, semi-related thought (about redemption and the difficulty thereof). I agree with everybody that there is no moral calculus--you can't assign point values to morality and then average them out to neutral. Good and evil aren't RGB colors. Being good is more than just doing good things--it's about what you value. Evil deeds, done habitually or casually, reveal an evil heart.

Boci
2018-02-08, 08:39 PM
i... I just said he doesn't redeem himself. Luke redeems him.

....Luke cannot redeem him either. No one can. He killed a planet.


And the force agrees. He's force ghost at the end.

Actually since Obi-Wan apparantly considers Anakin and Vader seperate people, it can be read as that being Anakin, not Vader.

Scripten
2018-02-08, 09:03 PM
It's hard to really tell because the presence of the Force and its effects on those who use it are muddled in the fiction, but I think the reason this works in the setting is because Darth Vader is literally another person. As in, Anakin Skywalker fell to the Dark Side and literally became Vader from the perspective of the Force. But again, it's tough to really say because Star Wars can be... arbitrary at the best of times there.

EDIT: Also what Segev said.

So somehow we've hit this twice in one thread. :smallbiggrin:

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 09:04 PM
....Luke cannot redeem him either. No one can. He killed a planet.
No, he didn't. Because he is a fictional character. And yes, Luke can, because the writers want him to.

Look, I am trying very, very, very, very hard not to bring real-world religion into this. Please don't make that more difficult than it already is.

Actually since Obi-Wan apparantly considers Anakin and Vader seperate people, it can be read as that being Anakin, not Vader.
From a certain point of view.

Boci
2018-02-08, 09:09 PM
No, he didn't. Because he is a fictional character.

Yes, and when people say "(fictional character) did something", they typically mean they did it within the fictional world they inhabit. Which they did.


And yes, Luke can, because the writers want him to.

That's not how writing works. That's like saying every character is really well written. The writer no doubt wants that to be the case, but that doesn't make it true.


Look, I am trying very, very, very, very hard not to bring real-world religion into this.

Then don't.


From a certain point of view.

Yeah, so we cannot take the younger Anakin appearing as force ghost as proof he was redeemed.


So somehow we've hit this twice in one thread. :smallbiggrin:

Huh, interesting. I mean, I can see why. Redemption is relevant to the topic, Vader's is probably the most famous, especially for nerds, and yeah, its not exactly hard to miss that Obi-Wan thinks they count as seperate people since it closely ties to one of the biggest reveal in cinema. Still, bit of a coincidence.

kyoryu
2018-02-08, 09:09 PM
You redeem yourself by becoming someone that would not do the things that you previously did.

If you kill someone, and regret it, and change your life to become somebody that would never do such a thing again, you're redeemed.

If you kill someone, save a bunch of orphans, but can't wait to go murder someone again? Club Evil.

It's not a credit card.

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 09:25 PM
That's not how writing works. That's like saying every character is really well written. The writer no doubt wants that to be the case, but that doesn't make it true.
But that's the whole point of him appearing as a force ghost. Without that, the story just doesn't work.

Yeah, so we cannot take the younger Anakin appearing as force ghost as proof he was redeemed.
Younger Anakin? He looked about 40, and I doubt Vader was much older, if at all.

Besides, all that you are doing is nit picking that I didn't use the name used, what, four times in the whole series? That's not much of an argument.

Boci
2018-02-08, 09:47 PM
Besides, all that you are doing is nit picking that I didn't use the name used, what, four times in the whole series? That's not much of an argument.

No, I'm saying its easily possibly to interpret the story as Vader not been redeemed, which also works well with conventional understanding of morality.

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 09:53 PM
No, I'm saying its easily possibly to interpret the story as Vader not been redeemed, which also works well with conventional understanding of morality.
So it's just a random person standing by Obi Wan and Yoda at the end? It wasn't Luke's father?

Boci
2018-02-08, 10:00 PM
So it's just a random person standing by Obi Wan and Yoda at the end? It wasn't Luke's father?

No it was Luke's father, Anakin. It wasn't Dark Vader, since he betrayed and murdered Anakin. Obi-Wan, and therefor possibly the force too, considered them two different people.

Scripten
2018-02-08, 10:27 PM
It's a metaphorical thing to us, because the Force doesn't exist in real life. But in the Star Wars universe, it may well be that Darth Vader literally murdered Anakin Skywalker and took his place. Could be that Anakin and Vader are two sides of the same "soul" or something similar to that.

The point being, regardless, that Darth Vader was never a "Good" character, but that last act of redemption by Vader saved Anakin Skywalker and let him ascend to be a Force Ghost.

NichG
2018-02-08, 10:32 PM
It's kind of weird to be using a fictional law of physics as if it were capable of making perfect moral judgements. Why is it assumed that becoming a force ghost says anything about whether people should forgive Vader for what he's done? The whole 'it's not Vader, it's Anakin' thing seems unnecessary and roundabout.

Boci
2018-02-08, 10:37 PM
The whole 'it's not Vader, it's Anakin' thing seems unnecessary and roundabout.

It doesn't exactly come out of nowhere. The most famous moment of the origional trilogy hinges on it. It actually does something to justify what is otherwise an incredbly contrived/outright false way of saying something for the sake of keeping it a secret from the audience.

Not that I'm ruling out the latter.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-08, 11:37 PM
It doesn't exactly come out of nowhere. The most famous moment of the origional trilogy hinges on it. It actually does something to justify what is otherwise an incredbly contrived/outright false way of saying something for the sake of keeping it a secret from the audience.

Not that I'm ruling out the latter.

Looking at the way Lucas worked, when Kenobi tells Luke that Vader killed his father... that wasn't a lie. That's what was really going through Lucas' head when he made what could have been the only Star Wars movie ever had it not succeeded the way it did (IIRC the original movie said nothing about "episode 4"). What Lucas later thought would be the coolest thing he could put on the screen was for Vader to be Luke's father, rather than having killed Luke's father, so the statement in the original movie became a lie. There was never a secret to keep from the audience because Lucas was never lying, he just valued cinematic spectacle and wow factor more than continuity or consistency.

While that explains what happened from the creative perspective, from the internal perspective of trying to make sense of the events of the story as shown, Kenobi's "true from a certain perspective" thing isn't literal, it's a just a metaphorical way of saying that the man Anakin became "killed" the man Anakin was.

As for Darth Anakin, I don't buy for a second that he literally became a different person, and I don't buy for a second that he was in any way redeemed.

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 11:44 PM
No it was Luke's father, Anakin. It wasn't Dark Vader, since he betrayed and murdered Anakin. Obi-Wan, and therefor possibly the force too, considered them two different people.
OK, this is going to be the nerdiest thing I ever posted, but I'm going to prove that Obi Wan is wrong and why him being wrong is integral to the story.

In A New Hope, you get your speech by Obi Wan about Vader killing Anakin, laying the groundwork for the conventional view the Jedi and Sith both hold of the Dark Side. This is later made explicit by Yoda in Empire Strikes back:

"But beware of the Dark Side. Anger, fear, aggression, the Dark Side of the Force are they. Easily they flow. Quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi Wan's apprentice."

Now, we have to ask, was Vader Obi Wan's apprentice, or Anakin? Regardless of your answer, Yoda is saying once you go black, you never go back, which is exactly how Obi Wan justified saying Vader killed Anakin.

Also in Empire, we have Vader talking with the Emperor:

Emperor: "I have no doubt this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker."
Vader: "How is that possible?"
Emperor: "Search your feelings, Lord Vader. You know it to be true. He could destroy us."
Vader: "He is just a boy. Obi Wan can no longer help him."
Emperor: "The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."
Vader: "If he could be turned, he could become a powerful ally."

The Emperor here sides with Obi Wan: Anakin Skywalker is not Vader. Therefore, Luke is not Vader's son.

Vader, however, is playing coy on that. He doesn't refer to Luke as the son of Skywalker, or anything other than "a boy." But, he is manipulating Palpatine(!) into sparing Luke's life. Interesting. I'll add in "He will join us or die" for Vader's closing line, but Vader has opened a door where he doesn't have to kill Luke, who the two Sith lords know is the primary threat to their rule.

And then, in that famous scene, this very clear separation between Anakin and Vader is crossed:
Vader: "Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father."
Luke: "He told me enough! He told me you killed him!"
Vader. "No. I am your father."

This is Vader, not Anakin, saying that he is Luke's father

Now, let's go to Return of the Jedi:

Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father."
Obi Wan: "Your father was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?... There is still good in him."
Obi Wan: "He's more machine now than man. Twisted and evil."
Luke: "I can't do it, Ben."
Obi Wan: "You cannot escape your destiny. You must face Vader again."
Luke: "I can't kill my own father."
Obi Wan: "Then the Emperor has already won."

We see again, Obi Wan has washed his hands of Anakin completely. Anakin was destroyed. He is more machine than man. He's twisted and evil. The Emperor has won if Luke won't kill him. Also, notice: there are no name games in this dialog. Obi Wan is not constantly correcting Luke that his father is Anakin, not Vader. They are both his father. They are just different sides of the same person.

In this scene, the story is building the wall that's in front of Luke. Luke wants to save his father, but Obi Wan is telling him that's impossible, and Obi Wan would know. He's the mentor archetype. He's the closest thing the story has to a voice of God. Luke is setting out to challenge the established order of the Force. And this little talk from Obi Wan doesn't dissuade him. When he goes to see Leia:

Luke: "I have to face him."
Leia: "Why?"
Luke: "He's my father."

Unlike Obi Wan, Yoda, or Palpatine, Luke firmly believes the good of Anakin is still within Vader. All of his actions are predicated on that, and it adds to the tension, as everyone else is saying that he is wrong. So to everyone with any sense of the situation, intentionally turning himself over to Vader is insane:

Vader: "The emperor has been expecting you."
Luke: "I know, father."
Vader: "So, you have accepted the truth."
Luke: "I have accepted the truth that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father."
Vader: "That name no longer has any meaning for me."
Luke: "It is the name of your true self. You've only forgotten. I know there is good in you. The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully. That's why you couldn't destroy me. That's why you won't bring me to your Emperor now."

After a brief interlude about his lightsaber

Luke: "Come with me."
Vader: "Obi Wan once thought as you do."

Right here is the heart of the matter. Obi Wan once thought Anakin was still in there. There was a time when he wouldn't have told Luke that Vader killed his father, when he didn't believe Anakin had been destroyed. But, Obi Wan lost hope (what was the subtitle of the first movie again?). Anakin was dead to him, and that's what he told Luke. For Obi Wan to be correct, Luke must fail in his quest.

Continuing a little later in the scene:
Luke: "Search your feelings, father. You can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate."
Vader: "It is too late for me, son."

Although that seems like a rejection, is actually an admission that Luke is right. Vader says it regretfully, and you don't say "it's too late for me to become weaker." "Too late" implies that something bad has happened that cannot be fixed. It's the first time Vader acknowledges that his turn to the Dark Side was a mistake. That's the spark of light within Vader talking.

Vader brings Luke to the Emperor, there's a duel, the Emperor electrocutes Luke, and Luke calls out to his father, prompting Vader to toss the wrinkled old coot down a reactor shaft. With the Death Star exploding and Vader dying, he asks Luke to take off his mask so he can see his son with his own eyes, and then says

Vader: "Go, my son. Leave me."
Luke: "No. You're coming with me. I'll not leave you here. I've got to save you."
Vader: "You already have, Luke. You were right. You were right about me. Tell your sister you were right."

That's the end of Luke's quest, and he succeeded. Vader turned on the Emperor to protect the life of his son, which is something Obi Wan believed was impossible because Anakin was dead. Yoda said the Dark Side would forever dominate the destiny of whoever turned down its path, and yet it was the light within Vader that asserted itself at the end, so Yoda was wrong. It is Luke that was right; there can be redemption for those who fall.

And finally, at the end, we get to see Luke's father as a force ghost. And it's not some young Jedi from before he fell, but it's a middle aged dude, proving that Vader was redeemed in the end.

Now, if Luke did not redeem Vader, then WTF was the point of every scene with him on the Death Star? Do you realize that Luke turning himself over was completely inconsequential to the battle outside? He didn't take down the shields, distract the troops, disable the weapon, or blow up the reactor core. He was there solely to turn Vader. Solely. If that didn't happen, then it's all pointless and should have been left on the editing room floor. That's how writing works.

[/nerd]


It's kind of weird to be using a fictional law of physics as if it were capable of making perfect moral judgements. Why is it assumed that becoming a force ghost says anything about whether people should forgive Vader for what he's done?
Redemption != Forgiveness.
I'm using the Force because it's the closest thing to a higher power in the SW universe.

Boci
2018-02-08, 11:44 PM
Looking at the way Lucas worked, when Kenobi tells Luke that Vader killed his father... that wasn't a lie. That's what was really going through Lucas' head when he made what could have been the only Star Wars movie ever had it not succeeded the way it did (IIRC the original movie said nothing about "episode 4"). What Lucas later thought would be the coolest thing he could put on the screen was for Vader to be Luke's father, rather than having killed Luke's father, so the statement in the original movie became a lie. There was never a secret to keep from the audience because Lucas was never lying, he just valued cinematic spectacle and wow factor more than continuity or consistency.

The Emperor refers to Luke as "the son of Skywalker" when talking to Vader. So there definitly was some contrived dialogue to keep the secret.


Now, if Luke did not redeem Vader, then WTF was the point of every scene with him on the Death Star? Do you realize that Luke turning himself over was completely inconsequential to the battle outside? He didn't take down the shields, distract the troops, disable the weapon, or blow up the reactor core. He was there solely to turn Vader. Solely. If that didn't happen, then it's all pointless and should have been left on the editing room floor. That's how writing works.

No, that's how GOOD writing works. There are other kinds, and an arc with requires a fictional character who murdered a whole planet (within the make believe world they inhabit) to be redeemed by saving one person, who happens to be his son, might be consider, you know, the not good brand.

Deophaun
2018-02-08, 11:58 PM
The Emperor refers to Luke as "the son of Skywalker" when talking to Vader. So there definitly was some contrived dialogue to keep the secret.
That's in Empire, not New Hope.

No, that's how GOOD writing works. There are other kinds, and an arc with requires a fictional character who murdered a whole planet (within the make believe world they inhabit) to be redeemed by saving one person, who happens to be his son, might be consider, you know, the not good brand.
I am going to stop responding to you, because since you refuse to play in the fictional world, the only way is to cite real-world religious beliefs straight from the books themselves, which is a no-no. So, we will agree to disagree here.

Boci
2018-02-09, 12:06 AM
That's in Empire, not New Hope.

Oh I know, I'm just saying we know it did happen, but yes, maybe it was only intentional in Empire and not in New Hope.


I am going to stop responding to you, because since you refuse to play in the fictional world, the only way is to cite real-world religious beliefs straight from the books themselves, which is a no-no. So, we will agree to disagree here.

Refuse to play in the fictional world? What does that even mean? My argument is "Vader did too much bad stuff on camera, let alone what he did between movies we didn't see, to be considered redeemed at the end of Jedi". It sounds like "refusing to play in the fictional world" is "refusing to blindly agree with you".

Deophaun
2018-02-09, 12:10 AM
Refuse to play in the fictional world? What does that even mean? My argument is "Vader did too much bad stuff on camera, let alone what he did between movies we didn't see, to be considered redeemed at the end of Jedi". It sounds like "refusing to play in the fictional world" is "refusing to blindly agree with you".
Because you are focused on the fiction, not the point the fiction is being used to convey. I am using the fiction because the board's rules forbid me from using real religion. So, since you are lost in the weeds because Vader didn't blow up a planet (really, all he did was use torture on Leia to gain information, torture on Han for giggles before freezing him, and force choke kill subordinate officers; hardly the terror of the Galaxy it was Tarkin who blew up planets), this conversation has no hope of being productive.

Boci
2018-02-09, 12:14 AM
Because you are focused on the fiction, not the point the fiction is being used to convey.

I know what a redemption arc is. Zuko's from Avatar the Last Airbender was fantastic, in my opinion at least. I'm saying Vader's one doesn't work. You're saying that cannot be the case, it has to work otherwise the ending scene is pointless, and I'm pointing out that there are other options, like that particular piece of writing not being that good.

Deophaun
2018-02-09, 12:18 AM
I know what a redemption arc is. Zuko's from Avatar the Last Airbender was fantastic, in my opinion at least. I'm saying Vader's one doesn't work.
Which is completely not the point of all of this. As I said, fruitless. So long.

Boci
2018-02-09, 12:22 AM
Which is completely not the point of all of this. As I said, fruitless. So long.

Ummm, yes it is?

"Now, if Luke did not redeem Vader, then WTF was the point of every scene with him on the Death Star?"

You're entire point has been how neccissary the redemption is and how the ending doesn't make sense if Vader isn't redeemed. To which I saiy, yeah kinda.

But sure, see you.

PersonMan
2018-02-09, 03:50 AM
Well, this is way back from page 2, but...


C: Choosing to do both extreme good and extreme evil does not make you neutral. It means you need to pick ONE alignment, and stop screwing around before your characters utterly inexplicable and nonsensical behavior becomes actually disruptive to the game.

Or it means you're playing a character for whom it makes sense to do both, instead of picking an alignment and acting as it.

Bohandas
2018-02-09, 06:59 AM
....Luke cannot redeem him either. No one can. He killed a planet.

Tarkin killed a planet. Vader was opposed to the Death Star project from the beginning (albeit primarily due to rivalry between the mad-science and evil-magic-powers factions of imperial high command)


So, since you are lost in the weeds because Vader didn't blow up a planet (really, all he did was use torture on Leia to gain information, torture on Han for giggles before freezing him, and force choke kill subordinate officers;

To be fair he also assassinated people on Palpatine's behalf and went on killing sprees on both Coruscant and Tattooine

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-09, 07:28 AM
Just a random, semi-related thought (about redemption and the difficulty thereof). I agree with everybody that there is no moral calculus--you can't assign point values to morality and then average them out to neutral. Good and evil aren't RGB colors. Being good is more than just doing good things--it's about what you value. Evil deeds, done habitually or casually, reveal an evil heart.

And I disagree, because we're talking about games, and turning morality into a point value is trivially easy in a game. Doing so is neither any harder nor more controversial than turning personal health into hit points.

Anyone who disagrees with me can go play more LotR RPG, or if you can't find a GM for that right now, Nethack, Princess Maker 2, Fable, ADOM or any of the other tabletop and computer games which do this.

Hilariously enough, such a point system doesn't need to admit good points cancelling evil points, or any other notion of balance between good and evil. A third editions of sourcebook for d20 D&D actually shows how to do this, with corruption points. Hamisphence has better memory of which book it was.

---



Or it means you're playing a character for whom it makes sense to do both, instead of picking an alignment and acting as it.

Okay. Describe a viewpoint from which it makes sense and which is not captured by any single alignment, which does not fall under one of the three exceptions:

1) the character is insane.
2) the character is magically controlled by another entity.
3) the character had a change of heart and is in process of changing alignments.

hamishspence
2018-02-09, 07:39 AM
Hilariously enough, such a point system doesn't need to admit good points cancelling evil points, or any other notion of balance between good and evil. A third editions of sourcebook for d20 D&D actually shows how to do this, with corruption points. Hamisphence has better memory of which book it was.


Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells. It also had "obesiance points" (the Lawful counterpart to Evil's Corruption points).

It took the approach that Corruption 9+ guarantees (for Lawful characters, and possibly for Obesiance 9+ characters - that bit's not absolutely certain - Obesiance is designed for CE characters who devils are manipulating) that the character goes to the Nine Hells after death - unless they are repentant.

The implication is that it's possible to be nonevil and still have Corruption 9 - sincere repentance would be expected to change a character's alignment - as described in the DMG where it describes that sometimes, a character can change instantly from Evil to Good - an exception to the general "alignment change is slow" principle.

However, repentance doesn't remove corruption - only atonement (the action, not the spell) does.

Instead, the repentant corrupted character gets a second chance at escaping their fate - they are reincarnated as a Hellbred and have to do something big as part of their atonement, to escape being sent to the Nine Hells after their next death.

What the big thing has to be - is entirely up to the DM. One example given, I think, was permanently destroying an archdevil.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 07:53 AM
Tarkin killed a planet. Vader was opposed to the Death Star project from the beginning (albeit primarily due to rivalry between the mad-science and evil-magic-powers factions of imperial high command)


He stood there, said nothing, made no objection, and held Leia so she'd have to watch.

He's just as responsible as Tarkin and the others.




Now, if Luke did not redeem Vader, then WTF was the point of every scene with him on the Death Star? Do you realize that Luke turning himself over was completely inconsequential to the battle outside? He didn't take down the shields, distract the troops, disable the weapon, or blow up the reactor core. He was there solely to turn Vader. Solely. If that didn't happen, then it's all pointless and should have been left on the editing room floor. That's how writing works.


There was no point -- that entire exchange was inconsequential, and should have been left on the editing room floor. That's how good writing would have worked, but we're talking about Lucas.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-09, 07:54 AM
And I disagree, because we're talking about games, and turning morality into a point value is trivially easy in a game. Doing so is neither any harder nor more controversial than turning personal health into hit points.

Anyone who disagrees with me can go play more LotR RPG, or if you can't find a GM for that right now, Nethack, Princess Maker 2, Fable, ADOM or any of the other tabletop and computer games which do this.

Hilariously enough, such a point system doesn't need to admit good points cancelling evil points, or any other notion of balance between good and evil. A third editions of sourcebook for d20 D&D actually shows how to do this, with corruption points. Hamisphence has better memory of which book it was.


"Can quantize" is very different from "makes sense to quantize." Lots of CRPGs do things that, in the fiction, don't make any sense (in order to have a system amenable to computer interpretation). That doesn't mean that those are good representations/models of the underlying fictional reality.

One of the reasons I don't like 3e's alignment system at all is the attempt to make everything mechanical (meaning able to be interpreted by an automaton). Reality isn't like that--it both cheapens the worlds built in that model and introduces epicycles on epicycles that, when applied to morality, create absurdities (like poison being "evil" but certain forced mind rape spells being "good", plus dozens of other things). The rules (designed for play) start diverging strongly from the fiction--the actual fictional worlds don't use those rules (because, well, worlds should be self-consistent which the rules aren't).

For mortals, alignment has always only made sense (edit: to me) as a crude measure of how aligned your heart, your basic nature/default actions/habitual attitudes, etc, are to certain ideals.

Good: prioritizing others at the expense of self.
Neutral: prioritizing self and close associates over distant people, but not going out of your way to harm people. Could also be unconcerned about self vs other. Usually more concerned with the other axis than with this one.
Evil: prioritizing self at the expense of others.

Law: placing adherence to an external code (society, a religion, logic, whatever) above personal whim.
Neutral: Expedience. Usually more concerned with the other axis than with this one.
Chaos: Placing adherence to an internal code (even an incoherent one, like whimsy) above the demands of any external code.

Actions reveal your alignment, they don't define it. To change alignment you must change who you are. And that's really hard.

I've never liked stapling mechanical effects (detect evil revealing mortal alignments, etc) onto this. Creatures of elemental good/evil/law/chaos are different--they're literally made of this stuff. Mortals have all of the energies (and must). An arrow blessed to kill devils shouldn't necessarily work better against a tyrant (or an evil dragon). You can have holy weapons but they should burn/hurt specific types of entities that are elementally evil. An intelligent holy weapon can decide to work with or against any being it wants, based on their desires and attitudes. A "dumb" one is just a tool--an evil person can wield a generic "devil-slaying" sword just like anyone else--I'd wager that the demons made lots of those. This adds a lot more depth than reducing it to a generic tag.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-09, 08:16 AM
"Can quantize" is very different from "makes sense to quantize." Lots of CRPGs do things that, in the fiction, don't make any sense (in order to have a system amenable to computer interpretation). That doesn't mean that those are good representations/models of the underlying fictional reality.

And I'd argue that, for example, ADOM's alignment system is just fine a model of the fictional reality of Ancardia, and Princess Maker 2's system is just a fine model of what would be moral or sinfull for a princess in faux-medieval fantasy system. You're right insofar that any model can fail to model what it's supposed to, and any model may have to sacrifice fidelity to reality in order to be a playable game, but I disagree with the notion that morality is in any way special when it comes to these issues.

Again, contrast the idea with hit points. Hit points often lead to things which, in the fiction, might not make sense, and hit points might fail to be good model of the fictional world, but hit points are still eminently gameable concept, that is, they can be used to facilitate interesting and enjoyable games.

By the way, hit points are concept CRPGs took from tabletop games, as are morality point systems. So trying to create a distinction between computer games and tabletop games in this case is an error.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 08:22 AM
"Can quantize" is very different from "makes sense to quantize." Lots of CRPGs do things that, in the fiction, don't make any sense (in order to have a system amenable to computer interpretation). That doesn't mean that those are good representations/models of the underlying fictional reality.

One of the reasons I don't like 3e's alignment system at all is the attempt to make everything mechanical (meaning able to be interpreted by an automaton). Reality isn't like that--it both cheapens the worlds built in that model and introduces epicycles on epicycles that, when applied to morality, create absurdities (like poison being "evil" but certain forced mind rape spells being "good", plus dozens of other things). The rules (designed for play) start diverging strongly from the fiction--the actual fictional worlds don't use those rules (because, well, worlds should be self-consistent which the rules aren't).


At least when it comes to Alignment and the attendant "actual cosmic objective forces" of D&D, it's either a system that doesn't model the underlying fictional reality well... or a system that models an underlying fictional reality that is (from my POV at least) a crapsack world where universe itself is insane, malignant, and malicious.

And given those two choices... I have no interest in either one.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-09, 10:50 AM
Imagine for a moment a world where such a strictly point-based morality system exists, and is known. You can have a cleric cast detect alignment to give you a general idea of your morality points, whether your balance is positive or negative, and from that you know whether you are currently slated for the awesome heavens or the special hell. You can also deduce pretty quickly what the universe considers 'really evil' vs 'a little evil', and the same for good, and game out exactly how many orphans you'll have to save to make up for each time you lose your temper and beat a servant unconscious. Or just beat one to death for the fun of it. As long as your balance is positive, the Powers of Good are A-OK with you!

I'd argue that such a world might be an interesting one to play in (briefly), but only as a deconstruction of the very idea that morality can be so simply calculated. You'd have all sorts of perversely incentivized behavior going on, possibly the most egregious from the PCs, and any society that evolved under such a system of universal spreadsheeting-as-morality would probably display excesses and abuses that we'd see as horrifying, but which were excused and even implicitly encouraged by the structure of the universe itself.

But I don't think such a system would end up modelling anything that resembles actual morality, as I understand or as it's generally understood.

Jormengand
2018-02-09, 10:56 AM
You redeem yourself by becoming someone that would not do the things that you previously did.

This post is probably the closest thing to a definition of "Good" "Evil" "Redemption" and so forth that I'd actually agree with so far out of this entire thread.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 11:15 AM
Imagine for a moment a world where such a strictly point-based morality system exists, and is known. You can have a cleric cast detect alignment to give you a general idea of your morality points, whether your balance is positive or negative, and from that you know whether you are currently slated for the awesome heavens or the special hell. You can also deduce pretty quickly what the universe considers 'really evil' vs 'a little evil', and the same for good, and game out exactly how many orphans you'll have to save to make up for each time you lose your temper and beat a servant unconscious. Or just beat one to death for the fun of it. As long as your balance is positive, the Powers of Good are A-OK with you!

I'd argue that such a world might be an interesting one to play in (briefly), but only as a deconstruction of the very idea that morality can be so simply calculated. You'd have all sorts of perversely incentivized behavior going on, possibly the most egregious from the PCs, and any society that evolved under such a system of universal spreadsheeting-as-morality would probably display excesses and abuses that we'd see as horrifying, but which were excused and even implicitly encouraged by the structure of the universe itself.

But I don't think such a system would end up modelling anything that resembles actual morality, as I understand or as it's generally understood.



Well said.

A world in which morality is a point-based running total would be a classic crapsack world. "As long as I save enough orphans and help enough old ladies, the gods are fine with me murderaping once a week." :smalleek:

Scripten
2018-02-09, 11:17 AM
He stood there, said nothing, made no objection, and held Leia so she'd have to watch.

He's just as responsible as Tarkin and the others.

You can believe this, and I do, and still understand that the intent of the fiction was to present Darth Vader as being redeemed at the end. It's open to interpretation about how it worked, but the fact that RotJ presented his redemption as fact is fairly indisputable.

Also, I would like to give props to Steel Mirror for that post. I'd love to run something like that.

Douche
2018-02-09, 11:31 AM
Imagine for a moment a world where such a strictly point-based morality system exists, and is known. You can have a cleric cast detect alignment to give you a general idea of your morality points, whether your balance is positive or negative, and from that you know whether you are currently slated for the awesome heavens or the special hell. You can also deduce pretty quickly what the universe considers 'really evil' vs 'a little evil', and the same for good, and game out exactly how many orphans you'll have to save to make up for each time you lose your temper and beat a servant unconscious. Or just beat one to death for the fun of it. As long as your balance is positive, the Powers of Good are A-OK with you!

I'd argue that such a world might be an interesting one to play in (briefly), but only as a deconstruction of the very idea that morality can be so simply calculated. You'd have all sorts of perversely incentivized behavior going on, possibly the most egregious from the PCs, and any society that evolved under such a system of universal spreadsheeting-as-morality would probably display excesses and abuses that we'd see as horrifying, but which were excused and even implicitly encouraged by the structure of the universe itself.

But I don't think such a system would end up modelling anything that resembles actual morality, as I understand or as it's generally understood.

Isn't that what already happens though? Billionaires start charities to feed starving countries, or cure rare diseases - to improve their public image and paint themselves as good people. Meanwhile, no one hears about all the people they screwed over to get to the top.

In fact, people are willing to forgive a lot of heinous acts depending on the perceived "goodness" of the person committing them. You have sports fans forgiving athletes for domestic violence or even murder, just because the athlete plays well or dedicates his performance to a higher power. You also have sports fans ignoring poor performance because the athlete aligns with their beliefs.

You seem to say that it's a good thought exercise. Which is funny because I feel like you guys have been pushing me to defend genocide from the beginning, telling me that mud and ice cream don't go well together, and then telling me I'm wrong even though you're just proving my argument. Except aside from the extreme that you've drawn, where it can be tallied on a spreadsheet, this is already what happens. I think we've all arrived at roughly the same place here, we just haven't agreed on the threshold for immoral behavior that would balance out to neutral or good, because instead of trying to find that threshold everyone just keeps mentioning murder or whatever.

If, like in your example, there was a saintly man who lost his temper and beat his servants, then he is a good person with a temper problem. He's not evil, he's just a flawed person. It doesn't negate all the good he has done for the world.

...

In terms of the Darth Vader discussion - Alderaan was 1/3000 as bad as Hiroshima, in the grand scheme of things. The Empire did nothing wrong. You guys are easily brainwashed by rebel propaganda. Also, what kind of stupid idiot picks up the lightning man when you could just chop him the heck in half with your lightsaber?!?

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 11:40 AM
You can believe this, and I do, and still understand that the intent of the fiction was to present Darth Vader as being redeemed at the end. It's open to interpretation about how it worked, but the fact that RotJ presented his redemption as fact is fairly indisputable.


I understand that it was the intent of the fiction, and that is what Lucas wanted.

I also think that the fiction failed in that intent, and that no matter how much Lucas says that Darth Anakin was redeemed, I don't buy it.

Boci
2018-02-09, 11:40 AM
In terms of the Darth Vader discussion - Alderaan was 1/3000 as bad as Hiroshima, in the grand scheme of things. The Empire did nothing wrong. You guys are easily brainwashed by rebel propaganda.

Hiroshima killed or wounded 150,000 people by the largest estimate I can find. For Alderan to be 1/3000 as bad, it would have required to have a global population of no more than 50 people. Hmmmmmm

Douche
2018-02-09, 11:53 AM
Hiroshima killed or wounded 150,000 people by the largest estimate I can find. For Alderan to be 1/3000 as bad, it would have required to have a global population of no more than 50 people. Hmmmmmm

The universal population of Star Wars is 400 quadrillion sentients, and Alderaan was home to 2 billion of them.

The world population of Earth in 1945 was ~2.5 billion, and like you say 150k casualties in Hiroshima.

I might be off by a decimal place. I'm not good at math.

Boci
2018-02-09, 11:58 AM
The universal population of Star Wars is 400 quadrillion sentients, and Alderaan was home to 2 billion of them.

The world population of Earth in 1945 was ~2.5 billion, and like you say 150k casualties in Hiroshima.

I might be off by a decimal place. I'm not good at math.

So murdering one person in Starwars is only 1/50,000 the crime it is here? So, a misdemeanour at best?

Douche
2018-02-09, 12:10 PM
So murdering one person in Starwars is only 1/50,000 the crime it is here? So, a misdemeanour at best?

Not what I said, Cathy Newman. In full scale war, blowing up a planet is, yeah.

If destroying a city can be morally justified in ending a war (arguable, but I'm not trying to have that argument, just positing), then according to the scale of Star Wars, destroying a planet is not even close to destroying a city on Earth.

I just find that argument about Alderaan to be disingenuous. By our real-world standards, of course destroying an entire planet is almost beyond comprehension. Because we only have one planet. But if you think of it in the scale of Star Wars, then it's not even close. It'd be more like destroying one city block, rather than blowing up an entire country or whatever.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-09, 12:22 PM
...any society that evolved under such a system of universal spreadsheeting-as-morality would probably display excesses and abuses that we'd see as horrifying, but which were excused and even implicitly encouraged by the structure of the universe itself.

Be careful around him; he helps little old ladies across the street and volunteers at a homeless center every weekend! Plus, I hear that he just gave a bunch of money to charity. *shiver* Watch your back!

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 12:22 PM
Murdering a person doesn't become less bad the more people you have.

Murdering a planet full of people doesn't become less bad the more planets you have (and never mind the planet itself).

Segev
2018-02-09, 12:25 PM
There is a well worn trope of the tortured hero. Someone who, in the past, made one mistake, and spends the rest of his life trying to atone for it, knowing that nothing he does ever truly can. No matter how many people he saves, it doesn't bring back the one he killed. I would contend that viewing people interchangeably in such a way that would make that trade work is itself an indication of evil alignment. It leads to the belief that you can balance the equation later and makes murder more attractive.

This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as redemption, just that redemption is not something you can ever earn. It is instead a product of grace; it is something given that you do not deserve. For a non-religious, pop-culture relevant example, see Luke and Darth Vader. Vader in no way shape or form deserved Luke risking everything to redeem him. That's grace.Grace is a factor. Somebody or something to forgive you, to help you truly change rather than merely be balancing a ledger. But do not discount the work and effort that goes into it, as well. While you're not ever able to balance the ledger by doing good works, striving to is still important. It isn't doing good to wipe out the bad; it's doing good because you are now - or seek to become - a good person. Both elements are necessary for convincing/real redemption.


You redeem yourself by becoming someone that would not do the things that you previously did.This is the best way to put it, I think. Well said.


Isn't that what already happens though? Billionaires start charities to feed starving countries, or cure rare diseases - to improve their public image and paint themselves as good people. Meanwhile, no one hears about all the people they screwed over to get to the top.
Morality doesn't work in a shame-based culture. Shame-based cultures are the ones where how you're perceived is all that matters. Billionaires who only do "good works" for the PR and who hide their shameful deeds from the world are not good people. They are merely shameless.

Billionaires who are good people didn't screw over others to get to the top. They may have bested others, and those others may have had downturns of fortune, but they were not cheated, nor wronged. Just bested.

To get the distinction, a gold medalist in the Olympics has bested his opponents, but he didn't screw them over by doing better than they did. A gold medalist who won because he hired thugs to rough up his opponents before the event, though? He screwed them over. That's the difference.

And even if a Billionaire did screw some people over, if he's giving to charity and doing good works now because he genuinely wishes to do good, and if he has changed such that he is ashamed for his past misdeeds, and would fix it if he could (perhaps crediting the guy whose idea he stole, even paying him now, with interest, for it), then he might be on the road to redemption, if not already redeemed.

Douche
2018-02-09, 12:43 PM
Grace is a factor. Somebody or something to forgive you, to help you truly change rather than merely be balancing a ledger. But do not discount the work and effort that goes into it, as well. While you're not ever able to balance the ledger by doing good works, striving to is still important. It isn't doing good to wipe out the bad; it's doing good because you are now - or seek to become - a good person. Both elements are necessary for convincing/real redemption.

This is just your judgment. It is my belief that someone can be unrepentant for the evil they've done, and simply do good because they have altruistic tendencies in addition to the evil ones - and the end result is the same. The only difference is your personal perception of them, and in the grand scheme of things - no one cares if you deem them sufficiently repentant or not.


Morality doesn't work in a shame-based culture. Shame-based cultures are the ones where how you're perceived is all that matters. Billionaires who only do "good works" for the PR and who hide their shameful deeds from the world are not good people. They are merely shameless.

You say that as if there is any alternative, other than a fictional world where all that matters is a higher being's perception of you. And even then, you're not a higher being so you don't know if they go by a net-good/net-evil karma system. There are certainly cultures who believe in such a system.

kyoryu
2018-02-09, 12:50 PM
Actions reveal your alignment, they don't define it. To change alignment you must change who you are. And that's really hard.

Agreed 100%.


This post is probably the closest thing to a definition of "Good" "Evil" "Redemption" and so forth that I'd actually agree with so far out of this entire thread.


This is the best way to put it, I think. Well said.


Aw, thanks guys!


Imagine for a moment a world where such a strictly point-based morality system exists, and is known. You can have a cleric cast detect alignment to give you a general idea of your morality points, whether your balance is positive or negative, and from that you know whether you are currently slated for the awesome heavens or the special hell. You can also deduce pretty quickly what the universe considers 'really evil' vs 'a little evil', and the same for good, and game out exactly how many orphans you'll have to save to make up for each time you lose your temper and beat a servant unconscious. Or just beat one to death for the fun of it. As long as your balance is positive, the Powers of Good are A-OK with you!

I'd argue that such a world might be an interesting one to play in (briefly), but only as a deconstruction of the very idea that morality can be so simply calculated. You'd have all sorts of perversely incentivized behavior going on, possibly the most egregious from the PCs, and any society that evolved under such a system of universal spreadsheeting-as-morality would probably display excesses and abuses that we'd see as horrifying, but which were excused and even implicitly encouraged by the structure of the universe itself.

But I don't think such a system would end up modelling anything that resembles actual morality, as I understand or as it's generally understood.

Yeah, which is why I reject the "credit card" system of morality.

PersonMan
2018-02-09, 01:03 PM
Okay. Describe a viewpoint from which it makes sense and which is not captured by any single alignment, which does not fall under one of the three exceptions:

1) the character is insane.
2) the character is magically controlled by another entity.
3) the character had a change of heart and is in process of changing alignments.

Well, my first thought would be someone intent on creating a new, proper order for the world, without limits as to what they will do to achieve it. Their vision for the future is firmly LG, but their methods range depending on what's required by the moment and what their set of morals demands - sometimes this will mean a pausing of efforts towards the Great Work to root out an evil cult, rescue a village on the brink of starvation, or similar. When systematic problems or corruption within society are the cause, bloody and brutal "cleansing" is the go-to means to accomplish the ends, which are always an improvement for as many people as possible. It's hard to argue that something like slaughtering the entirety of a region's old elite (including any who might try to flee to gather allies or press claims later), innocent and guilty alike, is north of Evil, but burning up much of the material (including land, the immediate value of the possessions of the fallen elite) and political (the power vacuum easily filled by them) gains to construct a new state (or state-like) apparatus, ease the suffering of those who were formerly oppressed, and so on.

On a more personal level, they would probably live something just above a pauper's life no matter how much power and influence they gained, diverting any wealth they acquired into further "societal good" type projects - and, of course, be regularly risking their life for those in need of aid.

EDIT: I overlooked the 'not captured by any single alignment' bit. I don't think that's necessary to respond to the original, because the basis of my comment is:
- It's entirely possible to have a character whose actions are consistent but who may still 'wander' through alignments (really, the too-easy example here would be someone who is incredibly selfless and constantly self-sacrificing for the good of others in one context, such as being in areas they think are good, while easily committing heinous crimes to "put down" those who threaten said areas)
- Picking and then playing an alignment is not superior to making and then playing a character who may or may not fit in the alignment framework of your game

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 01:35 PM
EDIT: I overlooked the 'not captured by any single alignment' bit. I don't think that's necessary to respond to the original, because the basis of my comment is:
- It's entirely possible to have a character whose actions are consistent but who may still 'wander' through alignments (really, the too-easy example here would be someone who is incredibly selfless and constantly self-sacrificing for the good of others in one context, such as being in areas they think are good, while easily committing heinous crimes to "put down" those who threaten said areas)
- Picking and then playing an alignment is not superior to making and then playing a character who may or may not fit in the alignment framework of your game


On consistency, someone asserted that "Lawful" is consistency and "Chaotic" is inconsistency, which would mean that any consistent character is supposedly "Lawful", and that to be "Chaotic" would require a character to be wildly inconsistent (and... is a character who is consistently inconsistent out of a dedication to a code of "Chaos" being "Chaotic" or "Lawful"?). Not that I agree, but it serves as yet another in a long list of different and mutually contradictory interpretations.

I'd say that picking an Alignment or any other grossly simple two-word description and playing that... is most likely to result in a cardboard standup instead of an actual character.

rg9000
2018-02-09, 01:44 PM
I have a question. What do you think the alignment of some sort of being that follows a goal to the letter, committing good and evil deeds, would be?

According to the Manual, an Inevitable is Lawful Neutral, despite killing Good-aligned people who attempt to live forever. (and who are making the world a better place.)

Steel Mirror
2018-02-09, 01:48 PM
I think we've all arrived at roughly the same place here, we just haven't agreed on the threshold for immoral behavior that would balance out to neutral or good, because instead of trying to find that threshold everyone just keeps mentioning murder or whatever.Sure, I guess we could say agree on something very broadly drawn here. Mass unrepentant murder is a bit too extreme for us to just give a pass on, but if we confine ourselves to talking about lesser sins maybe we could reach some areas of common ground. Why do we keep veering into discussions of such extreme behavior?

I didn't say you were a good person after nuking a town, I said you could be neutral, lol.

I'm still having trouble understanding why someone can't save orphans and murder homeless people for fun, and overall be neutral.

I'm talking about a guy who just, say, blew up a town because they pissed him off - yet generally likes to help people otherwise.

Can you be neutral through extreme acts of both good & evil?
Oh right...

Douche
2018-02-09, 02:03 PM
Sure, I guess we could say agree on something very broadly drawn here. Mass unrepentant murder is a bit too extreme for us to just give a pass on, but if we confine ourselves to talking about lesser sins maybe we could reach some areas of common ground. Why do we keep veering into discussions of such extreme behavior?




Oh right...

Nuking a town was actually a step down from genocide & Hitler comparisons. Nice try though.

Psyren
2018-02-09, 02:12 PM
Be careful around him; he helps little old ladies across the street and volunteers at a homeless center every weekend! Plus, I hear that he just gave a bunch of money to charity. *shiver* Watch your back!

Damn, he must be a serial killer or something if he's going to all that trouble!


Grace is a factor. Somebody or something to forgive you, to help you truly change rather than merely be balancing a ledger. But do not discount the work and effort that goes into it, as well. While you're not ever able to balance the ledger by doing good works, striving to is still important. It isn't doing good to wipe out the bad; it's doing good because you are now - or seek to become - a good person. Both elements are necessary for convincing/real redemption.

Agreed - forgiveness and redemption are key parts of Good. It has nothing to do with compensating for/trying to erase evil acts, and everything to do with repenting and trying to atone. And the nice thing about magic is that you can get an on-the-spot review of your progress - if the Atonement spell works on you, it means a deity is at least impressed with what you're doing.

Scripten
2018-02-09, 02:13 PM
Nuking a town was actually a step down from genocide & Hitler comparisons. Nice try though.

Yes, because killing dozens of people isn't an act of extreme evil because you could be killing millions.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-09, 02:21 PM
Be careful around him; he helps little old ladies across the street and volunteers at a homeless center every weekend! Plus, I hear that he just gave a bunch of money to charity. *shiver* Watch your back!

Damn, he must be a serial killer or something if he's going to all that trouble!
And what's wrong with serial killers? Nothing good would ever get done if there weren't people who needed to rack up some good karma points to make up for a few little oopsies. It's the people who don't veer wildly from mass murder to manic community service that never get anything accomplished, the lazy selfish layabouts.

Plus I mean, that guy only killed a couple hundred people, when he helps enough old ladies across the street that he could easily get away with thousands. What a saint!

Segev
2018-02-09, 02:28 PM
This is just your judgment. It is my belief that someone can be unrepentant for the evil they've done, and simply do good because they have altruistic tendencies in addition to the evil ones - and the end result is the same. The only difference is your personal perception of them, and in the grand scheme of things - no one cares if you deem them sufficiently repentant or not.The end result isn't the same.

Take Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa, the unrepentant murderess of a religious and ethnic group (let's call them Ishvalans) who has succeeded in so wiping them out that there aren't any in reach of her. She is also the most loving and generous of people towards the poor, hungry, and young people, as long as they're not members of that group nor sympathetic towards them. She patiently gives warning as to the evils of that group if anybody expresses sympathies, with clear signs of her increasing anger to warn them off if they're unpersuaded and unsilenced.

Then take Xena, Warrior Princess, who once rampaged across the civilized world, laying waste to all who got in reach of her army for her own aggrandizement and amusement, but has since become horrified with what she once did and seeks to do good, because she likes helping others, and would be horrified if faced with the prospect of repeating her deeds.

There is absolutely a net difference between these two figures. Both, for the last unit of time, however you wish to set it, have been nothing but kindly, generous souls who do good for all they encounter. Both get testy over certain topics, and may even be a bit intimidating, but haven't ever really so much as threatened violence against somebody for them. Not unjustly, anyway; they might have threatened violence to defend the innocent from those who would harm them.

However, despite this similarity, if you present Xena with people who she would have previously slaughtered gleefully, she is going to try to make up her wrong to them, and defend them against further harm, and even make friends with them and improve their lives as best she can. Because she's changed. She regrets her acts, and has repented of them. She is repulsed by the notion of being who she was, and might even fear backsliding if she gives in to her temper.

On the other hand, Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa has not changed. Place an Ishvalan in front of her and she'll gleefully slaughter them, while telling everybody a fun story about the last time she got to do this kind of thing. Try to stand up for that Ishvalan and she'll warn you, possibly, but if you won't back down, she'll punish you, too, for your temerity in opposing her in this matter.


Xena, Reformed Warrior, if she became Empress of a nation by their acclimation for her nobility in defending them from an invader, could be trusted with nuclear weapons, knowing that she has changed from the wicked person who would have used them for her own power and amusement.

Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa, on the other hand, similarly raised to a lofty height by a people who love her and for whom she'd be a wise and just ruler (as long as they don't harbor any Ishvalans, nor anybody else who might take up Ishvalan similarities of behavior or belief), could NOT be trusted with such weapons, as she'd use them to extend her reach to wiping out more Ishvalans in the nations to which the remnants had fled.


There is a substantial difference, in the aggregate, between the one who does extreme acts of good and evil and the one who has rejected evil and reformed, repented, and sought to be a better person.


You say that as if there is any alternative, other than a fictional world where all that matters is a higher being's perception of you. And even then, you're not a higher being so you don't know if they go by a net-good/net-evil karma system. There are certainly cultures who believe in such a system.The differences between shame-based and guilt-based morality are actually quite real, even independent of a presence or absence of a God or similar outside observer.

The biggest question is this: does what you do in the dark matter?

Shame-based cultures say "no." Perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly. Most go so far as to have it be as great a sin to reveal a hidden vice in another as it is to be the one indulging the vice, because "bringing shame" onto another is, itself, bad behavior. What matters is appearance.

Guilt-based morality says "yes." Who you are in the dark, when you think nobody is watching, reveals who you really are. Internalizing morality makes people into better people. It's not okay to abuse your family in private, so long as they don't reveal the abuse to the world, and they are not wrong for making such revelations to seek help. It's not their fault for "shaming you," but yours for being guilty.

When cultures focus on internalizing morality rather than keeping up appearances, they tend towards less corruption and more safety. Internalized morality means that you can safely leave the keys in your car and your house unlocked because others aren't going to take them or rob them, even if they think they could do it without you or anybody else finding out. Because people have an inner guide of right vs. wrong and seek to do right. They seek to be Good.

Appearances-based, or shame-based, cultures do not create such improvement. You must always be watching, because if you ever are not watching, then you cannot trust others to be anything but the worst kind of depraved, selfish monster. And, if you ARE watching, best be sure you can make it public immediately, lest they simply eliminate the witness for daring to risk shaming them.

And this, too, is a good description of the difference between being Good and being a ledger-counter. A Good person will remain trustworthy even if his ledger balance for Good is "high" and he can get away with hurting you without anybody else knowing. A ledger-counter cannot be trusted, or can be trusted to eventually hurt you and act evil towards you; after all, he's going to rebalance things later, or has a high "credit" already, so why shouldn't he?



TL;DR: There is absolutely a difference between simply keeping up appearances and actually being good, and there's absolutely a difference between an unrepentant monster who happens to be doing a lot of nice things lately and a repentant soul who is horrified by the monster they used to be. The actually good and/or repentant person can be expected to act GOOD in the future, regardless of who's watching, while the shame-hiding ledger-counting monster can be counted on to act just as monstrously again if the circumstances arise again.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 02:37 PM
The end result isn't the same.

Take Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa, the unrepentant murderess of a religious and ethnic group (let's call them Ishvalans) who has succeeded in so wiping them out that there aren't any in reach of her. She is also the most loving and generous of people towards the poor, hungry, and young people, as long as they're not members of that group nor sympathetic towards them. She patiently gives warning as to the evils of that group if anybody expresses sympathies, with clear signs of her increasing anger to warn them off if they're unpersuaded and unsilenced.

Then take Xena, Warrior Princess, who once rampaged across the civilized world, laying waste to all who got in reach of her army for her own aggrandizement and amusement, but has since become horrified with what she once did and seeks to do good, because she likes helping others, and would be horrified if faced with the prospect of repeating her deeds.

There is absolutely a net difference between these two figures. Both, for the last unit of time, however you wish to set it, have been nothing but kindly, generous souls who do good for all they encounter. Both get testy over certain topics, and may even be a bit intimidating, but haven't ever really so much as threatened violence against somebody for them. Not unjustly, anyway; they might have threatened violence to defend the innocent from those who would harm them.

However, despite this similarity, if you present Xena with people who she would have previously slaughtered gleefully, she is going to try to make up her wrong to them, and defend them against further harm, and even make friends with them and improve their lives as best she can. Because she's changed. She regrets her acts, and has repented of them. She is repulsed by the notion of being who she was, and might even fear backsliding if she gives in to her temper.

On the other hand, Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa has not changed. Place an Ishvalan in front of her and she'll gleefully slaughter them, while telling everybody a fun story about the last time she got to do this kind of thing. Try to stand up for that Ishvalan and she'll warn you, possibly, but if you won't back down, she'll punish you, too, for your temerity in opposing her in this matter.


Xena, Reformed Warrior, if she became Empress of a nation by their acclimation for her nobility in defending them from an invader, could be trusted with nuclear weapons, knowing that she has changed from the wicked person who would have used them for her own power and amusement.

Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa, on the other hand, similarly raised to a lofty height by a people who love her and for whom she'd be a wise and just ruler (as long as they don't harbor any Ishvalans, nor anybody else who might take up Ishvalan similarities of behavior or belief), could NOT be trusted with such weapons, as she'd use them to extend her reach to wiping out more Ishvalans in the nations to which the remnants had fled.


There is a substantial difference, in the aggregate, between the one who does extreme acts of good and evil and the one who has rejected evil and reformed, repented, and sought to be a better person.

The differences between shame-based and guilt-based morality are actually quite real, even independent of a presence or absence of a God or similar outside observer.

The biggest question is this: does what you do in the dark matter?

Shame-based cultures say "no." Perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly. Most go so far as to have it be as great a sin to reveal a hidden vice in another as it is to be the one indulging the vice, because "bringing shame" onto another is, itself, bad behavior. What matters is appearance.

Guilt-based morality says "yes." Who you are in the dark, when you think nobody is watching, reveals who you really are. Internalizing morality makes people into better people. It's not okay to abuse your family in private, so long as they don't reveal the abuse to the world, and they are not wrong for making such revelations to seek help. It's not their fault for "shaming you," but yours for being guilty.

When cultures focus on internalizing morality rather than keeping up appearances, they tend towards less corruption and more safety. Internalized morality means that you can safely leave the keys in your car and your house unlocked because others aren't going to take them or rob them, even if they think they could do it without you or anybody else finding out. Because people have an inner guide of right vs. wrong and seek to do right. They seek to be Good.

Appearances-based, or shame-based, cultures do not create such improvement. You must always be watching, because if you ever are not watching, then you cannot trust others to be anything but the worst kind of depraved, selfish monster. And, if you ARE watching, best be sure you can make it public immediately, lest they simply eliminate the witness for daring to risk shaming them.

And this, too, is a good description of the difference between being Good and being a ledger-counter. A Good person will remain trustworthy even if his ledger balance for Good is "high" and he can get away with hurting you without anybody else knowing. A ledger-counter cannot be trusted, or can be trusted to eventually hurt you and act evil towards you; after all, he's going to rebalance things later, or has a high "credit" already, so why shouldn't he?



TL;DR: There is absolutely a difference between simply keeping up appearances and actually being good, and there's absolutely a difference between an unrepentant monster who happens to be doing a lot of nice things lately and a repentant soul who is horrified by the monster they used to be. The actually good and/or repentant person can be expected to act GOOD in the future, regardless of who's watching, while the shame-hiding ledger-counting monster can be counted on to act just as monstrously again if the circumstances arise again.



Excellent breakdown of the deep difference between the two.

One can even see this sort of clash between people in the same overarching culture, with for example self-serving legalism vs personal responsibility coming to a head: "It isn't a crime if you don't get caught" vs "it's wrong whether you get caught or not".

Steel Mirror
2018-02-09, 02:48 PM
I agree, great post Segev. It's already inspired several ideas for NPCs and cultures in my next game. "What I do in the dark" would be an excellent aspect for my next FATE character, too!

*applauds*

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-09, 03:14 PM
I agree, great post Segev. It's already inspired several ideas for NPCs and cultures in my next game. "What I do in the dark" would be an excellent aspect for my next FATE character, too!

*applauds*

It's interesting that the thread came to this particular point, given that my "culture brainstorming" thread over in the worldbuilding subforum touched on a similar topic of external vs internal behavioral codes this week. (And the attendant culture clash being a major factor in the relationship between two characters.)

kyoryu
2018-02-09, 03:36 PM
*lots of awesome stuff*

Bravo, sir.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-09, 04:21 PM
According to the Manual, an Inevitable is Lawful Neutral, despite killing Good-aligned people who attempt to live forever. (and who are making the world a better place.)

I'd argue that an Inevitable isn't really Neutral - it just doesn't register on the good/evil axis at all because of how inhuman it is (for lack of a better term).

Basically it's only not evil in the way that a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake aren't evil. Natural disasters do tons of damage, but I don't think that most would consider them to be morally evil.

Douche
2018-02-09, 04:25 PM
So all that being said, you can be neutral after having done both good and evil deeds. I'm glad my thesis has been proven.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-09, 04:26 PM
So all that being said, you can be neutral after having done both good and evil deeds. I'm glad my thesis has been proven.

*looks around* Where am I? Are we reading the same thread?

Segev
2018-02-09, 04:31 PM
Thanks, guys. Glad it was useful.

I actually played a Samurai in an L5R game (Heroes of Rokugan 2, actually, for those who know of it) named Kakita Makoto who was inspired by the fact that Rokugan is a shame-based culture. He...wasn't really capable of handling an external/internal conflict, so he internalized the concepts and then held everybody else to the standards they proclaimed. He was very much disliked. He was a flawed man in his own right, but he strove to be better, and that also irritated people.

I think I am reminded of him by others' focus on the "you are what you do in the dark" line, as well as because of the concept of repentance as discussed here. He had several things, in the course of the campaign, that he did that were unequivocally wrong by his own standards. This, at one point, was held against him by the Obsidian Dragon, who, while not a Satan-equivalent, was serving a similar role here. Makoto rebuffed his every accusation not by denying what he'd done, but by acknowledging that it was wrong and that he wished to do better. He didn't want to embrace it; he wanted to overcome it.

Probably the best paladin-like character I've played while still being low Charisma (in practice, as Charisma isn't a stat in L5R).



Anyway, another reason why the two kinds of people are different: if you had to trust yourself and your family to the mercies of the unrepentant town-nuker who had kindly helped out the last seven families he met, or to the repentant town-nuker who honestly regretted it, which would you feel safer trusting? The guy who might well do it again to your town if he decides he doesn't like it, or the guy who is horrified at what he did before and wants never to do it again?

Segev
2018-02-09, 04:38 PM
So all that being said, you can be neutral after having done both good and evil deeds. I'm glad my thesis has been proven.

Darth Ultron, please stop logging into Douche's account.

...on the off chance this is Douche, let me remind you that nobody has actually agreed with you, and pretending they have is rude. If you actually think they have, you're going to need to cite some quotes.

Douche
2018-02-09, 04:58 PM
Darth Ultron, please stop logging into Douche's account.

...on the off chance this is Douche, let me remind you that nobody has actually agreed with you, and pretending they have is rude. If you actually think they have, you're going to need to cite some quotes.

I started with a very simple premise. My only point of contention was that you don't necessarily have to be repentant. My other issue is that you're a moral authoritarian. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the authoritarian/puritanical points you've made - but speaking in such absolutes is what makes it problematic.

Regardless, you've explained to me that if you are repentant and make up for your heinous acts, then you can be neutral/good. Am I wrong? So then, the title stands true.

We may have disagreed with some of the details along the way, but we ultimately agree.

Scripten
2018-02-09, 05:15 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. See below:


So my question is: in the paradigm of Good vs Evil - do you really have to be consistently neutral, or could you get away with some horrific acts of darkness as long as you balance them out with altruistic acts of selflessness? What I'm not asking about is "Is it okay to genocide orcs if you're protecting humans" because that's a dead horse I don't want to beat. Not "Do the ends justify the means" but rather "Is it okay to indulge in some evil acts as well as some good ones?"


You're still arguing as if the karma meter is something that can be applied to these situations. Nobody as of yet appears to have fully agreed with that premise. A character who is fully repentant will not waver back into committing heinous acts. That's part and parcel of the whole balancing act.

So no, a character cannot "get away" with horrific acts of darkness by balancing them out with altruism. If your character is still willing to commit heinous acts, then they are still evil, not neutral. If they are unwilling to perform those acts, then they may be able to claim a neutral alignment, but that bars the indulgence in evil acts.

PersonMan
2018-02-09, 05:16 PM
Regardless, you've explained to me that if you are repentant and make up for your heinous acts, then you can be neutral/good. Am I wrong? So then, the title stands true.

We may have disagreed with some of the details along the way, but we ultimately agree.

I don't think that would be an accurate description of the result, here.

While, technically speaking, defining "extreme acts of good" as repentance and associated good actions can allow you to say "X has done extreme acts of good and evil, and is now neutral as a result", it's probably not what most people will think of when reading the thread title. I think what's happened is that there are people who will agree that a subset of Good or Evil acts can bring an otherwise Evil/Good individual into Neutral territory, but disagree with the idea that, in general, extremes balance into neutrality, which is implied by the thread title.

I think that rephrasing the original question to take this into account will be more fruitful than working with the exact original wording.

kyoryu
2018-02-09, 05:42 PM
I started with a very simple premise. My only point of contention was that you don't necessarily have to be repentant. My other issue is that you're a moral authoritarian. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the authoritarian/puritanical points you've made - but speaking in such absolutes is what makes it problematic.

Regardless, you've explained to me that if you are repentant and make up for your heinous acts, then you can be neutral/good. Am I wrong? So then, the title stands true.

We may have disagreed with some of the details along the way, but we ultimately agree.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

What he's saying (and what I'm saying) is that acts do not determine the goodness of the person, rather the goodness of the person determines the acts.

An evil person that has turned into a good person will naturally be repentant. Because they will look on their past acts and go "wow, I was an evil jerk. That was terrible of me." If they don't think that, they're probably not actually a good person.

An evil person that will happily continue to do evil is still evil regardless of how many good deeds they do - even if they never actually do another evil deed, due to opportunity/etc.

If you're a murderer and would happily murder again, then it doesn't matter how many orphanages you'd save - you're still Evil. Even if you never get another chance to murder again!

But a murderer that turns into a good person and then proceeds to save orphanages is a good person (and would be repentant).

Note that in both of these cases, I'm describing literally the same acts as visible externally.

Quertus
2018-02-09, 07:18 PM
Wow. There have been several great posts in this thread. I am so glad that I've been reading this topic. One post in particular has made me go home and rethink my life:


You redeem yourself by becoming someone that would not do the things that you previously did.

Now, I could talk about my personal life, or my thoughts on redemption arcs for some of my more vile characters, but, instead, I'll take a lighter tone, and discuss Vader.

Becoming a different person often involves a defining moment. At the end of RotJ, many things could have happened. It's possible that, at that moment, Vader finally realized that Luke wouldn't turn, and that the only thing he cared about was about to be destroyed because of his choices. It's possible that he only became a force ghost because, in that moment, he realized the error of his ways, and became The Man who Never Would (again).

Or it's possible that any force user can haunt any force user who they care about who is nearby when they die. Beats me - I'm no expert on the deeper mysteries of the Force. I can only extrapolate possibilities from the evidence I'm given.

Point is, I can see that moment on the Death Star having the potential to be a defining, eye-opening moment for Vader.

Not that that helps the OP's case.

NichG
2018-02-09, 10:01 PM
When cultures focus on internalizing morality rather than keeping up appearances, they tend towards less corruption and more safety. Internalized morality means that you can safely leave the keys in your car and your house unlocked because others aren't going to take them or rob them, even if they think they could do it without you or anybody else finding out. Because people have an inner guide of right vs. wrong and seek to do right. They seek to be Good.

Appearances-based, or shame-based, cultures do not create such improvement. You must always be watching, because if you ever are not watching, then you cannot trust others to be anything but the worst kind of depraved, selfish monster. And, if you ARE watching, best be sure you can make it public immediately, lest they simply eliminate the witness for daring to risk shaming them.


While this sounds right on paper, empirically my experience has been the reverse in the guilt-based and shame-based cultures in which I've lived. I think this misses just how capable people are of hypocrisy.

Guilt drives action or inaction via suffering, but it's post-hoc. Someone does something bad, feels bad, and then has to come to terms with that feeling (which happens in many ways - denying it, trying to make up for it, drowning it, etc; only one of which is trying to change). But in the heat of the moment, or when bolstered by competing sources of suffering, it seems that guilt often gets put off or overcome.

Shame seems to work via fear, which may mean it's more likely to precede the wrongful action than guilt is - e.g. it's paralytic so decreases crimes of opportunity - but generally has a chilling effect on any variance from the norm of social action as a consequence.

Not going to go far into corruption since it'd get political, but I do think collusion is probably easier in shame-based societies since a conspiracy is as weak as it's weakest link, and in a guilt-based culture the promise of absolution can be used to obtain defection more easily. Also systematization of cruelties seems to happen more easily in shame-based, or at least is harder to budge.

Anyhow, lot more complex than just 'guilt works, shame doesn't' or vice versa.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-10, 11:31 AM
EDIT: I overlooked the 'not captured by any single alignment' bit. I don't think that's necessary to respond to the original, because the basis of my comment is:
- It's entirely possible to have a character whose actions are consistent but who may still 'wander' through alignments (really, the too-easy example here would be someone who is incredibly selfless and constantly self-sacrificing for the good of others in one context, such as being in areas they think are good, while easily committing heinous crimes to "put down" those who threaten said areas)
- Picking and then playing an alignment is not superior to making and then playing a character who may or may not fit in the alignment framework of your game

And I got that. The reason why I added the criteria "not captured by single alignment" is because I'm not convinced that a character who is consinstent with their actions can't be pinned to a single alignment.

So with that in mind, let's analyze your example.


Well, my first thought would be someone intent on creating a new, proper order for the world, without limits as to what they will do to achieve it. Their vision for the future is firmly LG, but their methods range depending on what's required by the moment and what their set of morals demands - sometimes this will mean a pausing of efforts towards the Great Work to root out an evil cult, rescue a village on the brink of starvation, or similar. When systematic problems or corruption within society are the cause, bloody and brutal "cleansing" is the go-to means to accomplish the ends, which are always an improvement for as many people as possible. It's hard to argue that something like slaughtering the entirety of a region's old elite (including any who might try to flee to gather allies or press claims later), innocent and guilty alike, is north of Evil, but burning up much of the material (including land, the immediate value of the possessions of the fallen elite) and political (the power vacuum easily filled by them) gains to construct a new state (or state-like) apparatus, ease the suffering of those who were formerly oppressed, and so on.

On a more personal level, they would probably live something just above a pauper's life no matter how much power and influence they gained, diverting any wealth they acquired into further "societal good" type projects - and, of course, be regularly risking their life for those in need of aid.

You say their vision would be firmly within Lawful Good. So what does Lawful Good believe in? From 1st edition DMG: "They are convinced that law and order are necessary for good, and that good is best defined as what brings the greatest benefit to decent, thinking creatures, and least woe to the rest."

So why would someone who thinks like this commit extreme Evil acts, such as killing innocent priests? How is that consistent with the "least woe" principle?

By contrast: let's suppose that somehow, it can be proven that all their actions actually are necessary to create greatest good for the majority, and least woe to the rest. How are the character's action then anything but consistently Lawful Good? Keep in mind that D&D doesn't condemn brutality and violence when there is little choice. That is why the Paladin class, militant ascetics in service of Good, are at all possible.

Or, putting this together: have you actually described a character who would consistently commit extreme Good and Evil acts? Have you described a character who would commit any extreme evil acts?

Also, let's go back to this:


- It's entirely possible to have a character whose actions are consistent but who may still 'wander' through alignments (really, the too-easy example here would be someone who is incredibly selfless and constantly self-sacrificing for the good of others in one context, such as being in areas they think are good, while easily committing heinous crimes to "put down" those who threaten said areas)

You are correct that a character who was made personality first may drift within and between alignments, but the "easy example" in parenthesis is atrocious. Reason: you did not define who these "others" are, nor the context in which they are protected, nor by whose standards they are committing a "heinous crime". You simply left them as variables, meaning you have not described a single, consistent character at all, just a rough framework that can be made to fit multiple different characters depending on which values are given to the variables. Any example with specific values could as well be text-book example of some alignment. Examples:

An orc who sees orcs as the Chosen People, and is willing to sacrifice all for other orcs, but sees elves as the enemy who can be slaughtered using any means at hand? Textbook Lawful Evil.

An orc who sees the Law of the Land as holy writ, and is willing to sacrifice himself to fullfill its requirements, but will demand the strictest legal punishments for all lawbreakers? Textbook Lawful Neutral.

An orc who believes in natural rights of all thinking creatures and is willing to give his life to protect those, but will violently oppose those who seek to violate those rights when they do not yield peacefully? Textbook Lawful Good.

An orc who believes in the weal for all mortal beings and will put themselves at risk to join with whichever faction is being the most charitable, but advocates for complete purging of Demons, Devils and other Evil Outsiders from the mortal world? Textbook Neutral Good.

An orc who believes that the natural status quo of the world is the best, and will sacrifice their well-being to protect wild animals and forested areas, but will burn down towns and sacrifice humans under a new moon to keep unnatural influences at bay? Textbook True Neutral.

An orc who became a police officer to keep up appearances, but is secretly capturing criminals to torture them to death, because they love jerking off to their screams of pain? Textbook Neutral Evil.

An orc who sees personal liberty as fundamental to good and happiness and will risk their life to free slaves, to oppose oppressive institutions, but will also vandalize property and free domestic animals of those they see unjustly benefiting from imprisonment of others? Textbook Chaotic Good.

An orc who will risk their life for their friends, because it's their choice, and then resist a security officer who tries to compel their help for seeking a missing person, then punch the same officer in the face when they try to use force, because "**** you I won't do what you tell me!"? Textbook Chaotic Neutral.

An orc who will brutally beat anyone who tries to do anything to their family, or even looks funny in their direction, because "they're my family and no-one but me gets to say or do anything to my family!"? Textbook Chaotic Evil.

Maybe you can think of specific set of values, motives and actions which I can't pin down, but you don't seem to be trying too hard yet.

---



A world in which morality is a point-based running total would be a classic crapsack world. "As long as I save enough orphans and help enough old ladies, the gods are fine with me murderaping once a week." :smalleek:

You are assuming quite a lot about the exact point values the named actions would have to make your point.

Also, how is this more crapsack than a society where, after serving N years in prison for your rape-murder, society is happy to let you walk free again?

NichG
2018-02-10, 12:22 PM
A character who believes that the most important thing is that the stories produced by the events of life and the world be realized to their fullest and most poignant would be pretty hard to pin to a single alignment, especially if they have a lot of power. Not neutral, since enabling villains to increase drama is going to quickly lead to a lot of harm to people, but at the same time they'd want the heroes to shine as much as possible (so while they'd be Evil, it'd be an incoherent Evil).

A perfect oracle who sees the future consequences of any action they consider tens of thousands of years ahead would likely seem very alien in their behavior and morality, regardless of what their actual goals or motivations were. Every moment of their life would be making conscious judgements about tradeoffs of future people's prosperity, happiness, and survival. This kind of character would probably have a very hard time not being Evil while staying sane, but there's a lot of room here for alignment-incoherence of various forms.

A ruler who, above all else, wants prosperity and happiness for their subjects, rest of the world be damned. Again Evil, but incoherently so. I say incoherent because large swaths of this character's interactions with others will be considerate of their needs above his own, etc - they will commit lots of Good deeds, even ones motivated by altruism, despite being Evil.

It's harder to have incoherent Good because Good has that whole purity thing going on. Perhaps a genie-like character who reflexively seeks purpose and fulfills requests, whose friends and surroundings have generally been Good-aligned, but who doesn't really get morality at all. Could be Lawful, but I can make the same argument for Chaotic if they're just doing this because they feel like it and not because of rules, traditions, promises, etc. Maybe True Neutral, but once someone asks for something bad enough that's going to be unstable towards Evil again.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-10, 02:09 PM
You are assuming quite a lot about the exact point values the named actions would have to make your point.
I don't think the argument against point-buy morality actually does care about what the actual point values are. The essence of the argument is that any such system, one where a person is judged solely by the balance of good points and evil points they've accrued, is inherently gameable. As RPGers, we know this better than almost anyone. It will always break down and fail to model real world morality as generally understood (I have to be vague here because there are all sorts of moral philosophies in our world, some of them abhorrent) because it allows people to do evil things in the absolute knowledge that they can wash their slate clean by picking a few items off the menu of good.

A person who does that, regardless of whether their 'evil' action is mass murder or merely defrauding desperately needed disaster relief funds for personal enrichment, has not redeemed their former evil by becoming a better person. They've bought an indulgence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Late_medieval_abuses) that lets them claim a spot among the self-declared righteous without repenting at all, and since they got away with it, they're likely to do such evil again and again.

That's a crapsack world.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-10, 07:49 PM
I don't think the argument against point-buy morality actually does care about what the actual point values are. The essence of the argument is that any such system, one where a person is judged solely by the balance of good points and evil points they've accrued, is inherently gameable. As RPGers, we know this better than almost anyone. It will always break down and fail to model real world morality as generally understood (I have to be vague here because there are all sorts of moral philosophies in our world, some of them abhorrent) because it allows people to do evil things in the absolute knowledge that they can wash their slate clean by picking a few items off the menu of good.

A person who does that, regardless of whether their 'evil' action is mass murder or merely defrauding desperately needed disaster relief funds for personal enrichment, has not redeemed their former evil by becoming a better person. They've bought an indulgence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Late_medieval_abuses) that lets them claim a spot among the self-declared righteous without repenting at all, and since they got away with it, they're likely to do such evil again and again.

That's a crapsack world.

"A universe that sells indulgences" is the perfect description of a world with a point-based moral meter, or a "credit system morality".

Segev
2018-02-11, 02:19 AM
I started with a very simple premise. My only point of contention was that you don't necessarily have to be repentant. My other issue is that you're a moral authoritarian. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the authoritarian/puritanical points you've made - but speaking in such absolutes is what makes it problematic.

Regardless, you've explained to me that if you are repentant and make up for your heinous acts, then you can be neutral/good. Am I wrong? So then, the title stands true.

We may have disagreed with some of the details along the way, but we ultimately agree.You're ignoring the "repentant" part of it when you simply say that you can be "neutral/good" by "balancing extreme acts of both good and evil."

Yes, an evil person who did horrific things can become neutral. But it isn't by simply going out and doing extremely good things until some sort of karma meter is balanced. That "neutral" person, who acts strictly in that way, has no compunction about performing another heinous act. He'll just go do some great act of charity to make up for it later, and meanwhile whoever is in his way is still going to get very seriously hurt just because it amuses him.

For an evil person to actually become neutral, he would have to forsake his evil ways. He'd have to say, "No, that's too much. That's too far. I can't keep doing this. It's awful." He would have to repent of his evil, and become a man who wouldn't do those things again. Now, because he's "only" becoming Neutral, he has to perform acts of sufficient goodness to qualify as neutral. If he was formerly the sort of evil dude who did nothing but evil and neutral things, all he really has to do is stop doing the evil stuff AND truly repent of it. He may need to go a little further and do whatever good is necessary to recompense for it.

But he won't necessarily turn into a saint. In fact, the now-Neutral guy won't be a saint, by definition. But he also won't be the horrid monster he once was. He isn't going otu to try to save the world. He's not tearfully doing great works of Good to try to make up for it. He'll make up for the harm he can directly account for, but other than that, he's just...stopped...doing evil. He, having repented, would be horrified by the prospect of doing it again, and wouldn't do it again.

To use D&D mechanics, he's started to act Neutral and he's done what he can to specifically repudiate his former alignment-sealing deeds, and gotten atonement cast on him (or whatever equivalent you use to handle the "grace" aspect, which could be as simple as seeking forgiveness and acceptance in his new alignment by his new community).

But in the end, if you're willing to commit acts of great evil, you're evil. If you're unwilling to, then you can be neutral/good. If you're striving to do good, you're likely to be good.

At no point have I agreed with your thesis.


"A universe that sells indulgences" is the perfect description of a world with a point-based moral meter, or a "credit system morality".
Heh. One of my favorite evil characters was a cleric of the setting's goddess of evil. (More detail is present, but that's all we need for this story to make sense.) She was the sister of the setting's god of good. My cleric was known OOC as the "rolodex cleric," because he would carry around a bunch of holy symbols of various faiths and claim to be whatever was the most advantageous one at the time.

We were on a riverboat with a bunch of wealthy men and women of the culture that primarily worships (some quite hypocritically) the good god of the setting. My goddess's brother. So my cleric is pretending to be a cleric of said good god. He goes around to the wealthy and gives them sermons using quotes and doctrine of the good god, but worded to justify them in their sins, to excuse them. And then he starts selling indulgences for FUTURE sins, telling them that donations to the faith absolve them of future wrongdoing, so they can plan ahead.

Not only did he make a fairly decent amount of money, but it's guaranteed that these people are going to go out and do things in violation of their good god's standards, driving them towards greater evil and his goddess's practices.

PersonMan
2018-02-11, 04:49 AM
And I got that. The reason why I added the criteria "not captured by single alignment" is because I'm not convinced that a character who is consinstent with their actions can't be pinned to a single alignment.

I think you can put any character in a single alignment as a whole, but that characters can "wander" - upon further reflection, I think this isn't all that system agnostic, as it assumes a DnD-esque alignment where doing a bunch of Good or Evil actions for a while will have your alignment shifting around.

So at this point, we're talking about "can you have a character who doesn't actually fit in any alignment" and that has little to do with my original post, which was just a (somewhat kneejerk, and probably not written as elegantly as I'd like to have done so now) response to the idea that a character performing extreme Good and extreme Evil is someone being silly and playing an incomprehensible mess instead of a character.


You say their vision would be firmly within Lawful Good. So what does Lawful Good believe in? From 1st edition DMG: "They are convinced that law and order are necessary for good, and that good is best defined as what brings the greatest benefit to decent, thinking creatures, and least woe to the rest."

So why would someone who thinks like this commit extreme Evil acts, such as killing innocent priests? How is that consistent with the "least woe" principle?

Because they see it as necessary to achieve the LG order that they set as their goal. Leaving parts - especially organized, formerly powerful institutions - of the old order is just asking for civil war, a return of some lost royal or whatnot down the line. Better, they think, to just purge it from the get-go and avoid all this later conflict. After all, while slaughtering 200 innocent priests is horrible, having 10,000 people die in a civil war is far worse.


By contrast: let's suppose that somehow, it can be proven that all their actions actually are necessary to create greatest good for the majority, and least woe to the rest. How are the character's action then anything but consistently Lawful Good? Keep in mind that D&D doesn't condemn brutality and violence when there is little choice. That is why the Paladin class, militant ascetics in service of Good, are at all possible.

Oh, but there is choice. You can absolutely do a non-massacre-rific societal reformation, and in my opinion "it would be convenient for me to kill all of these people, but I could also try and accomplish the same goal through difficult and continuous maneuvering to keep them happy and on my side" is exactly the kind of Good act / Evil act divide that's relevant here. Yes, Good is hard. Yes, doing the right thing now might lead to horrible consequences down the line if you don't stay on top of things or step down when it's clear a civil war may erupt.

That's why doing Evil is, well, done. Because "kill everyone who may start a rebellion against me so I can freely reform society" is a much more effective route than "don't infringe upon the rights of people, even my enemies, any more than is absolutely necessary".


You are correct that a character who was made personality first may drift within and between alignments, but the "easy example" in parenthesis is atrocious. Reason: you did not define who these "others" are, nor the context in which they are protected, nor by whose standards they are committing a "heinous crime". You simply left them as variables, meaning you have not described a single, consistent character at all, just a rough framework that can be made to fit multiple different characters depending on which values are given to the variables. Any example with specific values could as well be text-book example of some alignment.

Yes, but the idea is a character whose individual actions would be radically different (stop to risk life to save people who can do nothing to help you, give up on opportunities and possessions just to help vs reward only those who swear fealty and only enough to strengthen them against those who don't, with an eye to having all these debts repaid and also war crimes) and would be textbook cases for LG, CE, etc. on their own - and all make sense within the context of this character, without being "screwing around" with "utterly inexplicable and nonsensical behavior" which is "actually disruptive to the game".

This may just be redundant repetition of what is above, but the point of this example isn't "a warlord who is a saint to their people and an evil tyrant to the other is neither G nor E", but about how looking at said warlord's behavior, you'll find supposedly "utterly inexplicable and nonsensical" shifts in how they act that are actually entirely explicable and sensible when you look at the character in question.


Also, how is this more crapsack than a society where, after serving N years in prison for your rape-murder, society is happy to let you walk free again?

The difference is that time in prison is meant to reform and correct, while "alignment points" do nothing. If I murder someone and get a life sentence, then 20 years later when I get out* I'm meant to have become someone who won't murder again. On the other hand, if I murder someone and get 50 Bad Boy Points, then nothing is stopping me from just doing five 10 Good Boy Points actions in order to "reset" and then murder again.

Apart from in-world justice systems and whatnot, but that's basically saying "well this society isn't bad if it responds to crime like our society" which seems like it wouldn't work well with the quoted bit.

*German life sentences aren't actually for life, which makes the name a bit inaccurate but oh well

Suttle
2018-02-11, 06:26 AM
The Peacemaker is Christopher Smith, a pacifist diplomat so committed to peace that he was willing to use force as a superhero to advance the cause.

Just to give an ideia of what kind of messup things this guy is willing to do in the name of peace, the Comedian from Watchman is based on him.

http://www.heromachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/peacemaker-3.jpg

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-11, 06:43 AM
I don't think the argument against point-buy morality actually does care about what the actual point values are.

The specific kind Max_Killjoy made did and does care about the specific point values, and pretending otherwise is wrong.

To wit: let's suppose one day of voluntary work in the local orphanage nets you one white stone. One case of rape-murder nets you 1500 black stones. Even if we admit white stones balancing out the black ones, that's years of minor good deeds to outweigh one bad one. So if a person actually wants to rape and murder every other week, they will soon be so far in the black that no amount of minor good deeds is feasible to redeem them. Further: let's suggest that sacrificing your life to save a stranger nets you 15000 white stones. If you actually are a consistent rapist and murderer, then you will sooner or later reach a point where even a truly selfless act leading to your own demise will not be enough to break you even, let alone get you back on the white side.


The essence of the argument is that any such system, one where a person is judged solely by the balance of good points and evil points they've accrued, is inherently gameable. As RPGers, we know this better than almost anyone.

Something being "inherently gameable" is a reason for implementing something in a game.


It will always break down and fail to model real world morality as generally understood (I have to be vague here because there are all sorts of moral philosophies in our world, some of them abhorrent) because it allows people to do evil things in the absolute knowledge that they can wash their slate clean by picking a few items off the menu of good.

Reality check: all models which are simple enough to be gameable at the tabletop will break down at some level. Morals are not special in this respect. Again, contrast your complaint with hit points.

The actual worthwhile discussion is about what is the desired level of accuracy for a given game. And that is where, bluntly, your argument is a complete non-starter. You can, for example, make a decent approximation of any utilitarian or rule utilitarian morality as a point-value system, because those moral philosophies already make themselves amenable to such conversion. Likewise, majority of modern legal systems do perform what you call "moral calculus", so basing a game's morality system on some legal system where punishments are converted to point values is clearly possible.

None of this automatically entails that gaming the system in one's favor is easy.

Somebody's personal distaste towards the resultant setting is likewise not a good reason to not do this. You can't please everyone.


A person who does that, regardless of whether their 'evil' action is mass murder or merely defrauding desperately needed disaster relief funds for personal enrichment, has not redeemed their former evil by becoming a better person. They've bought an indulgence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Late_medieval_abuses) that lets them claim a spot among the self-declared righteous without repenting at all, and since they got away with it, they're likely to do such evil again and again.

That's a crapsack world.

This argument, again, makes assumptions about the exact point values of actions in a system.

To wit: a point-value system doesn't have to admit points for bad faith actions.

Also, equating any amount and quality of good actions to indulgences is false. Like in the highly simplistic example I started with, the actual point value of minor good deeds can be so small that you can't realistically pay back any major evil action. So actual indulgences might only be enough for paying back minor bad deeds, like kicking the neighbour's dog.

The contrast point here, again, is having to do years of volunteer work to pay for one evil act. At which point I really have to ask: is that system really so gameable, from in-character viewpoint, as you claim? Would a person inclined to evil actually bother, and why?

This question is homologous to the question: how many murderers do you know who willingly went to serve a life sentence in prison?

---


I think you can put any character in a single alignment as a whole, but that characters can "wander" - upon further reflection, I think this isn't all that system agnostic, as it assumes a DnD-esque alignment where doing a bunch of Good or Evil actions for a while will have your alignment shifting around.

It is system specific, because as I noted in my response about point-value systems, a system doesn't need to admit good deeds and evil deeds cancelling out, or any other notion of balance between good or evil.

Hence, the question of whether you can be Neutral by committing serial actions of extreme Good and Evil, is only meaningfull in those systems which do admit such concepts.

In any case, your point about a character wandering is correct and acknowledged by the rules.


So at this point, we're talking about "can you have a character who doesn't actually fit in any alignment" and that has little to do with my original post, which was just a (somewhat kneejerk, and probably not written as elegantly as I'd like to have done so now) response to the idea that a character performing extreme Good and extreme Evil is someone being silly and playing an incomprehensible mess instead of a character.

You are correct. The point I'm making here is that if you can posit a character who does not fit into any alignment but is consistent in their worldview and actions, that lends credibility to the idea that a character performing alternating extreme acts is not an incomprehensible mess.

To this end, characters posited by NichG are good food for thought, because they are specific and also highly esoteric. The perfect Oracle might be consistent from their own viewpoint, but completely inscrutable to anyone else; it's also a fair question if such a perfect Oracle is playable in a game. Meanwhile, for the person approaching everything as a story, it can be questioned if they should in fact be considered sane - and if we do consider them sane, what does this imply for others?


Because they see it as necessary to achieve the LG order that they set as their goal. Leaving parts - especially organized, formerly powerful institutions - of the old order is just asking for civil war, a return of some lost royal or whatnot down the line. Better, they think, to just purge it from the get-go and avoid all this later conflict. After all, while slaughtering 200 innocent priests is horrible, having 10,000 people die in a civil war is far worse.

...

Oh, but there is choice. You can absolutely do a non-massacre-rific societal reformation, and in my opinion "it would be convenient for me to kill all of these people, but I could also try and accomplish the same goal through difficult and continuous maneuvering to keep them happy and on my side" is exactly the kind of Good act / Evil act divide that's relevant here. Yes, Good is hard. Yes, doing the right thing now might lead to horrible consequences down the line if you don't stay on top of things or step down when it's clear a civil war may erupt.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Your character is consistently approaching the situation from "greatest good for the greatest number" angle when massacring the priests. Since the situation itself is extreme (an impending civil war), a case can be made that the character would not consistently act in this way. They certainly aren't doing good deeds as an excuse for murder nor is the murder their motive for further good acts.

So while murdering the priests makes sense as a one-time act and would be a classic example for moving a Lawful Good character to Lawful Neutral, I think we can both agree that from this starting point it would be unlikely for the character to stay Neutral.


That's why doing Evil is, well, done. Because "kill everyone who may start a rebellion against me so I can freely reform society" is a much more effective route than "don't infringe upon the rights of people, even my enemies, any more than is absolutely necessary".

You are correct, but this is also textbook Evil mindset and hence a character consistently acting according to such motives would not be able to stay consistently neutral.


Yes, but the idea is a character whose individual actions would be radically different (stop to risk life to save people who can do nothing to help you, give up on opportunities and possessions just to help vs reward only those who swear fealty and only enough to strengthen them against those who don't, with an eye to having all these debts repaid and also war crimes) and would be textbook cases for LG, CE, etc. on their own - and all make sense within the context of this character, without being "screwing around" with "utterly inexplicable and nonsensical behavior" which is "actually disruptive to the game".

I don't disagree, because this boils down to a simple general principle: "any actor may appear inscrutable when you have less information than they do". Many sets of possible motives and knowledge may lead to a person acting radically different in different contexts and you need to get into the specifics to determine if a player is goofing around or roleplaying their character with fidelity.

And now back to the prior topic of point-value systems:

---


The difference is that time in prison is meant to reform and correct, while "alignment points" do nothing. If I murder someone and get a life sentence, then 20 years later when I get out* I'm meant to have become someone who won't murder again. On the other hand, if I murder someone and get 50 Bad Boy Points, then nothing is stopping me from just doing five 10 Good Boy Points actions in order to "reset" and then murder again.

You're looking at it the wrong way around.

The white stones don't do anything (possibly), but you need to do something to get them.

So same question as above: how many murderers do you know who'd willingly go to prison for life? Or the reverse: how many people do you know who would willingly sit a life sentence in prison for the right to murder one person?


Apart from in-world justice systems and whatnot, but that's basically saying "well this society isn't bad if it responds to crime like our society" which seems like it wouldn't work well with the quoted bit.

*German life sentences aren't actually for life, which makes the name a bit inaccurate but oh well

As noted, for a game, the choice of which system to emulate is free. The point of contrasting a point-value system with the real world is mostly because I'm honestly starting to wonder if this is a matter of some people having really low bar to pass for a setting to qualify as "crapsack".

NichG
2018-02-11, 07:18 AM
I've played one character at least in L5R who would consider sitting a 4 year and change sentence (which is the orphanage-volunteering going rate you listed) in order to have an official, irrevocable permission slip to kill one person without societal consequences. That's a powerful psychological weapon to use to threaten and intimidate people in a highly social-driven setting. This same character 'sacrificed himself nobly' - or rather, was trying to garner favor by helping to save some people, botched, died, and had a deadman's switch in his last wishes - in order to force a hated enemy into a loveless marriage.

The point-based system means that even if someone's morality rating is positive, that doesn't mean you should trust them. Which kind of goes against the implied design considerations of having things such as Detect Evil.

hamishspence
2018-02-11, 07:55 AM
Ways of subverting "Detect Evil means this is The Villain" are often discussed in D&D splatbooks.

Heroes of Horror, for example.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-11, 08:20 AM
The point-based system means that even if someone's morality rating is positive, that doesn't mean you should trust them. Which kind of goes against the implied design considerations of having things such as Detect Evil.

That's an interesting point, but considering how many ways to fool and subvert Detection spells have been tacked on to the system since its very beginning, that ship kinda sailed a long time ago. That's before we get to the fact that Chaotic and Non-Good alignments are allowed for play, so... how did Jack Sparrow put it again? "You can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest, but you never know when an honest man does something... incredibly... stupid."

NichG
2018-02-11, 10:45 AM
Ways of subverting "Detect Evil means this is The Villain" are often discussed in D&D splatbooks.

Heroes of Horror, for example.


That's an interesting point, but considering how many ways to fool and subvert Detection spells have been tacked on to the system since its very beginning, that ship kinda sailed a long time ago. That's before we get to the fact that Chaotic and Non-Good alignments are allowed for play, so... how did Jack Sparrow put it again? "You can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest, but you never know when an honest man does something... incredibly... stupid."

In that case, this kind of supports Max's point that (paraphrasing) the D&D alignment system is there more to provide a cosmic injustice to rail against rather than to be something that people would rationally take as being reflective of how they should act towards others and with respect to their own ethos.

... now I want to run a game where the entire alignment system is actually a cryptocurrency-type scam launched by Zaphkiel and Asmodeus, with good and evil actions being the equivalent of mining.

hamishspence
2018-02-11, 10:49 AM
I thought BoED's list of "ways a Good character should act toward others" was mostly in line - being forgiving, merciful, generous, protective, and so forth.

BoVD's "ways Evil characters should be acting" also fit, up to a point.

NichG
2018-02-11, 10:58 AM
I thought BoED's list of "ways a Good character should act toward others" was mostly in line - being forgiving, merciful, generous, protective, and so forth.

BoVD's "ways Evil characters should be acting" also fit, up to a point.

The issue is, if you've got a point-based system, you've got a correlation vs causation problem. You can be someone who is actually forgiving, merciful, generous, protective, and so forth; or you can act that way in the right patterns such that you create enough of a mismatch between your actual ethos and your displayed ethos to leverage for some gain (either by deceiving casters of the Detect spells or by buying a ticket to the outer plane of your choice upon death).

Purely based on the points, these two hypotheses are indistinguishable in a region of the point space. So the rational thing to do is to recognize that, even if Good sounds pretty good, you might be better off trusting your own moral compass than using the cosmic one when actually deciding for example 'should I trust this person?', 'what would be right in this circumstance?', even 'what outer plane do I want to end up on?'

After all, Bytopia might be nice, but Bytopia plus a 5% of clever and patient psychopaths who torment the other souls in ways that wouldn't bring down a full celestial intervention would be its own kind of hell. It might be better to shoot for True Neutral and find a god's domain on the Outlands to retire in that has more stringent entrance requirements, for example.

hamishspence
2018-02-11, 11:03 AM
It looks like (at least based on FC2) the point based system only applies to Evil, not Good.

In other words, that there will be "basically altruistic and kind, but guilty of a few unatoned-for sins" people in the Lower Planes, but not the reverse in the Upper Planes.

Florian
2018-02-11, 11:05 AM
I've played one character at least in L5R who would consider sitting a 4 year and change sentence (which is the orphanage-volunteering going rate you listed) in order to have an official, irrevocable permission slip to kill one person without societal consequences. That's a powerful psychological weapon to use to threaten and intimidate people in a highly social-driven setting. This same character 'sacrificed himself nobly' - or rather, was trying to garner favor by helping to save some people, botched, died, and had a deadman's switch in his last wishes - in order to force a hated enemy into a loveless marriage.

The point-based system means that even if someone's morality rating is positive, that doesn't mean you should trust them. Which kind of goes against the implied design considerations of having things such as Detect Evil.

Standard problem when playing Scorpion Clan Bushi: Build up your reputation and honor rank to be trustworthy, then build up enough puffer to take the hit to your honor that will inevitably come. No one trusts a honorable Scorpion.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-11, 11:16 AM
The issue is, if you've got a point-based system, you've got a correlation vs causation problem. You can be someone who is actually forgiving, merciful, generous, protective, and so forth; or you can act that way in the right patterns such that you create enough of a mismatch between your actual ethos and your displayed ethos to leverage for some gain (either by deceiving casters of the Detect spells or by buying a ticket to the outer plane of your choice upon death).

Purely based on the points, these two hypotheses are indistinguishable in a region of the point space. So the rational thing to do is to recognize that, even if Good sounds pretty good, you might be better off trusting your own moral compass than using the cosmic one when actually deciding for example 'should I trust this person?', 'what would be right in this circumstance?', even 'what outer plane do I want to end up on?'

After all, Bytopia might be nice, but Bytopia plus a 5% of clever and patient psychopaths who torment the other souls in ways that wouldn't bring down a full celestial intervention would be its own kind of hell. It might be better to shoot for True Neutral and find a god's domain on the Outlands to retire in that has more stringent entrance requirements, for example.

The point-based setup can also end up with people who are forced into too many "least bad option" choices pinging "Evil" regardless of their motives.

Florian
2018-02-11, 11:38 AM
The point-based setup can also end up with people who are forced into too many "least bad option" choices pinging "Evil" regardless of their motives.

That´s more a matter of how you design the underlying mechanics. What I like about the L5R Honor Rank mechanics is that the gain/loss scale accordingly to your current Rank and is not fixed. When you're on the lower end of the honor spectrum, quite a lot of actions would not have you lose honor at all.

Segev
2018-02-11, 11:51 AM
The presence of ways to foil alignment detecting magics does not excuse nor make it not a problem if the pure points-based alignment system would allow an unrepentant rapist (amusing aside: autocorrupt tried to make this “Taoist” for some reason; an “unrepentant Taoist” makes me snicker as a concept) and murderer who does enough good to register as neutral or even good without trickery.

The lack of trickery means that you can’t even trust it if you have ways of knowing what’s being used to hide or disguise alignments.

It also changes things from sinning due to temptation and temporary weakness, and instead makes sinning “okay” if you’ve done enough good. Compare, again, Fuhrer-Mother Adolf Theresa to Xena, Reformed Warrior. One is an actually good person. The other is a monster who just happens not to be eating princesses at the moment.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-11, 12:28 PM
The specific kind Max_Killjoy made did and does care about the specific point values, and pretending otherwise is wrong.The argument he made is not the same as the example he used to for illustration purposes of that argument. His example relied on a specific point value range, just to make things clear. His greater argument didn't.


To wit: let's suppose one day of voluntary work in the local orphanage nets you one white stone. One case of rape-murder nets you 1500 black stones.I think it's funny that the examples often used in this thread to show how a point based morality system really can work (really!), and that by arguing against it, I'm demanding an unrealistic weighting of good acts vs evil acts, often end up cartoonishly evil themselves. It's like chastising an umpire for improperly calling strikes and balls, and then chucking a baseball over your shoulder towards shortstop and demanding it counts as a strike.

For the record, I don't think that spending four years volunteering at an orphanage should earn you the right to indulge in a little rape-murder. I hope I don't need to expand on my reasons for that.


Something being "inherently gameable" is a reason for implementing something in a game.Something being inherently gameable IS a reason not to use it as the foundations for a moral code, though, which was the point I was illustrating.

I will agree, for some games, a point-based morality system will probably be just fine. If it's a purely gamist background construct of which none of the denizens of the gameworld are capable of becoming aware, and which none of the players has incentive to minmax, it would be a serviceable way to track their GR (Goodness Rating). Since such a game clearly isn't that interested in exploring issues of morality, I'd wonder why you are even bothering to build a subsystem based on it, but that brings us to:


The actual worthwhile discussion is about what is the desired level of accuracy for a given game. And that is where, bluntly, your argument is a complete non-starter.Is that the worthwhile question? I think that the real worthwhile question is "why try to reduce morality to a point score at all?"

That is a question with a few possible answers, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's always a bad idea, or that no game could get some use out of it. But the vast majority of tabletop games don't do it, and people play through FATE and GURPS and City of Mists just fine without needing any game systems to score morality at all. That's something that is typically explored above the level of the game rules, by the players themselves, at least for those groups even interested in questions of morality.

Games like WOD do have gameified morality systems, and those are built into the core of the game and designed to pose particular questions to the players based on whatever brand of emo monster they are playing, and not to model some universal system of right vs wrong. So if you're going to make a morality points system, you'll probably want a good reason to do so and a clear idea for how the RPG is going to employ that (by necessity simplified, as you've noted) morality minigame to enhance the overall experience.

Other abstractions within game systems, like the hp example you give, have clear reasons to be included and are designed to fulfill the needs of each particular game for that mechanic. Morality systems also need a reason to include them, and if you do include them, you need to understand why you are doing so so that you can design a system that fits your game's needs.

Off the top of my head, there is one game system that does use a morality scale with a point system just as you describe, and that is the old d20 Star Wars Sage Edition game with light side/dark side points. In that game, the alignment ledger basically existed just to tell your force-using characters whether they drew from the light or dark sides of the Force, and it led to lots and lots of silly situations.

Some players happily racked up DSP by committing the most wanton acts of pointless evil, up to the point where they knew they were about to have their character taken away/block off access to any of their mechanical abilities. At that point they would walk the straight and narrow until they managed to accomplish some Act of Heroism (TM) which decreased their dark side score, which they would treat like a weekend pass to go wreak some more mayhem.
I had a scoundrel hunter character once who was a couple darkside points away from being an NPC, but there was this shopkeeper I absolutely hated. I always rolled terribly with bartering skills against him, like multiple nat 1's, and I always ended up overpaying his obnoxious ass for simple repairs and purchases. It became a running joke. To make it worse, the GM used this annoying accent for the shopkeeper, and everyone else got great deals with him even though I was ostensibly the face of the party. He was just the worst, okay?

So one day, after a mission where we liberated a bunch of slaves from the Empire and my character personally had risked his life to save our team Jedi from a tight spot, and I had some light side points to spare. So what did my newly redeemed character do with his new outlook on life?

He shot the shopkeeper in the face first chance he got, of course! And then I stole as much stuff as I could convince the wookie to carry. Hey, no point in letting those light side points sit there to gather dust, I can always save some more slaves next mission to keep a little buffer in the morality bank.
Then you also got weird things like the Jedi who turned to the darkside from cheating at cards (also in that same campaign). So it wasn't a very robust system, and suffered from exactly the sorts of abuses and injustices we've been talking about.

Still, even very simple morality point systems could be useful in some games, for example to keep murderhobo players within SOME bound of decency where they can't slaughter EVERY town they come across purely for kicks, but have to pick and choose which towns they'll be able to raze for the lulz. That kind of game absolutely happens, and as a tool for forcing players to be selective about when to play as unrepentant monsters so that the rest of the game can be slightly more sane, I can see the argument. It's worked on me. And for that kind of game, you don't need to make some complicated model predicated on utilitarianism and real world jurisprudence with cutoffs for bad faith and multipliers for penitence or whatever. The accuracy of the model isn't the point of the exercise, this kind of morality scale only exists to keep the players at least a little within some realm of sanity, without completely compromising their agency.

Distinct from that purely game rules construct of "good points" vs "evil points", though, from a moral standpoint, those characters who vacillate from killing innocents to saving princesses are still evil individuals. People within the gameworld who know the full spectrum of their activities are likely to consider them evil, regardless of how they ping a detect evil spell. If they did such things in the real world, we would consider them evil. My character from the Star Wars game I was talking about was a handsome devil who always stayed just this side of going full dark side, but he was evil. And stylish. And clever.

Quertus
2018-02-11, 11:07 PM
In that case, this kind of supports Max's point that (paraphrasing) the D&D alignment system is there more to provide a cosmic injustice to rail against rather than to be something that people would rationally take as being reflective of how they should act towards others and with respect to their own ethos.

... now I want to run a game where the entire alignment system is actually a cryptocurrency-type scam launched by Zaphkiel and Asmodeus, with good and evil actions being the equivalent of mining.

And this is just one reason why most any character worth his salt should be planning to overthrow the gods, and set up a reasonable system in place of the D&D assignment system. /soapbox /aside

PersonMan
2018-02-12, 04:51 AM
Now we're getting somewhere.

Your character is consistently approaching the situation from "greatest good for the greatest number" angle when massacring the priests. Since the situation itself is extreme (an impending civil war), a case can be made that the character would not consistently act in this way. They certainly aren't doing good deeds as an excuse for murder nor is the murder their motive for further good acts.

So while murdering the priests makes sense as a one-time act and would be a classic example for moving a Lawful Good character to Lawful Neutral, I think we can both agree that from this starting point it would be unlikely for the character to stay Neutral.

Do keep in mind that the situation this character is in, at least until they've gotten pretty far with their goal, will always be extreme, just because going in and destroying the old societal order in order to build a new one is going to result in a lot of difficult situations on account of the masses of powerful enemies you'll be making.

And yeah, this is someone who would probably wander through alignments and only stick around in the Neutral area for long if they spend short periods of time in different contexts.


You are correct, but this is also textbook Evil mindset and hence a character consistently acting according to such motives would not be able to stay consistently neutral.

Yes.


You're looking at it the wrong way around.

The white stones don't do anything (possibly), but you need to do something to get them.

I don't see how this is different. Earning good points before or after you "spend" them by acquiring equivalent numbers of bad points doesn't really make a big difference.


So same question as above: how many murderers do you know who'd willingly go to prison for life? Or the reverse: how many people do you know who would willingly sit a life sentence in prison for the right to murder one person?

Probably not many. But there's also the issue that, unless this is a more "down to earth" type system, you probably won't be dealing with people who have to consider 'do I take this life sentence to murder this guy?' but rather something like 'do I, now that I have done Heroic Act X as part of my adventures, use the mass of good points to keep myself "in the green" while I do a bunch of bad things?' which is an entirely different type of question.

Bohandas
2018-02-17, 03:20 AM
Sometimes you can be neutral or good by combining multiple evil acts. For example, Schindler sold weapons to the Nazis, but it was ok because he knew all the weapons he was selling them were defective. Now, by themselves selling weapons to the Nazis or deliberately ripping people off would be bad, BUT doing them both TOGETHER is GOOD.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-17, 09:37 AM
Sometimes you can be neutral or good by combining multiple evil acts. For example, Schindler sold weapons to the Nazis, but it was ok because he knew all the weapons he was selling them were defective. Now, by themselves selling weapons to the Nazis or deliberately ripping people off would be bad, BUT doing them both TOGETHER is GOOD.

And yet by an actions-only-based, no-"excuses", cosmic-judgement system such as a few posters are descibing here, Schindler is just doubly-wrong.

And thus in settings where this is the case, "the cosmos" is an immoral monster, and the entire population should start each day by raising a middle finger to the sky and telling the cosmos to bugger off.

NichG
2018-02-17, 07:00 PM
I don't see how this is different. Earning good points before or after you "spend" them by acquiring equivalent numbers of bad points doesn't really make a big difference.

If having a 10000 white stone excess has no extra consequences than having a 10 white stone excess, and you know your white stone count, it very easily needs to a mindset of 'I have this resource which I can spend, and if I don't spend it then it will go to waste'. So someone who lives for 40 years and finds themselves with enough excess white stones for a couple murders might say 'well, I've been good for a long time now, so I'm owed the right to kill that bully who is pestering my kids, that guy who plays loud music, etc'. So you could get evils of convenience, from people who have been unnecessarily good and are looking to cash out their excess near the end of their lives. Doing so is zero risk to them so long as they can know their balance well enough.

Whereas if you do evil first then you're under the tension that you have to earn back those white stones before you die. That means that if circumstances don't permit it for some reason, you have an accidental death, etc, you could still be in trouble. So its non-zero risk, which will suppress the unwanted behavior more effectively even for people who could potentially earn things back. But of course it won't totally suppress it because if someone can be 99.9% certain to earn back enough white stones in time to die with a positive balance, that's probably good enough.


And thus in settings where this is the case, "the cosmos" is an immoral monster, and the entire population should start each day by raising a middle finger to the sky and telling the cosmos to bugger off.

Or maybe just don't look to laws of physics for moral guidance...

Segev
2018-02-18, 01:52 AM
And yet by an actions-only-based, no-"excuses", cosmic-judgement system such as a few posters are descibing here, Schindler is just doubly-wrong.

And thus in settings where this is the case, "the cosmos" is an immoral monster, and the entire population should start each day by raising a middle finger to the sky and telling the cosmos to bugger off.

The closest I've seen to this kind of argument were people discussing how you can't say, "I'm good because I meant well while committing evil actions."

In the Schindler example, he's saving people's lives and undermining the Evil Empire. Chaotic actions, but Good. His reasons for his actions and the consequences of them are both good-aligned. There is no "I get a pass for hurting these innocent people because my deeds are for some nebulous greater good!" here.


Now, if you're speaking against the "extremes of both is neutral" argument, then yes, I agree, but that isn't what I read from your post, here. If I am misunderstanding you, please do correct me. I apologize if so.

RFLS
2018-02-18, 03:56 AM
Sometimes you can be neutral or good by combining multiple evil acts. For example, Schindler sold weapons to the Nazis, but it was ok because he knew all the weapons he was selling them were defective. Now, by themselves selling weapons to the Nazis or deliberately ripping people off would be bad, BUT doing them both TOGETHER is GOOD.

Moral particularism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_particularism)

hamishspence
2018-02-18, 05:21 AM
The closest I've seen to this kind of argument were people discussing how you can't say, "I'm good because I meant well while committing evil actions."

In the Schindler example, he's saving people's lives and undermining the Evil Empire. Chaotic actions, but Good.

There's the "committing evil acts against evil people is still evil" argument - but that generally only applies to acts that are consistently characterised as "evil regardless of context" - like soul-destroying.

There's context that can make killing villains "not-murder" and "non-evil" - so it's reasonable to say that context can make cheating or defrauding villains "non-evil".

Anymage
2018-02-18, 08:56 AM
Something about morality meter morality stood out to me. Assuming that people have a good idea of both their score and of how different events might be weighted in a vacuum, there's still the widely agreed on perspective that a good deed done for some ulterior motive isn't as fully Good. A morality meter cosmos that wasn't hastily thrown together will acknowledge that on some level, making it hard for people who try to treat karma like a cosmic credit balance.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 09:11 AM
The closest I've seen to this kind of argument were people discussing how you can't say, "I'm good because I meant well while committing evil actions."

In the Schindler example, he's saving people's lives and undermining the Evil Empire. Chaotic actions, but Good. His reasons for his actions and the consequences of them are both good-aligned. There is no "I get a pass for hurting these innocent people because my deeds are for some nebulous greater good!" here.


Now, if you're speaking against the "extremes of both is neutral" argument, then yes, I agree, but that isn't what I read from your post, here. If I am misunderstanding you, please do correct me. I apologize if so.


There is at least one person in this thread, and others elsewhere, who've asserted that the published default Alignment (most specifically of the 3.x era) setup presumes that "the cosmos" is an almighty and uncaring judge of each being, and that "the cosmos" only cares about the acts themselves, and gives no consideration to why something was done. And under such a system, fraud (as a form of theft) is either wrong, or not wrong. And if it is wrong, then someone defrauding the evil empire is still "doing wrong" no matter why they're doing it.

Regarding such a universe, it should be quite clear that the moral fault lies not with mortals, but with "the cosmos" itself -- that while "the cosmos" has absolute power to enforce its judgements, it does not have the power to make those judgements moral, just, or fair.




Or maybe just don't look to laws of physics for moral guidance...


I would tend to agree with you... however, I was commenting on the notion that the "laws of physics" (per 3.x Alignment) have absolute moral authority.




Something about morality meter morality stood out to me. Assuming that people have a good idea of both their score and of how different events might be weighted in a vacuum, there's still the widely agreed on perspective that a good deed done for some ulterior motive isn't as fully Good. A morality meter cosmos that wasn't hastily thrown together will acknowledge that on some level, making it hard for people who try to treat karma like a cosmic credit balance.


One would think that the intent, the motive, the desired ends, the circumstances in general, would matter. But according to some, they don't matter at all, and "the cosmos" is just keeping a tally of actions.

hamishspence
2018-02-18, 09:17 AM
There is at least one person in this thread, and others elsewhere, who've asserted that the published default Alignment (most specifically of the 3.x era) setup presumes that "the cosmos" is an almighty and uncaring judge of each being, and that "the cosmos" only cares about the acts themselves, and gives no consideration to why something was done. And under such a system, fraud (as a form of theft) is either wrong, or not wrong. And if it is wrong, then someone defrauding the evil empire is still "doing wrong" no matter why they're doing it.

Regarding such a universe, it should be quite clear that the moral fault lies not with mortals, but with "the cosmos" itself -- that while "the cosmos" has absolute power to enforce its judgements, it does not have the power to make those judgements moral, just, or fair.


Just as the distinction between "killing" and "murder" is context, so can the distinction between "justified theft" and "unjustified theft".

"The cosmos" can still consider context when making judgements, even if motive isn't always considered to be a primary factor.

And when it comes to "good acts" like charity, books like BoED specify that motive and context do matter. A person doing charity "purely to raise their reputation" and doing so in a "non-self-sacrificing way" (giving away only so much as doesn't inconvenience them) is doing Neutral acts at best, rather than Good ones.

Given that this is how it works for Good - the same can apply for Evil. BoVD lists a bunch of "traditionally Evil acts" but also mentions provisos. "an act of vengeance" while traditionally evil, isn't always evil. Same with "telling a lie".

It's reasonable to conjecture the same for some of the other listed acts, like "theft" or "cheating" (fraud being a hybrid of the two).


it should be quite clear that the moral fault lies not with mortals, but with "the cosmos" itself -- that while "the cosmos" has absolute power to enforce its judgements, it does not have the power to make those judgements moral, just, or fair.
In D&D, "Just" and "Fair" are not synonymous though - Tyr, Forgotten Realms God of Justice, is (in Faiths & Pantheons) specified as sometimes having to support very unfair laws that are nonetheless just.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 09:32 AM
In D&D, "Just" and "Fair" are not synonymous though - Tyr, Forgotten Realms God of Justice, is (in Faiths & Pantheons) specified as sometimes having to support very unfair laws that are nonetheless just.


Which would instead be the error of assuming that "law" and "justice" are matched sets.

History is rife with examples of laws that were entirely unjust, and any god who supported such laws would just as evil as the laws themselves.

hamishspence
2018-02-18, 09:36 AM
Tyr's Lawful Good though - and is a god of "justice" and not solely a god of "laws"

Hence the "unfair yet just" limitation. Tyr specifically never supports any "unjust law".

Being good, he dislikes "just yet evil" laws - but encourages his followers to work to change them rather than disobey them.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 09:46 AM
Tyr's Lawful Good though - and is a god of "justice" and not solely a god of "laws"

Hence the "unfair yet just" limitation. Tyr specifically never supports any "unjust law".

Being good, he dislikes "just yet evil" laws - but encourages his followers to work to change them rather than disobey them.

Can you provide an example of a law that is unfair yet just? I can't think of any.

Finding historical examples of laws that are immoral and unfair is trivial.



Don't know how I missed this earlier:



In that case, this kind of supports Max's point that (paraphrasing) the D&D alignment system is there more to provide a cosmic injustice to rail against rather than to be something that people would rationally take as being reflective of how they should act towards others and with respect to their own ethos.


Yes, it does.

Particularly for the 3.x iteration of that system.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-02-18, 10:08 AM
Is there any value in declaring people good or evil? There's certainly value in labeling actions good or evil, but then applying those labels to actual people doesn't seem like it provides any value other than a smug sense of superiority.

hamishspence
2018-02-18, 10:10 AM
There's a few spells, magic items, etc that do things to people with alignments.

Picking up a Holy Sword is going to give you negative levels, for example.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 10:11 AM
Is there any value in declaring people good or evil? There's certainly value in labeling actions good or evil, but then applying those labels to actual people doesn't seem like it provides any value other than a smug sense of superiority.


Usually, no. In some specific instances, yes. Some people really are evil.

But in general, the practice of giving everyone a moral "tag" is kinda useless, and IMO another reason to wonder what we're really getting out of Alignment (especially from certain editions).

hamishspence
2018-02-18, 10:35 AM
Yes, it does.

Particularly for the 3.x iteration of that system.

Personally I think 3.5 is better about some moral issues than earlier editions, Gygax statements, 1e-era D&D novels, etc.

"Not every evil being deserves to be attacked by adventurers" comes from a 3e book - Eberron Campaign Setting - and BOED set the trend before that by suggesting that declaring war on a village of evil but fairly harmless orcs, was evil - as was slaughtering orc noncombatants.

Psyren
2018-02-18, 11:49 AM
Is there any value in declaring people good or evil? There's certainly value in labeling actions good or evil, but then applying those labels to actual people doesn't seem like it provides any value other than a smug sense of superiority.

Knowing where someone stands overall is a quick way to sort through an otherwise unmanageable number of people. PHB 103 gives such an example:


In the temple of Pelor is an ancient tome. When the temple recruits adventurers for its most sensitive and important quests, each one who wants to participate must kiss the book. Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power, and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned. Only those who are good can kiss the tome without harm and are trusted with the temple’s most important work. Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.

Now you can certainly argue that just being Good does not prove that the person is qualified, and similarly that being neutral or even evil does not preclude someone's aid from being useful, and you'd be right. But it is A qualification; much like looking at a jobseeker's degree or performance in their last role before hiring them doesn't prove they'll be a good fit for this one, it still provides more information than nothing at all.

Segev
2018-02-18, 12:05 PM
Unfair but just: a law that requires one who deprives another of property unlawfully to replace that lost property.

Just, because the victim is recompensed by the one who wronged him.

Not necessarily fair, if the wrongdoer acted in ignorance or by accident, and the recompense would be ruinous to him. Especially if the lost property is trivial to the wronged one.

A good-aligned victim in this case might well, upon realizing that no harm was meant, and that the recompense is beyond the weongdoer’s means, may make a gift of the lost property or its value to let the victim off the hook. This is gracious.

It is fair , and only just because the wronged party voluntarily gave the necessary costs to satisfy justice.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 12:17 PM
Unfair but just: a law that requires one who deprives another of property unlawfully to replace that lost property.

Just, because the victim is recompensed by the one who wronged him.

Not necessarily fair, if the wrongdoer acted in ignorance or by accident, and the recompense would be ruinous to him. Especially if the lost property is trivial to the wronged one.

A good-aligned victim in this case might well, upon realizing that no harm was meant, and that the recompense is beyond the weongdoer’s means, may make a gift of the lost property or its value to let the victim off the hook. This is gracious.

It is fair , and only just because the wronged party voluntarily gave the necessary costs to satisfy justice.


A just law would also attempt to differentiate between pure accident, negligence, and willful/wanton destruction.

Segev
2018-02-18, 12:36 PM
A just law would also attempt to differentiate between pure accident, negligence, and willful/wanton destruction.
A fair law might, but justice merely requires that the wronged party be recompensed.

Justice is about balancing the scales of duty and obligation.

Fairness is...nebulous. But generally cares about how harsh things are. I’ve written essays elsewhere on the fact that, for instance, a “fair fight” is usually defined more to give advantage to the people defining it than anything else.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 12:43 PM
A fair law might, but justice merely requires that the wronged party be recompensed.

Justice is about balancing the scales of duty and obligation.


That's not justice, it's simply a codified system of compensation for loss.

Segev
2018-02-18, 01:03 PM
That's not justice, it's simply a codified system of compensation for loss.

“That’s not vanilla ice cream. It’s simply a concoction of dairy product and sugar and vanilla stirred and chilled into a particular consistency.”

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 01:19 PM
A fair law might, but justice merely requires that the wronged party be recompensed.

Justice is about balancing the scales of duty and obligation.



That's not justice, it's simply a codified system of compensation for loss.



“That’s not vanilla ice cream. It’s simply a concoction of dairy product and sugar and vanilla stirred and chilled into a particular consistency.”


I don't see anything here about "compensation", or "balancing duty and obligation".

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice

So, again, what you are describing is not justice, it's codified and expanded weregeld.

Segev
2018-02-18, 01:39 PM
I don't see anything here about "compensation", or "balancing duty and obligation".

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice

So, again, what you are describing is not justice, it's codified and expanded weregeld.
I don’t see an actual definition there. I see a tautology.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 01:44 PM
I don’t see an actual definition there. I see a tautology.

Take it up with the dictionary people.

Point is, justice is more than codified payback, and acting as if anyone who questions codified payback as the "core meaning" of justice is refusing to call vanilla icecream "vanilla icecream" is both insulting and baseless.

tomandtish
2018-02-18, 01:59 PM
Point is, I can see that moment on the Death Star having the potential to be a defining, eye-opening moment for Vader.

Not that that helps the OP's case.

The problem for me was always ... Would he have helped anyone else?

Let's say it's Han being blasted by the Emperor. Would he have still had the change of heart?

If the answer is no, then he hasn't really changed. There's a huge gap between redemption and just being unwilling to let your own child die. He hasn't changed, we just found the ONE line he's unwilling to cross.

As I got older I've always interpreted the ending of RotJ as Vader having possibly found Redemption (forgiveness) in the eyes of LUKE (and possibly Yoda and Ben). It has NOTHING to do with the rest of the galaxy. He's managed to make his peace with THAT SPECIFIC GROUP, and therefore they get to see him/be with him.

Psyren
2018-02-18, 02:28 PM
An example of an unfair but just law is a Right to Counsel law (such as that found in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, that guarantees everyone in the US be entitled to legal representation/defense regardless of finances.) It is a just law because everyone gets assigned a lawyer to aid in their defense regardless of their financial situation, mental capacity, etc. But it's also unfair, because nothing in it restricts the state or the opposing party to have a lawyer equal in caliber or capability to yours. The spirit of the law is that the courts judge each case fairly on its merits, but this simply doesn't happen in practice due to public defenders being heavily overworked and varying in skill, while rich defendants have a higher chance of procuring (and retaining!) lawyers who are both skilled and unencumbered.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 03:06 PM
An example of an unfair but just law is a Right to Counsel law (such as that found in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, that guarantees everyone in the US be entitled to legal representation/defense regardless of finances.) It is a just law because everyone gets assigned a lawyer to aid in their defense regardless of their financial situation, mental capacity, etc. But it's also unfair, because nothing in it restricts the state or the opposing party to have a lawyer equal in caliber or capability to yours. The spirit of the law is that the courts judge each case fairly on its merits, but this simply doesn't happen in practice due to public defenders being heavily overworked and varying in skill, while rich defendants have a higher chance of procuring (and retaining!) lawyers who are both skilled and unencumbered.

I'd call that a just concept unjustly implemented.

Florian
2018-02-18, 03:37 PM
I'd call that a just concept unjustly implemented.

That happens when you mix state and private business. (Our "poor law" just hands out a "yellow slip", meaning the state vouches for the payment of the lawyer, so you can pick any you like)

Psyren
2018-02-18, 03:42 PM
I'd call that a just concept unjustly implemented.

The implementation is what makes it unfair - that's the point.

Bohandas
2018-02-18, 05:36 PM
And thus in settings where this is the case, "the cosmos" is an immoral monster, and the entire population should start each day by raising a middle finger to the sky and telling the cosmos to bugger off.

That's actually arguably the point of the gods. They can override default afterlife assignments.

Segev
2018-02-18, 09:19 PM
Take it up with the dictionary people.

Point is, justice is more than codified payback, and acting as if anyone who questions codified payback as the "core meaning" of justice is refusing to call vanilla icecream "vanilla icecream" is both insulting and baseless.

The point I was making is that you've failed to provide a definition for "justice," while claiming that I was not using the correct one.

To be explicit: before I will accept that Justice is not concerned with recompense for wrong and ensuring that the wronged have the wrong righted, you will need to provide a definition of Justice that does not include that, or includes that and more, such that it demonstrates that my definition was wrong or insufficient.

I reserve the right to debate over said definition, but I refuse to even consider your dismissal of mine when you have yet to provide an actual counter-example.

To reiterate: your counter-example fails to be a definition, and thus fails as a refutation of mine.



To put it another way: If I take your dictionary definition as written, I can say, "No, Max, your definition there does mention what I said. For something to be just, it must ensure that those wronged have the wrong righted as best as possible. Thus, justice, which is having the property of being just, has the property of restoring to the wronged that which was taken, or providing other equivalent recompense."

I can do this because your definition fell back on its own root word, and my comment defines that root word, to which you've yet to provide a counter-example to demonstrate that it means not what I say it does.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-18, 09:54 PM
The point I was making is that you've failed to provide a definition for "justice," while claiming that I was not using the correct one.

To be explicit: before I will accept that Justice is not concerned with recompense for wrong and ensuring that the wronged have the wrong righted, you will need to provide a definition of Justice that does not include that, or includes that and more, such that it demonstrates that my definition was wrong or insufficient.

I reserve the right to debate over said definition, but I refuse to even consider your dismissal of mine when you have yet to provide an actual counter-example.

To reiterate: your counter-example fails to be a definition, and thus fails as a refutation of mine.



To put it another way: If I take your dictionary definition as written, I can say, "No, Max, your definition there does mention what I said. For something to be just, it must ensure that those wronged have the wrong righted as best as possible. Thus, justice, which is having the property of being just, has the property of restoring to the wronged that which was taken, or providing other equivalent recompense."

I can do this because your definition fell back on its own root word, and my comment defines that root word, to which you've yet to provide a counter-example to demonstrate that it means not what I say it does.

Honestly, I don't care about any of that. I'm not going to derail the thread with 10 pages of arguing theories of justice from Hammurabi to the present. The only reason I posted any definition at all was to nip in the bud the assertion that you were putting forth some sort of universally accepted meaning of the word.

There's more to justice than a fancy form of weregeld, and about one minute of digging will make that clear to anyone who cares to do so.

Segev
2018-02-20, 12:13 PM
Honestly, I don't care about any of that. I'm not going to derail the thread with 10 pages of arguing theories of justice from Hammurabi to the present. The only reason I posted any definition at all was to nip in the bud the assertion that you were putting forth some sort of universally accepted meaning of the word.

There's more to justice than a fancy form of weregeld, and about one minute of digging will make that clear to anyone who cares to do so.

Of course there is. You're being reductionist, and I (perhaps foolishly) was letting you because my point was mainly that your argument was poor, and failed to address mine.

I stand by my example of a just but unfair law. To go back further than Hammurabi, "An Eye for an Eye" is justice. Revenge is not always justice, and justice not always revenge, but they do have significant overlap.

But, to wrap this back to the thread topic, this opens an interesting area of examination. Can you be LN and get away with greater extrema of LG and LE acts because you're guided by the L aspect of it, than you could if you were just trying to claim "TN" while doing wildly Good and horrifically Evil deeds to "balance out?" "Just following orders" may not be a way out of war crimes, but can it hold you to LN?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-20, 12:20 PM
But, to wrap this back to the thread topic, this opens an interesting area of examination. Can you be LN and get away with greater extrema of LG and LE acts because you're guided by the L aspect of it, than you could if you were just trying to claim "TN" while doing wildly Good and horrifically Evil deeds to "balance out?" "Just following orders" may not be a way out of war crimes, but can it hold you to LN?

I would say yes, with qualifications. My mental conception of LN is that you care about L, not about good vs evil. You take the actions (of whatever moral valence) that are required to uphold the law. It's the neutrality of uncaring, not of balance, and it's a seriously scary one.

All sword of justice (everyone gets what they deserve), no mercy.


La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

--Anatole France

hamishspence
2018-02-20, 12:21 PM
But, to wrap this back to the thread topic, this opens an interesting area of examination. Can you be LN and get away with greater extrema of LG and LE acts because you're guided by the L aspect of it, than you could if you were just trying to claim "TN" while doing wildly Good and horrifically Evil deeds to "balance out?" "Just following orders" may not be a way out of war crimes, but can it hold you to LN?

I'd say, whether it can or not - the archdevils are still in a position to claim the "LN soul with an extremely high Corruption Rating" after death.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-20, 01:09 PM
I stand by my example of a just but unfair law. To go back further than Hammurabi, "An Eye for an Eye" is justice. Revenge is not always justice, and justice not always revenge, but they do have significant overlap.


Strictly taken, "an eye for an eye" isn't really justice, as it doesn't take intent or circumstances into account.

A person who puts another's eye out while defending himself from an unprovoked attack by the latter should not face the same penalty as a person who puts another's eye out while trying to rob them at knifepoint.




But, to wrap this back to the thread topic, this opens an interesting area of examination. Can you be LN and get away with greater extrema of LG and LE acts because you're guided by the L aspect of it, than you could if you were just trying to claim "TN" while doing wildly Good and horrifically Evil deeds to "balance out?" "Just following orders" may not be a way out of war crimes, but can it hold you to LN?



I would say yes, with qualifications. My mental conception of LN is that you care about L, not about good vs evil. You take the actions (of whatever moral valence) that are required to uphold the law. It's the neutrality of uncaring, not of balance, and it's a seriously scary one.


That fits my mental conception as well. Lawful Neutral doesn't care about good or evil, it doesn't care about justice or injustice, it doesn't care about the spirit of the law... it only cares about the letter of the law, and seeing it followed and enforced exactly to the letter.




All sword of justice (everyone gets what they deserve), no mercy.


I'd put "justice" and "deserve" in quotation marks in that part.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-20, 01:30 PM
I'd put "justice" and "deserve" in quotation marks in that part.

My mental model there is of an almost-mechanical outsider here. So Justice (in the sense of blind, mechanical cause and effect) and Desert are as pure as possible. LN mortals have a much harder time of this.

The only thing I can say without breaching forum rules is that my religious training has me think of Justice as being a two-edged sword--woe unto him that pleads for justice for another, for he might get it for himself as well!