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

[redwizard007]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

....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.

Spoiler: Big ol alignment history' post

Show

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 by Poul Anderson,

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, 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."




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

"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



(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.
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!:





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.

[BTW, a nice 21st century use of the Law vs. Chaos trope is in Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library 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

Spoiler: illustrations

Show

illustration

illustration

illustration

illustration

illustration


illustration


illustration


illustration

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.



"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

So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:


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

Also in the article 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 which was a completely different game!

"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"

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.

Spoiler: the 5-point system of the 1977 "bluebook".

Show

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.

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!



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!



(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

Spoiler: 1991 "Rules Cyclopedia"

Show

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!