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

[Quertus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[hamishspence]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.