Good and Evil, and the stupid versions thereof

[Vrock_Summoner]

I'm with Sartharina on premise, but not on conclusion. To quote OOTS (and I know OOTS isn't perfectly or even mostly accurate to D&D, but the point stands), Good does "not penalize people for ineffectiveness." The fact that you aren't an Int 30 wizard capable of considering every single possible negative extended consequence for your actions is not your fault. However, her bigger point holds, due to something a lot of people (not calling out anyone in specific, as multiple people in this very thread are exceptions) don't realize that D&D alignment =/= morality in any way, shape, or form. Like, at all, not a single tad bit. Good and Evil are cosmic, and pre-determined, forces in D&D. You can be the best moral philosopher in the world and convince everybody who plays D&D that something you considered Good is morally reprehensible and evil, but that doesn't change how the universe works in D&D (unless, of course, you're actively changing the universe and its alignment system, which is something you should definitely tell your players to avoid confusion and misunderstandings). Good and Evil (with capital letters) aren't truly tied at all to good and evil (lower-case), though they might often line up with non-D&D moral sensibilities. That's coincidence, though, not how the game really works; alignment is objective because the universe is objective. Hell, I've always considered the fact that the cosmic energies were called Good and Evil is cosmic propoganda or something similar. No amount of moral proof that something is actually right or wrong changes which type of energy the universe assigns to certain actions and people, because the universe doesn't think. It doesn't differentiate between right and wrong, or even consciously make decisions on a person's alignment; people just gather certain types of energy, which oppose one another, when they act and feel a certain way. And whichever god or social group has the advantage at the moment (moment being a relative word, as several thousand years could be a moment for a god, though it's not for people) can simply say (and, in many cases, believe; it's not like they're usually lying) that their ideology is "good and right" or "lawful and structured and safe" while the other side is "horrible and Evil" or "chaotic and irrational." Flip it on its head, just based on the things believed in by Evil and Chaos, and you don't get "bwahaha we're Evil" or "lol I'm taking ur stuf cuz i feelz like it but wait puppy kick lol", you get something more like "we live in freedom, success, and self-realization by not restraining ourselves based on outdated concepts"... Y'know, I could've listed two examples, but that one alone works for both Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral, so I'll go with it.

Anyway, the point is that the names are all subjective, the universe isn't. And in a world like D&D, I really wouldn't want to live in a world with pure Good overlords. Not one bit. I might even prefer Evil ones.

[Sartharina]

There's a reason the cosmic war used to be between Order and Chaos.

As for "Who'd want to be willingly evil?" The answer is "My dark masters give me power beyond your puny comprehension! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Also - Lawful Evil tends to have utterly kickass music to march to. "Yes, I'm going to die and go to hell... but I'll be sent off to the beat of an awesome drumline and driving fanfare!" And they get snazzy uniforms.

As an Evil Overlord, you get the pleasure of having expendable armies wear snazzy uniforms and march to their deaths or victory in your name to awesome music. Seriously - Evil's awesome because of the art.

[Prince Raven]

The Nazis certainly were very snappy dressers.

[Sith_Happens]

Let me see if I can break it down. It's clear enough to me that I might slip up and do a half job.

Okey-doke.

The posters said that some people choose evil because they just want to see the world burn.
These people are akin to the joker.

I was actually the first one to make that specific comparison in the first place, but at this point that's a nitpick. Carry on.

Choice is only valid when one is rational; rather, we reject irrational decisions as a valid basis for action and decision.
The joker is insane.
Insane people are not rational actors.

Basic moral philosophy, although I'm actually not sure whether it applies to alignment (and in fact there's quite a few monsters and published NPCs whose existence implies that it doesn't).

We then get that no one ever just wants to as the world burn. Anyone who 'just wants to see the world burn' is insane.

Aaaaaaaaaand stop right there. A sharing one quality with B does not automatically mean that it shares any other qualities with B. Do not pass "Go," do not collect $200.

As for "Who'd want to be willingly evil?" The answer is "My dark masters give me power beyond your puny comprehension! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

As for the original question asked in the OP, this. In a world where predominantly evil societies are things that actually exist, it's perfectly plausible for there to be people who think of "the wrong thing to do" in the same light that others think of "the right thing to do."

[Hiro Protagonest]

As for "Who'd want to be willingly evil?"... And they get snazzy uniforms.

You mean like these guys?

Spoiler

Show

[veti]

Basic moral philosophy, although I'm actually not sure whether it applies to alignment (and in fact there's quite a few monsters and published NPCs whose existence implies that it doesn't).

It's worse than that, because "sane/insane" - in so far as the terms can be defined objectively - is a spectrum, not a binary switch. Almost nobody is "completely sane" or "- insane", we're all somewhere in between.

The same can be said for "rational". You can't know whether a given actor is being rational or not, unless you know not only their stated motives, but also their values and goals, and the background that led to that actor holding those values. All of which may be quite literally un-knowable - even the actor herself may well have forgotten, suppressed or sublimated a lot of the relevant data.

(Example of irrational? Arguing with strangers on the Internet.)

Is the Joker "insane"? We label him as such, because it excuses us from trying to understand him. But writers have come up with stories that go a long way to explaining why he does the things he does, in a light that makes them seem not irrational at all. If we accept (1) that his goal in life is to humiliate and torment the Batman, and (2) that he doesn't accept any constraints on what he'll do to achieve that aim, then many of his more... outstanding actions seem pretty well judged.

And if he is "insane"... what follows from that? That his choices are "invalid"? Seems to me that "valid" is just another poorly-defined concept that obscures more than it reveals in this discussion.

As for the original question asked in the OP, this. In a world where predominantly evil societies are things that actually exist, it's perfectly plausible for there to be people who think of "the wrong thing to do" in the same light that others think of "the right thing to do."

With or without "evil" societies, isn't that going to happen in any world where there exists a plurality of moral views? If one country thinks bigamy is a crime, while another thinks it's OK, it follows that at least one of these is going to be full of people who firmly and earnestly believe in "the wrong thing". (Quite possibly, both of them.)

[Sith_Happens]

If one country thinks bigamy is a crime, while another thinks it's OK, it follows that at least one of these is going to be full of people who firmly and earnestly believe in "the wrong thing". (Quite possibly, both of them.)

Exactly this, the only difference is that it (hopefully) takes the transition to fiction before you can replace "bigamy" with "disemboweling people who insult you" in that sentence.

[hamishspence]

"Good" is about what's best for the Upper Planes and what will bring about merging the material plane with the Upper Planes. It's not about what's best for the material plane on its own.

Which books say that? I've never seen anything like that in any 3.0 or 3.5 book as the "goal of the Upper Planes".

[Sartharina]

It's the goal of Cosmic Good. Just as the Goal of Cosmic Evil is to bring the material plane and entire multiverse into the lower planes, and goal of Cosmic Law to bring Absolute Order to the multiverse, and goal of Cosmic Chaos to turn the entire multiverse into Chaos.

Exactly this, the only difference is that it (hopefully) takes the transition to fiction before you can replace "bigamy" with "disemboweling people who insult you" in that sentence.

Insults can be serious business, and cause more harm than death - After all, being killed merely hurts your most transient stage of life. Being insulted can hurt your entire legacy for generations to come.

Whether this applies to the real world is a Forbidden Subject on these boards, though. (But do you think Civil Rights would have made it so far had, instead of being personally assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. had been character assassinated?)

[hydroplatypus]

Exactly this, the only difference is that it (hopefully) takes the transition to fiction before you can replace "bigamy" with "disemboweling people who insult you" in that sentence.

I'm fairly sure there were several historic cultures in which that sort of thing was acceptable. Particularly if the one that was insulted was of higher social status than the one who gave the insult.

[hamishspence]

It's the goal of Cosmic Good. Just as the Goal of Cosmic Evil is to bring the material plane and entire multiverse into the lower planes, and goal of Cosmic Law to bring Absolute Order to the multiverse, and goal of Cosmic Chaos to turn the entire multiverse into Chaos.

Where did you read that, though?

Good and Evil behave very differently going by MoTP, BoVD, and BOED - Evil is constantly attacking other evil (even of the same alignment) - Good is not.

So why should Good (and Law and Chaos for that matter) be expansionistic like Evil is?

(Formians might be - but they're not really exemplars of law the way modrons and inevitables are. Slaadi, the counterparts of modrons, don't seem especially expansionistic.)

[Frozen_Feet]

"Assimilation to the upper planes" is actually just the logical conclusion of the rules pertaining to petitioners of gods, as written in Deities and Demigods. People who follow ethos of some specific alignment to its end fuse with gods on said plane, or perhaps the plane itself, and become Outsiders.

What differs for the alignments, is not the "end goal", but rather, the means to get there.

[hamishspence]

"Assimilation to the upper planes" is actually just the logical conclusion of the rules pertaining to petitioners of gods, as written in Deities and Demigods. People who follow ethos of some specific alignment to its end fuse with gods on said plane, or perhaps the plane itself, and become Outsiders.

What differs for the alignments, is not the "end goal", but rather, the means to get there.

Souls assimilating, is a rather different thing from entire planes assimilating.

The idea that Elysium (plane of Neutral Good) seeks to merge every single plane, including the material one, into it - so there's only one plane in the entire multiverse - that seems a huge stretch - and I've never read anything suggesting it.

[mangosta71]

Evil's awesome because of the art.

Sigging (unless you object).

[hamishspence]

Is there anyone who actually plays "the forces of cosmic good" (angels etc) as slaughtering all mortal beings from the Material Plane, of evil alignment, on sight, without further information?

[golentan]

Is there anyone who actually plays "the forces of cosmic good" (angels etc) as slaughtering all mortal beings from the Material Plane, of evil alignment, on sight, without further information?

Even if you go with soul or planar assimilation as your working theory, this makes no sense. An evil mortal, killed, goes to the lower planes, empowering them.

An evil mortal, alive, has the rest of their natural life to be guided to redemption, finding their way to the upper planes and empowering them.

Basically, anyone using the "kill all evil for the greater good" framework is not someone I would want to play with, not only because I would find their alignment decisions horrifying and distasteful but also because it's not even internally consistent.

[Seto]

Alignment objectivism

I second that, but I'll add a caveat. I tend to push things towards the side of alignments as cosmic Energies myself, because I think that's the best way to make it make sense. The caveat is : it's not actually written that way. Or rather, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. The designers seem not to have completely renounced the idea of alignments as subjective indicators of morality. It looks like their ambition was to make Good and right, Evil and wrong, coincide. Hence the confusion with the words - as you have pointed out -, the change of which is the basis for several excellent homebrew rewriting of alignments (see easydamus). Hence the damn blurry line where Good and Evil are objective forces but are characterized by subjective characteristics and expressed through personal choices.

Point is, it's never made clear that alignment and morality are separate things, because they're not. Or else we would be able to quote a manual and resolve once and for all the deontology/consequentialism question in D&D, which is at the heart of most of the alignment threads here. Alignment by RAW is objective, but with just the (respectable) amount of subjectivity our spontaneous conceptions and the designers' fancies gave it.
In other words, you can't play alignment by RAW because it doesn't work. It's self-contradictory.

Mind you, for most games alignment as written is fine, and that's a relief. But for those who really want to delve into roleplaying-heavy, morally ambiguous games, and explore alignment and its ramifications, then the system needs to be modified. I recommend the objective interpretation. Materialistic, even. (Basically, the way I represent it is : there are such things as Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic atoms. They are created by certain kinds of act. They stick to the one who performed that act. Outsiders, auras, etc. are made of them. They react chemically with a soul in different ways. The sum of all occurrences and effect of one of these kinds of matter in the Multiverse at any given time gives you the influence and the advancement of the corresponding cosmic force).

[Sith_Happens]

It's the goal of Cosmic Good. Just as the Goal of Cosmic Evil is to bring the material plane and entire multiverse into the lower planes, and goal of Cosmic Law to bring Absolute Order to the multiverse, and goal of Cosmic Chaos to turn the entire multiverse into Chaos.

Besides the fact that this is observably not true in the general case, the structure of the planes is a product of alignment, not the other way around. The fact that planes absorbing each other is a thing in the first place is itself evidence of this (see: Arcadia).

(But do you think Civil Rights would have made it so far had, instead of being personally assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. had been character assassinated?)

Given the absurd number of character assassination attempts that were in fact attempted on him and all failed, I'm going to say yes.

I'm fairly sure there were several historic cultures in which that sort of thing was acceptable. Particularly if the one that was insulted was of higher social status than the one who gave the insult.

That just supports my argument.

[Sartharina]

Souls assimilating, is a rather different thing from entire planes assimilating.

The idea that Elysium (plane of Neutral Good) seeks to merge every single plane, including the material one, into it - so there's only one plane in the entire multiverse - that seems a huge stretch - and I've never read anything suggesting it.

Not merging itself per se... more like rewriting the other planes. The upper planes want to bring their peace, tranquillity, and justice to the material and lower planes. Redeem the souls of the fallen, raid hell+the abyss and destroy the demons and devils. Bring Peace to Acheron. Bring liberation and exoneration to Carceri.

The Evil Apocalypse is full of Death, Destruction, and Despair. The Good apocalypse is full of Resurrections, Redemption, and Rejoicing. But, in order to bring that around, they need to destroy the hold Cosmic Evil and its ideals has over the world... just as Cosmic Evil needs to destroy the hold of Cosmic Good and its ideals over the world.

The cosmic forces are expansionistic not because of an inherent need to be expansionistic, but because they are intolerant of the opposing force existing in the same multiverse. Or are you saying it's "Good" to stand by idly and do nothing as innocent people are tortured, murdered, robbed, betrayed, sentenced to punishments they do not deserve for crimes they did not commit? Good wants to take over the multiverse because it's Evil to let Evil remain in the multiverse. Law wants to take over the multiverse because Chaos in the same multiverse throws the universe into chaos. Chaos wants to take over the universe because... well, it already has.

Given the absurd number of character assassination attempts that were in fact attempted on him and all failed, I'm going to say yes.

That's because they failed.

[hamishspence]

The Forces of Good stop Evil acts on an individual basis - not by "launching an invasion of the whole multiverse."

Every time a powerful celestial faction has tried to invade the lower planes, it's been a short-term thing - not an attempt to conquer that plane entirely.

And when mortals try and "destroy all evil" - historically, it's turned out very badly:

Heck, even Dragonlance, the undisputed most black-and-white Good vs. Evil setting in all of D&D (to the point that Law and Chaos are an afterthought and the entire world is Color-Coded for Your Convenience), had a Good empire get wiped out by its own gods for growing so zealous and intolerant of Evil that it screen-wrapped to being Evil (or at least Lawful Stupid) itself.

[Sartharina]

And when mortals try and "destroy all evil" - historically, it's turned out very badly:

That's because Mortals are flawed, and the more that congregate, the more those flaws propagate.

[hamishspence]

And Celestials are also flawed - hence so many becoming Fallen celestials.

"Cosmic Good" and "Cosmic Evil" are forces like gravity and electromagnetism are forces - they're intrinsic to the universe - and not intelligent. They don't have goals - only intelligent beings can - some realistic - some not so.

[Sith_Happens]

That's because they failed.

Considering how hard they tried and still failed, asking "Well what if they succeeded" is an exercise in pointless distraction.

[SiuiS]

Did some thinking, about the opposite end of the scale. About why children can be Good and not have this cynicism but as adults we qualify everything and insist on subjectivity. I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.

Why do we believe as youths that a powerful wizard of Good can be equally powerful or even stronger than, say, the gods of Good but still give them their due respect as gods? Why do we as adults fall into the 'you're just a high hD outsider' camp? I believe the answer is love. Good is qualified by love and the respect, care and empathy that brings. We remove that and reduce the moral stance to a bit of calculus and then wonder what's missing.
This is why all the logical stuff doesn't seem to jive with, well, anything ever. The good guys don't meekly accept their place, they care for and respect those who should be above them and try to keep them there, power be darned. Evil isn't judged as bad because it's not a valid intellectual choice, it's judged as bad because it's a literally sickened/perverse emotional choice.

[hydroplatypus]

Did some thinking, about the opposite end of the scale. About why children can be Good and not have this cynicism but as adults we qualify everything and insist on subjectivity. I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Basing your ethics and/or morality around emotional responses makes it even more subjective than rationally debating things. Mainly because what's horrifying to one may be perfectly fine to another. It would make it almost inherently tied to the culture (or personal preferences) of the person in question to make emotions the centerpiece of morality.

As to the examples you give, here are my responses

Why do we believe as youths that a powerful wizard of Good can be equally powerful or even stronger than, say, the gods of Good but still give them their due respect as gods? Why do we as adults fall into the 'you're just a high hD outsider' camp?

Out of curiosity what culture/religion were you raised in that you thought a wizard could be more powerful than a deity, at a young age? I was raised Christian, so I feel I'm probably missing something cultural here. I'll refrain from further response until you clarify.

I believe the answer is love. Good is qualified by love and the respect, care and empathy that brings. We remove that and reduce the moral stance to a bit of calculus and then wonder what's missing.

I can think about morality without adding emotions into the mix and not come away feeling like there's something missing. I might not have the answer to every moral dilemma, but adding in emotions wouldn't fix that either.

This is why all the logical stuff doesn't seem to jive with, well, anything ever.

Speak for yourself. It works perfectly fine for me.

The good guys don't meekly accept their place, they care for and respect those who should be above them and try to keep them there, power be darned.

How is any of this incompatible with logical thinking? If you think you can do more good by not meekly accepting your place, than it is perfectly logical to do something to change the situation. It can also be logical for the good guys to support the existing power structure. The new one has no guarantee of being better after all, and the transition will likely get a lot of people killed/harmed.

Evil isn't judged as bad because it's not a valid intellectual choice, it's judged as bad because it's a literally sickened/perverse emotional choice.

Evil (in the moral sense, not the D&D alignment sense) and bad are basically synonyms. The only difference is that Evil generally refers to a far larger amount of immoral actions, and/or actions of greater severity than bad.

Also, who gets to decide what is a "healthy" emotional response, and what is a "sickened" one? I would think it would change significantly based on who's assigning the labels.

Although now that I think about it, I think we mean different things when talking about morality. I'm using the following definition: "Whatever gives the best outcome for the largest number of sapient beings". Do you mean something different perhaps? If so please provide your definition, and it might clear up the misunderstanding

[Sartharina]

Did some thinking, about the opposite end of the scale. About why children can be Good and not have this cynicism but as adults we qualify everything and insist on subjectivity. I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.

Axe Cop is Lawful Good!

[Bob of Mage]

I see your stupid good and raise you a Kantian Paladin.


He may not lie. No, not even then.

Just wonderful, I love it.

I find it funny that only the LG player in that link saw attacking Orcs as an outright Good act. I guess I just feel that it's really hard for most mortal races to be any thing beside N. I mean really what do most of them do beside what a human might. Yes I can understand a few of them favouring something beside N, but even then many of them would be all over the place.

See it seems to me what alot of you would call good is acting in the best interests of the group, or others in it, and evil is acting against those interests. Many self-serving acts hurt the group so that is why we would call them evil. For example if I were to eat all the group's food myself it would be an evil act (a minor one but still evil), but if I were to find food to give to the group it would be a good act. Eating all the group's food myself before it would go bad and no other person could make it in time to eat any food themselves (say you get trapped somewhere long enough for the food to spoil) would not be an evil act.

The best reason why slavery is wrong is that it gives awful results. It gives awful results because mistreated workers work poorly. How are they mistreated? They are not allowed to be in full control, which is a state that results in the best outcomes or most work done.

The reason why beating the answer out of someone is wrong is becasue it gets bad results. If it always give up the name of the bad guy 100% of the time then it would be a good action. Instead it just gives you what the victim thinks wants you to hear so you will stop hurting them. The key issue is what they think you want to hear, not what is the true answer. If they think you want to hear that there are WMDs in Iraq, at some point pretty much anyone would say that. They might also say the sky if red on one side and brown on the other if you push them far enough.

In the case of Outsider things get a bit weird. They don't follow the same rules as mortals in all regards. An Outsider seems to be compelled to follow what ever their typing right from the outset. In this way they seem to be slaves to it. However we must remember that while being slaves they do indeed have a chance to break free. Those who become "impure" to their nature are a sort of freak and those seem to go against the order of things (thus a STRONGLY Lawful outsider would likely kill such a being while a Chaoitc one would take joy just knowing of such of being).

[Sith_Happens]

I find it funny that only the LG player in that link saw attacking Orcs as an outright Good act.

He explained it himself, it says "Evil" in the Monster Manual therefore it must be true. I guess his version left out the word "often."

[Prince Raven]

He explained it himself, it says "Evil" in the Monster Manual therefore it must be true. I guess his version left out the word "often."

I was unaware adventurers could reach through the 4th wall to gain access to the Monster Manual.

[Sith_Happens]

I was unaware adventurers could reach through the 4th wall to gain access to the Monster Manual.

Maybe he Detected between panels.