Alignment Traits

[Falcmir]

Wow just have to say I love the traits idea. It's still a simple component but it tells you so much more than just those two letters LG-CE.

As to the debate about selfish being evil, everyone has self interest and trys to look out for themselves but if you are willing to sacrifice anothers well being for your own good then it becomes evil.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I find your definition of Selfishness to be a bit loose. Basically, if someone is neither a total bastard or a generous martyr, they're selfish? Because I'd most likely be a Neutral ruler.

Most people, like you or I, tend to hover between Selfishness and Selflessness, by balancing our personal needs with our concern for the welfare of others. That is what I consider Neutrality. A Good person looks out for others first and foremost (like Mother Theresa), while a Bad person looks for himself first, not taking the concerns of others into consideration (think Ebenezer Scrooge, before the Ghosts).

I don't recall offering a definition of selfishness. I merely presented examples of the kind of neutral behavior that might be called selfish.

You seem to have the assumption that Neutrality is what most people are. That MIGHT be true, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think the assumption distorts the issue, since it leads you to the idea that Neutral is a mixture of selfishness and concern for others. To me, any concern for others' wellbeing is a good trait. So someone who mixes that with selfconcern would be somewhere on the borderline between good and neutral.

The problem with viewing selfishness as evil is that it doesnt leave room for the truly evil. There's a huge difference between the guy who doesnt feel like getting involved (selfish) and the guy who delights in murdering innocent people and eating their young!!

 

[apsuman]

Haven't read the whole thread but I wanted to interject:

Good - SelfLESS (sharing, helping, altruistic)

Neutral - Selfish (self preservation, self providing, etc.)

Evil - Self only (denying others because you don't benefit)

Now circumstances can change this some. But my point was that keeping your stuff yours (selfish) be it food, money, etc. is not evil. At least not without context.

g!

 

[LoneWolf23]

You seem to have the assumption that Neutrality is what most people are. That MIGHT be true, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think the assumption distorts the issue, since it leads you to the idea that Neutral is a mixture of selfishness and concern for others. To me, any concern for others' wellbeing is a good trait. So someone who mixes that with selfconcern would be somewhere on the borderline between good and neutral.

The problem with viewing selfishness as evil is that it doesnt leave room for the truly evil. There's a huge difference between the guy who doesnt feel like getting involved (selfish) and the guy who delights in murdering innocent people and eating their young!!

For starters, yes, I do believe most people are Neutral, only generally leaning towards Good (or Evil in some cases). Good and Evil characters are primarily extremes of selflessness or selfishness. I consider myself Neutral: well-meaning, but lacking the dedication to become a real martyr. An abusive Husband would be Evil, while a caring doctor truly dedicated to healing others would be Good.

And in any case, like I said above, if you don't like my List, just make your own, defining Selfishness the way you like it. It's not like I'm trying to force my view of Evil down your throat...

 

[AussieMoose]

Selfish is not an evil trait. The way you describe selfishness sounds like a neutral attitude. Your definition describes someone who is detached from others--but not even completely detached, since he still enjoys them. To say that the welfare of others "matters little to you" does not even come close to describing true evil.

I would also argue that nihilism is not evil. The only thing that sounds evil in your description of it is the wish to bring destruction upon all humanity. But it doesnt even sound like that wish, on the part of a nihilist, is completely without regard for others. It almost suggests a kind of pity: "Its really better for these poor saps not to live." A truly evil person does not find society and life to be merely meaningless, but contemptible!

Cruelty is on the mark!

I disagree.

Selfishness taken to extremes can be quite evil, but who ever mentioned "PURE" evil (is there such a thing?). Show me a pure evil or pure good person (aside from a divine being) and I will show you a fictional 2 dimensional character.

People have depths, even shallow people. There isn't an evil person who hasn't had a good thought or action ever, it's their strongest most controlling characteristics that define good,neutrality or evil.

An evil person may not find society contemptible (he also may) but merely wish to pervert its laws and uses to further his own goals, no matter the cost to others.

My 5 cents worth, but I may be back soon.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Since when is it evil to be cowardly? Can't a good character be suspicious? Can't an evil character be brave? Can't a lawful character be proud?

And people call me an absolutist. Yes, those characters can be those things, but they're not the ideal. An ideal good character would be Forgiving, Generous, Merciful, Honest, Trusting, Valorous, Compassionate, and Selfless, among other things. An "ideal" (or at least archetypal) evil character is Vengeful, Selfish, Cruel, Deceitful, Suspicious, and ultimately Cowardly because they almost always back down, flee, bargain, etc. as soon as they're life is actually threatened (the exception to this being the honorable villain, who tends to prefer death to living with defeat, but that's actually cowardly also, when you look at it). Characters (or people) will never actually fulfill ALL of these at all times, but they're good guidelines. A character who was Merciful, Honest, Trusting, and Valorous, but had a weakness for hoarding (honestly earned) gold, would still be a largely good character. That one flaw wouldn't turn him into an evil character. But the minute he started lying to people or threatening them for their gold, he should take a dip towards evil on the scale.

"Evil: burns down the homes of innocent people"

Why? A Chaotic Evil person might. Other forms of Evil characters would need a reason. A neutral thief might set a small fire to distract the watch and the neighbors while he broke into an otherwise well-guarded establishment. An uber-good paladin leading an army against an evil wizard-king's city will lob burning pitch over the walls, setting fire to the homes of many innocents. He would feel pretty bad about it, but ultimately, eliminating the wizard-king is worth it because fewer innocents will suffer in the long run.

"Neutral: steals from the wealthy, but not from the poor"

A Good character might do this as well, if the wealthy were abusing their power and position. An Evil character might do it too, in order to become the focal point of a peasant uprising that would put him in power.

"Neutral: keeps the people content and guards his power"

A Good ruler wouldn't guard his power? He would, for example, open the granaries to his peasants rather than his army, even under siege? Not in a million years. ALL rulers guard their power. Even good ones will rule with an iron fist in times of war, because they know that ultimately the people benefit more from their rule than from being overrun by other, less benevolent rulers.

From Ferret: "Evil is selfishness with no cause, its destructive/selfish."

Lawful Evil characters can be very constructive in their selfishness. Lawful Evil rulers can even be great builders and advance their civilization tremendously (think of some of the emperors of Rome, for example). But, ultimately, they are still driven by the increase in their own power and influence.

The point I'm getting at here is that Good and Evil come from one's motivations as much as one's actions. That doesn't mean the ends justify the means. It just means that finding the course of action which is truly GOOD in every context is hard, if not impossible. That's why being good is hard. Evil is easy. Just follow your instincts and the path of least resistance. First instinct: survival - look out for Number 1. If you can balance that instinct with some basic consideration for others, you're moving into Neutral territory. If you can transcend it, putting others ahead of yourself, you're in Good territory.

From apsuman: "Now circumstances can change this some. But my point was that keeping your stuff yours (selfish) be it food, money, etc. is not evil. At least not without context."

Is this intro physics? "In the absence of friction, heat, gravity, air resistance, and every other circumstance that would make this applicable in the real world..." "Keeping your stuff yours" in the absence of context is meaningless. Context is what MAKES it a moral decision. Keeping your stuff yours in the presence of nothing but people whose needs are being met is not evil. Eating a sandwich while walking by a beggar who's drunk out of his mind is probably neutral. Eating that sandwich while walking by a starving child (or other innocent) is evil. Watching or ignoring a guy getting beat-up on the street is evil. Trying to help in some capacity is always good, whether it be running for help/calling the police or direct intervention. If you're a navy seal/martial artist/off-duty cop/10th level fighter/paladin/or somesuch, who is fully capable of intervening, you SHOULD intervene (a paladin, of course, would be required to).

 

[mmadsen]

Since when is it evil to be cowardly? Can't a good character be suspicious? Can't an evil character be brave? Can't a lawful character be proud?

Since there were six or seven Trait Pairs per Super-Trait Pair (e.g. Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic), a character could easily be Good with a few not-so-good traits or Lawful with a few not-so-lawful traits.

If you ask me, should the archetypal Good Guy be cowardly and suspicious, I'll say no, he should be brave and trusting. The archetypal Lawful Good Guy (e.g. Galahad) should be Chaste,
Energetic, Just, Modest, Pious, Prudent, Temperate, Forgiving, Generous, Merciful, Honest, Trusting, and Valorous.

(By the way, I marked Energetic/Lazy and Valorous/Cowardly with question marks, because I didn't feel they were as closely tied to their Super-Traits as some of the others. Pendragon wasn't specifically designed with D&D's alignment system in mind.)

 

[fusangite]

I guess I have a different attitude towards alignment. The alignment system is so completely ineffectual in describing people in a behavioural sense. Paladins behave based on a code, not based on their alignment. A belief in law or chaos is not really a behavioural trait but rather a political trait; good and evil could be used to make behavioural generalizations but not very effectively -- no one's behaviour is so consistent as the alignment system would seem to suggest.

Instead, I use alignment to describe what "team" a person is on. If I were running a D20 Cold War game, there would be three alignments: Capitalist, Communist and Non-Aligned. Thus alignment doesn't so much determine behaviour (though obviously generalizations can be drawn from it to a limited degree) but rather who ones natural allies are and what type of ideology they have.

I find that protection spells, holy weapons, etc. (the only reasons I have alignment in my campaign at all) work just fine with this attitude towards alignment.

 

[LoneWolf23]

My revised List

Decided to revise my list of Alignment Traits. Based on the feedback I got, it seems as Selfishness alone isn't considered Evil enough by everyone. So I decided to shift it up a notch, turning mere Selfishness into the more extreme Egocentrism.

Also, I rewrote Nihilism to make it more proactive in it's Evil intent. I based myself on Dragon Magazine's portrayal of the Drow, who're all convinced they'll end their days devoured by Lolth, and thus live like there's no tomorrow.

Good Traits:

Peaceful - You wish everyone could get along well together, and you've chosen to dedicate your life to encouraging people to get along. You try to avoid entering in any conflict more heated then an exchange of words, and when you see a conflict brewing, you will try to help the involved parties resolve it through peaceful means rather then violence. This does not mean you're completly unable to fight, however. You merely prefer passive resistance, leaving more aggressive means as a last resort.

Merciful - You see value in all life, no matter how lowly and wretched it may seem. You will go out of your way to help the suffering and the downtrodden, and will only take a life if no other options are open to you.

Defender - You wish to protect the innocent and spare them suffering from the hands of those who would abuse and oppress them. You will challenge the odds and the elements, not backing down so long as an innocent is threatened.

Nurturing - You feel it's your duty to look out for those weaker then yourself. You try to improve their lot in some way, either by making their lives easier or by teaching them how to improve themselves.

Friendly - You simply enjoy making new friends. In fact, you think the world would be much better if everyone set their differences aside and made friends with one another. You don't mind stopping to help someone if it means another chance to make a friend.

Evil Traits:

Egocentrism - You care only about yourself, your own pleasures and glory. You might find others to be amusing company, but ultimatly their wellfare matters little to you. If those close to you die, you'll simply replace them like any other toy.

Cruel - You're pitiless and harsh, deriving pleasure from the suffering of others. You will go out of your way to drag on the pain of your enemies, torturing them physically and psychologically. And even those close to you are sometimes subjected to your little "games".

Nihilistic - All things are worthless. The principles and institutions of society are pointless. Life is meaningless, and existance has no purpose. Therefore, you're free to do whatever you want to whomever you want, since there's no reason not to.

Abusive - It's not that you don't love them... It's just that they make it so difficult for you. If only they'd just listen when you tell them something, or actually do as they were told, you wouldn't have to hurt them. You really do try to understand them, and you don't mean to hurt them... But ultimatly, they cross the line, and you know what you must do then...

Intolerance - Your Race/Gender/Religion/Whatever is the one, truly superior, and all others must either tow the line or be wiped out. You will tolerate no exception to this belief, and anyone who says otherwise is either one of them, or worst still, a sympathiser...

Lawful Traits:

Law-Abiding - Society has rules for a reason. They serve to maintain order and keep everyone from turning on each other like animals. Laws are made to avoid conflicts, and thus one must turn to them whenever a social problem arises. When a perticular situation doesn't seem to fit a law, an existing law may be re-interpreted or a new law might be decided by society, but ultimatly the law is the final authority upon all matters.

Honorable - You live by the strictures of a personal code of honor,
living by it's rules of conduct whenever possible. While the code itself may vary from individual to individual, some common elements include being truthful and honest, keeping your word of honor when given, being courteous to others and respecting those in authority.

Director - You recognize the world needs order, and are ready to impose your own if necessary. You despise chaos and seek to organize things as much as possible, either according to pre-existing rules or by making your own rules if none exist.

Conformist - Every team needs players, and you have taken to that role. You're a follower more then a leader. You're the Sidekick to the Hero, or the Henchman to the Villain. You leave taking decisions to others, preferably a strong authority figure. The moment you find a good leader whos ways you agree with, you'll throw your lot in with him and support his decisions.

Traditionalist - You swear by Orthodoxy and conservative values. What was good enough for your father, your father's father and your grandfather's father is most certainly good enough for you. There's no point in change for the sake of change, so stick with the tried and true when in doubt.

Chaotic Traits:

Rebel - You're the eternal rebel, the one who constantly questions authority and strives to change tradition, by any means you feel comfortable with. The reasons for this rebellion vary; some have a legitimate beef with authority, others just do it because they feel contrary.

Loner - You are always alone, even amongst others. You're a wanderer, a lone wolf. For whatever reason, you just don't get along well with others, and prefer being on your own most of the time. This doesn't mean you won't work with a group; so long as you can do your own thing.

Deviant - You just don't fit in with society, and don't feel comfortablewith the status quo. You're not a rebel, however; merely a free spirit and independant thinker who doesn't belong in the society that raised you. You don't really care about the morality of others, but follow your own strange code.

Individualistic - You try to stand out from the crowd to find your own way in life. You choose not to follow conventional thought and dogma, going out to find your own Truths.

Defiant - You go in where angels fear to tread. You seek to survive above all. You will endure, pull through, outlast and outlive nearly any circumstance. You never say die, you never give up, and you never back down.

Neutral Traits:

Builder - You don't care about the high concerns of morality or society, so long as you can continue the work you've dedicated your life to: this could be something grand as building a temple, or simply tending to the farm that was tended from father to son in your family for generations. So long as you can continue with this work, you could care less about morality or society.

Philosopher - Rather then simply blindly following an Alignment, you've chosen to step back and examine the various philosophical elements of the Alignments, in order to get to the Truth behind the Alignments. You're always open to other points of views, ready to debate your views with others.

Undecided - You simply haven't picked a side yet, without strong
feelings going one way or the other when it comes to good vs evil or law vs chaos. This Trait is most often a temporary step towards another step, a period of time when you question your old beliefs, ready to lean towards another set of beliefs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I really like this, because it shows that there's no reason to have - or to try to have - all of the qualities of your alignment.