AIEEE!!! CN is not insanity!!!!

Nifft said:
Self-sacrifice for love would be a large token on the Good side of the scale, though. Perhaps enough to tip it.

Not even.

Even the best person can have their faults, and even the worst can have their perks. If an evil racist kills every orc in the western highlands on a campaign of genacide, then throws himself in front of an arrow to save his wife from an orcish assassin, is he any less evil?

No.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Elf Witch said:
[relevant stuff]...this is not the forum for it.

Is there another board it could be taken to if there let me know I will join you for some good ole debate. :D
Here:
http://townhall.webrpg.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=47
"Gamers; Ethics, and Religion"
I started that forum in 97 or so, but I'm not an active participant...

Though personally I've never understood why politics is not allowed in places like this when it is so relevant - as it is in this case.
 
Last edited:


ssampier said:
According to the SRD, Chaotic Neutral is a free spirit, "He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom." Maybe it's just me but I have a hard time conceptualizing that kind of character. Anyone have an example for me?
I think of "Juicy Girls". That's what we and they called themselves when I was in the military stationed in Korea. I spent almost four years with these people as my neighbors (lived off base as I didn't much like military people) and 'girlfriends' to the ex-pats I knew.

Essentially bar girls that would try to get the patrons to buy them overpriced watered down (so they didn't drunk from a night's work) drinks - for which they would sit and 'provide company' for a few minutes.

They aren't exactly free spirits, being what is legally known as indentured servants - under a contract to work for a period of time to deal with some debt they or their family incurred. That is, btw, how most of the colonists came to America - as indentureds to the wealthy population in order to pay off the fees of bringing them overseas, usually for a period of five years.

Anyway, these girls could best be described as extremely shallow, self serving, and willing to anything for a buck beyond the clearly illegal or repulsive (in most cases). They wouldn't ever really help or hinder anyone without first considering what angle they could put on it for themselves. They view life and people in terms of using and getting used. It's all about managing your ration of using to getting used for the most benefit to yourself.

This is the model for my current PC:

Sisi-Minona Aziri, half-elven bard level 1.

Background: Born a slave in Vrandol, Sisi-Minona was trained for a life as a concubine. At 19 she was sold for 130 gold and set to be shipped off to Bet-Kalamar. Her ship was taken by pirates along the way, and Sisi-Minona found herself bound for the markets in Prompeldia after some time among the pirates. An asault by The Brotherhood of the Broken Chain however won here freedom. Sisi was given clothes, a handful of silver, and dropped off at the nearest port. She had no idea what to do with herself -having never been free- so she sold herself as an indentured servant for a period of five years to a band of traveling entertainers. There she honed her singing and dancing as well as concubine skills until her contract was at an end, and she was let go in Pagalido on the southern border of Tarisato. It was during this time that she also made careful observation of her free companions, in order to learn the basics of surviving on her own. She is now 26 and a cross in appearance between a wood elf and a Svimohz-human (looks sort of like a mix of african and korean with pointy ears).

Personality: Sisi-Minona uses the family name of her mother's master, Aziri. She is not fully comfortable with being on her own, and is thus a little unwise to the ways of the world. Sisi views her sexuality as a commodity -it is not a source of joy, pleasure, pain, or remose -merely of gaining advantage. She likewise sees people mostly in terms of what they want from her or what she can get from them. She has no set goals other than surviving and improving her lot. Some would say she is shallow, and this is a product of her background. For Sisi, morality is a non existant concept -everyone's just out to get advantage over everyone else, people are both users and get used.
 
Last edited:

Tsyr said:
If an evil racist kills every orc in the western highlands on a campaign of genacide, then throws himself in front of an arrow to save his wife from an orcish assassin, is he any less evil?

Sure, the same as if this evil racist also worked to feed the poor (presumably of a race he didn't hate), to educate orphans, to kill demons or to venerate a Good deity.

Is he less evil enough? That depends on a lot of things.

"Self Sacrifice" as an act is 100% good, no wiggle room. What it makes the person who performs the act is either more good or less evil, depending. As I said above, IMC there's no single act that can reliably and suddenly change your alignment.

-- N
 

Nifft said:
"Self Sacrifice" as an act is 100% good, no wiggle room. -- N
I am going to slightly disagree. Good is defined as that which is beneficial. If the sacrifice was not beneficial (or reasonably expected benefit), then it was not good, ie wasted effort. "Fran sacrifces his youth toiling away for the Crafts Guild to afford better future for himself."==good. "Fran Sacrifices his youth watching HoloVids of his favorite Idol whome he worships."==bad.

When other people enter into the notion of sacrifice, win-win resolutions can only be considered 'good' uses of a sacrifice. The party which sacrifices must derive, or expect, some significant benefit to compensate for the sacrifice. "Roger sacrifices his life by fighting off orcs so that his children [whome he values greatly] can escape the orcs attacking his villiage."

Evil enters the the picture of Sacrifice when lose-win, win-lose, or lose-lose resolutions crop up.
Win-Lose: In ancient Aztec society, in order to gain the favor of the Gods to provide rain [benefit], sacrifices were 'needed'. In their case, unwilling peoples from other villages were captured against their will and exectued at the temples, their blood used to 'feed' the gods.
Lose-Win: Succombing to weird philosophical sickness, The City of Sacrifce [lfor ack of a better name] required persons of skill to give up the results of their wealth to strangers whom they could not be expected to know or care about...classic extreme socialism.
Lose-Lose: Life being meaningless, Templar SuperSoldiers of the Future, run around the radioactive Wastes searching for survivors of WW4 and sacrifice them...in order to save them from a future of misery etc.
 
Last edited:

Tsyr said:
Even the best person can have their faults, and even the worst can have their perks. If an evil racist kills every orc in the western highlands on a campaign of genacide, then throws himself in front of an arrow to save his wife from an orcish assassin, is he any less evil?

No.
I disagree. Certainly the racist who sacrifices himself to save his wife is less evil than the one who callously lets her die, or the one who throws her in front of the arrow to save himself.

In D&D this is especially true, because it's clearly possible for an evil person to become good. The change can even be proved in-game, via detect spells. If a strongly LE character can start doing good deeds and eventually shift to LN (or LG), there must be a point at which he is "less evil" even though he still registers as LE.
 

Hecateus said:
I am going to slightly disagree. Good is defined as that which is beneficial. If the sacrifice was not beneficial (or reasonably expected benefit), then it was not good, ie wasted effort. "Fran sacrifces his youth toiling away for the Crafts Guild to afford better future for himself."==good. "Fran Sacrifices his youth watching HoloVids of his favorite Idol whome he worships."==bad.

I entirely disagree with that. 'Good' in the D&D sense is not a matter of expediency or utility, it is a moral force. Hence, "Fran sacrifces his youth toiling away for the Crafts Guild to afford better future for himself." == Neutral (he is workign for himself, but he hurts nobody else) and "Fran Sacrifices his youth watching HoloVids of his favorite Idol whome he worships." == Neutral (he is hurting himself, but he hurts nobody else).

On the other hand, "Fran sacrifices his youth working for a charitable organisation to help those less fortunate than himself." ==good. "Fran sacrifices his youth hiding down alleyways and mugging passers-by for all the gold in their pockets in order to feed his developing taste for alcohol and prostitutes." ==bad.

Good and Bad are defined, IMHO, not by what is useful or not useful, or by what fails or succeeds, but by the INTENTION behind it. If someone sits in the corner of a room staring at the wall because he believes (for whatever reason) it will help somebody else, that is a good act. If someone sits in the corner of a room staring at the wall because he believes (for whatever reason) that it will help himself, at no cost or benefit to anybody else, or because he has nothing better to do, that is a nuetral act. And if somebody sits in that same corner, staring at that same wall, believeing (for any reason whatsoever) that it will help himslef at a cost to others, or simply because it will harm others and he derives enjoyment form that, that is an evil act.
 

AuraSeer said:
I disagree. Certainly the racist who sacrifices himself to save his wife is less evil than the one who callously lets her die, or the one who throws her in front of the arrow to save himself.

What about the racist who loves his wife but:

a) knows he can escape from the situation without his wife's help and that indeed she would slow him down and hinder his escape,

b) knows that if he falls, she will never make it out on her own,

c) knows that he has the power, money, influence, whatever to have her raised, resurrected, whatever if she falls but that she cannot do the same for him (ignoring the point that if he falls, she's toast)

Where do we put him? Is sacrificing her still a good or redeeming act because he knows that if he lives she will live again while if he dies, she's gone for good?
 

In D&D, unlike in Real Life (tm), you can actually know someone else's intent (via Detect Thoughts, Zone of Truth, or even Commune and a well-phrased question).

So, it's not the case that you have to confine your analysis of Good & Evil to observable events. With Magic in the picture, you can ask what the person intended in their heart of hearts.

Finally, "Self Sacrifice" does not mean "jumping in front of an arrow that I know I can survive". That's trying to argue virtue as a technicality, and the Celestial Court isn't friendly to such attempts. "Self Sacrifice" is when you give of yourself more than you know you can handle. There has to be significant (and known) risk to you, or it's not really a sacrifice.

And just in case you don't respect mah author-i-tah, here's the opinion of a well-known author:
"In world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is."
Monte Cook - Book of Vile Darkness - Pg 10

-- N, aspiring author-i-tah
 

Remove ads

Top