Alignment Traits

[incognito]

I l_ove_ the idea that neutrality is, or can be, 'undecided' - for who among us has not had a moral dilemma where it was simply tough to know the "right" (good? lawful?) thing to do.

I have this suspicion that DMs should start off all their player's Neutral (alignment restrictions notwithstanding), and allow their actions to mold their alignments over their first few levels. If I has a nickel for every greedy paladin...sheesh!

Also, there has been a somewhat of a general consensus that selfishness is evil. Let's not confuse that with ambitiousness - for if we cannot be ambitious, then we do not strive for personal gain or growth, and this is a basic living tenet. the difference comes when our desire for personal gain is strong enough to be willing to harm other to ensure are success.

Notice the use of the word ensure. Competition is not an evil trait, yet every contest has a winner and a loser. In a world without unlimited resources, your gain is another man's loss...does this make you "evil" - I think not? In game terms, your "quest" for a magic item, used for the party good, prevents others from using the same item. If they are good, and perish because of it, does that make your possession of the item an evil act?

No, not unless there is causality - ie, the magic item you took was a stone of strength (for a girdle of strength) that kept a damn from flooding a small village.

I will say that complex moral or ethical dilemma’s are the corner stone of many truly engaging games - Our own <b>PirateCat</b> once set up a scenario where an evil succubus had seduced an important NPC contact, who was very friendly with the PCs. TO make matters worse, the town this helpful NPC ruled was VERY intolerant of demonic "taint" and would've stoned the NPC if this fact had been revealed. Then there is the whole idea of trauma of an NPC having to lose the love of his life - either by having it revealed that his love was a demon, or simply convincing the demon to seek greener pastures...

This is a truly diabolical storyline, because there are no great solutions, much like life...and there was not "hack and slash" conflict resolution. It simply had to be role-played.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Selfishness is hardly an evil trait if it is seperate from malice and an utter lack of regard for others (IMO). A person who runs away from danger may be a coward, but that doesn't make them evil. Indeed it can be argued that the worldview that sees them as such is a falling away from the good in itself, as empathy and understanding are replaced dogmatism, and self-righteousness.

There's a difference between being selfish and fleeing from danger. A compassionate person can flee from danger without becoming evil (or selfish). However, they should feel remorse for anyone they abandoned in danger, if there is any way they could have helped that person. A good person who was no warrior wouldn't necessarily jump into a fight in an alley with thugs, but he would run for the watch or grab a nearby cleric who COULD do some good. Simply running away and deciding it's not your problem IS evil. (This is why, as much as hated that it was the way they ended the series, I had no problem with Jerry and the gang being sent to jail.)

btw- I think you were backhandedly asserting that I lack empathy and understanding, and that I applying some form of self-righteous dogma in my philosophy. Forgive me if I interpreted that wrong, but it comes off as a nasty thing to say to someone who gave you the 30 second version of a philosophy.

 

[Rhialto]

My apologies if sounded that way--I know nothing about you, and have no idea about your emotional qualities whatsoever. My statement meant, simply, that such a philosophy fails to recognize human fraility, and forces all to live to an absolute, regardless of circumstance. Your example has the advantage of detachment. It's easy to play the hero when it happens to you from the outside. Now if your hypothetical character is jumped in the alley with the others, we have a chance to measure his courage. If he panics and runs, forgetting the others in his flight, does this make him evil? I would say no--it merely makes him human. However by your guidelines, it would.

 

[LoneWolf23]

It seems I've sparked quite a bit of debate with this thread.

Allow me to explain my decision to make Selfishness an Evil Trait. I've played the In Nomine RPG by Steve Jackson Games, and in that game, one of the defining Traits of Evil is Selfishness. Demons are focused entirely on their own personal worlds of delusions and desires, and have no qualms whatsoever about stepping on whomever they must to satisfy those desires. Good, on the other hand, is defined by Selflessness; caring enough about other people that you're willing to make compromises, or even sacrifices for them.

I chose to portray Selfishness as an Evil Trait because that's how I see it as. A Selfish person thinks only of himself, and sees other people as either obstacles to his desires or tools by which he can achieve them. He doesn't really care about other people beyond "What can they do for me?"

But you know what? If you disagree with my opinion about Selfishness, just make your own list of Alignment Traits that represents how you see those Alignments.

In the meantime, I have some new Traits...

Good:

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:

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:

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:

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.

 

[mmadsen]

The Pendragon game presents 13 different Trait Pairs, and, as an exercise, I divvied them up into Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil Super-Trait Pairs:

Lawful/Chaotic
Chaste/Lustful
Energetic/Lazy(?)
Just/Arbitrary
Modest/Proud
Pious/Worldly
Prudent/Reckless
Temperate/Indulgent

Good/Evil
Forgiving/Vengeful
Generous/Selfish
Merciful/Cruel
Honest/Deceitful
Trusting/Suspicious
Valorous/Cowardly(?)

(This came up in an old thread and a more recent thread discussing Pendragon.)

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Lawful/Chaotic
Chaste/Lustful
Energetic/Lazy(?)
Just/Arbitrary
Modest/Proud
Pious/Worldly
Prudent/Reckless
Temperate/Indulgent

Good/Evil
Forgiving/Vengeful
Generous/Selfish
Merciful/Cruel
Honest/Deceitful
Trusting/Suspicious
Valorous/Cowardly(?)

This is unsound, IMHO. 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?

These formulations miss more often than they hit.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Evil: burns down the homes of innocent people
Good: actively tries to put out the fire
Neutral: reports the identity of the arsonist, for a reward

Evil: steals whenever the opportunity arises
Good: takes from villains, for a good cause
Neutral: steals from the wealthy, but not from the poor

Evil: rules with a heavy hand, despises his subjects
Good: rules with great compassion
Neutral: keeps the people content and guards his power

See what I mean? Selfishness is neutral. Evil is worse than selfish.

 

[Rhialto]

I agree. I think part of the problem is that people are taking two different games as models, both of which have very dualistic virtue models. In Nomine for example pits you as either Angels of Heaven or Demons of Hell. Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but attempting to transcibe those morals to humans is a rather difficult process at best. And Pendragon is more concerned with the concepts of "noble" and "ignoble" than good or evil--a topic that carries with it many differences.

Basically, I wouldn't base D&D concepts off of them...

 

[LoneWolf23]

Evil: burns down the homes of innocent people
Good: actively tries to put out the fire
Neutral: reports the identity of the arsonist, for a reward

Evil: steals whenever the opportunity arises
Good: takes from villains, for a good cause
Neutral: steals from the wealthy, but not from the poor

Evil: rules with a heavy hand, despises his subjects
Good: rules with great compassion
Neutral: keeps the people content and guards his power

See what I mean? Selfishness is neutral. Evil is worse than selfish.

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).

 

[Ferret]

Evil is selfishness with no cause, its destructive/selfish.

I think I fit the Honerable/Deviant, nurturing section.