D&D 5E Evil Vs. Neutral - help me explain?

[DMCF]

So many great responses guys thanks! I think working the world around the players known actions is the best route no matter what the character sheet says.


When I find he acts towards the alignment on the principles of individual freedom and chaos e.g., saving the orphans from the orphanage he just set fire to, I will award inspiration. He will still likely be in trouble for burning down the orphanage unless he is able to deceive his way out, in which case he will earn some folk hero status.

 

[Morlock]

Joseph, your comment reminds me of an idea I find fascinating, a party of evil heroes. They're ruthless and amoral, but they kick evil's ass for gold and glory, and have enough sense to play the part of the good guys while the cameras are rolling. It's fascinating to me because I totally think this could work pretty much exactly like a normal campaign, but with more potential for comedy of errors hijinx.

 

[The Human Target]

Joseph, your comment reminds me of an idea I find fascinating, a party of evil heroes. They're ruthless and amoral, but they kick evil's ass for gold and glory, and have enough sense to play the part of the good guys while the cameras are rolling. It's fascinating to me because I totally think this could work pretty much exactly like a normal campaign, but with more potential for comedy of errors hijinx.

Yeah I think that's just the standard D&D campaign.

 

[Morlock]

HT: LOL! Yeah, but the fun would be in the players no longer pretending their characters are good.

 

[Mercule]

Alignments are always a touchy subject, as EVERYONE has different interpretations about them. You should note though that players can have any kind of view, but the only one that matters is the dm's

This. I learned this, in spades, when I started running Vampire: the Masquerade, where there are mechanical penalties for evil behavior. By the end of the second session, I determined that there could only be one definition of good and evil and that only the GM could make that call. I don't care what you believe about various political/religious/philosophic questions IRL, it's got to be the GM. That carried over to D&D.

The good news for my players is that I allow evil characters; as long as you aren't disruptive, I don't care. Also, there are no mechanical penalties for alignments in 98%+ of cases. You can act however you want, but I determine how that's described. Also, I'm more than willing to tell you, up front, whether I consider an act good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.

Here's my high-level:
Good: Willing to actively help someone else out, at cost to yourself.
Evil: Willing to actively damage someone else, for relatively minor gain.
Morally Neutral: Will help others if there is little/no personal cost. Unwilling to inflict significant harm on others except under duress.

Lawful: Tendency to think in terms of groups, patterns, etc. This tends to lead to codified laws, formal honor, and other structured relation to the world. Does not require adherence to all laws, just a desire to organize things.
Chaotic: Tendency to think in terms of individuals, specific circumstances, etc. This tend to lead to disregard for laws, reliance on judgement, and other adaptable relation to the world. Does not require antagonism, just a desire to be free.
Ethically Neutral: Favors neither extreme. Could be actively balanced between the two extremes. More likely to think you're doing too much navel-gazing.

Personally, I hate when people look at Chaotic Neutral as either "crazy" or "get away with anything". Mental health is not an alignment. All alignments have to be meaningful. Chaotic Neutral is an individualistic person who rarely acts with either charity of cruelty.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Joseph, your comment reminds me of an idea I find fascinating, a party of evil heroes. They're ruthless and amoral, but they kick evil's ass for gold and glory, and have enough sense to play the part of the good guys while the cameras are rolling. It's fascinating to me because I totally think this could work pretty much exactly like a normal campaign, but with more potential for comedy of errors hijinx.

Essentially The Thunderbolts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolts_(comics)

 

[The Human Target]

Essentially The Thunderbolts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolts_(comics)

That's what I was thinking.

Its a fun idea!

 

[Morlock]

Essentially The Thunderbolts?

Yeah, though I hadn't made the connection. Which is funny because I really liked the early T-Bolts.

Well, sort of. I was thinking of less redemption, more scheming and deceiving. Like Dark Avengers, but maybe not quite so evil and self-destructive. The Dark Avengers were an obvious time bomb, I was thinking of something more manageable and stable. Somewhere between the Thunderbolts and the Dark Avengers. Penthouse Comix had a group sort of like what I'm talking about, at least, it seemed like that in the first issue. Really amoral, self-serving scumbags, who are villains by the rigorous standards of the standard superhero genre, but, in a way, much more human and realistic than superheroes. As an aside, that's a lot of what I liked about Dark Avengers; not the villainy, but the fact that they were deeply flawed. I'd love to see a book that tried to do that with a super-group, but make them good guys, too. Moonstone's scheming and sleeping around and Ares' obtuse cro-magnon quality were particularly funny standouts that would work in a book like this, IMO.

 

[Flamestrike]

I kinda see myself as CN in real life - I'm selfish without overtly harming anyone, I value personal liberty and freedoms above all else, and I dont follow laws unless by sheer coincidence. Im unfaithful in relationships, and dont place too much stock on family or custom. I dont do christmas or even birthdays really. On the flip side, I dont go out of my way to harm or help anyone. Im hedonistic, rarely make plans, avoid paperwork, prefer to think on my feet and geneally act without thinking too much about the consequences.

If I started taking contracts to murder people (even 'bad people' like rapists or whatever) I would be evil. Holding a gun to a defenceless persons head and pulling the trigger is evil. Killing someone is only really justified when its done in self defence (i.e. to stop murder, or repell an agressor that seeks to kill you and no other option reasonably presents itself). If I started donating my money to charity, being less selfish and caring more about people around me I'd slide into CG.

I've personally always definded good and evil along the lines of empathy and lack thereof.

On a related note, I've never really liked playing CN characters. Too close to home!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I didn't read the whole thread, so here's a grain of salt.

Neutral is about "survival of self first, then family, then friends, then everyone else". Chaos is about "freedom to make choices and personal desires first". Evil is about "getting something for yourself through the suffering and pain of others". Good is about "helping those around you, even at cost to yourself, friends, and family".

CN mixes the "Freedom" with the "survival". The Chaotic part puts them in the "me first, friends and family second...everyone else has to fend for themselves". The Neutral part determines how they will go about getting the "me first" thing accomplished. In this case...Evil nor Good are considerations.

So, a CG person may think "I really want that money! I don't know the guy, so I could kill him...I guess. But then again, he could be a really nice guy with a family. I mean...just because someone wants him dead doesn't really give that someone the right to just take his life. That's not fair at all. Hmmm....naaaa. Forget it. I'm not killing anyone for money." Now, a CE person may think "I really want that money! And they didn't say how I had to kill him...my choice I guess. This is great! I can finally try out that new paralytic poison! If it works I can get in a little bit of fun torturing him to death. Count me in!".

Now, the CN person may think "I really want that money! I'll just take if from this guy now. Attack!" ... Or maybe he thinks "I really want that money! I'll kill that guy, sure!"... Or maybe he thinks "I really want that money! But I'm not up for killing anyone today. Pass."

The big difference is that the CN person doesn't have that "moral compass" to help him decide on what action to take. He doesn't care if it's good or evil. He doesn't care about the outcome at all. He only cares about himself and what he wants at that moment. And yes, for the record, I do see CN as the "insane" alignment. It's a very difficult alignment to pull off, as D&D is a group-based game, and CN characters are whimsical in what they will do. The player has to basically play the character in a way that will, eventually, result in the party killing him or otherwise "not being with him". For CN, think uber-spoiled 7 year old; they want what they want, and they want it now...and they don't care how they get it.

PS: Alignment is determined by the DM...not the player and not the characters "personal upbringing". If the DM says "Killing sentient life" is evil, then it's evil, regardless of the fact that the CE drow cleric lived in Erelhei-Cinlu and there "killing for fun and profit" was a noble and aspired virtue.

^_^

Paul L. Ming