Good and bad things that a Good/Evil character would do

[John Morrow]

This whole discussion is mute. Why? Under what society are we determining what is a Good or Evil action?

You don't have to use any real society. You use the definition in the Player's Handbook or d20 SRD. Specifically, from the d20 SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

That's a quite functional objective definition.

But... What is Good? What is Evil? These are philosophical debates that have no clear cut answers and never will. Also, just because WE in our western society think something is evil, perhaps in a different culture and in a different society those same actions are seen as Good.

In D&D, alignment is treated like color or shape. It's just another trait that living creatures have and it's entirely objective, not subjective. One can look at the grass and see that it's "green". One can do a Detect Evil on a Goblin and see that it's "Evil". It's not culture dependent any more than the color of grass is.

This is why alignments in roleplaying games fail so much, because each player has his/her own interpretation of what is considered good/evil or law/chaos, and then we have to rely upon one person (the DM) being open minded enough and able enough to look beyond just his/her own view on it and take into consideration how everybody else views them.

Alignments fail when the players or GM attempt to use them in a relative way rather than an absolute way because that's now how they are designed to be used. Yes, I know that the idea of absolute morality grates on the modern sensibilities of people used to looking at the world through a morally relative lens. Simiilarly, the idea that a creature can be inherently Evil grates on the modern sensibilities of people used to thinking that bad people learn to be bad and aren't born that way. But D&D is designed to reflect the older world view of a lot of historical mythology and fantasy -- a world view where morality is absolute and creatures can be evil by Nature. You don't have to believe that things work that way in the real world to use them in D&D, any more than you need to believe that people can levitate in the air by waving their hands and speaking a few magic words.

Alignments are a failure in execution because they are so limiting and they try to hard to define Good/Evil/Law/Chaos into such simple terms when these four terms are unable to be answered.

If you don't believe that Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos can be defined in an absolute sense (despite the fact that the SRD and Player's Handbook do just that), then you aren't going to like alignment. Those things mean something very specific in D&D and what they mean is pretty functionally defined.

If anybody can come up with a good answer for them, and convince the philosophers of the world that they are correct, that person would be the smartest individual alive.

I think your problem is that you expect the D&D alignments to be true in a real world that you prefer to see in morally relative terms. In the D&D setting, one need only do the proper Detect spells to answer the philosophers' questions. D&D is a fantasy game and you don't have to like the definitions or their nuances in order to use them.

In fact, in D&D terms, a lot of real people are simply Neutral and not Good, even if they think of themselves as Good. And in D&D terms, if someone is Not Good, they are not necessarily Evil. They may simply be Neutral. Similarly, if they are Not Evil, they may not be Good. They may simply be Neutral. A lot of the world is simply Neutral and being Neutral is not being Evil. It's simply not being Good, either.

Animals are Neutral in D&D and Neutral simply means that one acts out of self interest and personal relationships. Lots of people behave this way, too. Good, in D&D, implies altruism while Evil, in D&D, implies cruelty. The Good character goes out of their way to help others, perhaps to the detriment of themselves. The Evil character goes out of their way to harm others, perhaps to the detriment of themselves. The Neutral character will help or harm others for a reason, but will not go out of the way to do either because of the light or darkness in their heart. In fact, think of "Neutral" as "Pragmatic" and it works pretty well.

A morally relative world view seeks to define everyone as Good by their own standards. That's now how D&D works. D&D defines Good as something very specific. To repeat:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

If you aren't out there making personal sacrifices to help others, don't respect life, and don't have a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, then you aren't Good in D&D terms. You might think you of yourself as a Good person and might be able to justify your behavior to yourself or others. But in the objective and absolute alignment of D&D, you are not Good. You are probably just Neutral.

Think Dead Zone. Here we have a person who knows that by letting one person live and become president, he would start World War 3. So, the only way for him to stop WW3 is to assassinate the person. Is this Good or Evil? Is it Evil to stoop to those measure to kill one person, thereby taking a life (and innocent because he hasn't committed the crime yet) to prevent the future, or what?

And that is where I think Law, Neutrality, and Chaos on the other Axis come in...

 

[Pyrex]

The Dead Zone comparison complicates the issue, but doesn't really change it any.

The RAW defines Good actions and Evil actions. They're broad definitions, but they are defined.

When looking at the Dead Zone, you have to break the action down into multiple smaller actions: in this case, I'll break it down into the Means and the End.

The End: Saving millions of innocent people. According to the rules, this is a Good act.

The Means: Premeditated assassination of the potential president. According to the rules, this is an Evil act.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

In a morally objective world:

Killing orcs and Chromatic dragons=Good, because they are evil. If we don't kill them, we know they will eat our babies. This is not prejudice, this is fact, in a morally objective world. John Morrow has the right idea.


Killing Good people=evil.

Torture=evil.

Worship of devils and demons: evil.

 

[Acid_crash]

If I save a little girl from getting killed by an Orc, with the sole intention of getting a reward from the girls family, and then getting the reward, is that good or evil?

In D&D terms, I kill the Orc, therefore good. If I use that goodness to further get a reward, that's evil. So, the entire action is evil, despite the appearance of good. In D&D terms, this character would be Neutral Evil. Simple enough, easy to do.

I can play the alignments well, I just don't care for the straightjacket game play they cause, and I hate the arguments they cause at the game table.

So I don't use them. I don't believe that even in a game world as fictional as D&D all goblins are evil. Just doesn't make sense to me. Not all drow are evil, not all orcs are evil, not all red dragons are evil. I just do not like the narrowness the game causes in play. I guess that's why Eberron has so much appeal to me.

I agree with what you said JM, as it pertains to alignments, what you say makes sense. I hate them, never go by them even if I am playing in another DMs game. He says to write one down, I tell him to write one down after three sessions but don't tell me what it is. I don't want to know.

 

[velm]

I have to agree with some some DMs using them as straight jackets. I have seen it done to me with a DM.
Maybe as a 'general' feeling you could group all orcs are CE. But would they all follow it? most likely not. There are a few other games out there that use alignmnets, ICE comes to mind as another one. But I never really saw much use for them. You should be able to tell how a person is by their actions, not two words written on a character sheet.
That is why I stick with NG, it is one of the easier ones for me to play (for those DMs that require it).

 

[WayneLigon]

In general order from minor to major

Evil

• Using someone's weakness against them, esp. if it benifits you.
• Humiliating someone, knowing that it might cause them to do something rash.
• Knowingly enabling the weakness or vulnerability of another, esp. if it gets you something you want. (Tempting a known alcoholic back on the bottle, because you happen to own a liquor store and know he'll buy from you).
• Stealing, even though you can afford it, and knowing it will hurt the business owner so badly that he'll be forced to close.
• Getting someone to fall in love with you, then taking them for everything they have.
• Torture
• Torture, because it gets you off.
• Killing someone just for money.
• Killing someone for petty gain. (You kill this guy who always sits at the window seat, because you've always wanted to sit there when you eat lunch and that bastard always gets there first).
• Killing someone just to see the look in their eyes as the light fades. Or 'cause you're bored.
• Killing or maiming someone not because you dislike them, but because the killing will cause another to feel terrible pain. (A girl spurns you, so you kill her boyfriend and arrange it so she finds the body first; you did it just to emotionally scar her).
• Kill a lot of people.
• Train someone to confuse pain with pleasure.
• Rape a child.
• Seduce a child.
• Seduce a child, then turn him into a prostitute to get cash for you.

Good

• Bring someone a present, just because.
• Working to get money or goods for others.
• Make a friend.
• Take time to help a stranger, with no expectation of reward.
• Support a friend even if it costs you.
• Stopping someone from taking advantage of another.
• Standing up for what's right, even if it costs you personally.
• Going without so that another might have something.
• Teaching someone a trade or useful life skill.
• Sacrificing your own happiness so that others might somehow be happier.
• Saving a life.
• Sacrificing your life so that another might live, even for just a few more hours.
• Teaching a child right from wrong.
• Return love.

 

[John Morrow]

If I save a little girl from getting killed by an Orc, with the sole intention of getting a reward from the girls family, and then getting the reward, is that good or evil?

It's Neutral because you are acting out of self interest rather than out of either (Good) altruistic motives toward the Girl or (Evil) cruelty toward the Orc.

Not Good <> Evil. Not Evil <> Good. (Clarification: Not Good can be Evil and Not Evil can be Good but they also just might be Neutral -- one does not necessarily imply the other.) You must take Neutral into account when dealing with self interest for this to make any sense.

In D&D terms, I kill the Orc, therefore good. If I use that goodness to further get a reward, that's evil. So, the entire action is evil, despite the appearance of good. In D&D terms, this character would be Neutral Evil. Simple enough, easy to do.

Killing the Orc is Neutral. Expecting a reward is Neutral. Why? Because both were done out of self interest. Rescuing the little girl without any interest in a reward is Good. Killing the orc because you enjoy killing and got pleasure out of watching it die is Evil. What if a person is motivated by both? If they cancel, on balance, then the person is still just Neutral.

I can play the alignments well, I just don't care for the straightjacket game play they cause, and I hate the arguments they cause at the game table.

They only create a straitjacket, in my experience, if you don't pick them correctly. If you want a more ambiguous or complex character, simply play someone who is Neutral. Not every character needs to be Good just like every human being doesn't need to be Mother Theresa.

So I don't use them. I don't believe that even in a game world as fictional as D&D all goblins are evil. Just doesn't make sense to me. Not all drow are evil, not all orcs are evil, not all red dragons are evil. I just do not like the narrowness the game causes in play. I guess that's why Eberron has so much appeal to me.

It's not a matter of narrowness so much as a matter of certainty. If Evil is a matter of choice and redemption is always possible, you now have to deal with the moral complexities of the Real World and all the stress and heartbreak that goes along with that. There is nothing wrong with that but a lot of people play for escapism.

As soon as you decide that all goblins aren't Evil, all drow aren't Evil, all orcs aren't Evil, all red dragons aren't Evil, and so on, you've turned them all into people, not simply opponents. And just as real soldiers must suffer with the moral complexity of civilian vs. combatant, threat vs. neutralized, friend vs. foe in the urban fighting of Iraq and just as real world soldiers can't simply dispatch a fallen enemy with a bullet to their head (indeed, there was a recent scandal about a soldier shooting an Iraqi who was playing dead), so too would the same rules apply to D&D characters, especially if they want to be Good.

And not only are real soldiers expected to take prisoners but they are expected to feed them, clothe them, give them medical aid if they need it, and protect them. Similarly, police officers are expected to not only respect the rights of those that they arrest but to call in the ambulance if they shoot someone.

So the question becomes this, to me. How many D&D players want to treat goblins, drow, orcs, red dragons, etc. the way real soldiers are expected to treat their enemies or real police officers are expected to treat criminals? Are most players ready to use their healing skills and spells to quickly treat those enemies left in the -1 to -10 HP range so they don't die? Are they ready to carry them out of the dungeon, lead those that surrender out as prisoners, and take care of them? The logistics of all of that in the real world is incredibly complex. And the simple moral complexity of it all can be overwhelming in real life.

By making alignment an issue of nature rather than nurture, all of that complexity goes away. No amount of rehabilitation is going to make that goblin, drow, orc, red dragon, etc. a functioning member of society or, indeed, anything less than a violent menace to society and onging threat to good people. That allows the players the luxury of killing them without all of the moral complexity that goes along with killing free moral agents or real people.

Yes, this echoes back to some fairly nasty (and racist) real world mindsets where entire groups of people where defined as either subhuman or an unredeemable menace to society. Yes, in a real world contest that sort of mindset can be incredibly offensive or even Evil. There is a reason why the nature vs. nurture debate is so bitter in the real world and books like The Bell Curve are considered so offensive. But D&D is a fantasy game and it's really the only way to eliminate the moral uncertainty created by treating every monster as a person.

Moral certainty, for better or worse, is a feature of a lot of historical mythology and a lot of action movies and fiction. I would argue that a lot of role-players like that sort of moral certainty in their role-playing, even if it's not realistic and even if it has some disturbing real world implications. So long as they can seperate their fantasy from reality (e.g., say things like, "I wish Fallujah were filled with orcs so we could simply shoot them all on sight." rather than "We should just treat all of the Iraqis in Fallujah like orcs and shoot them on sight."), I'm fine with that.

I agree with what you said JM, as it pertains to alignments, what you say makes sense. I hate them, never go by them even if I am playing in another DMs game. He says to write one down, I tell him to write one down after three sessions but don't tell me what it is. I don't want to know.

And that's fine. Frankly, I often don't define my characters advantages or disadvantages in systems that have those until a few sessions in, either, and don't like to follow them so I can sympathize with your position. If you don't like the look and feel of alignments, by all means don't use them. I'm simply trying to point out that they are not inherently broken and can be used if one wants.

For the record, the D&D game that I'm currently running uses alignment. With respect to Evil by nature vs. Evil by choice, I've decided to have both. There are creatures that the players can kill with the certainty that they are Evil and cheatures that the players can with impunity because they might not be Evil or could possibly be reformed. This allows me to have my cake and eat it too.

 

[Darkness]

Think Dead Zone. Here we have a person who knows that by letting one person live and become president, he would start World War 3. So, the only way for him to stop WW3 is to assassinate the person. Is this Good or Evil? Is it Evil to stoop to those measure to kill one person, thereby taking a life (and innocent because he hasn't committed the crime yet) to prevent the future, or what?

Sacrificing your morals for good makes you neutral. Zealots of all kinds do it all the time (though many of them go far enough, or fight for insufficiently laudable goals, to become actually evil).

 

[Acid_crash]

Fifth Element had it best I think: Evil begits evil. The taking of a life, no matter the reason or cause, is therefore an evil act because Life is what's important. I add: To take a life you lose a part of yourself. (what movie was that from? )

In the end, it doesn't matter. I play the game to have fun, regardless of whether or not something like alignment is used. After all, isn't having fun the ultimate goal?

 

[Darkness]

Fifth Element had it best I think: Evil begits evil. The taking of a life, no matter the reason or cause, is therefore an evil act because Life is what's important. I add: To take a life you lose a part of yourself. (what movie was that from? )

I like: Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Otherwise, I suck at English movie quotes, having seen most movies translated into German.
Anyway, there's a lot of room between good and evil. Taking a life to save thousands is neutral.