Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Good and bad things that a Good/Evil character would do
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 1917046" data-attributes="member: 27012"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Not Good <> Evil. Not Evil <> Good. (Clarification: Not Good <em>can be</em> Evil and Not Evil <em>can be</em> Good but they also just might be Neutral -- one does not necessarily imply the other.) You <em>must</em> take Neutral into account when dealing with self interest for this to make any sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 1917046, member: 27012"] 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 [i]can be[/i] Evil and Not Evil [i]can be[/i] Good but they also just might be Neutral -- one does not necessarily imply the other.) You [i]must[/i] take Neutral into account when dealing with self interest for this to make any sense. 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Good and bad things that a Good/Evil character would do
Top