Political Correctness - An end to alignment troubles

[Jürgen Hubert]

You should completely remove such spells from the game or change the way they work, if this reality doesn't suit you. And it would be the logical reality of a campaign where Detect Evil spells exist and where good and evil really are forces that drive the cosmos.

Well, in Urbis, Good and Evil exist, but they don't drive the Cosmos.

Short summary of the cosmology of Urbis (you can read the full writeup here ): There are ten "cardinal points" that embody some of the fundamental concepts of metaphysics. These are Earth, Fire, Water, Air, Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, Death (or negative energy) and Life (or positive energy). These aren't conscious, thinking entities with some sort of "agenda", and they aren't any planes that can be actually visited (as far as anyone knows) - they just exist. Think of them as black holes - you know they are there, and you can feel their pull, but any visit to them would be an one-way trip.

Much, if not most of the supernatural powers on Urbis derive from the interaction between these cardinal points. And each living soul "resonates" with one or more of these cardinal points in some degree. So if you commit evil deeds or think evil thoughts, you will resonate with the cardinal point of Evil - and that's what "Detect Evil" detects.

Naturally, plenty of scholars, wizards, alchemists and so on constantly argue about the "true nature" of the cardinal points, but there's nobody out there who can tell them and who could be considered a trustworthy source. Certainly not the gods - they are entities that sprang up throughout the ages through intense emotions or massive magical rituals, and they weren't present when the cardinal points formed (though some, of course, claim otherwise). And just like scientists in our world, these people haven't found the Grand Unified Theory of Everyone, but they keep looking.


If any of this seems to contradict the D&D rules, please tell me why you think so - I'm definietly interested in your opinion.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

One thing I would say, though, is that fewer people are evil or good than we'd think. Most guards are neutral. Most henchmen, even, are neutral. They're being paid, they do what they gotta do. Most of the time, doing what they gotta do involves killing people who are armed and coming at 'em. That's just self-preservation.

Certainly. The vast majority of people are neutral. They won't go out of their way to help strangers, but they aren't vicious enough to qualify as Evil, either.

Most politicians in this country you're describing might be self-serving and conniving, but they wouldn't go out of their way to harm an innocent, would they? That probably makes them neutral. They're in no danger of becoming paladins any time soon, but they don't derive pleasure from any of the unsavory things that they have to do to survive in this city. Heck, many of them hate the way the city works, but if they didn't fight to stay in control, somebody even worse would take over. At least this way, the populace is protected by someone who wants to minimize the damage to innocents...

Sure, you don't have to be actively evil to be in charge in Urbis. But the temptation is great.

Much of society essentially mirrors the Industrial Age - rulers, merchant lords, and industry leaders see nothing wrong with exploiting the masses, and feeling that the masses should actually be grateful towards them. While social mobility is technically possible, the divide is great - the upper classes recieve the best education and comforts, and want nothing to do with "these dirty, smelly people" except for their cheap labor and the rent in the dirty, run-down tenements where the urban poor live. Many of the upper classes are sheltered from the realities of urban societies, but when it comes to the bosses who decide how to squeeze yet more profit from their workers... well, they certainly aren't going to be good-aligned. And really, those who "go soft" on their workers make much less profit, and thus sink in wealth and social status. In other words, the nasty ones rise to the top.

Confounding this problem are the so-called "Nexus Towers", magical constructs that drain a small amount of life force (expressed in a loss of Charisma) from all who live nearby and convert it into magical energy that can be used to cast epic-level spells or create magical items.

Most realms and city-states use Nexus Towers, even the good-aligned ones - they are vital to the defenses of a city. But good-aligned rulers will only want to draw a minimum of life force, which most people won't even notice missing. But for ruthless rulers, the temptation is big just to extract more "juice" from the slums so that they can produce and sell more magic items. And since the drain tends to make the victims more apathetic, they are less likely to rebel...

 

[Al]

Certainly. The vast majority of people are neutral

Hear, hear! This point cannot be emphasised enough. Most people do not follow a prescribed dogma or alignment, but simply make their way through life treading a path between self-interest and conscience. Very few people indeed think in terms of cosmic good and evil.

the bible

I'm not an experienced enough theologian to rebut this effectively, but I'm an experienced enough ENWorlder to know that this is a dangerous path to tread if the thread is to stay open...

In a DnD society, I do NOT agree that evil people would always find their way to the top.

I would tend to agree. People who tend to find themselves at the top generally tend to be neutral- partially through the sheer fact that they form the majority of a population; partially that good is often self-defeating in practice and evil is often rooted out in the end (particularly with detect spells). However, there is no reason why evil cannot reach the top- wealthy nobles can easily get alignment concealing spells and/or items. More interestingly, evil might be 'tolerated' by a neutral or even good society if there are practical benefits. As a LN ruler, I would be loath to sack my LE chief advisor if he is both loyal and competent (for this example, he is evil for an unconnected reason, such as being abusive to his wife and kids)- and a LN society might well tolerate a LE ruler (again, evil through unconnected reasons) if he proves himself to be capable.

Then why NOT lock up all who are Evil?

For several reasons. The first is, as Jurgen points out, a good society believes in altruism, not arbitrary punishment. Secondly, as illustrated above, there can be pragmatic reasons for not locking up individual 'evil' people. Thirdly, there is the 'macro-social' argument. For example, if a society went around actively locking up 'evil' people, there is a good chance that the 'evil' people, even if erstwhile law-abiding citizens, would go into open conflict against the 'good' people. The result is chaos and a debilitating civil war (which could end up with more suffering in the long run), so it is *less* evil to let evil people carry on their everyday lives. Fourthly, prison capacity . Fifthly, they have not committed any act, necessarily, to harm society or others, so there is no *reason* to lock them up. Being evil does not mean that one has or will commit a crime; it merely means that one is greater disposed to committing a crime. Locking up 'evil' people because they commit a greater level of crimes, demographically speaking, is effectively locking up a particular section of society simply because the crime % in that demographic is higher. I won't spell the next logical step out to you- just read crime statistic by demographic and you can see how chilling the logical extension of this notion would be in practice.

If there is something about evil that is desirable or "good" than its not really evil is it

Two problems for absolutists quickly arises. Firstly, what is "good" and "evil"? Woodelf's paradox must be answered- the notion of two diametrically opposed notion, neither of which is good nor evil; I defy you to answer it. Secondly, you must query whether good or evil is based primarily in cause or consequence. For example, if you murder a tyrant and liberate his people, this is generally seen as good. Now, assume that instead of a freedom fighter, you are a self-interested thief. You have robbed several nobles, and want to raid the royal treasury. Whilst breaking into the royal treasury, you see the king counting his wealth, and kill him. Was it a good or evil act? You acted purely out of self-interest (motive: evil), but the outcome (freeing the people) was good. This dichotomy poses a fundamental and irresolvable problem to moral absolutists.

 

[Mithreander]

Very well stated.

I had just this issue with detect eveil come up ina game that I'm running on this board, HERE, and you can see what problems arose because of it. I'll let you see what problems occured and what the final outcome was.

I think that everything worked out fine, but you may think differently. I think it's a great example and thought to share it with you.

 

[Sabaron]

Ok, here are two worldviews:

A: we must help those who suffer
B: every person is responsible for their own fate

Which one is "good", and which "evil"?

This is a false dilemma. There are more than two answers here, as either could be neutral. In this case, A is good and B is neutral.

Why is A good? It is an altruistic approach, helping others with no expectation of personal gain. B is not evil, however, for it does not intend to hurt others. It is also not good, for it states that it is fine to abandon those in need.

A possible evil alternative could be C: We must torture the helpless. Evil is more evil than you give it credit for.

Now, let's take those a bit further, and postulate some behaviors:

A: the State should provide support for those who cannot support themselves; to do otherwise would be merciless
B: the State should let natural forces (market, social, and otherwise) determine how people live; to do otherwise would be unfair to those who have managed to guide their fate well

Now which one is good?

A is good. Specifically, Lawful or Neutral Good. This is "making a personal sacrifice to help others". A Chaotic Good person is unlikely to agree, however, because this will increase the power of the State over the individual.

B, once again, is neither good nor evil. It doesn't advocate helping others, but it doesn't suggest that you should harm them, either. This is a good Neutral viewpoint.

Allow me, once again, to offer you an Evil C: the State should take resources from those unable to defend them and distribute them among those powerful enough to share in the spoils.

Finally, i'll add some consequences:

A: while it is true no one is miserable, no one is well-off, either, because the redistribution of resources leaves everyone just barely getting by, with none having truly good health or sufficient food--no one has the resources to help any one else, really
B: by letting a few live in squalor, the vast majority lead existences of good health and sufficient food, and a few live comfortable lives with more than sufficient food and resources--and some of them, in turn, use their resources to help the very poor

So, which is evil: causing all to suffer equally, but sligthly, or allowing a few to suffer greatly so that the rest may suffer not at all?

Neither is evil. Once again, your definition of evil is too broad. Evil "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others", which neither system espouses. A is Lawful, with no particular Good/Evil component (and not the only Lawful solution, either), because it conforms to neither "...altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings", nor to the definition of evil given above.

B is probably good, but this is a harder question than the others you have posed. Society at large is neutral; it is the actions of the rich in this case which can be good or neutral. Good rich folks help the poor. Neutral ones leave them alone. Evil ones kill them and reanimate them as zombies to use as untiring labor.

Allow me to again give you a hypothetical evil state: C: By oppressing the majority of the populace, a small minority has riches aplenty. Those at the top are the masters of large fortunes. Those at the bottom scrounge for the meager scraps the rich throw to keep them (barely) alive and working.

[n.b.: this is not a parable of modern society--i've vastly oversimplified things to make a point.]

Evil is not so easily diagnosed, nor is Good. And those who believe that Evil can be identified--or, more dangerously, that they are Good--are the cause of much of the ills of the modern world.

Using a system of objective morality like D&D does, Good and Evil are not very difficult to identify, as they are extremes. A volunteer at an orphanage is probably good. A warrior testing his sword on peasants is probably evil. Most people are neutral.

 

[Wombat]

The more complex this argument becomes, the more I become convinced I have followed the best path and dropped alignment, and all alignment-based skills, spells, and items, altogether.

Since there is no strong notion of what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos and Neutrality even in game terms, keeping these false dichotomies just appears fruitless and pointless.

 

[Valiantheart]

Did you also get rid of Smite Evil, holy word, holy weapons, & the like? Those can be made to function as ad-hoc alignment detectors.

("I lightly slap the guy, doing 1d3-1, and use Smite Evil; if he gets knocked across the room, he's evil," or "Hey, hold this dagger for a minute. Ooh, you look pained -- is that perchance a negative level you're feeling?", or even a good old, "Look, if you're as pure and righteous as you claim to be, what I'm about to say won't hurt a bit.")

Yes and how. Like my original post clearly stated.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Since there is no strong notion of what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos and Neutrality even in game terms, keeping these false dichotomies just appears fruitless and pointless.

Well, there are definitions of these game terms. From the SRD:

?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.

?Law? implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
?Chaos? implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Sounds fairly clear to me. Of course, there can be different interpretation of the "right" course of action within different societies. But hey, even lawful good people don't neccessarily get along all the times - and this makes for interesting role-playing.

 

[Altalazar]

Simple - the authorities already do this - just like in our world - the Exectuive branch casts "detect enemy combatant" and if it registers (which only the executive can see) then that person is locked up with no rights and can never be released or contacted.

Or perhaps the world has a philosophy that people should only be punished for what they DO not what they might have a propensity to do.

Sort of like an alcoholic - everyone knows they have a drinking problem, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't abstain anyway - and then they wouldn't be getting arrested for public drunkeness, even though their "alignment" is "L-Awful Toasted".

 

[Hand of Evil]

Soap box - define evil in your game, define good in your game, define your religon(s). So, you did a little evil, it says here you can confess your sins and be forgiven, oh, lets dip you in some water and convert and start fresh.

The issue with alignment is that gamers (players and DMs) apply current thoughts to a fantasy setting, it becomes open to interpretation. The DM should take that away and say "hey, this is the way it is!"

Sorry -