Leif
Adventurer
But this means that they can be villains one time and heroes the next. Is there any way to salvage even a modicum of consistency with that?
What does alignment describe? (Forked Thread: What Alignment is Rorschach?)
- Thread starter Celebrim
- Start date
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
If someone is a villain one moment and hero the next, he's probably Evil. Hitler loved and protected his family and country, but he was Evil because of the atrocities he instigated. Neutrality/unaligned isn't a balance between Good and Evil deeds, it's a general lack of action toward either one.
Leif
Adventurer
You're implying that Hitler was evil. I think I resent that. He was a Noble Statesman of the Reich!!
Wasn't he?
Personally, I never had much use for the Book of Exalted Deeds, and I'm pretty happy that it didn't carry over into 4th Edition. For one thing, they never really acknowledged personal freedom and dignity of the person as an element of Good, rather than Chaos. That was a fatal flaw in the system.
I think they hit the mark better for heroic fantasy when they revised their definitions of Good and Evil in 4th Edition. The question became a much simpler one, "How does your character's personal interests measure against the well-being of other (non-malign) sapients?" Good characters put the well-being of others ahead of their own personal interests. Evil characters prey on the well-being of others to further their own personal interests. Unaligned characters don't do either thing reliably.
The idea of the well-being of others was pretty wide. It included life, freedom, and dignity of the individual person. You still have a lot of room for conflict though, based on a failure to agree upon the consequences of a particular course of action. Some characters will believe that adhering to a strict set of rules governing actions is the only way to ensure the long-term well-being of all sapients. Others will believe in making every decision on a strict case-by-case basis to find the best outcome for the foreseeable future based on each individual decision-making context.
Also, values will differ. Some people will claim that it is better that men die free than live as slaves, while others will believe that submitting to slavery is acceptable if it preserves lives. They could both be Good characters because there is no fixed hierarchy of virtues for Good. It can get even messier when grappling with the saving of a life vs. the saving of a soul. Characters that believe death is but a doorway are going to see the well-being of another person very differently than characters that are unconcerned with an after-life. The idea that it is better that one's hand is cut off than it condemn the whole body to burn can be a pretty controversial issue between two Good characters.
Motives behind actions have everything to do with alignment. A Good character and an Evil character may take the same action with the same outcome for completely different reasons. A Good character saves a village at personal risk to help the villagers. An Evil character takes risks to preserve a village so he can exploit the inhabitants.
Rorschach is conflicted. He despises people, but he believes that they are owed the truth - and that their right to that truth is more important than mere survival, even his own survival. On the other hand, he also has a terrible need to see Evil punished, even when it doesn't do anyone any good.
Rorschach really makes me think that Hope is an integral characteristic of Good characters and Good actions. If characters really don't believe in the possibility of an improved ultimate outcome of some sort as opposed to the outcome of inaction or alternate action than, than they're just smacking down the baddies to get their jollies.
The Comedian laid the smack down on his enemies just to get his jollies. The idea of consequences and the world in general were a big joke to him. Rorschach had similar motivations, but he wanted to see the wicked punished rather than just beat up people who angered him in any old way. In the end he had some hope that despite how awful the world might be in the future, part of that future - even just an immediate moment of it - would be a little less awful if some scumbag were taken off the streets, some little kid was returned to her parents in one piece, or someone just stood up and said "No!" to the downward spiral of a hopeless world.
Sometimes the struggle is its own moral end, rather than a means.
- Marty Lund
I think they hit the mark better for heroic fantasy when they revised their definitions of Good and Evil in 4th Edition. The question became a much simpler one, "How does your character's personal interests measure against the well-being of other (non-malign) sapients?" Good characters put the well-being of others ahead of their own personal interests. Evil characters prey on the well-being of others to further their own personal interests. Unaligned characters don't do either thing reliably.
The idea of the well-being of others was pretty wide. It included life, freedom, and dignity of the individual person. You still have a lot of room for conflict though, based on a failure to agree upon the consequences of a particular course of action. Some characters will believe that adhering to a strict set of rules governing actions is the only way to ensure the long-term well-being of all sapients. Others will believe in making every decision on a strict case-by-case basis to find the best outcome for the foreseeable future based on each individual decision-making context.
Also, values will differ. Some people will claim that it is better that men die free than live as slaves, while others will believe that submitting to slavery is acceptable if it preserves lives. They could both be Good characters because there is no fixed hierarchy of virtues for Good. It can get even messier when grappling with the saving of a life vs. the saving of a soul. Characters that believe death is but a doorway are going to see the well-being of another person very differently than characters that are unconcerned with an after-life. The idea that it is better that one's hand is cut off than it condemn the whole body to burn can be a pretty controversial issue between two Good characters.
Motives behind actions have everything to do with alignment. A Good character and an Evil character may take the same action with the same outcome for completely different reasons. A Good character saves a village at personal risk to help the villagers. An Evil character takes risks to preserve a village so he can exploit the inhabitants.
Rorschach is conflicted. He despises people, but he believes that they are owed the truth - and that their right to that truth is more important than mere survival, even his own survival. On the other hand, he also has a terrible need to see Evil punished, even when it doesn't do anyone any good.
Rorschach really makes me think that Hope is an integral characteristic of Good characters and Good actions. If characters really don't believe in the possibility of an improved ultimate outcome of some sort as opposed to the outcome of inaction or alternate action than, than they're just smacking down the baddies to get their jollies.
The Comedian laid the smack down on his enemies just to get his jollies. The idea of consequences and the world in general were a big joke to him. Rorschach had similar motivations, but he wanted to see the wicked punished rather than just beat up people who angered him in any old way. In the end he had some hope that despite how awful the world might be in the future, part of that future - even just an immediate moment of it - would be a little less awful if some scumbag were taken off the streets, some little kid was returned to her parents in one piece, or someone just stood up and said "No!" to the downward spiral of a hopeless world.
Sometimes the struggle is its own moral end, rather than a means.
- Marty Lund
Celebrim
Legend
If you are chaotic good, naturally you'd think such things.
Lawful good people might ask, "How can anyone have any dignity if everyone has freedom?" See for example, 'Croaching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' for a meditation on the uselessness of freedom compared to duty, honor, and franchise.
But I fully agree with you that the Book of Exalted Deeds was a waste.
I think that they are wrong here as well. The implication of the above is that evil is simply selfishness, but evil is I think far broader than that. You can be fully self-sacrificing I think and still be evil. An evil person can still work for a cause (obvious examples ought to come to mind) or for the betterment of some larger group (at the expense of yourself), and indeed, 'lawful evil' doesn't have much meaning if you aren't working for a cause.
Similar Threads
