Ethics and D&D alignments: which one are you?

[Prime Junta]

I'm a moral and cultural relativist. I look for similarities and parallels between different ethical and cultural frameworks. I prefer pragmatic arguments about things that could be done to achieve a common goal (e.g. "Peace in the Middle East") to ethical arguments about what should be done to achieve it. I get extremely testy with missionaries, evangelists, self-help gurus, or anyone else who's trying to push their ethical system on me. I instinctively tend to side with the underdog, but I'm very wary of unintended consequences -- I don't give money to beggars because I don't know where that money goes and whether it would end up doing more harm than good in the long run. I see the world in continuous tones of shades of gray rather than blacks or whites. I'm very suspicious of charities, political-action groups, or any other grouping with a clear mission to change the world. (In fact, I only contribute to one, and have occasional suspicions about that one too.)

In other words, I'm True Neutral. What are you?

[POLYGON]

I could say I'm neutral, but really am I?
Sometimes one's nationality,relegion or experiences align him/her to take sides, in my view I see that my people are right and their enemies are wrong but I can't trust my judgement because I'm blinded by my love to my country...so eventually n o I'm not neutral, I take sides

[Corwin]

I'm lawful Good, surprise, surprise!! :)

[Prime Junta]

@Poly: being True Neutral doesn't mean not taking sides.

@Corwin: yup, I had you pegged as Lawful Good. FWIW, IMO dte is Lawful Neutral, Magerette is Neutral (or possibly Chaotic) Good, V7 is another True Neutral.

[V7]

V7 is another True Neutral.

As a moral and cultural relativist I'm not sure if I agree with being described on D&D's objectivist alingment scale.

[Prime Junta]

Ah, but the description is only valid within that framework, naturally.

[Wulf]

"Chaotic evil" with heavy doppelganger overtones, a smooth appearance with kind and gentle manner is essential to fool even the most unsuspecting victims....but underneath a raging demon with breath of fire and brimstone ready to tear out the hearts and drink the blood of lost souls.

Phew, got carried away - i'm just a friendly homeloving guy who likes rpg games trying to be "Lawful good" :D

[Bartacus]

deffinately chaotic, but I'm thinking about evil or neutral. I enjoy the darkside in Star Wars, but I always ended up in KotOR with a lightsided character.

[Zakhary]

I would concider myself Lawful Neutral.

To me, "good" and "evil" are pretty much useless concepts when dealing with anything other than subjective events, like "this was really good for me" etc. I don't believe that anything or anyone is "evil" or "good" or that any event can be universally described as being good or evil. You can't do anything that has no negative/positive consequence from at least someone's perspective.

Sorry, got a bit off topic there for a while. We're trying to discuss things here within the AD&D framework - of course :D

So.. the lawful part, then? It just seems that strict adherence to rules and laws leads to best results. While some rules and minor regulations might sometimes seem useless or tedious, I still believe that respecting a common set of rules is the only way to go. I'm 100% against anarchy and chaos.
If we have 10 different people in a room, each having different views of what should be done - or even "what is right/good" - and no one is committed to following a set of rules (for whatever reason), only possible outcome is chaos and death.

Of course, the prerequisite for this is that there IS a sensible set of laws to follow :D
But still...

Regardless, I usually play a Chaotic Neutral character in the AD&D games.
Why? Because sometimes I like to help out the child/woman/senior citizen asking for help... but on the other hand there are occasions when feel like testing my brand new sword... :evil: .. or taking advantage of a shady business proposition...

[akarthis]

My characters are always true neutral because i believe it is more close to my beliefs.Though,i think that in our society the majority of people are between lawful and neutral and good and neutral.And more close to lawful and good.Few are not.
A typical neutral society for me is the wild west

[Arhu]

I consider myself Neutral Good.

I believe in what's good and I highly value fairness, compassion and balance *). While I agree that rules are needed and a commonly accepted norm should be followed, I do not believe that all laws are just. Too much law is just evil in disguise. And anarchy is just crazy.

*) balance in a general sense. I still think good > neutral > evil.

[Prime Junta]

A typical neutral society for me is the wild west

Really? I'd consider it more of a typical chaotic society -- hardly any rules or regulations other than those enforced by local strongmen, and so on.

[Zakhary]

I would have to agree. Doesn't the term "wild" in the beginning pretty much mean just that.... wild. As in uncontrolled. As in Chaotic.

[Remus]

I am skeptic. I do not believe in absolutism, as in the terms of absolute truth, or as absolute objectivity and subjectivity in histriography. I'm agnostic, it's hard to believe that someone have true knowledge about the existence of God. And that probably explain why i tend to be pissed or despise a salesman, especially the one that jumped on my legs and keep saying "this awesome product is prefect for you!". While i'm kind of docile person, i had slammed a door in the face of missionaries that came to me that preached about total submission to God and my predetermined destiny, and proved to be quite an ass**** and evil if provoked by credit card promoter.

Most of the time, i prefer pragmatism and practicality in dealing with the facts of life, and literal truth instead of idealism. To me a little idealism probably won't hurt, but for a politician, they better taste the real live among ordinary people instead of more promises and talks. Still, i also think individuals, either rich or poor, with power or powerless, have their own self-interest, and the world view is limited by their own narrow perspective and limited life experience. And really, when someone commented about someone else as barbaric, which side you want to be? And is that even necessary? While an anthropologist when tried to understand a group of people, including the "unusual" customs (or whatever) of the subject they studied, at least first and foremost they put it in the context of their subject, or based on the subject's social evolutionary background, instead to interpret the customs with set of criteria taken from unrelated sources, or the anthropologist's own social background.

Anyway, i took this D&D Online Alignment Test and end up as: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b)

Chaotic Neutral

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. The chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). The common phrase for chaotic neutral is "true chaotic." Remember that the chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom both from society’s restrictions and from a do-gooder’s zeal.

--excerpted from the Player’s Handbook, Chapter 6

[magerette]

You pegged me, Prime J. I distrust laws, and while I see the need for them, think people should follow their conscience and have their own inner compass as the ultimate arbiter; however that can never be an excuse for exploiting or injuring others to advance one's own interests.

I always play Chaotic Good, unless I'm forced to play Neutral Good to include a druid. :)

Edit: on Remus' alignment test above, I came out Neutral Good.

[Gragnak]

Lawful neutral.....

No mercy for those who commit crimes.

[JemyM]

In my mind I am lawful good. Why wouldn't I be when I set the rules and I am the one to judge?

[narpet]

In the various D&D alignment tests on the 'net I always end up chaotic good... and I think that fits me rather well. Though I would actually classify myself as chaotic good with tendencies toward law.

[Prime Junta]

Hm. Looks like the people I've most cracked heads with here tend to be Lawful Goods. Curious...

[Squeek]

I'm Chaotic Good for sure. I went deeply into true neutral when I practiced Buddhism but was surprised at what I found there.

The cool thing about being Chaotic is that you can be as lawful as you want without being limited to it. And from a neutral perspective, lawful is definately the right way to go most of the time.

[dteowner]

IMO dte is Lawful NeutralI'll agree with the Neutral portion, but I'm not sure about the lawful part. I'm a little too overboard on individual responsibility and independent thinking to really get comfy in "Lawfulland".

[woges]

Chaotic Good for me without much doubt.

[Prime Junta]

You think? I had you pegged as Lawful Good rather than Chaotic Good -- you appear to have a very clearly defined framework of ethical imperatives, which you appear to believe is or should be universal.

"From a neutral perspective, lawful is definitely the right way to go most of the time" is as lawful a statement as I've ever seen, too -- first it asserts that lawful is the right way to go (with perhaps a few exceptions), and then it asserts that it's the right way to go from a neutral, i.e. universal perspective.

That's about as lawful as it gets IMO; the only way to go more lawful is to deny the possibility that breaking laws might ever be ethical -- and very, very few people are prepared to go that far.

[Squeek]

Maybe you're wrong, PJ.

EDIT: OK, that was rude, and I'll ammend that. That struck me a little like, "You're black? Funny, you don't look it" or "You're Catholic? Wow, I never figured you believed in anything."

I found that neutral attracts a lot of neutral wanna-be's (not talking about you), but neutral isn't as easy or as rewarding as it sometimes seems. In real life neutral isn't just a convenient alignment you choose to enable yourself to have the most options.

Neutral can be a bitch. Some would say it's not even attainable for more than a moment at a time, that it's like standing on a razor's edge. By the time you realize you've found balance, you're already off the edge.

I've found that most neutrals turn out to be evil, and that's disappointing from a D&D perspective. Neutral really should be more legitimate and available. But such is life.

So I've decided that I'm the kind of chaotic good that tries to change what he doesn't like without throwing his life away. For some that may not be chaotic enough, and I suppose I can accept that.

[akarthis]

Well,i have to say to those that claim chaotic:it is not enough to think chaotic but to act too.If you think that a law is a foolish one and not worthy to submit you think chaotic.The question is :do you submit or not?

[Fenris]

I guess I'm chaotic-neutral.

[JemyM]

The more moral philosophy you read, the more retarded the D&D alignment system becomes.

However. If lawful is the same as following a codex or having discipline (which I believe it is), I as an existentialist live life to the fullest. I always plan ahead, I always fulfill my plans, I never break from duty, I always chose my path. I always fulfill promises. I like to have control over myself.

I have dedicated my life to improve society and thus improving the life of others. In doing this I have sacrificed a life as an engineer which would give me loads of cash but would make me feel that I wasted a life for cheap materialism. I feel good about helping others.

However, I do this because it makes me feel good. I do this because it makes me feel free. I do this because it makes me fit the ideals I look up to. I even do this because it improves my status and makes it easier to get what I want from others who trust me and feel good about having me around.

So am I just good because there's power in being good. Am I disciplined because being disciplined allows me to escape the chains of human weakness? Am I simply good to boost my own ego? I can only do good when someone need my help, and if someone do, they are weaker than me and I am stronger. This makes me feel valuable. This makes me feel like I am in power.

Am I bad for doing good because of the egoistic reason that I feel good in doing so?

[Prime Junta]

Maybe you're wrong, PJ.

Actually, I have been known to make mistakes... from time to time.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1086/r2c3p0-1.jpg

[Squeek]

Well,i have to say to those that claim chaotic:it is not enough to think chaotic but to act too.If you think that a law is a foolish one and not worthy to submit you think chaotic.The question is :do you submit or not?I see your point and agree that breaking the law would be proof. But I don't think being chaotic implies a slavery to it. Chaotics are chaotic, but their lives have value. It's not out of alignment to make careful decisions.

[Prime Junta]

The more moral philosophy you read, the more retarded the D&D alignment system becomes.

Funny, I think it's quite remarkably good for something as simple. All of morality on two axes -- and it does say something meaningful about it. Can you devise a system that's more descriptive without being more complex?

[akarthis]

You should't compare dnd alignment with philisophy.It's unfair for dnd.But i gree that alignment doesn't help the game very much.

[JemyM]

Funny, I think it's quite remarkably good for something as simple. All of morality on two axes -- and it does say something meaningful about it. Can you devise a system that's more descriptive without being more complex?

1. System X is promoted by person A.
2. Person B points out that system X is broken due to simplicity.
3. Person A asks Person B to produce a better system that is just as simple.
4. Person B cannot produce a better system, therefore System X is ok?

[Squeek]

I thought it was fair to ask you if you could come up with something better since you criticized it, and I'm wondering the same thing, myself.

The D&D alignment system was a source of contention among players from the very beginning. Some liked it more than others, and some didn’t see the point of it altogether. My own opinion is that D&D’s alignment system is probably the game’s most valuable feature.

Forcing players to choose an alignment got them thinking in terms of a role right away whether they knew it or not. Designing the game around those alignments lent them legitimacy and purpose. Gygax asserted reality in a simple way that actually worked and was fun. It was brilliant and paved the way for a new genre.

[VPeric]

I'd probably put myself at lawful good, though I really haven't given it too much thought.

[Lucky Day]

Geez, I hate this question. I've heard this question at least once a year for the last 30 years. The worst part is when I was kid everyone wanted to make their character Chaotic Neutral because they thought that would give them the most freedom to whatever they felt like.

The fact of the matter is its an oversimplification just as the 4x4 Hippocratic Personality system is. The worst part is Pschologists still use the latter one.

People's personalities are far more fluid, complicated and dynamic than a 9x9 or 4x4 grid can point out.

The D&D system is based on Michael Moorcock's system of Lawful and Chaotic in his Elric saga. Gygax, Arneson and Co. didn't want to add Good and Evil but eventually found it inevitable.

Before Gygax died he complained that he thought WotC was going to get rid of alignments altogether (among his many other rants). I say good riddance.

*steps down from soapbox*

[Prime Junta]

1. System X is promoted by person A.
2. Person B points out that system X is broken due to simplicity.
3. Person A asks Person B to produce a better system that is just as simple.
4. Person B cannot produce a better system, therefore System X is ok?

Every abstraction breaks down at some level. The simpler they are, the earlier they tend to break down. Still, some simple abstractions can be useful, and good simple ones are better than bad simple ones.

[woges]

PJ, Never easy to peg myself down to any one of these encapsulated moralities. I could probably switch between quite a few depending on the situation at hand. I'd say CG or NG but not LG for myself. I'm not good at 'following' anything. I read Dune far too early to ever trust in groups (that's a joke btw).

[akarthis]

Prime Junta allow me to say this:the only alignment i hate(in dnd conditions) is lawful good.When a lawful good character was in my party,one thing was sure.Death!!(to make it more specific :paladins)

[JemyM]

Every abstraction breaks down at some level. The simpler they are, the earlier they tend to break down. Still, some simple abstractions can be useful, and good simple ones are better than bad simple ones.

I would go with The Geneology of Morals, but it would be too complex to summarize for average Joe.

[woges]

Genealogy for the Everyman.

Made my GF laugh calling me LG anyway.

[zahratustra]

Neutral Good would be my description within D&D framework

[Corwin]

Hmm...took that little test which personally I think is crap- the questions really didn't relate to me for the most part. The result: Neutral, with no other qualification!! Weird.

[V7]

That test lost me when they started asking questions about the monarchy.

[Corwin]

I was out of it when they asked about elders!! I am one!!!! lol

[Prime Junta]

I took that rather silly test, and came up Neutral.

[Corwin]

HELP,HELP,HELP!!!!!!!!! PJ and I got the same result!!!!!!! :)

[Prime Junta]

HA! I *knew* there was something to like about you!

[Remus]

Who are the real world/fictional examples for each of the alignments? Some interesting examples from wikipedia:

Lawful Good - Batman, Dick Tracy and Indiana Jones are cited as examples of Lawful Good characters. In the real world, the Scout Oath of the Boy Scouts of America also expresses a Lawful Good ideal.

Neutral Good - Zorro and Spider-Man.

Chaotic Good - Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica, Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly, and Robin Hood.

Lawful Neutral - James Bond, Odysseus and Sanjuro from Yojimbo.

Neutral - Lara Croft, Lucy Westenra from Dracula and Han Solo.

Chaotic Neutral - Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen from the TV series Deadwood, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York.

Lawful Evil - Artemis Entreri, Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto.

Neutral Evil - X-Men's Mystique, Sawyer of Lost.

Chaotic Evil - Carl Denham from King Kong and Riddick from Pitch Black.



Hmm... i thought Riddick was quite a likable guy in the movie.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I always consider myself as "chaotic good".

[Prime Junta]

Hmm... i thought Riddick was quite a likable guy in the movie.

I'd call him "charismatic" rather than "likable." Charismatic villains are the coolest. Think Hannibal Lecter and such.

[Zakhary]

Yeah, Chaotic Evil people can be very likeable/charismatic, too.

In fact.....

[JemyM]

I cannot agree that Riddick is an "evil" character. Chaotic sure, but rather Chaotic neutral than evil.

But to me, the "evil" concept is a character driven by destruction.

[GothicGothicness]

Chaotic Good

[V7]

Eh, don't know about their examples of LG, Dick Tracy sure, but Batman is a vigilante and Indiana Jones is a thief. If I was looking for a good example of LG in the movies Balin in Kingdom of Heaven or Ness in the Untouchables.

[Prime Junta]

I cannot agree that Riddick is an "evil" character. Chaotic sure, but rather Chaotic neutral than evil.

But to me, the "evil" concept is a character driven by destruction.

That's too restrictive, IMO. I would link "evil" to "self." Furthering your own desires without caring about the consequences they have for others is evil; it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to take pleasure in or actively seek to destroy or harm them. An evil person would have no qualms about cheating someone out of their money, for example: the suffering caused to the person they're cheating doesn't matter to them, while the money does.

Taking pleasure in the suffering of others is a particular -- and particularly odious -- kind of evil, but it's by no means the only one.

[Zakhary]

I don't know if you have noticed but Batman is very carefull not to kill anyone. Ever seen him wield a shotgun or a smg? He just roughs them up a bit and leaves 'em for the pouliiiice. I would say he is a pretty good example of lawful good.

PJ is right about the "evil" thing. You don't need to kill anyone or destroy anything to qualify.

But I do feel that too many here label themselves chaotic (good) too quickly.
EDIT: Or that might be just me not being able to even begin to understand that how someone could feel that the opinions/thoughts/"morals" of a single individual are more important than the laws and rules that (are needed to) govern and influence us all :D

A society of any size, or even a small group of people, would be doomed without at least some kind of common rules or basic guidelines no matter how many philosophy books or witty social commentary movies or some hippie ideology pamphlets would have been consumed by the members of said society/group. Always. No matter how strong a "moral compass" or deep understanding of "what is good/right" a certain, or all of the individuals, would feel they posses. And yeah, even crappy rules would be better than no rules at all.

EDIT2: Hmm.. that might have come out a bit too aggressive.. didn't really mean it that way. I don't want to offend or belittle anyone('s views). I'll propably stay away from the politics forums from now on... excuse me! :D

[JemyM]

That's too restrictive, IMO. I would link "evil" to "self." Furthering your own desires without caring about the consequences they have for others is evil; it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to take pleasure in or actively seek to destroy or harm them.
An evil person would have no qualms about cheating someone out of their money, for example: the suffering caused to the person they're cheating doesn't matter to them, while the money does.
Taking pleasure in the suffering of others is a particular -- and particularly odious -- kind of evil, but it's by no means the only one.

That would qualify everyone as evil because everyone act by selfish reasons, including them who do good to others.

The first half of your comment seems strictly neutral. It have neither a positive nor negative element to it. Thats simply acting without ever purposefully trying to improve or destroy.

The second half of your comment contain the destruction element I talked about. Mankind do not like losses, therefore losses are considered bad. Cheating someone is causing losses which have a destructive element to it. Not only because it causes a loss/harm to someone, but also because it destroys the trust upon which a society is based on.

[Prime Junta]

That would qualify everyone as evil because everyone act by selfish reasons, including them who do good to others.

You didn't read the message very carefully: the key phrase was without caring about the consequences they have for others.

The first half of your comment seems strictly neutral. It have neither a positive nor negative element to it. Thats simply acting without ever purposefully trying to improve or destroy.

The second half of your comment contain the destruction element I talked about. Mankind do not like losses, therefore losses are considered bad. Cheating someone is causing losses which have a destructive element to it. Not only because it causes a loss/harm to someone, but also because it destroys the trust upon which a society is based on.

In that case, I must have misunderstood you: I thought you meant that evil requires destructive intent, whereas I believe that merely not caring about potentially destructive consequences is evil. But perhaps we're in agreement about this after all.

[Squeek]

Then there's pure evil. I once described how someone had behaved to a psychologist, and as part of her analysis she compared him to OJ Simpson. "Remember how the other people on his flight afterward said he was in a fine mood, that he seemed relaxed and happy?" Some people get a charge out of doing evil things like being cruel. They feel genuinely good afterward.

[woges]

If you read Frank Millers Dark Knight I can't really agree. He kills the Joker and beats people senseless to make lessons out of them. I guess it depends on what Batman you know but Miller's is no LG character.

[Zakhary]

I believe Frank Millers is not the "real" batman. It's an alternative universe or whatever. Not an expert here, though. Might be wrong.

[woges]

The Dark Knight Universe I believe. It's still Batman though. DC are always meddling with their universe.

[Lucky Day]

I enjoyed having parties of mixed Paladins, LE Clerics, Assassins and thieves..and no one would mind. The Clerics regularly healed people and was only LE so they could counter turn. The Assassins would regularly backstab people in front of the Paladin and the thief would pick pocket. Occasionally the Paladin did too. The bard wouldn't shut up - until he died thanks to his d4 hit points.

[Squeek]

When pressed to defend the pirate code, Captain Barbossa had the right idea when he said, "They're more like guidelines than actual rules." He had the good sense to realize there was no real sense to be found there by close inspection.

RPG is like that. Imaginary characters in imaginary worlds are never going to be any good at making sense. It's up to the player to play them well.

[Prime Junta]

I enjoyed having parties of mixed Paladins, LE Clerics, Assassins and thieves..and no one would mind. The Clerics regularly healed people and was only LE so they could counter turn. The Assassins would regularly backstab people in front of the Paladin and the thief would pick pocket. Occasionally the Paladin did too. The bard wouldn't shut up - until he died thanks to his d4 hit points.

That depends a lot on the kind of campaign you're running. If the focus is on combat and adventure, that works great. OTOH if the focus is on, well, role-playing, it doesn't.

My group is a bit of a mixed bag, but in general they really enjoy playing their roles. They've also been quietly sliding towards the dark side over the past few years. The cleric started out as Lawful Good... but in the last session he ended up changing allegiance, and now serves Dantalion, the 87'th Duke of Hell. All for the best possible motives, mind -- that was the only way to save the party from certain doom.

What he doesn't know (yet) is that the minor demon he bound to his service earlier (again, for all the best possible motives) was actually working for Dantalion all along, and the Certain Doom was, in fact, a set-up engineered by him/her/it in order to trick said cleric into switching alliances. I've got everything set up for an absolutely beautiful storyline of helping a bunch of dwarves in their quest to regain their lost kingdom... only to be betrayed, yet again, by the machinations of Dantalion. Also appearing are a whole bunch of planars, including a rogue githyanki pirate captain, some space-hamster breeding gnomes, a material that's the basis of what reality is made of, a witcher, and a whole lotta blood, innocent and otherwise, with Lucifer the First of the Fallen pulling some strings in the background, all against the backdrop of the Blood War.

(Needless to say, this isn't exactly first-level stuff -- my party is at levels 14-16 at this time. We've been playing for a quite a while.)

[narpet]

In the time I've been DM'ing PnP D&D (about 28 years now) my gaming group has only played an evil party once... and it didn't work out well at all. The main reason was because they actually tried to "role" play their characters. They had all chosen Chaotic Evil as their alignment.

On the surface they thought it would be great... an evil party doing (basically) the opposite of what they had done for years and years while playing in my D&D campaigns. But when we started to play it became quickly apparent that it wasn't going to work.

Like I said they actually tried to play the role of Chaotic Evil characters. Well... that's about the worst alignment you could pick (as an entire party) for a group of people to actually work together toward any type of common goal. They were so busy stealing from each other, plotting against each other, fighting each other, etc... that the campaign was unable to move forward. Sure, they could have all generally gotten along, but that would not have suited the true personality of a truly chaotic evil person. So, they excelled at the "Chaos" and the "Evil" of their characters... at the expense of a long campaign.

That was the shortest campaign I've ever run. I think it lasted for about 3 months (where most of my campaigns last from 1 to 2 years). And they all told me that after the initial "fun" of being evil, the game quickly got boring because they weren't truly a party of adventurers... but 6 individual characters with nothing but self-worth and loathing on their minds.

I'm not saying it isn't possible to have fun playing an evil campaign... but I am saying that if your players try their hardest to actually play the role of their alignment... it is almost impossible to have a fun, long lasting Chaotic Evil (party) campaign (IMO)....

[zakhal]

I usually roleplay lawful evil in online rpgs - mostly because Im annoyed by the fake good guys who always seem to be more numerous. And because only evil can really bring out the true good in them. Without evil there is no good. I try to help the fake good guys to be truly good.

The town of Nohkamarh (or what was it called) was quite fun in ultima online. It was full of people roleplaying all kinds of evil characters.

[Prime Junta]

Yup, Chaotic Evil is kind of a non-starter, except under some very specific circumstances: the only easy way I can think of to make a Chaotic Evil party cohere is through fear -- along the lines of a Dark Lord somewhere telling to work together or else.

In order to work as a party, there has to be some ethos the characters follow. An evil party can work together marvelously for a common evil goal -- they can be unwaveringly loyal towards each other, and terrifying to anyone else.

[Squeek]

Terrifying is word evil characters would like to think good ones use to describe them. It's perfect in its mischaracterization, because it fails to imagine how good could honestly disrespect evil while promoting the evil notion that evil is tougher than good.

"Don't underestimate the power of the dark side, Luke."

[Prime Junta]

I'm probably just a coward, but I do find evil terrifying.

[Squeek]

Sure, and it can be terrifying, of course. I absolutely know where you're coming from there. In fact, unless it's lite and clever, I don't usually enjoy evil themes much.

Evil thinking can be pretty tweaked, and that's all I'm really saying. Unfortunately, there really is some of it going on in the real world, and that makes it worth understanding, IMO.

I also agree that evil campaigns tend to be a lot shorter. They're more difficult, definitely.

[JemyM]

If evil is just "I do what I want and I dress in black" as some kind of rebellion against Christianity and conservatives I just find it immature.
If someone intend to play evil properly, I do not think I would want to waste my life playing with them.

[Corwin]

I frequently dress in Black and have done so since I was a teen!! :)

[Squeek]

Bang goes another allusion about God.

[JemyM]

I frequently dress in Black and have done so since I was a teen!! :)

All of my clothes are black as well. That does not mean that I am evil.

[Prime Junta]

I frequently dress in Black and have done so since I was a teen!! :)

I thought that sort of comes with the territory, no?

http://www.halloweenscene.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/18005%20priest%20ad.jpg

( ;) )

[Prime Junta]

If someone intend to play evil properly, I do not think I would want to waste my life playing with them.

What do you mean by "properly?"

My campaign slid towards evil gradually. It's not that the players are a bunch of hurt-people-'cuz-they're-evil type of evil. They have, y'know, reasons and stuff.

For example, one is an aging war veteran and patriot, who has seen and been involved in more cruelty and death over his (pre-game) career than most people ever hear of -- he has killed, maimed, raped, burned, and enslaved. He doesn't think twice about applying as much pain as he knows to an enemy if there's a reason to do so, such as getting information, nor does he question his orders if they come from the one he believes is or should be the legitimate authority in his country. But he would without hesitation lay down his life in the service of his cause. IOW, he started out and remains Lawful Evil.

Another is younger. He started out idealistic, a believer in justice and liberating the oppressed and enslaved, to return to an older, more civilized order. He needed power and influence to achieve those goals -- he was always running into the strong and powerful in his attempts. Somewhere along the line (and this was in-game) he lost sight of his goals, and his quest for power gradually became an end in itself. Now he will seize any opportunity to increase his power, and only feel a twinge of regret if some of the people he set out to help suffer or die in the process. It's all for the good of the cause, after all. He started out Chaotic Good, but is now Neutral Evil.

And so on.

These characters aren't dumb brutal evil who only do evil because it's evil. Hell, they don't even just do evil -- they do whatever seems most expedient at the time. They have reasons -- good, understandable, human reasons -- for what they do. But they're very far down the slippery slope of good intentions that paves the way to hell. (How's that for mixing metaphors?)

[JemyM]

Maybe it's a conflict between my state building theory of good vs evil, and the fact that the distinction good/evil doesn't really make sense once you know psychology.

I have tried to accept that D&D truly is a black & white world with a real "we and them" theme to it, something which I do not believe exist outside the realm of fantasy. This means heroes and villains. But within the heroes category there's also neutral who pretty much look out of themselves first and foremost. If you consider your story above "evil" I do wonder what you make out of the neutral position because to me it still feels like that character aimed at self preservation rather than destruction, which in my book qualifies him as neutral rather than a villain. With the philosophy that once you begin to act on self preservation and stop caring you are evil, then there's no room for neutral at all.

I have read the monsterbooks descriptions of "evil" monsters and pretty much all of them torture, maim, kill, destroy without a good reason for it, far beyond what's necessary for their self-preservation. They are mostly over-the-top hardcore, without any redeeming qualities. That's a description which I can consider "evil".

Maybe it's a socialist perspective that as soon as you begin to act by your own codex and by your own good, you are considered "evil", a perspective that leaves out the shades of gray.

[Prime Junta]

Maybe your D&D world is black and white. Mine isn't, and I qualify this story as evil. It's my world, so I get to do that, so there. :p

[JemyM]

Maybe your D&D world is black and white. Mine isn't, and I qualify this story as evil. It's my world, so I get to do that, so there. :p

Well, I guess that if you skip the monsterbooks, the campaignbooks the descriptions of good/evil in the rulebook etc you can still call it "D&D" without breaking copyright. It's just a bit confusing though.

[Prime Junta]

Well, I guess that if you skip the monsterbooks, the campaignbooks the descriptions of good/evil in the rulebook etc you can still call it "D&D" without breaking copyright. It's just a bit confusing though.

Oh, puh-leeze.

Yeah, I skip the campaign books, other than as material for inspiration. I do have a monster book or three, and all of my character classes are "canonical" D&D material. I have very few house rules either.

About those descriptions of good/evil in the rulebook, let's see what they say:


"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.


Now, my patriotic war veteran has no compassion for others (if those others are enemies), kills without qualms if doing so is convenient (to his goals), and kills out of duty to some evil master (his country and the individual he believes to be its legitimate ruler). How is that not consistent with the description of "evil" in the ruleset?


Lawful Evil, "Dominator": A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.


That describes my Lawful Evil war veteran to a T -- except that AFAICT he doesn't have any strong aspirations to the purple himself; he sees himself more as a servant than a ruler.

Methinks you're the one who doesn't understand the D&D alignment system, not me.

[Zakhary]

PJ, could you please post what the Players Handbook for version 3.5 says about lawful neutral - just a similar concise paragraph as that lawful evil one.

[Prime Junta]

Your wish is my command.

Lawful Neutral, "Judge": A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in dneed or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral.

[JemyM]

1. Now, my patriotic war veteran has no compassion for others (if those others are enemies),
2. kills without qualms if doing so is convenient (to his goals),
3. and kills out of duty to some evil master (his country and the individual he believes to be its legitimate ruler).

The first block can as well be neutral, or even good if you skip Christian "love thy enemy" morals.
Second block can even describe a good character since their goals can force them to kill opponents without qualms.
Bold line is the evil part. That's the point in which he is motivated by evil instead of staying neutral.

It's not about acts and feelings, it's about the goal and the motivation.

[Zakhary]

Thanks PJ. Yeah, that sound's good to me.

I guess the "personal code" in this context is not comparable to an "inner compass" or personal morals - it's something like absolute celibacy, or being a vegetarian or living ones life in an ascetic manner etc.... and really sticking with it.

My personal code prevents me from watching/playing/taking-any-part-in ice hockey. ;)

[JemyM]

I guess the "personal code" in this context is not comparable to an "inner compass" or personal morals - it's something like absolute celibacy, or being a vegetarian or living ones life in an ascetic manner etc.... and really sticking with it.

It depends on what you mean with "inner compass" or "personal morals". If you have a code that you try to keep you are more towards lawful, even if you made that code up by your own. If you simply go by "whats feel right" or act on instinct, or gut feeling, that's not lawful.

[Prime Junta]

Thanks PJ. Yeah, that sound's good to me.

I guess the "personal code" in this context is not comparable to an "inner compass" or personal morals - it's something like absolute celibacy, or being a vegetarian or living ones life in an ascetic manner etc.... and really sticking with it.

Yup, that's how I understand it. "Inner compass" and "personal morals" would be chaotic. "Lawful" implies some kind of explicit, stated, and fairly rigid code of conduct.

[Prime Junta]

The first block can as well be neutral, or even good if you skip Christian "love thy enemy" morals.
Second block can even describe a good character since their goals can force them to kill opponents without qualms.
Bold line is the evil part. That's the point in which he is motivated by evil instead of staying neutral.

That's not what the rulebook says, though, which is what I thought we were discussing here. Naturally, you're free to give the rules whatever interpretation you like in your campaign... without breaking copyright.

IOW, D&D morality as described in the rulebooks is not restricted to the caricatured black-and-white view you claim it's restricted to -- the examples and descriptions provided in the PHB make that abundantly clear. It's clearly not intended that everything but the vilest dark living in the heart of a demon is "neutral."

[Squeek]

Neutral is the "Free Parking" of the D&D world, IMO. It's convenient in that it avoids many of the potential hassels of being either good or evil. And anyone can land there.

[zahratustra]

Neutral is the "Free Parking" of the D&D world, IMO. It's convenient in that it avoids many of the potential hassels of being either good or evil. And anyone can land there.
So, apparently, is society. Most of us are neither "good" or "evil" but somewhere in-between....

[Wulf]

A wise man once said there is potentially good and bad in most of us, the ratio can relate to ones feelings and can vary due to circumstances on any given day (read: variable.) Let us not become robotic reactive machines, instead use compassion, foresight and human understanding through composure and tolerance. Forget good and evil as per game-speke, be humbled to peace and compassionate to fellow humans or we are all doomed.

The D&D rules are for gameplaying perspective styles and should not be taken as a set of rules in real life.