The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: hawklen on June 07, 2007, 11:44:13 PM
-
Reading on another server's wiki about alignments and morals, law and chaos.
Please dont go on about "This is layo, our ways are superior" or any other bunk. This is just very interesting reading, and I think a fun topic to discuss.
Alignment - Avlis Wiki (http://wiki.avlis.org/Alignment)
-
Nice link. I especilly like the part in the CG section where it mentions that these same people view laws and governments as an outgrowth of evil. What it doesn't touch upon though is how the alignments view themselves. It is very seldom that an evil person would ever consider themselves evil, or that a chaotic person ever views their crimes as anything but "true justice". In our minds we paint ourselves to be a mirror of our own ideals reather than the physical reality of what we are, and in the same manner we distort and demonize that which we oppose. See for example the us vs them mentality of modern politics and you'll find that to a republican thir own party can do no wrong when their hand is caught in the cookie jar, and the same goes for democrats and their own. Rather than both parties trying to lead by example and fix the problems of their own hierarchies, they merely point fingers at the other side and denounce one another in this great football game of groupthink. Much the same happens no doubt to the forces of good and evil. We self justify every sordid act we do and project our guilt into rage at the ubiquotous "other side" as the source of all our internal turmoils and wrongs in the world.
Magneto for example, views himself as a victim of the holocaust, a prime example of human intolerance, so his mistrust and anger focuses on humanity as a whole. Since he's a mutant, he can somewhat detach himself from the sygma of humanity in his own mind, but that doesn't prevent him from commiting murder, treachery and even genocide in order to take over the world; the ends justify the means. In his mind, he's not some petty tyrant trying to conquer out of greed or lust for power, but a great savior bringing the much-needed order that the world will die without.
Even more unsavory criminals like mafia members who dont hold such lofty ideals of themselves aren't without their megalomanic constructs. In many of their minds, they view the FBI and governmental agencies to be just as dirty as they are, and therefore see themselves as more honest about how they do business. Truly, our lives are more directly negatively impacted by porkbarrel projects, mismanagement and wars waged via political distortions than some bootlegger, counterfeiter or smuggler, though or legal system is devised so that the lawgivers have entirely different laws for themselves. This is my personal opinion, of course. Being a chaotic person, I view all government as evil... and the government, relying heavily on its blanket assumptions of popular consent despite its heavily encoded legalese demon-tongue, views folks such as I as being born from an unforgivable evil above all others; disobedience.
These alignments are nothing natural, but each and every one simply a 1st-person-point-of-view observation of opposition. While good and evil sit opposed, neither of them truly see where they sit on the big graphing paper of persistancy; one X is another man's Y. Each individual's moral compass faces North, just every man's North could be found in any of the four scattering winds. In short, there is no fundamental reason why there could not be a murderous Paladin, a reckless lawman or a meticulously structured rebel... these moral constructs cannot even begin to describe the personal development of the individual, nor can they offer any clues to their world goals and personalities. We are *all* Lawful Good; all those who oppose us are the bastions of Chaos and Evil. Those who refuse to see this; that law, ethics and morals are entirely subjective are most often the greatest "evil" of all... for when one's own reality is unassailably good and righteous without equal, what is everything else but "evil"? And since everybody who disagrees is evil, it is therefore acceptable to bring the evils of violence and oppression upon them all. Is that not the truest evil in itself, to twist everything good about your morality in order to serve evil?
-
Nicely put!
-
True lonny, but for an alignment write up I think its really good, and gives more information on the alignments, making it easier to play for newcomers. LORE is a bit.. on the short side, and widely open to interpertation to both extremes, and can be used for more abuse. Thats just my opinion.
And I love your examples. Very well put. But I view myself as CN. *winks*
-
What it doesn't touch upon though is how the alignments view themselves. It is very seldom that an evil person would ever consider themselves evil, or that a chaotic person ever views their crimes as anything but "true justice".
The second sentence of the quote explains the first. No alignment guide needs to explain how characters view themselves for two reasons.
First, as you said, every character has the notion that he is good and proper and doing the right thing the right way, so it would be silly to say that again at the end of every alignment description.
Second, alignment isn't a description of what the character thinks IC, but an OOC mechanic used to indicate the general background motives and inclinations of the character. Alignment doesn't determine what you do, but why you do it.
In your first example, I'm sure Magneto would think he is doing the right thing, but it doesn't matter that IC he believes he is a good guy because the alignment rules aren't about what characters believe IC. By the D&D alignment rules, he still qualifies for Evil because he doesn't believe in the sanctity of life. Killing first, without consideration for the other person, is one of the cornerstones of what it means to be Evil in D&D.
To branch off the second example, Al Capone may seem to have a Good alignment when his soup kitchens are considered, but the motive behind them wasn't Good. The soup kitchens were a PR stunt to improve his image; he didn't do it because he cared about the people but because he cared about himself. This is just like an Evil Cleric healing other party members. She isn't doing it because she has the injured characters' best interests at heart, but because the other characters are a "necessary evil" (heh) that furthers her goal of staying alive long enough to use their skills to take the goodies farther into the cave for herself.
-
Awesome discussion so far! Keep it up!
-
I just want to add my two cents about the whole good and evil thing. We have had many threads on this subject and still it bugs me. I really could not put my finger on why for the longest time but I think I have it now. You see if a good PC does something evil they get dinged (or should) so if a evil PC does something good they too should get dinged. Please dont come back with the old intent argument because it does not hold water. If you are evil just because you have secret evil thoughts well guess what... everyone has secret evil thoughts! it is actions that define us. If you go around doing good things all the time with groups of good PCs, guess what? You are good! The intent thing really gets me, say my good PC kills the helpless old man because he had a sickness that would have infected everyone else. His intent was to save all the others. But his act was evil, there was other way to save the people. So if the evil PC saves the little girl from the ogres and returns her to her family and says he did it just to get the reward, where is the evil? there are other ways to get the reward. He could kill the whole family and take all there stuff. He could save the little girl and then infect her with a sickness that would kill everyone she goes near after a month. Then come back and loot all the dead bodies. Now that would be evil. But just saying "I am only doing this for the reward and I would not care otherwise" but still doing the good deed is not evil. So come on folks if you are going to be evil step up and be evil. Save the little girl and then hold her hostage for more reward. Make a deal with the ogres that after you return the girl you will help them raid the town for a split in everything. Do something evil. Thus endith my rant
-
Ah, if you ever manage to rent the two samurai epics, Yojimbo and Lone Wolf & Cub, both protagonists do a pretty good job portraying evil heroes. Yojimbo is a ronin mercenary who hires himself out to the highest bidder to act as a bloody-handed bodyguard to various feudal houses during turmoil, not really caring who he works for as long as he gets paid. Often times he will flip flop back and forth between the houses after he intimidates the losing house into forking over the ryo, and he rarely does *anything* generous. He then curses the farmers and peasants for being weak, and when circumstances result in him "accidentally" saving them by killing a rival who's tormenting them, he'll often be disgusted by their gratitude and threaten to kill them if they won't stop their shameless grovelling. In the end, he usually kills every single bandit and renegade ronin in the city, and leaves the town in relative peace... just to stir hostilities up somewhere else so he can profit from them. The fact that he winds up killing vast legions of evil bandits and corrupt politicians in his way is only tertiary to his goals, and yet the net result of his actions are that the world is a better place.
Lone Wolf & Cub is about a father and son samurai team who wage a bloody path of vengeance in order to avenge their mother/wife's death. Unfortunately for the childs, he's about 1 and a half or two years old when this path begins. The father Lone Wolf almost even slays his son to spare him the pain of the path, but decides instead to train him into a killing machine on their "Path of Evil". (which Lone Wolf refers to blatantly verbatum) He pushes the baby in the cart along towards the shogun, stopping from town after town beseiged by bandits and corrupt rulers... and never really goes out his way to stop any injustices. In one of the episodes he even blank-faced watched an innocent woman murdered in front of him,. but just walks by since the bandit leaves him alone. When the Yagyu Ninja Clan and the bandits start getting on ghis case trying to take his head for bounty, then it becomes the bloodiest saga of it's time. He cuts apart everybody and everything that stands between him and the Shogun, even well-meaning samurai and law enforcement. Many times when his own son is held captive, he goads the villains to go ahead and kill him, saying that the child and he accept death along their journey, for they are already dead. (great parenting, huh?) By about that time, the little samurai toddler shoves a blade in his captor's neck, alreadya cold blooded killer and not even 3 feet tall.
Still, for both sets of protagonists in these films, you still root for the decidedly evil adventurers. They fight a greater evil and have their own code you can respect about them. (well, maybe not Yojimbo, he's pretty socially vile)
Check those films out if you liked Kill Bill and can stand seeing decapitated body parts flying all over the place. They really put morality in a whole new perspective.
-
seen them both many many times (own them both) and I disagree with them being evil. Yes Yojimbo is gruff, rude, greedy, wily, and a bit vile (not unlike some dwarfs I know LOL) but he is not evil. In the end his plan ends up with all the bad guys being mopped up.
Ogami Itto was LG in his service to his lord and when he was betrayed he became more CG as he had to put service to his lord behind his quest for vengeance. He called it "The Road to Hell", because it was against all that he had stood for honor and loyalty to his lord. Because he had to leave the rules and laws of the samurai behind he saw himself as being on "The Road to Hell", . But he was not evil he was fighting evil and sometimes to destroy the monster you must become like a monster.
Lone Wolf and Cub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub)
-
I have to agree with jrizz first post. The old; I am evil in secret so the others dont know, that I know, that I am evil. Well guess what.
The good guys goes this way then.
I know that you dont know that I know that you are evil and therefore I will have you help me save that little girl.
But the evil guy goes.
I know that you know that I am evil. And knowing is a lot of guess knowing actually and non knowns exactly that knowing for a fact not knowing that you know if I know or not not know right now that knowing
eehh I just look at the post and just found out I cant do what I wanted to do, but I post it anyway. ;) it is the essence that counts!
-
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.
What everyone here seems to be missing is "bang for your buck" evil. Evil characters could reasonably do "good" and not get dinged for it, if the good was a small part of a fantastically evil plan.
Stage One: Rescue little girl from rampaging ogres. Ostensibly, good. Bad guy is rewarded, smiles and flowers all around.
Stage Two: Defend a town from a marauding band of trolls, as part of a larger adventuring party. The group is lauded, and celebrated by the mayor. A few surreptitious bribes to a bard here and there and our character's part in the tale gets exaggerated with each telling.
Stage Three: Our (by now) hero saves the capital city of the kingdom from, say, a dam burst, with the use of some magical item/powerful spell. (He may, in fact, cause the dam burst, in order to make the save.) He is lauded, and taken to the palace for the King to congratulate him personally.
Stage Four..., here, finally, his plans can come to fruition. Really, he could take his pick when he was building his reputation so long ago, but there are now options:- (Straightforward) Safely unguarded in proximity to the King and the Heir-Apparent to the throne, he kills them both and vanishes into the shadows/teleport/dimension door. The kingdom is thrown into civil war, particularly since he'd been working quietly to increase friction between the two most powerful dukes in the kingdom. Not only do thousands, even tens of thousands die in the resulting chaos and starvation, but our character becomes rich from the war profiteering.
- (Ambitious) Having won the acclaim of his ruler, our character asks for a private audience with the king, to discuss some ideas he has to improve the kingdom's justice system and standing army. With a sufficient Persuade check, he and the King retire to a drawing room, where they spend hours in conversation. When our character emerges, accompanied by the dominated King/doppelganger in the King's form/Himself, disguised by illusion, while the apparent "character" is in fact another illusion, the King announces that he shall take the man on as an adviser... and the Kingdom is now a puppet government.
- (Really ambitious)Our character takes a post as the King's adviser after nothing more sinister than some careful persuasion, aiming to bring the hammer down on a meeting between kingdoms in the next month or so.
This, I feel, is what Private Development Journals could be used for quite adequately. Since datestamps can't be doctored by players, simply lay out your evil plan (in draft form) when you start on the path. If you later alter it slightly, that can be detailed in your character's "secret journal" as well. If, later, you abandon the idea altogether, or push it impossibly far into the future... then you can be dinged for the good you did, because suddenly, it was good for no *ahem* good reason.
If, along the way, you can get away with poisoning/infecting/raiding a village or three, all the better. But there can be method behind the madness of an evil character famed for his good, generous acts.
Aside from that, I'd agree with Gulnyr - it doesn't matter how a character perceives themselves - in D&D, Good and Evil are not relative values, nor are Lawfulness and Chaos. These are how their characters are objectively measured against the world - not morals, not personal viewpoints.. just absolutes.
Oh, and I'd disagree about slapping "Evil" on Magneto. While he's not amiss to holding people hostage, or killing them if they're determined to stand in his way, when he's not totally insane, he tends to try and avoid needless casualties; not because he doesn't want the trouble - he's too confident for that - but because he values life. He simply values human life a lot less than he values mutant life. :) I'd call him Neutral, on the Good/Evil axis.
-
To darkstorme: So all PC evil characters can be played by this? Funny thing is that you see npc's in all aspects but not by players. I merely see it as an excuse and people being scared about confrontation and intensive RP, but that is just me.
I guess I could draw a parallel to the topic about charisma and if the stat has anything to do with your character being beautiful or not and why do I mention it?
It all comes down to the player behind the screen and his background story, which will of course take all the advantages instead of seeing the great opportunities there can be in having disadvantages as well and the interesting RP you can have.
Last thing is meant to be understood in general and not only about alignments.
PS: The question is of course rhetorical, no offense dude.
-
Darkstorme... that was an excellent summation of what I'd thought of after reading the original post. I was literally going to elaborate something almost identical but I won't because you've said it so perfectly.
Well done!
And yes, I'd have to agree with you, Magneto is True Neutral.
-
Magneto is true neutral? I'd say more like Neutral Evil with some hefty Chaotic Evil outbursts. Evidence?
X-Men Issue Four: Thwarted by the X-Men, he attempts to destroy an entire nation of innocents with a nuclear warhead out of spite. His own servants Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch wind up revolting and dismantle the bomb themselves before the X-Men even reach it.
X-Men Issue Seven: Convinces the Blob to work for him, but winds up launching missiles directly at him while fighting the X-Men trying to destroy everybody on the battlefield
X-Men Issue Eighteen: Jetisons the X-men into space to die a cold, slow suffocating death. He also strands Toad on an alien planet instead of rearding his loyalty by bringing him with him.
By around this part of the original series, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch disband from the Brotherhood of *Evil* Mutants, disgusted with how vile he is. Further in the series he starts showing some good tendancies here and there, but they're mostly offset by his attempts to do things like set off every nuclear missile in the world to destroy it for no appaant reason, Create viruses designed to genocide all of non-mutant humanity, attempts to use Cerebro to genocide all humans, tortures Wolverine by ripping out every bit of adamantium from his bones out his skin, doublecrosses literally everyone, especially those loyal to him and in the rare cases he teams up with the X-Men against a common foe, after they win they come to blows because Magneto wants to kill everybody he beats.
True Neutral is more like Namor sitting at the bottom of the Ocen in Atlantis; not really rising to do anything unless some silly government decides to stick nuclear subs in his waters, or The Watcher, that big powerful alien guy who just sits there studying everything and refusing to get involved. Magneto on the other hand ALWAYS gets involved, usually starts everything and tries to murder people on a daily basis. He doesn't even have enough honor/personal code to avoid overtly trying to murder his own loyal followers. If that's not evil, I don't know what is. Circumstances or no circumstances of being formerly oppressed, such behavior is most decidedly self-serving and vile at heart. I would speculate that even if he were to be totally successful in his mission and kill all the humans, he wouldn't be content unless he was the unopposed ruler and bane of all mutant kind as well. His perverted world-dream equates to little more than absolute dictatorship under his thumb, despite whatever justifications he spouts as he's murdering the world. The only real thing that seperates him from Apocalypse is that he actually has a plan and some form of self-justification cheme going on in his head full of lofty misguided ideals. Apocalypse however, is simply a Chaotic Evil, short-thinking tyrant who wholley and unapolegetically *knows* that he's evil and seems to be proud of it, like some twisted sociopath serial killer like Richard Ramirez. His only goal is "only the strong survive", a strange form of Darwinism in which he is justified in killing as many people as he can simply to reward the survivors with continued existence. He's most assuredly mad, however.
Note however, that I'm going by the original X-Men series from '63-2003 and not the revamped Ultimates version or the new animations. They most decidedly made him more morally ambiguous by then, and were far more sympathetic to his terrorism.
-
The X-Men was a comic book too? What a rip off! It was a great movie and they had to go ruin it with a comic book.
*puts stick away, snickers quietly*
-
lol, yeah. The Movie ticked me off, eyecandy though it was. Having Iceman and Angel as little kids when Wolverine's already a full-fledged member is just sacrilidge! All the true dorks of 1963 *know* that the original X-Men were Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Iceman, Beast and Angel!
Of course, Hollywood also gave us black Kingpin, tattoed Bulls-eye, Ghost Rider who can feel a stab wound after transforming back human but not a single bullet wound, the Green Goblin mech suit, pretty-faced Doom... not to mention Bennifer Daredevil... blech!
-
The only reason that you don't see the PCs of "the whole spectrum" as often as NPCs is that the NPCs' true colours are revealed for story purposes, while the PCs keep themselves well-hidden under the guise of, say, a Toranite Paladin or an Aragenite priest.
All of the players who have been approved to play evil have been rightly approved - it is VERY difficult to properly play most types of Evil, and frankly, not many people can pull it off. I would have a fair bit of trouble trying to play anything other than the LE mastermind type, myself.
--
Edit: Lonn, you're my comic-book hero. :)
-
My opinion in (kinda) brief:
Good vs. evil makes sense. I understand it as it applies to D&D, although I think that three differentiations alone is a bit narrow. The article in the link does a nice job of describing them.
Law vs. Chaos makes no sense to me, because it's trying to capture too much inside of the terms. The article gives a rather vague description... who really views everything as ordered or disordered? It's not realistic.. Further, it makes the assumption that those who see the world in a certain way try to promote that side of things, which is just silly.
Where does a druid fall on the axis, who sees deep and structured natural order, but openly subverts human law? What about a Bhuddist monk, who seeks to cultivate order and discipline in the self, but sees all existence as fundamentally "empty" and transitory? A weak law officer, who upholds societal order with diligence, but personally has little order or discipline. A mobster, who falls lock and step with the internal structure of the mafia, while thumbing a nose at the governmental law? What about the philosophical anarchist, who ardently believes that if and only if individuals can control themselves, society is unnecessary, and in fact evil?
What about myself, who personally has some anti-authoritarian tendencies, but who believes in abstract that the ideal society is a highly ordered one?
There are too many different type of law and order, and too many different types of chaos and disorder.
Perhaps if you separated it into natural dis/order, human imposed or societal dis/order, and self dis/order it might make a bit more sense, but even then, it's a very complex idea, and there will be characters that have difficulty with it.
-
Darkstorme, what you wrote was very close to what I am saying. All of these evil PCs do the good parts of what you posted but where are the evil parts? Well it cant really be done because it takes DM interaction for a evil PC to be evil. And it takes a ongoing story-line to support such a plan. furthermore if you are a evil PC that some how shows it (black robes, evil visual, holy symbols of your evil deity, and such) well you should expect to not be trusted. So if the paladin that is also in the group sees you getting all buddy buddy with the king well he might just step in and say something. And that is not metagameing.
Of course a evil PC that worships Corath should take those opportunities that come up in quests, like "accidentally" triggering a trap that will kill half the party as long as they can do it without harming themselves.
I have really been toying with submitting a NE PC. I prefer playing the hero type. BUt I think it would be fun to play a evil PC and gather together other evil PCs and do evil things.
-
There are always infinite degrees of law/chaos/good/evil, and like a graph chart, the total distance between two personalities is often more significant than the side of the axis they're on. Many times a slightly evil person can tolerate a slightly good ally vs a vastly evil foe. I have a prime example of this from a quest I was on the server I used to play on before Layo,
Lands of Acheron was a server with both an evil town and a good one on opposite sides of the server. All the evil characters started in Mhordiem and all the good ones in Thanador; Neutrals got to choose on creation and all alignments were open. One of my characters Fenthon Quill, was decidedly the most purely evil character I ever played. His history was that originally he was a butler for a Red Wizard who opposed my buddy Skabot (who was originally an evil Red Wizard evoker in the olden days, not the neutral sorcerer he is today). In order to thwart the wizard, Skabot and one of his Red Wizard allies kidnapped Fenthon and had his body possessed by the demon Quill. Since this was Quill's ticket out of the Abyss, he revelled in bringing the maximum amount of pain and mindless suffering on the world of Acheron, purely for its own sadistic merit. The newly bound demon/butler then proceeded to slay all of the wizard's family while he slept, and feed them to him for breakfast the next morning, poisoned. Afterwards he ventured to Mhordiem to wreak hell and bloody havok as only a demon could. He was a servant of Demogorgon the two-headed aberrational arch-demon from the Brine Flats, whose ultimate goal was to unleash his dread lord on Earth to devour all in sight, and shared much of the multiple personality schizophrenia of his master. Further, he was an avowed cannibal, and if that wasn't bad enough, he delighted in tricking others to eat human flesh as well, especially clerics and paladins.
Anyhow, one fine day when Synpox was GMing, he came across a woman and child survivor of a bandit raid who begged him for help. He hopped on the opportunity and kidnapped the baby from her by force, and told her that if she did not go to Thanador to warn the good heroes, particularly the paladin Wiscoin, that if they did not meet in the desert town at a certain time, he'd sacrifice the child to Demogorgon. The only chance the child would have is if Wiscoin himself came to the place and offered himself as sacrifice in the baby's stead. Fenthon then rallied the whole town of Mhordiem to his side, except for Murat who was a Neutral who fled to Thanador to join the heroes and stop Quill.
Chief among Fenthon's allies were Xander the blackguard of Hextor (Sir Gunky), Shalwraith the priestess of Nerull (I think) and a handful of other assorted evil characters to boot. It was literally the Sinister Six all over again. Anyhow, as the evil group made its way to the desert, Fenthon and Xander kept corrupting the child through evil rituals, feeding it Xander's blood in a baby bottle, chanting over it, etc... and along the way Fenthon would cut off a toe here or there and leave them on the trail for the adventurers to find. Yes... this character was not above baby-torture... now thats bloody evil.
It turned out however that he went a little too vile for the party's tastes, and despite their communal hatred for the Thanadorians, many of the evil group began to plot against Fenthon. Even Xander was starting to turn, trying to plead with Fenthon to spare the baby so he could raise it as a blackguard of his own. By the time the goodly adventurers got there, they saw Fenthon holding a blade to the baby's throat screaming "back! back I say!" while the evil-folk were trying to talk him down. (many of them were female characters, and their maternal instincts overrode their dark souls by that point) Then, of course, some goodly character tried to tackle Fenthon from behind... and he made his reflex save...
Immediately he slit the baby's throat, then used the little tyke as a club against his would-be attacker, bludgeoning her to death. Half the goodly folk who didn't even know what was happening yet attacked the evil party, who hated them as well, so about half of the the evil party started fighting back. In the ensuing chaos, the *other* half of the good and evil parties BOTH started chasing Fenthon around, and only Shalwrath and Xander were vile/loyal enough to stay by his side and fight back. In the end, the whole quest wound up being one big mindless tragedy... only Wiscoin and a handful of the "evil" team survived, though they were the ones who were trying to protect the child. In the end Wiscoin dropped to his knees and screamed to the heavens at his god, going "Why?! I would have gladly given mine life!" Meanwhile, Fenthon was in Sigil (where we went to wait after death) to mock the heroes and villains alike. After that quest, Fenthon was pretty much hated in *both* cities, almost to the extent that the pirate/brigand Mick Patson was. It brought joy to wretched little Fenthon's heart.
So the moral of the story is thusly; Never be more evil/good/lawful/chaotic than your underlings can stand, or they will likely revolt and thwart your efforts. Even though Fenthon was the epitome of what evil and chaos could be, he was so far down that path that even the whole litany of evil couldn't stand him... it was totally like Apocalypse vs. Magneto w/ the X-Men. The Mhordiemites were evil, most assuredly; but they were still human. Fenthon on the other hand was an evil so alien and encompassing that most career criminals and mass murderers would think of themselves as saints in comparison.
Admittedly, it's pretty fun to play evil, and we really never had much OOC animosity on that server, as Lessay Fair as our rules system was. Gunky used to always say that the greatest joy he had in playing his character Xander was that whenever he logged in, immediately he'd get those little server messages... "Wiscoin now Dislikes you! Bram now Dislikes you! Nellie now Dislikes you!" until the whole of Thanador set him to PVP. :D
-
hmm kidnapping now that give me an idea for my evil PC *grins*
-
Further, it makes the assumption that those who see the world in a certain way try to promote that side of things, which is just silly.
This may be more my opinion than the actual intention of the system, but choosing an alignment other than Neutral does mean that a character would most likely promote that view in some way. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are chosen because the character is intended to be fully committed to those concepts to a significant degree.
The Player's Handbook describes True Neutral as a lack of conviction (in most cases). It also says a True Neutral character sees Good as better than Evil, since Good neighbors and rulers would be preferable to Evil ones, but that the TN character himself isn't personally committed to upholding Good in any abstract or universal way. That, to me, implies that the non-Neutral alignments generally include a personal commitment to promote those ideas and ideals in some way to some extent. This is why most NPCs (the average townfolk and such) are TN; they lack the conviction to be Lawful or Chaotic, Good or Evil.
Promotion of an idea doesn't have to mean wearing a gorilla suit and carrying a flashy sign while standing on the street corner yelling at the top of your lungs. It can be as simple as a Lawful character trying to convince the party that breaking into a house to gain information is the wrong way to go about things, or a Chaotic character arguing the opposite. That is promoting the alignment.
-
Gulnyr:
I was referring mostly to this statement, the sentiment of which is echoed in the specific alignment sections:
"Lawful characters view the world as essentially ordered, or at least a place where order must be established and maintained. Chaotic characters see no such order, and usually disdain its establishment unless necessary"
To my mind, the most ardent sides are the ones who see themselves as rebels: The archetypes of these would be the crusading paladin who sees the disarray around, and struggles to impose order, and the revolutionary rogue type, who sees only the order around, and tries to break it down.
I just don't think that there is necessarily a correlation between the way someone see the world and the way they try to impact it.
-
I just don't think that there is necessarily a correlation between the way someone see the world and the way they try to impact it.
If a character is Lawful, and is therefore personally committed to promoting the ideals of the Lawful alignment, which can be defined as believing that the world is or should be ordered and that order should be protected and preserved, how could his view not affect how he interacts with and impacts the world?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure I'm following what you are saying.
-
the world is or should be ordered
This is where my hangup is, saying that the world IS ordered and saying that the world SHOULD BE ordered, are to my mind, worlds apart.
Likewise, I'm not really disagreeing with what you're saying, I think we're just talking past eachother a bit, sorry if I haven't been as clear as I could be.
-
Technically, wouldn't true neutral be the most peaceful alignment of all? While the good folks talk up a storm about nonviolence, they certainly don't shy away from the smiting side of things when they're faced with evil. Neutrals usually don't get involved unless somebody takes the initiative to stir them to action.
Therefore, conflict in itself is not necessarily evil, since evil is merely an idealogical construct in opposition to good and conflict is simply what happens when the two actively oppose eachother like opposite ends of a magnet. But... if conflict itself is often considered to be a chaotic state of fluctuation, then it stands to reason that law is peace... unless the laws legalize war, and most wars are historically waged by legal establishments. Therefore law is stagnation and chaos is both growth and entropy. As growth, entropy and stagnation are all but simply natural states in the same cycle, then that would mean that law is chaos and evil is good on a long enough scale...
Man, I love micro-macrocosmic doublespeak.
(uses the philosophical feat: Eschew Operational Definitions)
-
This is where my hangup is, saying that the world IS ordered and saying that the world SHOULD BE ordered, are to my mind, worlds apart.
I agree that they are not the same thing. I don't think they are mutually exclusive or irreconcilable, though, if that's where you're leading.
But you've lost me beyond that, because I'm not sure how the difference between "is" and "should be" is related to this:
I just don't think that there is necessarily a correlation between the way someone see the world and the way they try to impact it.
-
So all PC evil characters can be played by this? Funny thing is that you see npc's in all aspects but not by players. I merely see it as an excuse and people being scared about confrontation and intensive RP, but that is just me.
It all comes down to the player...[who] will of course take all the advantages instead of seeing the great opportunities there can be in having disadvantages as well and the interesting RP you can have.
Stephen covered some of my response to this, but I've one more concise point to make as a rebuttal to this statement. Evil (at least the evil that survives) isn't dumb. I'm sure making a Neutral Evil thug of a half-orc might be fun, but sooner or later some Toranites or Rofireinites will come around, round him up, and toss him in jail or execute him. Worse still, a Voraxite might simply administer the latter punishment personally. Furthermore, if an evil character is brought up among those like him (dark elves, for example), he will, by necessity, have to be clever, in order to avoid the machinations of those bent on his position - or anything to which he might bar the way.
So, clearly, a truly successful evil character will likely have to play-act, 'cause they darn well don't want to be caught - they look out for their own skin. (The one exception might be fanatics of an evil deity, but they would likely be a short-lived character.)
I just don't think that there is necessarily a correlation between the way someone see the world and the way they try to impact it.
I realize this has been chosen before as a quotation, but I have my own take on it. As Gulnyr expressed above, a large part of what makes up alignment is not the character's view, but their actions, and their personality, when viewed objectively. Someone seeking to impose order on a lawless frontier town is more likely to view themselves as a peacemaker, or a guardian; someone seeking to break an oppressive government regime is more likely to view themselves as a liberator. Neither would think of themselves as a rebel, since that is invariably what the established order views them as. It is actions and personality, more than thought processes, that illustrate alignment.
Technically, wouldn't true neutral be the most peaceful alignment of all?
Perhaps in real life - but in Dungeons and Dragons we have vigorous Neutrals - those who believe strongly in the cause of Neutrality, balance in all things. Chaos sewn here, order imposed there, and no one force allowed to predominate. And usually, the way to prevent such forces from predominating is to oppose them. While there might be some peaceful, apathetic Neutrals, and some pacifist, "Can't we all just get along?" Neutrals, we also have the Neutrals that aim to be the middle pitted against all sides. So ascribing peacefulness to True Neutrals is as false as declaring that all Good-aligned people are warlike.
(And now, just 'cause it's been running through my head:
"Your Neutralness! It's a Beige Alert!"
"If I don't survive, tell my wife, "Hello.""
)
-
I've one more concise point to make as a rebuttal to this statement. Evil (at least the evil that survives) isn't dumb.
True. By saying aspects I meant them all. ;)
Further my comment about charisma pointed actually indirectly towards this point - being dumb.
I hope that players who sign up for a clever evil person also have a certain level in the stat intelligence. A dwarf, orc, drow, figther, rouge, mage or what ever.
Which again points towards advantages and disadvantages.
-
Stephen covered some of my response to this, but I've one more concise point to make as a rebuttal to this statement. Evil (at least the evil that survives) isn't dumb.
I am not saying that evil PCs have to wear their evil on their chests. All I am saying is where are the ACTIONS that define them as evil. With good PCs we see the actions that define then.
-
*sits back in his chair smiling, watching all the i nteresting arguments going on*
-
Yes, but with Evil PCs, if anyone that they don't want seeing their evil, does, then that's a Bad Thing for them.
Bob wants to burn down John's house. So he gets himself invited to go watch The Game at John's house... And invites Steve. When Steve leaves the room, Bob makes an excuse as well, and sets fire to the place. He comes back, though... Before Steve. When the house really starts to burn, Bob blames it on Steve, acting horrified at the terrible thing Steve's done! John (assuming he believes it) still thinks Bob's a good guy, and Steve is evil. But Bob's still the evil one.
Or an alternate example.
Frank is a serial killer. He just loves cutting people up, oh yeah. But during the day, he works for a forensics lab, solving crimes and bringing in "the bad guys." Now, the guys he works with think Frank's one good dude. But does this mean that, when he goes home at night, he doesn't still open his closet to smile wickedly at his current victim?
-
Frank is a serial killer. He just loves cutting people up, oh yeah. But during the day, he works for a forensics lab, solving crimes and bringing in "the bad guys." Now, the guys he works with think Frank's one good dude. But does this mean that, when he goes home at night, he doesn't still open his closet to smile wickedly at his current victim?
Nope, you got my vice wrong! I simply want to blow up the world... I could care less if anyone's on it or not at the time. Just so long as there's an Earth-shattering "KA-BOOM!" I'll be happy.
-
Stephen that is all fine and good and I am fine if the evil PCs are doing evil things and we just dont see them. But I doubt that is the case since it would take an army of GMs to keep up with them. You see the evil acts dont happen unless someone sees it, a GM is someone. Behind closed doors going "oh I am so evil" just does not cut it. This is the issue with having evil PCs at all, the only way they can be evil is if a GM will deal with it.
-
Stephen that is all fine and good and I am fine if the evil PCs are doing evil things and we just dont see them. But I doubt that is the case since it would take an army of GMs to keep up with them. You see the evil acts dont happen unless someone sees it, a GM is someone. Behind closed doors going "oh I am so evil" just does not cut it. This is the issue with having evil PCs at all, the only way they can be evil is if a GM will deal with it.
Wait a moment. Are you trying to use the "if a tree falls in the woods" argument?
First-off, I don't consider that a valid argument, as the fact that noone else sees something doesn't mean that its occurrence is negated.
Secondly, that's what Character Development Threads (both public AND private!) are for.
-
This is a game world not RL so the "if a tree falls in the woods" argument holds water :)
If you are just saying you are being evil and not DOING evil things, we call that cheesing :)
Writing about how evil you are in a CDT is the same as sitting in a room by yourself going "hahaha I am sooooo evil" but not ever really doing anything evil.
If I was running a evil PC you can bet I would be hatching evil plans with other evil players as much as I could. And when I heard about a great evil growing in the world I would be seeking it out to see what I could do to help and gain power and riches for it (or whatever it took to shake my evil mojo bone).
-
I'm not sure you really understand what evil is.
Evil isn't just violence and selfishnes... It's a deep corruption, combined with either the desire to spread that corruption, the desire to further the corrupted's own ends, or both. It's not just the absence of the basic empathy for the hardship of others, but an actual disregard for that suffering. A disregard so great that the carnal pleasure (or self-conviction) in causing that suffering can, and often does, override any feelings of empathy in the person.
Evil isn't just "rah, look at me, I'm running around hurting people."
It's a deep, powerful thing.
-
I am not saying that evil PCs have to wear their evil on their chests. All I am saying is where are the ACTIONS that define them as evil. With good PCs we see the actions that define then.
Actually, I don't see a lot of the actions that define most "Good" PCs, either. Other than that the things put in front of them to slaughter tend to be widely considered 'evil.'
Likewise, it's a little silly to see things from the 'real life" viewpoint, as most of us in real life are rarely of any extreme, for a variety of reasons. They may SEE themselves as Lawful Good because they have never gotten a parking ticket and gave a homeless guy 20 bucks once, but if all men were able to look at their entire lives so objectively as some look at the collective deeds of their characters (and other men), they might come to different conclusions and realize how few truly manage to be actually devoted to "Good". A lot of characters are kind of like that, too.
Evil PCs as you stated earlier pretty much rely on GM sanctioned activities to be evil, and if done properly your PC should know only the consequences and never the circumstances or the one responsible. My character should never hear of an evil act and automatically think "oh yes I recall this fellow of the other day who was positively reeking of evil and told me he was going to hack off my left bum cheek and feed it to his dark god's pet, do you suppose it's the same chap behind these left cheek massacres?" Because really. Poorly done. Unless you're playing a bumbling villain. Hey, that's fun too. It's easy to say the resulting conflict is fun, until the accusations of the conclusion being metagaming inevitably fly forth, and the fact that someone was blatantly responsible for evil acts 20 years ago lived solely because OOC people want to be 'nice.'
What I mean by the first sentence of the last paragraph is that there are no opportunities to be 'evil' without either having a GM around or being dumb and obvious, in which case your splendidly dark character probably shouldn't have lived past level 1. The only kind of feasible evil on Layo is gentlemanly and/or scheming, long laid plots or subtle betrayals. Just as you can't really play any kind of thieving rogue without many very good natured and non metagaming players, evil is just hard when all NPCs are plot and reset at server anyway, no one will wonder where Vanilla the waitress disappeared to and no investigation will occur ;) Most stuff in the module is made specifically to prevent 'evil' or chaotic actions.
It's not really the fault of evil players, who are pretty much forced by the nature of Layo to be subtle and two faced (which is a good thing, in any case), but a fault of the system (if you want to consider it a fault at all) in that there are no actual roleplaying of alignment options available outside of quests or open-minded PCs. Plotting with evil PCs isn't any more of an evil action by itself than plotting with oneself by the way, I'm not sure where that came from.
So you have to look at a backstory and CDT and quest actions to see if evil is managed or if they're all talk, and if we weren't a family server probably would have been ended by the overwhelming number of 'good' characters ages ago. On the other hand, I can say the same for a lot of good PCs. *Shrugs.* Many of them think of their 'good' being totally justified in opening their arms to anyone and everyone, enabling countless small acts of evil and abuse in their blind defense of corruption - racial hatred based on deep seeded massacres and betrayals rooted in very nature and venomous worship of the dark gods? Naah, we're all on the same side when it comes to the experience of genocide!
...And so we rely on backstory and threads to take a character's word for it that their good outweighs the evil, since there is about as much opportunity for Good without GM action as there is for evil - not much.
-
You REALLY don't need to be smart evil on Layo to survive. As long as you're useful in a fight, *somebody* will tolerate you because you have skill in a sword and shield... and if they don't, one can always click the pvp wand on them and tell them to DO something about it. Also, not thwarting an evil player is not always about OOC kindness, but often times a result of IC fear, or simply that the character doesn't feel like breaking the law to go vigilante at the time. If that is not the case, do not fault the evil character for the OOC actions of the people around him. One can be greedy, crass, uneducated and vile and make do in life without the simplest semblance of manners. As long as they know their limits and don't break any laws in front of the town guards, there really is no public authority to enforce how nice somebody's supposed to be. I really don't see police knocking down anybody's door for not helping litte old ladies cross the street and sneering at bums... quite the opposite. I see plenty of stupid mindless evil on the road every morning I drive to work and see these little filthy beasts cutting eachother off and getting into fistfights over road rage, and driving drunk. Stupid evil is thriving... just watch Jerry Springer if you want proof, or visit a local prison.
Heck, just go to a local bar and meet some of these self-centered, disgusting deplorable people. The whole of humanity reeks with their stench, and were I a paladin in real life, I'm entirely positive that my 'sense evil' special ability would be going haywire every time I walked through a crowded shopping mall. Telemarketers, con artists, crooked cops, politicians, serial killers, cheerleaders, yuppie landlords who always steal your deposit over stuff that was broken when you moved in, lawyers, people who prey on children, psycho jocks who try to fight everything that moves, rapists, violent racists, gangs.... These people are out there... the thing is they're not exactly wearing "hello everybody, I'm so freaking evil!" T-shirts, so they blend in. The people who actually are wearing said T-shirts are mostly harmless goth kids and metalheads anyhow.
-
I'm not sure you really understand what evil is.
Evil isn't just violence and selfishnes... It's a deep corruption, combined with either the desire to spread that corruption, the desire to further the corrupted's own ends, or both. It's not just the absence of the basic empathy for the hardship of others, but an actual disregard for that suffering. A disregard so great that the carnal pleasure (or self-conviction) in causing that suffering can, and often does, override any feelings of empathy in the person.
Evil isn't just "rah, look at me, I'm running around hurting people."
It's a deep, powerful thing.
We are saying the same thing for the most part. I am and have said already that evil PC dont have to wear thier evil on thier chests (that means not doing the "rah, look at me, I'm running around hurting people." thing :) just to be clear) But I sure hope they are out there hatching some evil plans.
This is a game world, alignments are not subtle shades of grey they are more like black and white (for the most part). So evil does evil and good does good. And I have seen many many good PCs trying to do good things and on a large scale (fund raising, taking in orphans, donating to good causes, trying to do away with slavery, keeping the forces of evil at bay). So come on evil PCs step up and lets see some results, we dont have to see who did it or how but step up and do something that has results.
-
This is a game world, alignments are not subtle shades of grey they are more like black and white (for the most part). So evil does evil and good does good.
This is simply not true. Despite the fact that this is a game world, Good and Evil are not black and white. It just isn't that simple - we're trying to make complex, deep characters here. Not cookie-cutter heroes and villains.
Evil is, fundamentally, self-serving. Good, likewise, tries serving others. This is an extreme oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Because of this, and the fact that there are VASTLY more Good characters on Layonara, however, you will see Good people getting together to do important stuff more often than you will see Evil people getting together to do important stuff.
That said, the Evil groups stick together more, and longer. Look at Daralith, and Bakee, look at the Corathites...
If we had more Evil than Good, you'd be wondering when the Good would band together to overthrow the Evil. *Shakes his head.* It's just not so easy to say "Wow! I don't notice anything scary from the Evil PCs! You should get on that!" Most of the Good organizatons are headed by very powerful, very high-level characters. The only Evil character that fits that profile that springs to mind (whose player is still here) is Chanda, who has an incredibly important position in the CHURCH OF CORATH. That's a pretty big, evil organization right there, I'd think.
-
Alongside both my previous points and the points made by others, I'd also like to make one more point on the topic:
Evil doesn't have to play by the rules.
That is to say, a Good character trying to infiltrate an Evil organization, if asked to torture some innocent person just to prove that they really are bad-$$$, would have to find some way out of it; a distraction, an illusion, or simply smooth-talking. If they did go ahead and torture an innocent, regardless of how many lives might be on the line (including their own), they would, and should, get dinged - a Paladin would Fall, a good cleric would likely lose their spells 'til they atoned, and any other good character should expect to nudge towards Evil.
However, if to infiltrate a good-aligned organization, an Evil character were required to perform some act of charity, they could do it without hesitation or penalty, as it would be a part of a larger deception. (Mind you, making such an act a requirement of joining a conspiracy of dogooders would kind of take any of the sincerity out of the act, but that's neither here nor there.) As long as no good deed is done by an Evil character without some purpose of their own as a motivator, they're still Evil - and will take opportunity when it presents itself. I will admit, however, that an Evil character doing something VERY good for a limited monetary reward is stretching this caveat.
Evil deeds, as Acacea, Stephen, and Gulnyr have already well established, are reserved for those times when a) there are no observers who would care, or b) those observers who are around could never exact justice for it. Thanks to floaty-text, disguises are out of the question, so there really isn't a third option, and b) isn't either - as an example, consider stabbing some poor innocent novice paladin in the back and then making a runner. Even if the paladin's immediate friends can't take you, it would take no effort at all to find a crowd of people who would say their equivalent to "What ho! An evildoer! After him, chaps!" The kind of force that could be whelmed up against a blatant evildoer is, frankly, staggering.. and most evildoers are disinclined to risk their own hides protecting one of their number who's been foolish enough to draw that kind of protection. These deeds, then, are best facilitated either by careful consent through PMs and Tells, or through GM interaction.. and both of these are going to be, by necessity, less common than Good deeds.
----
As a side note, the one exception to the evil mindset are clerics of evil deities. Clerics of Pyrtechon, Corath, Sulterio - they believe in the propagation of evil for its own sake, and therefore would be inclined, when they step out the door each morning, to see what evil they could accomplish. Furthermore, unless they have a lovely, well-orchestrated evil plot that absolutely requires it, performing a Good act would likely get them stripped of their powers by their deity of choice. Fanatical religious devotion, stupidity, and o'erarching confidence are the only really acceptable reasons, however, for a character taking public credit for their acts of evil.
-
Well Chanda is the exception. See there is a evil PC that has done something.
So evil = selfish and not villainous. I dont buy it. I will stick to it being more LIKE black and white then grey in a game world. In a game world you do have good guys and bad guys and the REALLY good bad guys will divide the good guys on the subject of "are they bad or not". The only bad guy PC that has done this (in my experience, I dont know Chanda) is Daralith. The rest are "hiding in the shadows" which means really not playing thier alignments.
-
Evil? What do you heathens know of evil! The hamsters of the Spaceship Colgate know more of evil in their tiny beaded eyes then you all know in the lint of your belly buttons!
Evil is the focus of the brain butter through the Molly McButter powder of molasses! Chilli! Beans! flapjacks! You paladins of spicey yet oh so tastey foods shall feel the wrath of hamster flapjacks! For low and behold they hold the evil of syrup in their flaky batter!
Evil is when you kick a puppy and rent the movie Bio Dome! Evil is like a box of chocolates, you never know which one you're going to get next. Wilson! Your bloody hand print cries to me in the night of vealed seaweed! Listen you blaspheming ecofreaks! The lord, the king, Strawberry Shortcake will smite you with her muffins of fluffy evil!
-
Like the goodness of goodness translated so much the original meaning was lost to begin with!
-
Then again, I think the environment itself sets the stage for the perception of good and evil. When laws, culture, standards and expectations are present, then the subjective concepts of that which is good or evil, right or wrong differs as well. Take for example the olden days of the Industrial Revolution when children were being used as slave labor. When it was a legal practice and those poor people who objected were marginalized from having an active role in government which would regulate the practice, the public perception was that such things were a natural state of the world, and groupthink set into the majority of the populace, with only "extremists" being opposed to it. Then as the political environment changed and the people being subjigated gained the rights to speak out, they were eventually recognized by the mainstream populace as being of an acceptable moral position and in the right. Think of other standards that have changed... monarchy vs. representative government for example. Back in the Dark Ages and up through the Rennaissance, we had kings and feudal systems in which the average Joe never had *any* ability to change their lot in life and the monarch called all the shots. This was acceptable and the majority of the populace went along with it. Nowadays, the global consensus is mostly that only representative governments are acceptable to most sections of the world, and most monarchs still around are merely figureheads for social functions and celebrations. Those monarchs and supreme ruler dictators out there that run their governments solely as an extension of their own will these days are seen as evil tyrants for not adopting a system of suffrage and governing by the will of the people.
SO, as environmental standards fluctuate, the moral standards of the populace shift along with those of the society or nation/state. Those in hardline communist societies view many things evil like unchecked capitalism and speaking out against the state that people in capitalistic democracies would see as virtues of good. Likewise, a free market democracy would find the militaristic devotion to the state and restrictions on the ability to amass wealth as evil. Socialists would have problems with both the communist lack of personal liberties, and the callous health care programs and lackluster amneties of those in democratic capitalistic ones. Theocratic societies would have the view that not being devotedly religious was a sign of evil.. or questioning the authority of their state as the mouth of god, whereas mostly secular societies would see this form of mingling church and state as being a pervasive influence that must be prevented.
Imagine the differences in perception of good and evil between dwarven and elven societies, orcs and halflings, or even the differences between Mistone, Prantz or Arnax. One GM portrayed this very well when they threw that quest with the public trial and execution of Waysend's daughter. Those of us adventurers in the crowd were mingled with the commoners of Prantz... little children were throwing stones at the innocent prisoners, there mothers beside them cheering the public displays of death. This is good to them... seeing enemies of Broegar's authoritarianism being punished. SInce people who speak out against him have a tendancy to come up missing and therefore leave the communal consciousness anyhow, the resulting changes in the moral standards of Pranzis became that of Prantz. Subsequent generations will grow up knowing nothing but this atmosphere, and the old ways of relative benevolent monarchy with freedom of religion will be cultural taboo -> evil.
-
Real world perceptions are irrelevant. They are just like IC perceptions. There is nothing inherently Good or Evil (as far as the game rules and the alignment system go) about child labor, communism, democracy, capitalism, socialism, or feudalism.
Is it correct to say that we, the people playing the game, have personal notions of what is good and what is evil that are developed by the environment we live in, but that really has no bearing on the alignment system of the game, which, as I said before, has nothing to do with what people think. The alignment system is rather rigid (though not completely) but is very generalized. Good characters support and protect life, are generous, and/or willingly make sacrifices for others. Evil characters don't respect life, are greedy, and/or look out only for themselves. It's a little over-simplified, but that's pretty much all there is to it.
Governmental and economic systems can be judged by a character, but that won't mean anything about its alignment. Chaotic characters may think a government is evil, while Lawful characters may think it is good. Both will be right IC (since good and evil are entirely subjective IC), and neither will be right by the alignment rules (since government types don't have inherent alignments). A monarchy could be Good or Evil, depending on who is in charge and how the subject population is treated. The same goes for any other type of government or economic system, and even for child labor.
-
Right. The alignments were meant to be looked at in a more global sense. A dark elf doing as a dark elf society bids is not Good by the rules just because he's bound by his nature and culture and that's what everyone does in the Underdark; his culture is simply made up of evil practices and people, according how the rules were intended. The alignment of the individual doesn't change when they cross the border.
The only bad guy PC that has done this (in my experience, I dont know Chanda) is Daralith. The rest are "hiding in the shadows" which means really not playing thier alignments.
I dislike the phrasing of the notion that any evil character hiding in the shadows is not playing their alignment. It seems to suggest that those who actually try to be smart about it are bad roleplayers, even though they are far less likely to be caught.
Cut them some slack, as there are few ways to really 'play' alignment that will not make them rather stupid villains. Even in submissions they are writing for a clean set of forums for a family server. Rather than encouraging the stupid villain syndrome, why not just push to not allow evil on submission after all, leaving it to CDQs to ensure the evil alignment is totally deserved, if you don't feel that they are?
The mentality that "evil is always evil and good is always good" without exception seems like exactly what leads to the terrible misconceptions that good must always be nice and orphan-hugging, while evil must always be baby killing jerks.
I like my character to be shocked when she finds out someone has done something inexcusably evil, to not believe it at first, to be unable to comprehend how some person she knew was capable of it...not yawn and ask what else is new, while I wonder how such an obvious character made it past level 1. I like evil that she struggles to dislike, that she finds herself trying to help and foolishly attempting to 'save,' not a blatant one that she would grind her dagger into without a hint of regret because they made it perfectly clear that's how it should be. For NPCs that's fine; for PCs, life would be a lot harder for them if we had Good PCs that lived up to the notion.
She knows what Rufus has done... but would never stab him, and would help him when he asked... call him friend in hopes of dragging him away from evil even if it opened her up to deception and false hope. I like that about that character. He had to do some really, truly evil things to become evil, and everything he did afterwards furthered his purposes, even if they seemed outright charitable. To the majority he usually comes off as quite acceptable and respectable, not living up to rumor.
Ca'Duz is another evil god that is great for Layo.
Vengeance is an art. It is sweet and should be savored, a pleasure not to be rushed. Nothing is more satisfying than watching your plans for revenge come to fruition and have the object of your retribution realize you were behind it...but realize too late. The Prince of Hate will look down favorably upon you if your subterfuge remains hidden to all but your target.
The reveal before the death, the utter hopelessness, the metaphorical knife twist that occurs when he realizes that he will never be avenged, no one will ever know, his knowledge will go to the grave he will not even have, and his killer may very well be served refreshments at the funeral. The kind of murder where everyone turns around and goes, "oh gee it must have been that guy" is not really on the same level. When it happens, it should be out of nowhere. Maybe it is the first betrayal. Maybe one of many. Regardless, it is not meant to be public information.
-
Cut them some slack, as there are few ways to really 'play' alignment that will not make them rather stupid villains. Even in submissions they are writing for a clean set of forums for a family server. Rather than encouraging the stupid villain syndrome, why not just push to not allow evil on submission after all, leaving it to CDQs to ensure the evil alignment is totally deserved, if you don't feel that they are?
Best point in the whole thread! You see the only evil PCs that people have pointed out in this thread that buck the generalities that I have slung around are the ones that earned it. But then again maybe they are all evil master minds whos plans will come to fruition and we will all never know anything happened LOL.
BTW under these conditions it is ok for me to write in Wren's CDT that he saved a whole town from a band of monsters and he found a cure to a sickness that was kliing all the childern in the town. After that he rasied the funds needed to rebuild the town. Wow he is good :)
-
To assume that one's own world view or that of a singular roleplaying game is identical to that of the global world view is a folly in externalization of personal/subjective standards. Even when one states that the D&D alignment system is rigid, one forgets that these alignment charts and the game itself were produced under modern westernized social standards. Had D&D's alignment system been published in the 1700s for example, female characters would be accepted to hold second class citizen status and slavers would be just like any other NPC merchant in the market square... paladins would be able to purchase slaves and whip them, while stark abolishionists would be portrayed by blackguards and rogues. Singing "Onward Christian Soldier" while shooting down native americans would be a Lawful Good act... just look at 1950s American westerns! Nowadays that just wouldn't fly at all... slavery is wrong, what we did to the native americans is deplorable and women should be treated as equals. Our global social consciousness has evolved and the baseline of moral standards has fluctuated to match this. It will continue to evolve for better or for worse; which is really a misnomer expression, since that which is better or that which is worse is entirely categorized by our own subjective societal standards. Just because a publishing company created a roleplaying game with an alignment chart based upon a westernized and modern set standard of morality does not mean that this system is wholley universal in real-world applications; quite the opposite. When society changes, so too will the alignment system when subsequent editions are published.
The system of moral codes by which people judge others conforms to the majority rule of acceptable social standards. So in that sense, real world perceptions and IC perceptions are entirely relevant, for without room temperature, how is one to categorize that which is hot or cold?
I guess my view is that all moral judgements are social constructs perpetuated by the adoption of environmental standards. When one feels that an act has dissonance from the subjective concept of righteousness, then they percieve evil; and when one feels that an act is harmonious with their personal perceptions of right, then they percieve good. As such, I really don't believe in Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil... these are just measures of social dissonance on a litmus test of core values. This test is being revised as history progresses, and as such is not an absolute form of measurement. It's like using a cubit and calling it a yardstick.
-
A good number of the touted issues would not actually make that big of a difference on the good vs. evil scale of the alignment system, at least compared to other things. I'm not sure anyone here has been saying it is a flawless system that can be a shining beacon of real life alignments, nor that they adopt it for use in their own lives; as an example, I personally could not care less if in the future the concept of an alignment system is used or not. In most cases however, the current system is grossly misinterpreted and taken in contexts it was not meant for. It is not perfect and has flaws, as all systems do. As an alignment prison it fails miserably to contain all that humanity (not to mention the many fantasy races) can encompass in a single alignment, but as a general guideline to group similar mindsets and types of actions together, it does a decent job. In the end, that is all it is meant to do, as it is used in worlds that are supposed to have many different societies and cultures, some glaringly different from each other but being neither good nor evil...which is what most real-life cultures inherently are. Neither.
I did not use the Crusades or Inquisition in examples of the past to agree that surely the concept of good has evolved over time (or to deny it, really) - merely to point out how often those who think they are righteous, are not. Which remains to present day.
What would or would not 'fly' is different from what is or is not 'good.' "Different" is not Evil, but neither is "same" always Good.
jrizz, I'm not sure what the point in the last was. I don't think I implied that evil characters should write up their sordid massacres in their CDTs to keep up their alignment facades. If they want to write about killing some unguarded commoner, no, I don't care, providing it isn't anything crossing squeaky clean forum lines, which is tough to avoid. It's akin to someone else coming up with a reason for the repeated yawning hunting of ogres by saying they are retrieving something for some random commoner, and writing about giving it back despite not having a DM breathing down their neck and guiding the pen. I don't particularly care about that, either. At least they're trying. Players have to provide their own entertainment much of the time, which is ideal anyway.
I didn't say no one should know anything happened. Simply that no one should immediately guess who committed the crime; knowing effect but not causation. If you prefer blatant and unsubtle evil then that's your bag, but others have their own preferences. It takes all kinds. Talking evil with no actions is the same as not talking evil with no actions, except you die sooner.
Personally, I think it would be much more 'earned' if everyone started out as neutral and had to work their way towards either alignment, as many good characters start out the same as the evil - all talk and contradicting actions, or downright apathy to all that is against their supposed morals. But I wouldn't push very hard for it. What is gained by that? You're not allowed to plot here unless you're evil, but by your standards you aren't evil if you're not done yet...kind of leaves them nowhere to have some fun scheming moments, especially since characters are supposed to have lives before they enter the world that establish alignment. That's what the whole approval thing is supposed to be for.
Live and let plot, as the saying goes...or no, that's not how that went.
-
Though Acacea is making some wonderful points and vastly simplifying my own rants, I do have a different approach to some of the arguments raised.
While Lonnarin raises an interesting (and extraordinarily verbose) point, I can't help but feel that he's operating in a logical stream orthoganal to the actual issue. As many people have pointed out in these forums, it's only a game. As a game, it has rules. The alignments were arbitrarily laid down using our modern (or near-modern) system of morals. Slavery is bad, women have rights, killing/torturing innocents is bad. There is, of course, some leeway, in the same way that, say, lifting a wooden portcullis might be, at the GM's discretion, anywhere from a Strength DC 25-28 or so, but the basic guidelines, as laid out in the rules, remain the core of these distributions.
In the same way, whether or not the alignments can be reasonably applied to real life, and whether or not they're based on an applicable moral system, they're there, and they're defined, albeit more vaguely than some of the more quantifiable rules. Arguing viewpoint and societal relativity is irrelevant, since, in-game, they are absolutes, not relative values.
Also, @Jrizz - frankly, that's a bit of a straw man. If you flipped that around to an evil character, it would be no more acceptable. Acceptable evil covered in a CDT would be that which affects no other player, nor would be visible in the gameworld (no cities razed, buildings set aflame, prominent NPCs killed). It would, however, open the floor to possible retribution if you were sloppy in your CDT. While metagaming is still highly discouraged, a precedent could be set for "evidence" to turn up from a crime committed in a CDT by an evil character (under GM supervision).. and the resultant investigation would be dependent both on the character and the complexity of the original crime (and its cover-up.) This is probably just wishful thinking, of course, but it would be rather fun.
-
Acceptable evil covered in a CDT would be that which affects no other player, nor would be visible in the gameworld (no cities razed, buildings set aflame, prominent NPCs killed). It would, however, open the floor to possible retribution if you were sloppy in your CDT.
Yeah. Anyone who would just write up slaughtering an entire village and setting it aflame or something with no DM involvement whatsoever in a CDT would probably not have been approved to play evil, anyway...
And of course yes, it's still just a game when it comes down to its debatable moral values :P
-
Arguing viewpoint and societal relativity is irrelevant, since, in-game, they are absolutes, not relative values.
Just look at the character approval process! A character will be approved for an alignment by one GM, then another will step in an undo that approval because their own subjective views of an alignment are different. The entire reason people recieve the response "sorry for the wait, but we are currently discussing this character's alignment" is entirely based upon the concept of subjective morality; consensus must be reached between most of the GMs prior to approval. And sometimes one GM higher up in the hierarchy simply pulls rank and goes against whatever consensus that was reached between the other approvers, so it's not like democracy/collective consciousness even defines morality in some cases. If morality was truly as static in this game world as claimed in this thread, then this would never happen. Everybody would be approved for their alignments the very first time and it would never be usurped because there would be a unilateral cognitive consensus.
This view of moral absolutism in a game system may only be realized if there is but one single GM whose mood never changes... an eternal robot so to speak. Since there are multiple GMs with differing opinions of good and evil, Bob the adventurer can get good points for slaying an evil villain under one GM who decides its a good act, or get evil points under another GM who points out that Bob had the opportunity to show mercy yet did not. Even with a single GM at the helm, there is room for subjective interperatation since their own *mood* can change and influence judgements.
Perception is equally a internalized process of interperatation as it is a physical measure of the external stimuli being absorbed. Since morality largely relies on perception and interperatation, in any sense or form, it is variable... even within black & white defined game systems.
Things are only as irrelevant as we ourselves judge them to be. If in our own cognition we eschew variables of consideration, then they will not be included in our own personal viewpoints. Some people see data of rising tides as signs of global warming, other consider the data irrelevant. Many find the whole of the bible to be irrelevant fiction, and to others it's their entire lives. Perception itself is subjective depending on the size of the magnifying glass we choose to use.
Layonara just a game? Blasphemy! To my gf it's the most dreaded evil in all the world and to myself it's life itself! How's that for subjective perception? ;)
-
@Lonnarin -
I don't disagree that rigid absolutes are an impossibility with multiple human GMs, particularly since the alignments are more vaguely defined than the other rules in the first place - but I stated that in the post from which you drew your quotation.
I referred, rather, to the viewpoint of the character, and the relative alignments of a character and their encompassing society. Neither of these are of any relevance to a character's actual alignment - so the vagaries of alignment implied in your previous post -
The system of moral codes by which people judge others conforms to the majority rule of acceptable social standards. So in that sense, real world perceptions and IC perceptions are entirely relevant, for without room temperature, how is one to categorize that which is hot or cold?
I guess my view is that all moral judgements are social constructs perpetuated by the adoption of environmental standards. When one feels that an act has dissonance from the subjective concept of righteousness, then they percieve evil; and when one feels that an act is harmonious with their personal perceptions of right, then they percieve good.
-can't exist. In life, and in a character's personal view, yes, they can deem themselves to be of whatever alignment they wish. But in the Game layer of reality, the alignments are shining beacons. A character who tortures innocents for fun can never be Good. A character who abhors killing and helps everyone to the best of their abilities would never be Evil. The former might consider the latter to be evil, particularly if there were religious considerations, but that consideration would not make them Evil, simply evil from a given viewpoint.
Evil, Good, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality are all Socratian archetypes of their small-letter equivalents... inviolate. While they might have a distribution of interpretations, the peaks of those distributions are stationary, and independent of societal or personal character pressures.
-
The thing that gets me is how people are being told that they need to play their alignment properly, when there's not even a proper way to play an artificial subjective construct in the first place. So much importance is placed on the consistancy of alignment when the very nature of alignment isn't even consistant.
It's like being a kindergarten teacher and telling a child that his painting of a red dragon is "wrong" because "everybody" knows that dragons are green. Dragons don't even exist!
-
So much importance is placed on the consistancy of alignment when the very nature of alignment isn't even consistant.
Are we all talking about the same thing? I'm confused because, while alignment may be a little fuzzy around the edges, it is consistent. It may be true that some people view it subjectively, but the descriptions of the alignments are objective and pretty clear. I'm not sure it's fair to say alignment isn't consistent just because some people don't treat it that way.
But maybe I have misunderstood. Are you actually saying that the alignment system itself is inconsistent, or do you mean that the system isn't applied consistently?
-
I wish I could thank you 10 times Gulnyr :)
Also I would like to thank the rest of you for illustrating the ridiculousness of my "BTW" statement above (here in quoted below lol).
BTW under these conditions it is ok for me to write in Wren's CDT that he saved a whole town from a band of monsters and he found a cure to a sickness that was klling all the children in the town. After that he raised the funds needed to rebuild the town. Wow he is good
-
Both, and one step further... that the very concept of alignment charts and the categorization therein are based upon subjective standards erected for the sole purpose of validating the imaginary construct. Of course an alignment system isn't inconsistant to *itself*, but when external validity is questioned based upon the philosophical concepts of good or evil, then one finds that the underlying assumptions behind the system are just that... assumptions.
What I'm mostly stressing is external validity along real world observations, and not the internal validity of the system which defines itself. Sure we could sit back and say that character X is "evil" because evil is defined as such... and that holds true *in a closed system*. I'm arguing the external validity of alignments in real world applications, and so far the real world itself has failed to come up with a singular definition for good or evil.
Please note that I'm not bashing our use of the system of alignments or those that go by it, just arguing that they really are subjective unless subjectivity itself is eschewed and the very meaning of good and evil is artificially supplied in a closed system in order to make the equation work. I acknowledge that Layonara is not the real world, which is great because then we'd really be in trouble. Then we could just run around pointing at people from differing factions screaming "look! evil!" and hack their heads off. Oh wait... we already DO do that as a species...
And for those who just say "phooey, it's just a game!", I would retort that so too is philosophy. There are no winners or losers in debates, just good discussion. ;)
-
Lon I agree that the system as it stands is flawed and that if given the chance there are better ways to do this. But this is a D&D based world and in such there is a system. And that system says "here are the boundaries you can work within if you go out side them then you get dinged". In PnP I used alignment shock as a tool to keep players in their alignments. When it came to clerics there were severe penalties for stepping out of ones alignment.
-
Okay. Now that I understand you are basically just arguing philosophy, that changes the nature of the discussion.
I think trying to make a philosophical discussion out of it is kinda silly, but that's just me, and, y'know, whatever makes you happy. If the points on the alignment compass had unique names, like, say, Squif, Blebox, Goldoon, and Ert, then there couldn't really be any sort of philosophizing about whether real world good and... uh... D&D Blebox were properly related and made any sort of sense in the bigger picture, since Blebox doesn't exist outside the rules. Blebox would be understood as just the name for a certain set of concepts that describe a moral position underlying the motives of characters within the game world. It happens that Blebox is spelled 'Good' in the final draft, but it's the same thing, it still doesn't exist outside the rules, and the relevance of what it is based on is only as important as the relevance of what weapon damages or hit points are based on (which, in my opinion, are far cloudier and much sillier than anything to do with alignment, but since they are game concepts that help facilitate play, it's all good).
Since the alignments are game concepts only, trying to compare them to real world things just feels like trying to compare D&D magic or the Force to real world things. Have at, I guess. I'm easy.
-
Exactly. All Paladins are Goldoonish Blebox, not Lawful Good. If they were Lawful Good, then they wouldn't be running around hacking the heads off of monster children and running around in town with their swords drawn screaming "You there! Thou art, EVIL... remove thyself or I'll KILL YOU!"
That's philosophically not very Lawful or Good, but stereotypically Goldoonish Blebox as far as our ruleset is concerned. Philosophy can discredit good and law, but can't even begin to touch the protective layer of Goldoonish Bleboxianism, since they define themselves absolutely.
-
jrizz, it wasn't so much "that's silly, of course you can't just write that you did that!!" and pointing out how ridiculous it was, but more, "I don't think that's a good comparison, since it was not suggested that the evil equivalent was any less ridiculous." So it just didn't seem to have a lot of purpose, is all.
Lonn, the faction thing seems more the fault of that in fantasy, there exist undeniably inherently evil races at all, not necessarily the wanton extermination of them. They're more like the invading aliens of shock-scifi, than just different looking humans who are horribly oppressed. When it doesn't cross the fantasy line, still just because factions both scream evil at each other doesn't mean either of them are good, with how the system is meant to be used. I mean, a paladin say, killing a good, innocent drow in cold blood has committed an evil act...it's just that there much is rarely such thing as an innocent drow in fantasy-land, unlike how things would really be.
They've made everything nice and clear cut for everyone, and ensured that when slaying evil monsters, a paladin will almost always be justified - it's an issue of both annoyance and relief, really. On the one hand, a little too clear cut and simply not how things work in life, but on the other, most people do play to get away from some aspects of life, after all. It's much more relaxing to be justified in hatred and always have an enemy you're allowed to kill on sight and not romp through all social issues of years past, I'm sure. Instead, love each other, hate the orcs! Everyone knows that humankind gets along a lot better once the invading squids come. :P
Fantasy humans are light years ahead of the real world when it comes to accepting other cultures and colors of their own species! Rather than touch that, they made goblins and orcs!
And really, adhering to the laws and taboos of one's society in D&D is more covered by being Lawful, anyway... a man might slay an orc from the land of good orcs no on knew about, on sight according to the guides of social acceptance in his neck of the woods without so much as a warning... it's not really about morals anymore at that point. Killing a child of an opposite faction is not really about morals anymore. What is perceived as a necessity of war is rarely considered pure and good in all senses of the words, right?
And I dunno jrizz, stepping out of dogma is far more important than stepping out of alignment, for a cleric. If one's dogma is essentially to be righteous defender of a particular moral stance, then technically breaking dogma and breaking alignment go hand in hand, but still the order is the other way around.
They are not meant to be prisons that you are punished for venturing out of. Few people are their alignments 'all the time.' It represents a trend of actions, and for a character of a LG mindset, the act of slipping to a side alignment in a single act on a bad day is in itself a 'ding' because it is against what he believes. "I broke that law, I should not have done that, I have failed in my duty," and all that junk, unless it is a divine character and in breaking a law he broke a point of dogma and it came with divine consequences. A LE character gets sick and disgusted with pent up rage at having to tolerate or even praise the lesser men around him without doing as he wishes and putting them all to the torch. For now. Or something.
They're guidelines. Not strongboxes. To stay on the road and in the right mindset and all that. Venture too far out of it and you don't really have the same character anymore, because trends are slow to change.
I ran out of croissants to fuel my essays and feel that I've dissolved into disjointed rambling (moreso than usual) aloud (sort of), so I'm done too until future boxes are delivered. *nods a few times*
-
Excellent, excellent, excellent points by Darkstorme, Acacea, Lonnarin, and Gulnyr. I can't really add anything to what they've said except to reiterate a point I've been yapping about in every single alignment thread that's been made in the past year or two.
"Alignments" do not dictate one's actions.
"Alignments" describe trends in one's actions.