Alignments and Morals

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

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.

[darkstorme]

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.

[jrizz]

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.

[hawklen]

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!

[Marswipp]

Like the goodness of goodness translated so much the original meaning was lost to begin with!

[lonnarin]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[Acacea]

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.

[jrizz]

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

[lonnarin]

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.

[Acacea]

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.

[darkstorme]

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.

[Acacea]

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

[lonnarin]

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?  

[darkstorme]

@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.

[lonnarin]

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!

[Gulnyr]

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?

[jrizz]

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

[lonnarin]

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.  

[jrizz]

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.