Here's the problem with trying to define the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment system. There are, to me, two distinctly different ways to interpret the meaning of law/chaos. One is the idea of following or believing in an ordered structure to society, or not. The other is a matter of personal discipline and cool headedness. For the record Good and Evil are perhaps more foggy but for entirely different reasons.
The character in question is almost assuredly chaotic. Killing innocents? Well no one is innocent in my book. Do we fret about the kobolds' families which we slaughter mercilessly in dungeons day in and day out. Of course not. What about the impact of killing the mayor who is secretly selling prisoners into slavery? You can't worry about those things as an adventurer, that way lies madness.
This is a matter of collateral damage. Was the risk of letting this person go worth the sacrifice of 60 people. Depending on your alignment you would have different answers to that question. Just like in D&D each one of us has a different viewpoint on that situation. I'm not going to say they're all equally valid, because only mine is valid. Kill them all, let the gods sort them out. If the adventure was designed to have you take down this guy and that is your goal, and 60 innocent people got in your way so be it.
By the games terms that probably leans you heavily evil, but if you work hard and make restitution to the families of the deceased you too can be saved. Hallelujah.
The alignment system in this game just needs to be removed.
You have GOT to be F&$#ing kidding me! These boards ate my post again. It was like 3 pages long FFS!
Basically everyone is evil. Don't worry about it. The alignment system is utter utter utter crap and completely useless to PCs. Just like IRL do what you gotta do and if everyone hates you then you're evil. That's the only way it's ever really been defined.
Well he saved lives at the carnival and his friends I think that is what took priority to this specific character. Maybe he did show Regret later. even under our own standards of morals he would not be considered evil, but dangerously insane there is a difference. Should he be institutionalized? I would say yes and of course medicated to keep him calm.Aaaaand still not feeling sorry *after* he killed those 60 innocents. Evil.you see the result of the act itself and not the conditions that led up to the tragedy. His character already has exhibited unstable behavioral patterns and had a major deathwish at the begining of his career. He tried everything he could to catch the invisible foe, but it didnt work out. He saw he was about to die along with his friends so he snappedOther points you made which I didn't include in the quote are perfectly valid though especially the part about not caring.Well, there we have it. Evil. Not caring about killing 60 innocents makes him a clear sociopath.
Unless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.
|
Unless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.
Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.
Unless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.
Yeah, okay then.
Sociopaths are evil by virtue of the fact they are fully functional rational individuals who choose to inflict evil on others. They know the difference between right and wrong. They do not value human life unless it fulfills some desire for them clearly NE and souless indivdualsUnless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.
Actually one of the prime factors in determining sociopathy is a lack of conscience, i.e. innate ability for one to tell good from evil. So, you're wrong.
The fact that the character is Neutral pn the moral axis means he doesnt necessarily need to repent for his deeds or misdeeds. Going back to the example of a lawful neutral character, he wouldn't be burdened by guilt or remorse because he completed his mission objective stop the foe. It was regrettable there were casualties, but the objective was completed.Yeah, okay then.Unless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.
This first assumes that for him, as a Lawful Neutral character, there are no laws governing collateral damage to which he has to adhere. If there *are* laws saying "kill 60 to get 1", I'd strongly advocate that the government he is serving is LE in alignment and we'd get into a murky debate about how LN you can be when you are enforcing LE laws.
In this case, however, the character is not LN, but CN. By his own admission his character killed the 60 innocents and does not feel guilty about it. Therefore sociopathic behaviour, hence evil.
|
|
Actually one of the prime factors in determining sociopathy is a lack of conscience, i.e. innate ability for one to tell good from evil. So, you're wrong.Sociopaths are evil by virtue of the fact they are fully functional rational individuals who choose to inflict evil on others. They know the difference between right and wrong. They do not value human life unless it fulfills some desire for them clearly NE and souless indivdualsUnless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.
What he said.
They can tell what is right or wrong they can even fool you. They just follow their own moral codes and anyone be damned who gets in there way.Actually one of the prime factors in determining sociopathy is a lack of conscience, i.e. innate ability for one to tell good from evil. So, you're wrong.Sociopaths are evil by virtue of the fact they are fully functional rational individuals who choose to inflict evil on others. They know the difference between right and wrong. They do not value human life unless it fulfills some desire for them clearly NE and souless indivdualsUnless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.
Actually NO. Seriously guy look stuff up before you shoot your mouth off about it.
I know Frogboy's character is CN. Im merely bringing up the LN example to show you that the act itself although tragic in the extreme, is not the kind that would instantly turn a character evil. True most neutral characters wouldnt cause the needless deathe of sixty people, heck not even a lawful evil one would. However, look closely at the circumstances, and you can see why a neutral character would follow this course of action. Besides dont forget a neutral character of any type isn't bound to the high ideals of goodness.The fact that the character is Neutral pn the moral axis means he doesnt necessarily need to repent for his deeds or misdeeds. Going back to the example of a lawful neutral character, he wouldn't be burdened by guilt or remorse because he completed his mission objective stop the foe. It was regrettable there were casualties, but the objective was completed.Yeah, okay then.Unless there is another "but" in his next reply, he said that the character doesn't feel sorry about those 60 innocents. That is sociopathic behaviour and therefore evil.Sociopaths are CN at its best. They do what they want when they want with no regard for anybody else. Society takes offense to this, however, and labels them evil.This first assumes that for him, as a Lawful Neutral character, there are no laws governing collateral damage to which he has to adhere. If there *are* laws saying "kill 60 to get 1", I'd strongly advocate that the government he is serving is LE in alignment and we'd get into a murky debate about how LN you can be when you are enforcing LE laws.
In this case, however, the character is not LN, but CN. By his own admission his character killed the 60 innocents and does not feel guilty about it. Therefore sociopathic behaviour, hence evil.
Well, my first dispute was with incomplete information, excluding such stuff as "The invisible guy was about to kill us all", etc., so I am prepared to give some leeway there.
However, the point which I am making at the moment is that the poster admitted that his character doesn't even feel bad about having killed those 60 people. Therefore I classify that as sociopathic behaviour and therefore the character is evil.
Three things.
1) Once again, just because you have good intentions does not mean your act suddenly isn't evil. It's still evil. The road to hell is paved in good intentions, after all.
2) Evil is weighed more heavily then good. Good requires a willingness to sacrifice. Killing a lot of people to take out one other guy isn't a good action. Killing someone simply for self survival or survival of your team isn't a good act, it's a neutral act - war as a soldier, for example, at it's most base, is neutral for those engaging in it. The commanders and leaders are typically the ones making the good and evil actions. The character in this case didn't target the invisible whatever to ensure it stops preying on others, he did it because it was after him. So right from the start, it's neutral at best. But then he does a very evil act to do the job. Evil.
3) I've worked with quite a few studies involving sociopaths. They're the perfect example of what chaotic evil is. It's not that they don't understand what good and evil is - it's that they don't care. The defining characteristic of sociopathy is the lack of empathy, not of judgment - they know they're hurting people drastically, they just don't give a damn. I also want to point out that there's a large difference between anti-social behavior and asocial behavior - asocial behavior is at heart seperation from other human beings, anti-social behavior - what characterizes sociopathy - is desire to hurt or harm other human beings.
So yeah, sociopaths are pretty much exactly what chaotic evil stands for.
|
So, if the only options available in order to save 60,000 people are a.) to do nothing and b.) to sacrifice 60, then sacrificing 60 is the good act. It may not be a pleasant or easy act, but noone said that doing good is suppossed to be pleasant or easy.
Well no actually. While saving 60,000 people is a good thing, your still commiting evil act by killing 60. All your doing now is jsutifying it.
An evil thing is still evil, no matter the justification.
Lets see I do not need to book to tell me that someone who is rational, intelligent, functional member of society, can even fool someone that he is innocent by putting on show say that he cant distinguish what is right and wrong. A sociopath no matter at what angle you look at is evil.
And you would be wrong. You clearly DO need a book to see what the definition of sociopathy is because you are ignorant of the facts.
Chaotic Neutral characters still have some semblance of respect for human life. This was a Neutral Evil act though it is the kind of thing Chaotic Evil characters would also do. Chaotic Neutral does not mean "bat s+#% nuts homicidal".
Late to the party but...
Yes, you're evil.
Own it and move on. You get just as many XP.
Chaotic Neutral characters still have some semblance of respect for human life. This was a Neutral Evil act though it is the kind of thing Chaotic Evil characters would also do. Chaotic Neutral does not mean "bat s!** nuts homicidal".
No, but it does mean reckless and no particular regard for life, though he may hold particular lives in high regard. At least that's how I always played it.
I'll admit I never wantonly killed innocents as a CN character, and again this act will almost certainly dip him in CE territory, but he's not irredeemable.
So, if the only options available in order to save 60,000 people are a.) to do nothing and b.) to sacrifice 60, then sacrificing 60 is the good act. It may not be a pleasant or easy act, but noone said that doing good is suppossed to be pleasant or easy.
Well no actually. While saving 60,000 people is a good thing, your still commiting evil act by killing 60. All your doing now is jsutifying it.
An evil thing is still evil, no matter the justification.
I think, by this point, we've already firmly established that there are about a bazillion philosophers who have fallen on either side of this question. There is no consensus.
Your personal moral code is just another moral code among countless others.
In the context of D&D alignment:
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
In this case, according to the rules written, the character is evil. You can philosophize all you want, but we are talking about something written in game text here.
For purposes of being affected by a Holy Word spell, the character is aligned as Evil.
These boards are evil. They eat posts if you take too long to type. :D
To answer the one deed, evil or good question:
In games I GM, a neutral (or even good) character who occasionally does something evil will not instantly become evil. Alignments are tendencies. However, I would also expect that the tendencies of a good or neutral character would prevent them from doing extremely heinous acts. Kicked a puppy? No alignment shift. Raped a three year old? Yeah, you are evil. That was beyond the pale. Good acts are a little trickier because you can do something nice for someone with or without expectation of reward. If without, you are self-sacrificing (good act) but if you are getting rewarded to do it it isn't self-sacrifice (neutral act). However, if an act is good, then I follow the same rules as above. A neutral or evil character who does the occasional self-sacrifice isn't immediately good, but an extreme act could cause an immediate shift. Gave some change to a beggar? No alignment shift. Protected a group of beggars from the serial killer that was stalking them? Probably shifted to good. (Again, assuming you expected no gain from it.) I also take intent and remorse into account.
So: Killed 60 innocents - heinous act. If he was remorseful, or didn't realize they would get hurt, that would mitigate it, but he knew full well what he was doing, didn't care, and felt no sorrow after.
Evil.
Ya, I'm not sure what the debate is either. The difference between neutral and evil is clearly defined in the RAW.
People like to argue and disagree is about all. Most(the majority) in this thread have marked him as evil. But ya know debate is kinda fun
So, if the only options available in order to save 60,000 people are a.) to do nothing and b.) to sacrifice 60, then sacrificing 60 is the good act. It may not be a pleasant or easy act, but noone said that doing good is suppossed to be pleasant or easy.
Well no actually. While saving 60,000 people is a good thing, your still commiting evil act by killing 60. All your doing now is jsutifying it.
An evil thing is still evil, no matter the justification.
I think, by this point, we've already firmly established that there are about a bazillion philosophers who have fallen on either side of this question. There is no consensus.
Your personal moral code is just another moral code among countless others.In the context of D&D alignment:
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
In this case, according to the rules written, the character is evil. You can philosophize all you want, but we are talking about something written in game text here.
For purposes of being affected by a Holy Word spell, the character is aligned as Evil.
Oh and so is the Paladin who "hurt, oppressed and killed" all those orcs, demons, goblins, necromancers, undead, and other creatures. It's in the rules, you can't argue. As soon as that paladin kills a single creature he becomes evil and loses his powers I guess. Wow what a lousy class.
See this is where it fails. We as PCs kill maim and otherwise obliterate everything in our way on a daily basis. I need something more concrete than that to define "evil".
Late to the party but...
Yes, you're evil.
Own it and move on. You get just as many XP.
I don't care if my character is evil and have already stated that (not that I expect you or anyone else to read 250+ posts). I just wanted everyone's opinion. Starting to get a tad annoyed that people keep accusing me of trying to "get out" of being evil, though.
People like to argue and disagree is about all. Most(the majority) in this thread have marked him as evil. But ya know debate is kinda funYa, I'm not sure what the debate is either. The difference between neutral and evil is clearly defined in the RAW.
Also, his CHARACTER doesn't have to define himself as such either. To him, the ends might justify the means. No matter how many people he saves by torturing someone to uncover a terrorist plot, for instance, it's still f%&&ing evil. But he'll probably sleep fine that night.
Then again, maybe he won't. Yay, complex characters.
People like to argue and disagree is about all. Most(the majority) in this thread have marked him as evil. But ya know debate is kinda funYa, I'm not sure what the debate is either. The difference between neutral and evil is clearly defined in the RAW.
Also, his CHARACTER doesn't have to define himself as such either. To him, the ends might justify the means. No matter how many people he saves by torturing someone to uncover a terrorist plot, for instance, it's still f*!%ing evil. But he'll probably sleep fine that night.
Then again, maybe he won't. Yay, complex characters.
Thank you, and this in the end is why I feel that the alignment system fails in its purpose. More often than not people use alignment as a crutch to justify their actions or DMs use it as leverage to make characters do what the adventure requires of them. In the end I feel STRONGLY that it results in weak characters. I would much rather have a complex character that has his own reasons for things be they good or evil, hopefully in the MASSIVE GULF of grey in between.
Complex characters in any medium usually defy alignment categorization, from Batman or Han Solo to Rorschach and Garak (DS9) to Jaime and Tyrion Lannister.
Ya, I'm not sure what the debate is either. The difference between neutral and evil is clearly defined in the RAW.
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."
The character in question obviously did not have anxiety, guilt, or distress about his actions.
Therefore he is not neutral. He killed for convenience, which is evil.
What is "convenient" about surviving and let your whole party AND more innocent people survive? He clearly stated that his party and himself were being massacred, as were other innocent people. I'm not saying what he did was good, but it was the mind of a neutral character, a soldier would do EXACTLY the same thing. He didn't do it for kicks, he did it cause it was his only available option for survival.
And the soldier would have commented an evil act. Taking cover fine. Running, fine. Calling in an Air strike in a crowed mall to maybe take out one man...not so much. You take out the sniper not the whole village.
Also, his CHARACTER doesn't have to define himself as such either. To him, the ends might justify the means. No matter how many people he saves by torturing someone to uncover a terrorist plot, for instance, it's still f&%!ing evil. But he'll probably sleep fine that night.Then again, maybe he won't. Yay, complex characters.
Totally agreed. I ran this one long term campaign and let PCs *say* they were whatever alignment they wanted. I tracked what alignment they really were as far as I/the gods were concerned secretly. The most drastic example of misalignment was the "CG" fighter who was really LE. He was party leader, ran a pretty tight ship (up to and including IA drills), was happy to sacrifice party members if it served the mission, didn't mind a little evil Cthulhoid magic if it served the mission... To him, "CG" was about the same as people use "CN" for in this thread, "you know, get away with whatever you want."
IRL, almost no one identifies themselves as "evil." Everyone from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot has their own reasons that seem justified to them for their actions. I agree that the worst part of the alignment system is that it's seen as prescriptive rather than descriptive. "Well I'd (or worse, 'you should') do X because I'm alignment Y" - not reasoning people use in the real world.
Even devil-dealing Chelaxians fool themselves. "Oh, they're just a source of power like anything else... But I'm in control..."
well you answered your own question. He had compunctions about killing the innocent commoners as evidence by the fact his party tried their best to find the invisible foe, however the foe managed to drop one of them, and polymorph the wizard into a tree (ouch)He tried at some point to use dispel but it failed. (it happens)Rogue tried to destroy the machine but wasnt able to, and was down to his last legs, so as a final desperate act, and mind you this character is not the most mentally stable of characters, to save his friends and any other innocent bystanders he channels negative energy to stop the enemy. Sixty people died as a result. Yes it was a destructive act, but the character remained within the parameters of neutrality. He honored his commitment to his friends, and he managed to save lives and stop the enemy. That he should feel regret for killing sixty innocents not necessarily after all he is not Good and hasnt displayed any alignment tendencies toward good. I stated in the beginning of this thread this is a borderline CN/CE act. If it the classic 3.5 multiverse this would be an act worthy of Pandemonium Chaotic Neutral Evil
He had another choice. Let him go. The choice to AoE a bunch of innocent people was the EVIL choice. The ends DO NOT justify the means unless you're an evil f@&&. That's a fact, Jack.
"He does whatever he feels is necessary to get the job done." = Evil
What is "convenient" about surviving and let your whole party AND more innocent people survive?Convenient: suited or favorable to one's comfort, purpose, or needs. Killing 60 people to get at one person because it is the easiest thing to do IS conveninet, hence evil by RAW.
He clearly stated that his party and himself were being massacred, as were other innocent people.I don't see any where in the OP that says all the people were going to die.
I'm not saying what he did was good, but it was the mind of a neutral character, a soldier would do EXACTLY the same thing.And the solider would be evil. If there was a school held hostage by terrorists and the government decided to blow up the building killing hundreds of kids to get the terrorists, you would find that to be acceptable? Soldiers who kill innocent civilians ARE EVIL. Soliders that kill enemy soldiers when ordered to are NEUTRAL.
He didn't do it for kicks, he did it cause it was his only available option for survival.Wrong, he could have retreated. He could have tried to get the innocent people out of the way. He could have tried to enlist the aid of the innocent people. An evil person always thinks there is only one option, the most CONVENIENT one.
Ok mate, obviously you didn't read all of the OPs posts. So it's pointless arguing with you cause you are simply assuming things in your mind that didn't happen. So, congratulations, he's evil. ;)
|
|
What is "convenient" about surviving and let your whole party AND more innocent people survive? He clearly stated that his party and himself were being massacred, as were other innocent people. I'm not saying what he did was good, but it was the mind of a neutral character, a soldier would do EXACTLY the same thing. He didn't do it for kicks, he did it cause it was his only available option for survival.
As a former soldier i approve this message. There will always be collateral damage in war. It's not like they saw the enemy in the middle of the crowd and their first reaction was to lob a fireball centered on top of the guy. They tried to defeat him through normal means and as a last resort used AoE to uncover the guy. Innocents died? He saved them a bloody, painful death by meat grinder.
The ends DO NOT justify the means
The ends DID justify the means. Were those commoners going to finish up the campaign (the goal of which im sure was to save the kingdom/world)? NO! Not only would they have been incapable, but they were taking a long walk on a short pier that ended in a meat grinder. See above for my comments on collateral damage.
|
|
There will always be collateral damage in war.There is a difference between collateral damage that is planned and that which is not. Firing RPG into a building that you do not know has innocent hostages is NOT evil. Firing an RPG into a building that you know has innocents IS evil.
The ends DID justify the means.This statement is unethical. It violates the principle of benevolence.
Were those commoners going to finish up the campaign (the goal of which im sure was to save the kingdom/world)? NO!That statement reeks of arrogance and elitism, some of the cornerstones of evil.
Not only would they have been incapable, but they were taking a long walk on a short pier that ended in a meat grinder. See above for my comments on collateral damage.Then the BBEG kills them, you do not. The willingness to sacrifice others for your gain IS EVIL by RAW. A neutral person woudl flee while trying to save those they have a personal connection to, then regroup and pursue the BBEG again. They do NOT kill 60 innocent people.
You call it evil, I call it pragmatism. As I recall, the military has had standing orders or can be given the orders to shoot down a civilian plane that has been hijacked to prevent another 9/11 situation. Is that evil? No it is not, that is reality. It's a tough decision that has to be made for the greater good. Tough decisions aren't always popular, but popularity has nothing to do with good or evil.