Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...

[Charon's Little Helper]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

People who oppose that are ignoring a basic fact: The alternative to "evil people can be good" (where you have Evil-aligned characters who mostly act decent aside from a few bad things) is "good people can be evil" (where you have Good-aligned characters who mostly act decent aside from a few bad things).

I can't think of any system of morality which works that way. The otherwise super nice person who gives to charity & helps little old ladies across the street, but murders small children every lunar eclipse isn't good anymore.

[Kobold Catgirl]

People get too bent out of shape about alignment, and end up either following it to a religious level—"Oh, that makes me lose my Neutral Good status? Nevermind, I don't do that."—or refuse to use it at all.

With paladins and clerics, I can understand it. But I don't really get it elsewhere. Stop freaking out about an evil PC until you've seen what their personality is. Likewise, don't worry if your PC is marked as evil. As long as the GM isn't trying to take away your class abilities, it's just setting flavor.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

People who oppose that are ignoring a basic fact: The alternative to "evil people can be good" (where you have Evil-aligned characters who mostly act decent aside from a few bad things) is "good people can be evil" (where you have Good-aligned characters who mostly act decent aside from a few bad things).

I can't think of any system of morality which works that way. The otherwise super nice person who gives to charity & helps little old ladies across the street, but murders small children every lunar eclipse isn't good anymore.

Exactly. It makes sense for them to be Evil, because Evil is about what you'll stoop to, not what you do most of the time.

That's why the "why are you trying to make evil 'good'" argument makes no sense to me. One of the columns has to bear the "complex" standard. That's what Evil is designed for—for the fanatical knight who will kill a peasant rather than disobey their lord, for the freedom fighter who will frame the regime for blowing up an orphanage, for the adventurer who will be a faithful and likable teammate but will also do just about anything—short of betraying their party—for a paycheck.

And before somebody says "Neutral"—Neutrality is about not really doing much good or evil, not about doing a mix. It's not designed with the "give to charity, burn down an orphanage" set of values.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

And before somebody says "Neutral"—Neutrality is about not really doing much good or evil, not about doing a mix. It's not designed with the "give to charity, burn down an orphanage" set of values.

The Gamers wrote:

Rogar, The Barbarian: Yeah, yeah! Dude! We get 15 piety points per level when we bury a party member, and since he was level six...

Nimble the Thief: That be like 90 points!

Rogar, The Barbarian: Boohyah!

Nimble the Thief: Boohyah!

[Nimble highfives Rogar]

Newmoon the Elf: And that'll totally make up for that orphanage we burned down...

Yeah...

[David knott 242]

So is burning down an Asmodean orphanage a good or evil act? Such things do exist, after all.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

fearcypher wrote:

Kyle Katarn wrote:

"Remember: abilities are not inherently good or evil, it's how you use them.

Because our fiction is steeped with characters that everyone would define as good yet use powers that may not be 100% on the up and up. Our fiction has taught us that evil can be used for good and people want to emulate that.

What people seem to forget is that when evil is used for good, it typically doesn't become any less evil a deed. And that doing so comes with it's own price. A perfect example of this is the resolution of the Torchwood series "Children of Earth". What Harkness does to save the day isn't any less heinous an act because of the "greater good". It's consequences permanently estrange him from what's left of his family and breaks him as well.

And again those who argue for the subjectivity of Good and Evil aren't dealing with the 800 lb gorilla in the room. A basic Pathfinder core assumption of the game that has nothing to do with Golarion is that the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are not subjective abstractions but actual cosmic forces in the settings. If you want to move away from that, you pretty much should be getting rid of alignment and any mechanics that are driven by it.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

fearcypher wrote:

Kyle Katarn wrote:

"Remember: abilities are not inherently good or evil, it's how you use them.

Because our fiction is steeped with characters that everyone would define as good yet use powers that may not be 100% on the up and up. Our fiction has taught us that evil can be used for good and people want to emulate that.

What people seem to forget is that when evil is used for good, it typically doesn't become any less evil a deed. And that doing so comes with it's own price. A perfect example of this is the resolution of the Torchwood series "Children of Earth". What Harkness does to save the day isn't any less heinous an act because of the "greater good". It's consequences permanently estrange him from what's left of his family and breaks him as well.

And again those who argue for the subjectivity of Good and Evil aren't dealing with the 800 lb gorilla in the room. A basic Pathfinder core assumption of the game that has nothing to do with Golarion is that the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are not subjective abstractions but actual cosmic forces in the settings. If you want to move away from that, you pretty much should be getting rid of alignment and any mechanics that are driven by it.

Exactly. When you're just dealing with mundane actions, then our normal secular perspectives on good and evil are appropriate. When you start dealing directly with supernatural good and evil, other things come into play. The very acts themselves have consequences. Doing them changes you. Taints your soul in the case of evil spells. Just a little bit for most of them, hardly perceptible, but as you keep doing it you shift a little more each time - until your alignment and your very attitudes shift along with it.

That's how evil tempts good people - offering them the power to do good, at a very slight cost.

If you don't like that approach, house rule it out. No big deal. I can go either way with it myself. I like having the mechanics there to support it. It's easier to handwave away than to handwave it in if it wasn't there.

[Weirdo]

Having an objective standard for good and evil does not mean that that objective standard has to be deontological in nature.

The cosmic forces of good and evil could just as easily react to / calculate up the total good and evil effects of an action to determine the effect on the soul/alignment in the same way one might calculate the total physical forces on an object in order to see what way the object moves.

A gaming group certainly could agree that the game world acts deontologically but for people who don't agree with deontological ethics that means divorcing alignment from morality. That is to say that just because an act or person is evil doesn't mean it's morally wrong, as in the case of a character who gains an evil alignment and thus is sent to Hell solely as a result of saving orphans with castings of Infernal Healing.

[swoosh]

Yeah I think most people are overreacting to this. It only matters for clerics and paladins who can't cast the spell anyways.

A sorcerer who animates a skeleton to help rescue people from a burning building, then casts infernal healing on the wounded, then binds a succubus to learn the location of the evil cult that's been starting these fires as sacrifices to their dark god is not going to suddenly turn evil. In fact it's pretty hard to argue that he's not being pushed further toward good.

Alignment actions aren't 1:1. No one's going to say "oh well he sacrificed himself to save us all but he also cast infernal healing so I hope he goes to hell". Just like how.. I dunno, donating to charity once isn't going to ruin your evil alignment and keeping an oath isn't going to throw a chaotic person right into lawful. Alignments are a description of one's personality, a generalization in which a dozen different characters can comfortably fit.

So for pretty much everyone who would be casting these spells in the first place, it's not going to matter at all.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Weirdo wrote:

Having an objective standard for good and evil does not mean that that objective standard has to be deontological in nature.

The cosmic forces of good and evil could just as easily react to / calculate up the total good and evil effects of an action to determine the effect on the soul/alignment in the same way one might calculate the total physical forces on an object in order to see what way the object moves.

A gaming group certainly could agree that the game world acts deontologically but for people who don't agree with deontological ethics that means divorcing alignment from morality. That is to say that just because an act or person is evil doesn't mean it's morally wrong, as in the case of a character who gains an evil alignment and thus is sent to Hell solely as a result of saving orphans with castings of Infernal Healing.

If someone writes that kind of story, they rightly deserve the derision it would bring.

No one in my games would ever wind up in hell for solely for casting Infernal Healing. It may however set them on the road for doing things that will make them DESERVE that slot. Or it may simply wind up getting them killed by someone who detects evil first and asks questions later.

One of my house rules is that wands of aligned spells will ping on the appropriate alignment detector.

[Steve Geddes]

Weirdo wrote:

Having an objective standard for good and evil does not mean that that objective standard has to be deontological in nature.

Yeah. It seems to me there is often confusion on that point - although PF has in game objective morality, it is not necessarily an absolute morality (alignment is, by RAW, a matter of DM preference and there aren't many moral absolutists around these days).

[Steve Geddes]

Weirdo wrote:

Alignment in PF is written to reflect morality. It certainly would be interesting to use an alignment system in which we “replace 'good' and 'evil' with stand-ins that lack moral implications, such as 'radiant' and 'shadow',” doing so is presented as a variant rule (Unchained p 101), indicating that the moral implications of “good” and “evil” in the main rules is intentional.

I think that implication would be strong if both books were written at once. Personally, I think the alignment system was intended as a model of morality (a poor one) not that the terms were intended to "have moral implications".

It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's meaningful (and would remove a lot of the irritation people seem to experience in alignment debates where complex real-world moral views are poorly modelled by the primitive alignment system).

[thejeff]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

Alignment in PF is written to reflect morality. It certainly would be interesting to use an alignment system in which we “replace 'good' and 'evil' with stand-ins that lack moral implications, such as 'radiant' and 'shadow',” doing so is presented as a variant rule (Unchained p 101), indicating that the moral implications of “good” and “evil” in the main rules is intentional.

I think that implication would be strong if both books were written at once. Personally, I think the alignment system was intended as a model of morality (a poor one) not that the terms were intended to "have moral implications".

It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's meaningful (and would remove a lot of the irritation people seem to experience in alignment debates where complex real-world moral views are poorly modelled by the primitive alignment system).

I have to say that I would absolutely hate that and would much rather just ditch alignment entirely.

Unless of course "Radiant" and "Shadow" just mapped to "Good" and "Evil", in which case why bother. How would it even work - Is this just for the supernatural effects (like casting Infernal Healing) or mundane things like murder and torture also move you towards "shadow"? Could you be a "radiant" serial killer?
What's the point to it?

[Steve Geddes]

The point of the alignment system or the point of distinguishing between the game terms 'good/evil' and the moral terms 'good/evil'?

I'm not a huge fan of the alignment system but I think it's worth being explicit that 'being evil' in pathfinder is a fundamentally different thing than 'being evil' in the real world. (Since the morality of our actions doesnt stick to us, the way it does to our characters).

[Trogdar]

I'm still confused as to how you end up with objective value judgments. Even the gods are subjective within the cosmology as far as I know. They are individuals.

A value judgment is subjective by its very nature, so I think it would help if someone breaks that down for me.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

Having an objective standard for good and evil does not mean that that objective standard has to be deontological in nature.

The cosmic forces of good and evil could just as easily react to / calculate up the total good and evil effects of an action to determine the effect on the soul/alignment in the same way one might calculate the total physical forces on an object in order to see what way the object moves.

A gaming group certainly could agree that the game world acts deontologically but for people who don't agree with deontological ethics that means divorcing alignment from morality. That is to say that just because an act or person is evil doesn't mean it's morally wrong, as in the case of a character who gains an evil alignment and thus is sent to Hell solely as a result of saving orphans with castings of Infernal Healing.

If someone writes that kind of story, they rightly deserve the derision it would bring.

No one in my games would ever wind up in hell for solely for casting Infernal Healing. It may however set them on the road for doing things that will make them DESERVE that slot. Or it may simply wind up getting them killed by someone who detects evil first and asks questions later.

One of my house rules is that wands of aligned spells will ping on the appropriate alignment detector.

In any game I run, anyone who "detects evil first and asks questions later" is on the fast track to evil themselves.

Beyond that, continued use of evil spells, even Infernal Healing, will shift your alignment. As your alignment shifts, your behavior should shift with it. This is a magical corruption. A good roleplayer could have a ball with this, either with playing the struggle and descent into evil or with repentance, atonement and redemption - cleansing the corruption from their soul.
That's how it would go in my games anyway. You are of course free to play it however you want.

I've had great fun with a couple of characters doing the "committing evil acts for the greater good and damning myself in the process" thing. Not quite in this fashion, but close enough.

[Steve Geddes]

Trogdar wrote:

I'm still confused as to how you end up with objective value judgments. Even the gods are subjective within the cosmology as far as I know. They are individuals.

A value judgment is subjective by its very nature, so I think it would help if someone breaks that down for me.

Objective (meaning mind-independant) morality means the morality of an act doesn't depend on anyone's opinion. There is a fact of the matter - we may be right or wrong in our moral views because there is actually an answer.

In pathfinder there is an objective answer to "is doing X evil" (since you can test it with spells or by asking a paladin to do it and then see if he can still do his paladin-y stuff).

The set of things which are evil in the gameworld is determined subjectively by the DM - but in world it is an objective reality, no matter what anyone in that world (including gods) thinks about an act - it is actually good or actually evil.

[thejeff]

Trogdar wrote:

I'm still confused as to how you end up with objective value judgments. Even the gods are subjective within the cosmology as far as I know. They are individuals.

A value judgment is subjective by its very nature, so I think it would help if someone breaks that down for me.

The actual nature of good and evil in game is sort of subjective - It's subject to the subjective judgement of the GM.

In world though, Good and Evil are objective things. There are game mechanical ways of telling if someone is good or evil, or in the case of paladins, if a particular act is evil. (Or technically not-evil. If the paladin can do it and not fall, it isn't evil. If the paladin falls, it could be either evil or against Code.)

[Steve Geddes]

Nice technicality. I missed that. :)

[Trogdar]

No, I get that the game wants objective morality, I'm just noting that morality requires subjectivity to exist at all. Something without thought cannot make judgments.

So, basically, how is objective morality not like saying I'm going to go make a square circle?

[Steve Geddes]

There isn't any judgement involved in a PF world (if you take good-evil to represent morality).

If a paladin casts a spell with an evil descriptor nobody makes any judgement - yet he falls. The evilness of the act is just a brute fact about the world - even if everybody in it, including the gods disagree.

That's kind of my underlying point - what the game refers to as "morality" is something a bit like, but also different from what we refer to with that word. Hence my preference for ditching alignment entirely or relabelling the words so that people don't say "that's dumb!" based on analysing the gameworld's morality as if it were ours.

[Steve Geddes]

More broadly, a moral objectivist rejects the idea that judgement is implicit in morality. I consider murdering an innocent for fun to be immoral (for example) and although I've made a judgement in forming that view, a moral objectivist will say that the fact that I'm right is a function of the objective, ephemeral moral-measuring stick that they believe exists.

Moral objectivism doesn't have a lot of practical import, in my opinion - since we're all left with our subjective judgements anyhow in determining how to act. Nonetheless, there is nothing inconsistent with the metaphysical views that moral statements are capable of being true or false (another way of expressing moral objectivism). We may be incapable of determining that truth - but that's a different question from whether the truth or falsity of a moral claim exists.

Most of the world believe in an objective morality, FWIW. it's a pretty central tenet of Christianity and Islam.

[Trogdar]

Ephemeral moral measuring stick... Okay, that's a tough dragon to slay. How does one get access to it? You can't reason your way out subjectivity as far as I'm aware.

Edit: just read the bottom paragraph. Belief without reason is not very convincing.

[Steve Geddes]

It's nonetheless pretty common. In fairness, it's worth noting that moral subjectivism rests on similar a priori beliefs-without-justification, once you drill down deep enough.

FWIW, I'm not really trying to persuade you that moral objectivism is correct, merely that it is consistent. I think it's a reasonable criticism to point out that practically it's moral subjectivism anyway (since we can't directly access this moral measuring stick and are left with our own subjective value judgements). As you say, it's a difficult dragon to slay - "This objective measuring stick.....how do we know anything about it?" is a fair question, leading inevitably to "What would be different if it didn't exist?"

To return to the gaming side of things - the morality modelled by pathfinder's alignment system IS objective. Those who believe morality is inherently subjective will always grapple with it. My preference, if the alignment system is important to you, is to relabel the gaming words of good and evil with something else - like purity and taint or something.

I think questions like "why should the paladin fall by casting a spell with the evil descriptor in order to save an orphanage?" would be less perplexing that way. Then at least, the profound metaphysical differences between that world and our world would be made explicit. It's easily explained then - he was doing a good deed, but he performed a tainted act and taint sticks to people and corrupts them.

[Trogdar]

For me, its a pretty crummy morality model, But if you look at it as "icky" and "fuzzy" I guess that is better, maybe? I dont know, seems like a lot of mind labor for little payout.

[Milo v3]

Quote:

It may however set them on the road for doing things that will make them DESERVE that slot.

That is sort of opposed to how alignment works in Pathfinder though... Alignment is descriptive, it doesn't alter the way you think or lead you down any road.

[Rhedyn]

Casting an [evil] spell being an evil act makes about as a much sense as casting fireball [fire] being a fire act and turning the caster into fire.

[Deadmanwalking]

Rhedyn wrote:

Casting an [evil] spell being an evil act makes about as a much sense as casting fireball [fire] being a fire act and turning the caster into fire.

Well, that's not a very direct comparison, is it? You never become a Devil or even get the Evil subtype or an Aura of Evil like a Cleric from spellcasting (which would be the closest equivalent I can think of to 'turning into fire'). Your alignment just shifts a bit.

A better comparison would be [fire] spells causing one to gradually like fire more and more and be more inclined to use it. To watch fascinated as things burn. And as for that...who says [fire] spells don't do exactly that? Not to the point of psychosis, but, well, many spellcasters focus quite a bit on one energy type and like that energy a bit more than is strictly normal.

That's certainly true of both published NPCs and a lot of PCs I've seen. Who's to say it's not from the preponderance of [fire] spells? There's no rule for it, since there's no rules in the game for really liking fire (unlike Alignment)...but it would sure explain a lot.

[GM Rednal]

*Glances up*

Well, remember that the alignment system specifically notes that most people are not 100% consistent at all times, and that alignment is more of a broad look at the character. The occasional casting of Infernal Healing to help someone, while perhaps frown-worthy if better options are available, isn't going to matter much when someone spends most of their life doing good.

[baja1000]

The alignment system is as Rednal said, about the broad look on someones life. The intentions behind their actions is what gives the alignment and from what I've personally seen, those who rebel against the alignment system mostly don't want the broad look about them to be seen as evil, despite the game calling them out on such.

When a "good person" makes a bunch of molotov cocktails to "help the party" but instead every time he gets into a altercation with another party member pulls one out and threatens the entire roome (innocent civilians and fellow party members alike) thats where the arguement comes into play.

True is, some alignments are clean cut in how different they are and some have a much thinner line. They shouldn't be the only focus on the game, but sometimes I think a lot of these arguements could be settled and these battles over alignment would cease if you could just step back from your character, look him over from an outside perspect and judge him by what his general look is.

[Weirdo]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think that implication would be strong if both books were written at once. Personally, I think the alignment system was intended as a model of morality (a poor one) not that the terms were intended to "have moral implications".

It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's meaningful (and would remove a lot of the irritation people seem to experience in alignment debates where complex real-world moral views are poorly modelled by the primitive alignment system).

While I agree that it's worth recognizing the limitations of a game system to model morality, I'm not sure it diminishes my point about the alignment system having moral meaning, which makes people uncomfortable or frustrated when it conflicts with their own moral reasoning.

(It's not just alignment, either. Aside from arguments about how well the game models/should model physics, I've seen people get quite annoyed about liberties the Bestiaries take with mythological creatures eg Efreet and Ifrit being different things.)

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

A gaming group certainly could agree that the game world acts deontologically but for people who don't agree with deontological ethics that means divorcing alignment from morality. That is to say that just because an act or person is evil doesn't mean it's morally wrong, as in the case of a character who gains an evil alignment and thus is sent to Hell solely as a result of saving orphans with castings of Infernal Healing.

If someone writes that kind of story, they rightly deserve the derision it would bring.

I think it would be really interesting to tell a story in which "evil" and "morally wrong" aren't necessarily the same thing. I mean, the cosmic forces of alignment seem to correlate with our moral intuitions, but what's to say it's a perfect correlation? Maybe "good" and "evil" really are just "radiant" and "shadow" forces. Should we accept this standard simply because it's objective, or defer to our own reasoning as sentient beings who can experience suffering and compassion - even if that means accepting a subjective morality? But it's not a story I'd necessarily want in an adventure game, and certainly not one I'd introduce without some very loud disclaimers at the start of a campaign.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

A better comparison would be [fire] spells causing one to gradually like fire more and more and be more inclined to use it. To watch fascinated as things burn. And as for that...who says [fire] spells don't do exactly that? Not to the point of psychosis, but, well, many spellcasters focus quite a bit on one energy type and like that energy a bit more than is strictly normal.

That's certainly true of both published NPCs and a lot of PCs I've seen. Who's to say it's not from the preponderance of [fire] spells? There's no rule for it, since there's no rules in the game for really liking fire (unlike Alignment)...but it would sure explain a lot.

Sure would, but like [evil] spells making you want to do more evil things, it's not actually discussed in the rulebook.

[Sundakan]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Casting an [evil] spell being an evil act makes about as a much sense as casting fireball [fire] being a fire act and turning the caster into fire.

Well, that's not a very direct comparison, is it? You never become a Devil or even get the Evil subtype or an Aura of Evil like a Cleric from spellcasting (which would be the closest equivalent I can think of to 'turning into fire'). Your alignment just shifts a bit.

Not true. If your Alignment shifts to Evil, then you go to an Evil plane and are converted into a fiend of some kind.

It really is too bad the non-Aligned Planes DON'T have a similar relationship, really. Pyromaniacs becoming Fire Elementals after they die would be pretty cool.

[Deadmanwalking]

Sundakan wrote:

Not true. If your Alignment shifts to Evil, then you go to an Evil plane and are converted into a fiend of some kind.

That's possible but not inevitable. A LE loyal devotee of Abadar doesn't become a fiend, for instance. And it's after death, and thus sorta academic given that it's effectively a whole different character anyway.

Not the same thing at all as just turning into one due to spells (which doesn't happen).

Sundakan wrote:

It really is too bad the non-Aligned Planes DON'T have a similar relationship, really. Pyromaniacs becoming Fire Elementals after they die would be pretty cool.

That would indeed be cool, I must admit.

[Steve Geddes]

Weirdo wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think that implication would be strong if both books were written at once. Personally, I think the alignment system was intended as a model of morality (a poor one) not that the terms were intended to "have moral implications".

It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's meaningful (and would remove a lot of the irritation people seem to experience in alignment debates where complex real-world moral views are poorly modelled by the primitive alignment system).

While I agree that it's worth recognizing the limitations of a game system to model morality, I'm not sure it diminishes my point about the alignment system having moral meaning, which makes people uncomfortable or frustrated when it conflicts with their own moral reasoning.

(It's not just alignment, either. Aside from arguments about how well the game models/should model physics, I've seen people get quite annoyed about liberties the Bestiaries take with mythological creatures eg Efreet and Ifrit being different things.)

That's a fair rejoinder.

I was nitpicking really, in that you seemed to be deducing what the intent behind the alignment system was based on an alternate system in a book released several years later (arguably several decades later) than the original.

I agree with your point, so was probably focussing on the trees not the wood. Sorry.

[Steve Geddes]

Trogdar wrote:

For me, its a pretty crummy morality model, But if you look at it as "icky" and "fuzzy" I guess that is better, maybe? I dont know, seems like a lot of mind labor for little payout.

Yeah, me too. I still think that, at it's heart, this is the reason people get so worked up about alignment.

[Sundakan]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

Not true. If your Alignment shifts to Evil, then you go to an Evil plane and are converted into a fiend of some kind.

That's possible but not inevitable.

Heh.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

A LE loyal devotee of Abadar doesn't become a fiend, for instance. And it's after death, and thus sorta academic given that it's effectively a whole different character anyway.

Not the same thing at all as just turning into one due to spells (which doesn't happen).

True, but lose enough as to draw certain parallels, at least.

[wraithstrike]

ryric wrote:

Casting an Evil spell is like stealing money from the tip jar. It makes you a not perfect person but if the rest of your life is pretty good it doesn't make you Evil, just a jerk.

I don't think anyone is saying one evil spell automatically makes you evil. Many might say that repeated castings without balancing(determined by the GM) acts would make you evil by the rules. There is no hard number(X many acts changes your alignment) because it will always vary by table.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I see the current alignment model as unintuitive, but it's actually pretty elegant if you look at it from a stance of, "How do we fit real-life people into this?" and don't get too bent out of shape about labels. Consider this: "How can you say George Washington was Lawful Neutral?! He was clearly Good! Yes, he kept slaves, but..."

That example is not necessarily historically accurate, bear in mind, but my point is that a person can be generally well-regarded, and can have tons of sympathetic explanations, and still be overall of an Evil alignment. The trouble arrives in two forms: One in which people resent the label because they see it as an insult rather than a basic facet of character analysis, and the other in which people actually resent the idea of objective morality.

That's fair.

There are prominent schools of philosophy that defy the idea of objective morals, and those who belong to those schools cannot abide a world where acts like "kill this guy" are assigned strict Good, Evil and Neutral labels by the Game Master or the rulebook. It doesn't square with their worldview, and because of that, a world that uses it feels like a less real world to them. Even if the people themselves are as complicated as ever, that the alignments are not is just unacceptable.

This is part of why people have trouble with the alignments. And meanwhile, many resent the idea of a complex evil character, or even an evil PC coexisting with good PCs. Because to them, evil is an insult. Evil is evil.

To many, the alignment informs the character, rather than the other way around.

The alignment system is actually quite elegant, and as we've seen time and time again, it makes people think. But it's not intuitive. An objective metric where a willingness to stoop to evil acts makes you Evil? But by that margin, wouldn't D&D end up marking tons of great people as Evil?

Well, yes. Someone who says they would do literally anything to protect their family, and means it, would be marked by D&D as "evil" (because that includes, say, blowing up an orphanage rather than risking the family coming into harm's way). To the intuitive mind, that's ridiculous. It doesn't sound right. But it doesn't actually have to be that big a deal.

The character is supposed to inform the alignment. That this family-oriented person is "evil" doesn't matter—what matters is who they are. The alignment exists simply to offer a very basic analysis, and to determine what the stricter gods demand from their servants. The Superman who would rather die than kill is Good. The Superman who would drag a villain into buildings full of people is Evil. But that doesn't mean we should condemn either one. I mean, not for that reason. More for basic filmmaking problems that Zack Snyder seemingly can't even—I'll stop.

I like the alignment system, but it sure as hell leads to a lot of forum brawls, doesn't it? Maybe it's less a problem of it presenting objective morality and more a problem of its basic wording. Instead of a "Good and Evil", perhaps present a sliding scale of "High Standards to Low". A Superman with Very High Standards would die rather than kill. A Superman with High Standards would kill Zod to save others. A Superman with Low or Average Standards would smash Zod into buildings to get an advantage in the fight. It seems like not calling these people "evil" would help a lot of people feel more comfortable with the system.

But all this is very tiresome and cumbersome, and at the end of the day, a chart depicting the same elderly model in different silly poses just wouldn't have the same punch if it had to account for a dozen different scale placements. "Very Super Duper Uber High Standards" is sort of awkward to write in one of those little character sheet spaces, anyways.

[Kobold Catgirl]

What kind of bastard steals money from a tip jar?

[dragonhunterq]

wraithstrike wrote:

ryric wrote:

Casting an Evil spell is like stealing money from the tip jar. It makes you a not perfect person but if the rest of your life is pretty good it doesn't make you Evil, just a jerk.

I don't think anyone is saying one evil spell automatically makes you evil. Many might say that repeated castings without balancing(determined by the GM) acts would make you evil by the rules. There is no hard number(X many acts changes your alignment) because it will always vary by table.

And there is the rub. Either a measurable number of spells alters your alignment, in which case kill a puppy + spam prot evil = balanced. Or the effect is so minimal why bother. Or you are being a bit of a d*ck and using GM fiat to allow evil spells to alter alignment but not good ones.

...

And if spamming prot evil to offset killing a puppy bothers you (and I really think it should) you really need to ask yourself if casting aligned spells should affect alignment in your game.

[HWalsh]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

What kind of bastard steals money from a tip jar?

Sadly it happens all the time.

Don't even get me started on what some businesses do.

[Kobold Catgirl]

You mean like how businesses force employees to rely on tips to begin with?

[Kobold Catgirl]

Dragonhunter, good acts in general don't improve your alignment if you're evil. Good vs. Evil isn't about how much good you do, it's about how much evil you don't do (the Neutral-to-Good spectrum blurs this a bit, but that's not what we're talking about). This is why saving one orphanage and burning down another doesn't even out.

[HWalsh]

dragonhunterq wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

ryric wrote:

Casting an Evil spell is like stealing money from the tip jar. It makes you a not perfect person but if the rest of your life is pretty good it doesn't make you Evil, just a jerk.

I don't think anyone is saying one evil spell automatically makes you evil. Many might say that repeated castings without balancing(determined by the GM) acts would make you evil by the rules. There is no hard number(X many acts changes your alignment) because it will always vary by table.

And there is the rub. Either a measurable number of spells alters your alignment, in which case kill a puppy + spam prot evil = balanced. Or the effect is so minimal why bother. Or you are being a bit of a d*ck and using GM fiat to allow evil spells to alter alignment but not good ones.

...

And if spamming prot evil to offset killing a puppy bothers you (and I really think it should) you really need to ask yourself if casting aligned spells should affect alignment in your game.

That depends on the GM and how they rule it.

In my games, for example, the rules on using spells to grind alignment are in place to stop that kind of abuse. It will never happen. That is because my personal house rules call for a character casting a spell with a descriptor that is contrary to their base alignment as a "moderate" infraction, while casting in according is a "minor" reward.

No matter how many "minors" you get, you can never overcome a "severe." So to make up for a moderate infraction you have to do a moderate act of the opposite. (Using the base alignment that the player wants their character to be as the direction.)

So... If you are Good, and you cast Infernal Healing, you suffer a moderate infraction. You can spam "protection from evil" all you want, but you aren't going to ever overcome it with that alone. You need to do something that is moderately good.

So, in my game, it works. There is a lure of power. An evil character has to be careful lest they become tainted by Good and a good character has to be careful lest they become tainted by Evil.

I've actually had little problem with this as my players are more than aware of it up front and as such have only ever had 1 character switch alignments unwillingly.

[HWalsh]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You mean like how businesses force employees to rely on tips to begin with?

Conversation for a different thread. Sorry, its just a sore spot with me. If you want I can PM it to you. If you want to know some of the scummiest things that can be done.

[JoeElf]

HWalsh wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

What kind of bastard steals money from a tip jar?

Sadly it happens all the time.

From the original post, I think a lot of people are looking at these two questions and equating them: What is an Evil Act? What is a Dishonorable Act?

I look at the dishonorable side of these questions as Chaotic, but not necessarily Evil. Perhaps someone stole from the tip jar to catch the bus home to care for some sick relative and pays it back the next day (a CG act). More likely is that the person is just greedy and selfish, and does this without care (CN to CE).

Robin Hood was a poacher and/or thief, and used the threat of violence, but to my recollection was not a killer (depending on which fable/book/movie one recalls), and has been used as the example of Chaotic Good since he was acting to keep the populace from starving (despite lawful orders not to hunt illegally).

Add a bit of callous disregard for some lives versus others, some actual wounds inflicted (but controlled, particularly nonlethal/subdual), for some goals where the ends do not justify the means to the average observer, and you get to Chaotic Neutral.

Throw in grievous injury, gratuitous violence, and particularly murder to get Chaotic Evil. Pure selfishness as the motivation for thefts, particularly coupled with threat of violence, could still put the actions in CE even without any injuries.

But not every killer is Chaotic or Evil. A person who only kills as an actual executioner could fall into any of the alignment categories. It is possible for such a person to actually be LG if the justice system is fair and executions are rare.

[HWalsh]

JoeElf wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

What kind of bastard steals money from a tip jar?

Sadly it happens all the time.

From the original post, I think a lot of people are looking at these two questions and equating them: What is an Evil Act? What is a Dishonorable Act?

I look at the dishonorable side of these questions as Chaotic, but not necessarily Evil. Perhaps someone stole from the tip jar to catch the bus home to care for some sick relative and pays it back the next day (a CG act). More likely is that the person is just greedy and selfish, and does this without care (CN to CE).

Robin Hood was a poacher and/or thief, and used the threat of violence, but to my recollection was not a killer (depending on which fable/book/movie one recalls), and has been used as the example of Chaotic Good since he was acting to keep the populace from starving (despite lawful orders not to hunt illegally).

Add a bit of callous disregard for some lives versus others, some actual wounds inflicted (but controlled, particularly nonlethal/subdual), for some goals where the ends do not justify the means to the average observer, and you get to Chaotic Neutral.

Throw in grievous injury, gratuitous violence, and particularly murder to get Chaotic Evil. Pure selfishness as the motivation for thefts, particularly coupled with threat of violence, could still put the actions in CE even without any injuries.

But not every killer is Chaotic or Evil. A person who only kills as an actual executioner could fall into any of the alignment categories. It is possible for such a person to actually be LG if the justice system is fair and executions are rare.

There are a few things listed as "Dishonorable" in the grand scheme of things as far as hard coded by the rules...

Here, for example, is a part of the base Paladin Code:

act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),

So we know that lying is dishonorable, cheating is dishonorable, and the use of poison is dishonorable.

These acts, however, due to their need to be listed, are not strictly evil. They are, however, dishonorable. There is no caveat on these.

They aren't honorable. Even if you have good intentions these actions aren't honorable. It doesn't matter why or how, if you lie, cheat, or use poison you are being dishonorable. Even if you are using drow poison, it is still dishonorable.

In any game I run attacking a helpless foe who has not been tried for his crimes and sentenced to execution is dishonorable, but this is not hard coded in the rules.

[Deadmanwalking]

That doesn't necessarily follow, actually. Those acts are listed as examples of dishonorable behavior, but something need not be invariably dishonorable under all circumstances to generally be dishonorable and thus a good example of such behavior. If lying is dishonorable 95% of the time, it's a fine example of dishonorable behavior even if there's that 5%.

I mean, your chain of logic is relatively sound if you assume 'Anything on the following list is always dishonorable regardless of circumstances.' But that's not actually stated anywhere, nor does it inherently follow from the premises of the code.

[gatherer818]

So, I didn't read the whole thing, plainly. I think the problem with something like saying Evil descriptor spells are always Evil and make you Evil if you cast them is that it completely ignores the context and intent. For example, in one of the few games I played in rather than GM'ed, we were tasked with capturing several escaped "suspected werewolves". While we were given license to kill them - the tests they were going to be subjected to would likely kill them anyway - we didn't want to kill them if they were innocent, and suspected they were probably most or all innocent.

The problem was, my Summoner's list of creatures he could summon was nothing but animals (which don't understand languages) and one demon. Summoning the demon would give the spell the Evil descriptor and thus make it an Evil act.... but the only reason I'd have chosen the demon anyway is that it was the only method I had of non-lethally restraining an enemy combatant! (Animals couldn't be told to capture but not kill.) In what messed-up morality does "saving the lives of the innocent" = Evil?!

So, I'm sure this is the hundredth anecdote you've read if you read the whole thread, but it's why I have a problem with "X is always Evil, no matter what" - while it's difficult to make a case for some things to not be evil, broadly defining entire classes of actions as Always Evil regardless of context is not exactly optimal for getting people to engage with the alignment system. "Forgetting" that rule is less a houserule and more a requirement to begin play to some groups.

[JoeElf]

I was not referring to any specific code; I was referring to alignment overall. But even with regard to the codes, there are offenses for which an Atonement (presumably with a financial penalty and some remorse) will suffice (generally the unlawful acts), and some for which a Paladin will instantly fall (generally the evil acts).

And to me, casting an Infernal Healing spell or summoning your only intelligent creature that happens to be Evil for a purpose that is Good on a very rare occurrence should not cause an alignment shift in general. But if either are forbidden by your code (generally as a Paladin or some Cleric restrictions), alignment shift (or Atonement requirement) or a falling may occur anyway depending on circumstances.