Difficult things to Role Play

[[DM] Grinning Death]

Laurk, while your examples are certainly poignant, they're extremes. People don't need to kill thousands of people to be evil. They just need to be petty, greedy, selfish, and uncaring. They just have to see and cause suffering, and not care about doing so. Evil means so much more when looked at through the scope of the day to day, rather than the lens of Emperor Palpatine.

The best evils, I've found, are the ones that take the viewpoint that they don't need to operate by society's definitions and boundaries that we consider ethical. Instead, they do what's good for them at the end of the day.

But, my two cents. It likely doesn't fit in the overarching D&D cosmological definitions that are being discussed, but it compels me moreso than a malefic sower of hatred and despair.

[Kaybrie]

Laurk, while your examples are certainly poignant, they're extremes. People don't need to kill thousands of people to be evil. They just need to be petty, greedy, selfish, and uncaring. They just have to see and cause suffering, and not care about doing so. Evil means so much more when looked at through the scope of the day to day, rather than the lens of Emperor Palpatine.

The best evils, I've found, are the ones that take the viewpoint that they don't need to operate by society's definitions and boundaries that we consider ethical. Instead, they do what's good for them at the end of the day.

But, my two cents. It likely doesn't fit in the overarching D&D cosmological definitions that are being discussed, but it compels me moreso than a malefic sower of hatred and despair.

There are, in fact different degree's of good and evil, and I'd agree with you to think that the average good guy isn't a paladin, and the average evil dude isn't a vampire.

[Lotus]

A bandit leader has no problem robbing caravans, killing the people who guard it and the attendant merchants, but gods help you if you harm a child. Evil

A soldier is deaf to the sick and impoverished, keeping his coin for himself and his family. He doesn't hesitate to dive in front of a blade to protect an innocent from harm. Good

A leader keeps his people well protected and well fed. His is a secure city, where people are free to live happy lives free of subjugation. He has his rivals poisoned and isn't afraid to employ murder and disease to prevent wars or win them. Evil

An adventurer travels from town to town, making himself available for odd jobs and small heroism. He'll take on long odds if the price is right, and he never abandons a job, not matter the danger. He's saved a few villages from marauding orcs and the like. He's also watched a few burn when the coin wasn't there. Neutral

[GodBeastX]

A man let's devils come into his city and tempt people to go to hell. He allows demons to steal souls and make new demons. He tortures people in ways that make cruel demons go O_O. He even allows devils to join in the fun! Neutral (Also known as Kelemvor)




I hope you weren't planning on having no god on your character, mold is gonna eat your ass in the afterlife Even if you were good aligned.

[wangxiuming]

*gulps*

[Satoshi]

There's a lot of good stuff in this discussion, and I want to thank everyone who has contributed to it. The fact that it hasn't devolved into a flame war or shouting match of opinions is a testament to each and every one of you. In every one of these posts I see a little bit of what I expect from the alignment system, and I think in a roundabout way all of you have it right. We have a point value assigned to every action, but it's also modified by situation - so we have a sliding scale of good vs evil and idealism vs. cynicism.

I've played a gamut of different characters with wildly differing personalities. My oldest character, I even struggled with identifying his true alignment and asked several different opinions to help guide my thought process. The hardest thing for me to roleplay, though, would have to be a woman. I simply cannot do it, because there is so much difference from my own distinctly masculine mindset that I could not reasonably and accurately portray a woman (in my mind). How do I figure I can roleplay an elf, with their generally orange and blue morality, but not a woman? I want to say it's because sourcebooks tell me a very solid basis for elven psychology and it's something I've done for a very long time, but I'll never really know for certain. And sometimes I get a bit overly dickish when I see other people roleplaying so far away from general racial psychology that it seems absurd (to me), which I really have been trying to work on.

Lawful people stick to their principals/honor/code. Sometimes this involves mortal laws in a given region, but most likely they are the laws of their gods or personal philosophical principal. A 100% lawful person will not violate their particular ethics in order to accomplish a goal, even if refusal means death. A Chaotic person has no use for such restraints and does whatever he feels best to accomplish his goal. The neutral person has his own limit to what he'll do to win, depending on how close he is to one axis or the other.

I agree with Laurk on this bit, and it makes me rethink some of my characters. Good vs. evil has always been pretty extremist to me, with neutrality making up a whole lot of the middle grounds.

[cmosier]

Lotus: Are those actions evil or is the person committing them evil?

[Lotus]

Cmosier, actions are what determine alignment. Something "good" done by an evil person is a "good" act, and vice versa. The people I've described are people who have carved out their existence with those sorts of morality, and the alignments following the descriptions are the results of those actions.

What I'm illustrating here is that being good or evil doesn't mean making every good or evil choice. It's having a bias toward one sort of choice over another. A murderer and pillager can have a soft spot for kids, an effective leader looking out for the interests of his people can murder and poison and sabotage to get to his ends, and an adventurer who has routed a band of orcs might choose to do differently in the future, depending on his needs at the time.

[cmosier]

Cmosier, actions are what determine alignment. Something "good" done by an evil person is a "good" act, and vice versa. The people I've described are people who have carved out their existence with those sorts of morality, and the alignments following the descriptions are the results of those actions.

What I'm illustrating here is that being good or evil doesn't mean making every good or evil choice. It's having a bias toward one sort of choice over another. A murderer and pillager can have a soft spot for kids, an effective leader looking out for the interests of his people can murder and poison and sabotage to get to his ends, and an adventurer who has routed a band of orcs might choose to do differently in the future, depending on his needs at the time.

Now I understand. :-) I still believe intention is more important than action, but that might be too abstract for a game.

[Shadechild]

I always find it difficult expressing myself or my characters, which makes for awkward situations and sometimes outcomes that I didn't want =) (Like upsetting a lot of people who don't speak to me anymore)

When I meet new people it always feels like sunshine though! Like if I just press on a little harder that maybe when I reach the top of the hill I'll have my own RP group to call home.

I like the depictions on Alignments written above, it's always such a tricky subject. Especially when people play it 'By the book' and don't leave any room for development.

[GodBeastX]

Now I understand. :-) I still believe intention is more important than action, but that might be too abstract for a game.

Intention will probably mean you're going to do more good or evil acts, but as they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions That's very true in D&D.

[Aniril_Telin]

Feeling that right about now. ... so very true.

[FriendlyNecromancer]

The problem with good and evil is when you begin treating PCs as nothing but receptacles for supposedly good or evil energies, as if they were all normal peasants with -10 will saves and 8 WIS. It's like you are slowly being corrupted to Evil by casting spells with Evil descritor or raising the dead, no matter what your intentions are at all. Intention does matter to me, because otherwise you literally are doing inherently evil or good stuff just because. And that works both ways. For example, how many Protection against Evil would an evil character need to cast before he suddenly began seeing a golden light and an angelic chorus, thus making him realize the error of his ways? It just can't possibly work like that.
Or is it in the end nothing but a numerical system where doing Y action earns you 1dX evil/good points and you get to balance good deeds with evil actions?
I don't exactly feel the road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least not in the Realms, since all you need for a decent afterlife is to be a good enough servant in the eyes of your god to the point he decides to take your soul with him after you die. And it's also funny because no matter how virtuous or honorable you were while living, if you didn't worship a god you still get to enjoy oblivion as mold for Myrkul's Wall.

[Laurk]

I should point out that when I describe my definition of good and evil, its got extremes on both ends of course. A 100% lawful, 100% good being has utter compassion and near perfect empathy for people, even strangers, and won't hesitate to die for them. She is also us utterly unwilling to compromise principals (whatever they may be to her) as she knows that the ends "never" justify the means.

Likewise a 100% choatic and 100% evil being has no principals at all, she does what she wants, and what she wants happens to be the most twisted forms of deprevity and sadism imaginable.

I would say, and the source would concur that there are no mortals who fall into either of these categories, though some come close. Only the Celestials and fiends are ABSOLUTELY 100% aligned with good or evil (and probably law and chaos as well). Mortals all have a little of each. So my examples are certain extremes, however I think that the principal is true: The more evil you are, the more sadistic you are, the more good you are, the more compassionate you are. "Most" evil people are nowhere near the baby killing, torturing sadists that a fiend is, but some, like extreme Loviatar get pretty damned close.

Most of mortal people fall somewhere closer to the middle with extremes on either end being far more rare. So yes, Evil can be the self serving greedy hater AND the sadistic serial killer. Just two stops on the same path to the hells.

It's like you are slowly being corrupted to Evil by casting spells with Evil descritor or raising the dead, no matter what your intentions are at all.

This is exactly how it happens in D&D. Its also what makes it fantasy which is differant than real life perhaps to a degree. This concept probably finds its roots in Star Wars if anywhere. In D&D land, actions actually draw energy to you, good and evil. Filling you with one or the other. The more evil energy in you, the darker your thoughts and desires. Its not even that far from reality.

Here's an example of a slide into evil: Imagine a goodly warriors who fights in defense of his home. At first he hates the killing, seeing the faces of the poor misguided young men he must slay to defend his people. As the battles rage over the years, that feeling fo guilt begins to fade as his heart becomes calloused to the violence. After a time, he simply doesn't care. Killing is second nature to him. But as time presses on, a dark change is happening within him. He finds he cannot stand peace time. He craves the battle, the excitment, and the feeling of power he feels from killing a man. After even longer, that excitment isn't enough, he wants to dominate his foes, causing them pain because its the only way he can get the thrill of power he once had. Soon he's just plain sadistic. Whatever drove him in the begginnig has been replaced with a desire to cause suffering, and he'll go attack people just to get that feeling. He went from good to evil via a slow steady progress of evil acts which corrupted him.

This is why a Paladin strives to be Lawful & good. By adhering to ridgid vows, he hopes to counteract the inevitable downward spiral that violence tends to have on people. By keeping his mind always focused on "why" he fights, and "how" he fights, he can maintain some compassion while still smiting evil-doers. I honestly believe that realistically, it would be far easier for a choatic good person to fall toward neutrality, and if they didn't realize, eventually to evil. Principals, or, having a very strong ethic they adhere too helps keep corruption at bay.

And it's also funny because no matter how virtuous or honorable you were while living, if you didn't worship a god you still get to enjoy oblivion as mold for Myrkul's Wall.

Think of it like this: When you go through your baptism or joining ritual, or whatever to bond yourself to a God, you are essentially attaching a becon to yourself so that your God's petitioners can pick you out of a crowd of billions of lost souls wandering the fugue, amongst other things. Without that becon, not only will your God have no way of finding you, but you'll be damned for not having fullfilled Ao's law. Once damned, you have no free will. With no free will, you're fair game for the demons and other things that come to harvest the lost in Kelemvor's plane. Some wind up dragged into the Abyss or the Hells, others wind up in the wall. It may not seem right, but then, the Gods are limited in their power and subserviant to Ao, and Ao doesn't give a shit.

I don't exactly feel the road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least not in the Realms, since all you need for a decent afterlife is to be a good enough servant in the eyes of your god to the point he decides to take your soul with him after you die.

While 14 might be the "minimum" peices of flaire required, do you really want to be the sort of person who does the "minimum." I expect there are many people who want to suck-up hard and be the best goody-two-shoes they can because they are hoping to "impress" their Gods, not just "appease" them. But its true you don't need to be a saint to get into the eternal reward from your god... but then.. since most people don't have any idea how much they need to impress said god, I expect they'd want to error on the side of caution.

[cmosier]

Intention will probably mean you're going to do more good or evil acts, but as they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions That's very true in D&D.

Byrun actually tells people that in game.