Deity Question

[Vaelek]

And maybe Hoar followers because they are lame and probably really love Cyric anyways.

Theres a certain Hoar loving vampire that may accidently drop his enchanted greatsword on Varsick's face next he appears.

Just a heads up.

[greypawn]

Theres a certain Hoar loving vampire that may accidently drop his enchanted greatsword on Varsick's face next he appears.

Just a heads up.

It would probably be an improvement.

[Darkened Skies]

Maybe it will cure his stutter

Edit: Also...

A gruesome, bloodthirsty murder (obvious)

...

An act of genocide.

...

As you can see, plain murder falls into the lowest category.

It also falls into the highest

[Lucidity]

You're absolutely right, I think I may have put my foot in my mouth on that one.

I meant it more in context of the PC's; plain murder = individual killings/PvP, genocide = the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or part, of a ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. I personally wouldn't consider killing a few people here and there on the server as an act of genocide, as such a horrible act or acts have a terrifyingly profound effect on not only those who commit such deeds, but objects and locations are forever marred and tainted.

I hope all of these Book of Vile Darkness excerpts have your evil minds teeming with new ideas.. I look forward to using my Smite Evil ability until the button wears out on my action bar.

[Chipmunk]

Genocide is generally a fairly detached form of evil - think of signing off on a paper that leads to many deaths. I'm not saying it's not unbelievably evil, but I think that face-to-face murder has something going for it as well as being top-evil.

That said, I'm with some of the other voices that say that murder isn't top in the list of evil.

I think the systematic physical and mental abuse of another human being for the pure sake of entertainment is much, much more evil than killing someone.

Saying "in every religion", as an aside, in a debate about what is evil is an odd argument. First off: you mean Christianity, and its ten commandments. Which is not the largest religion, by far. It also has an impressive track record of enabling individuals to transgress against its own moral compass. I don't intent to turn this into a religious debate, mind you. I'm just pointing out that "religion" isn't a valid argument to point out something is "evil".

There's been some cases in either Austria or Switzerland, where a man kept a young woman locked up in a basement all her life, only let her out to abuse her, and impregnated her a ton of times. If you'd ask me which is more evil, this person or a murderer, I'd say that this person scored much higher.

The TL: DR version of this entire argument is: To what degree something is "evil" depends entirely on someone's own moral compass. I think we can, as a community , come up with a list consisting of no-brainers, where the only discussion would be how HIGH something scores on the Evil-O-Meter.

I think we should be careful with the gray area, however. And ensure we don't become the RP police when it comes to alignment. Only in blatant cases should a DM step in, and even then, after discussing things with the player.

People who have spoken to me know just how much I despise the notion that D&D tries to put complex morality in a nine-cell matrix. It can't be done. Let's try and remember that alignment can't be rule-lawyered. Because the rules are shit.

[Shedboy]

i had been thinking about this "the problem of evil" question again and DnD. @ things i have been half musing upon:

Firstly:

Evil is the antithesis of Good. So maybe we should define what is good and then find its evil counterpart.

Compassion verses Hate (though some might argue ambivalence is a lesser evil which fits on the neutral zone of the Good-Evil spectrum)

Collegial affiliation versus Power and Domination

etc.


Secondly: perhaps alignment is better used as the characters own perception or mindset as to how they see themselves or how they want to be (versus their actual actions).

so technically you can have a guy who thinks he is LG but whose actions are actually rather LE. Alignment represents their ideals real or delusional, and drop the absolute good evil law chaos.

anyway just thoughts

[Doubtful]

The alignment system is always a bit of a bugbear.

It's important to remember that the D&D universe does deal in absolutes, their are creatures of law, chaos, good and evil. They're very real and known, as are the gods - The whole gods wandering the face of the planet and doing godly stuff only happened 14 years ago.

The alignment part of your character sheet is kind of a reflection of this great godly/planar mess, and how your character fits into it. Do they do lots of selfless things for good reason? Are they selfish and prone to acts of pettiness. Do they adhere to a strong moral code and encourage others to adopt the same, or do they live according to whimsy and feelings, living only in the moment. The things your character has done up to the point of character sheet creation leave marks and stains on the characters soul. That's your alignment.

Your character probably doesn't know their alignment, it's the kind of thing that only a few divine/magically inclined things can reveal. Hells, our character could easily think they're of a totally different persuasion to their actual one (Of course I'm good! I care for my family, my children and my country. Hells, I've proved it time and time again while working as an executioner of political dissidents, those who eat eggs from the round end first and people who aren't from around here. If that doesn't make me good then I don't know what will!).

It's a bit like karma, but with more variety.

Of course, most people are going to end up neutral, erring towards good, as the things they do balance out.

The alignment system works if you think of it as the universes view of your character, but falls down if you think of it as your characters view of the universe.


That's my current thoughts anyway. Your mileage may vary.

Edit:

People should also fear those things that exemplify absolutes, mostly because most characters will rarely, if ever, work in terms of absolutes. A pious Solar intent on scouring all traces of non-good from a town will be as devastating to a place as a Demon turning up and destroying any non-evil.

[Kaizen]

The alignment system is always a bit of a bugbear.

It's important to remember that the D&D universe does deal in absolutes, their are creatures of law, chaos, good and evil. They're very real and known, as are the gods - The whole gods wandering the face of the planet and doing godly stuff only happened 14 years ago.

The alignment system works if you think of it as the universes view of your character, but falls down if you think of it as your characters view of the universe..

Inclined to agreed with Doubt here.

With D&D and its Cosmic Standards and it's absolute morality is that it literally just does not care about whatever mental and moral gymnastics you make to justify your actions. No matter how awesome the Greater Good a PC thinks they are serving by doing this or that, they are still almost certainly falling short of the actual Cosmic Standard of Goodness. The character is completely and totally free to justify his summoning a balor to save the children of the orphanage, or blowing up the homeless shelter in order to kill the dread necromancer that was inside, but the Cosmos is still giving him Evil points. You don't even get to argue otherwise in D&D, very simply. Again, PCs can still say whatever they like about it and make all of their arguments to each other, so nothing of RP value is lost, you're just definitely going to get Evil points on your character sheet. The whole kingdom may love you now, but the Cosmos has decided you are two points closer to Evil, and two points closer to not being able to use your Paladinly powers or what have you.

Genocide is generally a fairly detached form of evil - think of signing off on a paper that leads to many deaths. I'm not saying it's not unbelievably evil, but I think that face-to-face murder has something going for it as well as being top-evil.

I'd say this was situational, like almost anything. IE Hitler/Stalin/Mao Zedong were infinitely more evil than the soldiers they ordered to do the killings.

For Paladins:

Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to their exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger then the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act that involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

This is why pally RP is a bit difficult, but fun!

[Chipmunk]

I am entirely in agreement with the whole notion of the Cosmic Standard of Good, and mental gymnastics not mattering.

Where I fail to understand the argument is how you then judge a character. Per definition, then, if we give you evil points it is because we are mirroring your character to the Cosmic Standard of Good.

I don't think even us all-powerful DM's have that insight. So while I love the arguments brought forward, I find the notion unworkable. The reality is that each person that has posted in this thread will have a different Cosmic Standard of Good.

Or, in response to Kaizen (who worded things really well):

The whole kingdom may love you now, but the Cosmos has decided you are two points closer to Evil, and two points closer to not being able to use your Paladinly powers or what have you.

Unfortunately, we don't actually have the voice of the Cosmos. We'll have to make do.

[DM_Acorn]

I AM the voice of Cosmos.. cosmos... coss mosss......

[DM_Acorn]

I AM the voice of Cosmos.. cosmos... coss mosss............

[Kaizen]

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

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.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

This is just a snippet, as I didn't want to Copy+Paste the entire section of the D&D book over the forums. But the 'cosmic standard' is out there, in the book.

If D&D weren't an absolute morality system, and a 'relative' or 'culturaly' morale system - then the entire Lawful/Chatotic Good/Evil system would have to be done away with.

[AsuraKing]

Think I'll make a new character when I get back based purely off of Sloth and see if that counts as evil.

He would sooooo fit in with the second wind statues.

[Chipmunk]

Kaizen, I never argued that the rules for "Good" were ill-defined. I said that actually applying those rules isn't as easy as mirroring it to a description.

Just think of the terms "altruism" and "respect for life". There's TONS of actions that can be easily called 'altruistic' or 'respectful of life', but there's an enormous list of actions that could be altruistic, or could not be. That's when that term "interpretation" comes into play again.

As people, we very well know these rules. But despite that, we often run into situations where you can't determine whether you lived up to the self-imposed standards of good, or did not.

If D&D weren't an absolute morality system, and a 'relative' or 'culturaly' morale system - then the entire Lawful/Chatotic Good/Evil system would have to be done away with.

This is a regurgitated argument I often hear. "It's an absolute system". These are just words, that lack any actual practical application. The definitions are all clear. But even in this "world where Gods are just plain Good or Evil, and walk around, showing they exist", whether something fits the absolute definition is often a matter of perspective. Anyone refuting that is, essentially, claiming to have knowledge of Good and Evil. I'm not willing to make that claim about myself. After all - we ate from the tree in the Garden of Eden, for those religious people out there.

Doing away with the alignment system has been something I've always advocated, as an aside. It's a terrible system. Human morality, even if you clearly define good or evil as absolutes, which has been done by philosophers for 2000 years, you can't capture it on a bi-axial system. Nor can you trust any other person to be able to interpret actions objectively by these absolutes.

[Doubtful]

Doing away with the alignment system has been something I've always advocated, as an aside. It's a terrible system. Human morality, even if you clearly define good or evil as absolutes, which has been done by philosophers for 2000 years, you can't capture it on a bi-axial system. Nor can you trust any other person to be able to interpret actions objectively by these absolutes.

It's not about Human Morality. It's about divine morality, divine morality in a high-fantasy world with radically different perspectives on things to our own.

The alignment system is intrinsic to the world of D&D, the various gods, creatures and even planes of existence are based around the alignments. Stands to reason that your PC should fit into this.

A lot of people really seem to over-think the alignment system; of course it's not going to cover the whole spectrum of human emotional development and moral vagueness, no simple system could. But as a way of defining your characters karmic place in the world it's pretty simple.

As for long winded explanations and complex motivations. They don't really count. The action, not the explanation or justification, is what counts.

Also: Pretendy fun time.