Alignment

[kenada]

Here is my crappy attempt at specifying how I view the alignments in D&D. The nine D&D alignments would be the cartesian product of these two axes.

Law-Chaos

• Law: Favors order and tradition. Prefers working within the constraints of structural authority to effect change. May possess a code of conduct.
• Neutral: Commited to neither Law nor Chaos. May exhibit traits from either or both.
• Chaos: Disregards or opposes structural authority.

Good-Evil

• Good: Avoids inflicting harm. Includes helping others as part of his interests.
• Neutral: Commited to neither avoiding nor inflicting harm.
• Evil: Inflicts harm as a side effect of pursuing his interests, and may include inflicting harm as part of them.

[Measure Zero]

Here is my crappy attempt at specifying how I view the alignments in D&D. The nine D&D alignments would be the cartesian product of these two axes.

Law-Chaos

• Law: Favors order and tradition. Prefers working within the constraints of structural authority to effect change. May possess a code of conduct.
• Neutral: Not commited to either Law nor Chaos. May exhibit traits from either or both.
• Chaos: Disregards or opposes structural authority.

Good-Evil

• Good: Avoids inflicting harm. Includes helping others as part of his interests.
• Neutral: Not commited to either avoiding nor inflicting harm.
• Evil: Inflicts harm as a side effect of pursuing his interests, and may include inflicting harm as part of them.

I made a subtle change here.  A neutral being need not be committed to neutrality.

[kenada]

Seems reasonable to me.

[BobChuck]

Neutral (in either direction) is hard to define; it basically contains  part of the "line" that separates X from Neutral from -X and the actual Neutral bit in the middle. It's really three different things, two of which are opposites of each other.

But anyway, here's my original (emphasis on) generalized descriptions of Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil, along with my attempt to define each according to its component parts:

Lawful Good characters work towards "The Greater Good". They seek to do "good things" such as protect the weak and help the helpless, while also doing "Lawful Things" like making the guards and borders stronger and  protecting the (Righteous) ruling class. They prefer to do Good Things in a Lawful Way and Lawful Things in a Good Way.

Lawful Good people pay their taxes willingly, because they believe the money is (or should be) spent to achieve the most good for the most people.

Lawful Evil characters seek to "Use the System". They work towards "Perfectly Justifiable Things" like keeping everything they can for themselves even when the neighbors are starving, while also doing "Lawful Things" like making the guards and borders stronger and protecting the (Corrupt) ruling class. They prefer to do "Justifiable" Things in a Lawful Way and Lawful Things in a "Beneficial" Way.

Lawful Evil people approve of taxes, and believe they have the right to "use every loophole in the book" to get around actually paying them personally. They also believe that, since everyone has this opportunity, anyone that doesn't deserves to lose their money, and are okay with paying whatever they can't get around - after all, it is (or should be) spread around to those that most excel at manipulating the system.

Evil: at this point, it's worth mentioning that very, very few Evil characters actually believe they are evil. Either "everyone has this opportunity and its their own fault for not taking it" or "I am special and unique so I can do what I want". Which leads to:

Chaotic Evil characters believe in "Might Makes Right". They work towards "Perfectly Justifiable Things" like keeping everything they can for themselves even when the neighbors are starving, while also doing "Chaotic Things" like staging disruptive individualistic protests and trying to get away from (Cruel) ruling class. They prefer to do "Justifiable" Things in a Chaotic Way and Chaotic Things in a "Beneficial" Way.

Chaotic Evil people hate taxes, hate tax collectors, and wish for everyone involved in the whole scheme to die slowly and painfully. While on fire.

So there's the following:
"Good Things" such as protect the weak and help the helpless
"Perfectly Justifiable Things" like keeping everything they can for themselves even when the neighbors are starving
"Lawful Things" like making the guards and borders stronger and  protecting the (descriptor) ruling class
"Chaotic Things" like staging disruptive individualistic protests and trying to get away from (descriptor) ruling class

Does this sound reasonable, as far as it goes?

I would also like to suggest another idea: (emphasis important) among mortals and other "gray" intelligent creatures Lawful/Chaotic Good is less Lawful/Chaotic than Neutral, which is also less Lawful/Chaotic than Evil.

As concepts they are independent, but when applied to the mortal realm and all its complications, pursuing either at the expense of all other things results in more Evil (and more significant Evil) being done than Good, simply because Evil is easier.

[Measure Zero]

Of course, Motivation isn't everything, and some things just cannot be justified.

My favorite example of Absolute Morality and why it works the way it does is this:

A horrible something (what really does not matter, necromantic plague, demonic ascension, total annihilation, etc) assaults a Lawful Good kingdom. A ritual conveniently finds its way into the hands of the Lawful Good king, which works thus:

a Paladin from outside the kingdom without any connections to it must come and sacrifice the King's eldest daughter, damning her soul for all eternity, or the kingdom and all its inhabitants will suffer a terrible fate.

The choice, while horrible, seems simple enough: either damn one soul or doom thousands.

So, a Paladin hears about the situation and rides in.

He goes through the motions, everything is set, but a the last moment he hesitates, and thus dooms the entire kingdom. The unfortunate citizens (even those who fled the country) all (eventually) die, but most end up in the Lawful Good afterlife (since the kingdom was Lawful Good). Meanwhile, the Paladin goes to the Neutral afterlife for ultimately failing his duty.

The other choice is sacrificing the princess, which does in fact save the kingdom. It also irrevocably turns the Paladin Lawful Evil, thus setting the stage for conquest and subjugation of multiple kingdoms, which was the real objective the entire time (though killing off an entire kingdom is convenient, its not the goal).

The Right Choice, ultimately, is to take a third option - find out where the ritual came from, discover who is ultimately responsible for what is about to happen, and stop it, hard. Of course is difficult and unexpected, but that's what heroes do.

Having Absolute Morality is what lets this happen. If everything were relative, then there would not necessarily be a third option. but in a game about playing heroes, there has to be or the whole thing falls apart. Throwing this situation at a Paladin without including the third option is unfair; in World of Darkness it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

Well, if you think of going to a Lawful Good afterlife as being a terrible fate, then what' so bad about killing the king's daughter?  What if she wants to make the sacrifice for her people, knowing that it is the only sure way to save them?  The paladin would not be committing an Evil act by killing her, because he is enabling her to save her people (and he could always use his magic to follow her to whatever fate she is sent, and save her soul directly).  Saving the many is a sure thing at this point, by taking the life of one.  I don't see how this is setting the stage for the subjugation and conquest of multiple kingdoms or how it will make the Paladin Evil forever; that wasn't listed as part of the scenario until after you explained the conclusion (it sounds like a gotcha!).  By killing the princess according to her wishes and then fighting for her, the paladin shows that doing good is more important to him than retaining his paladinhood.  The paladin keeps his paladinhood because he refused to put his pride before the lives of the people of the kingdom.

The second option, ignoring the situation, is far worse.  Not only will the princess die or whatever, but so will the rest of the kingdom, and they will probably suffer fates worse than death.  A Lawful Good person would not follow this course of action unless there was something far more pressing.  The paladin should lose his paladinhood, at least until he atones.

Your third option, attacking the source of the problem, is full of risks.  It takes time to research, time to execute, and time for the execution to have its effect.  It could easily be too late by the time the Paladin finishes his task.  Beyond that, the Paladin could actually fail.  He is gambling the lives of an entire kingdom's worth of people against the fate of one person.  That kind of arrogance is damnable.  He isn't being a hero; he is merely trying to look like one.  He should forever lose his paladinhood for putting so many people at risk for the sake of his own pride.  He can go on doing good deeds, but his pride will always prevent him from being a true paladin.



Now here are some alternative solutions:

1) Kill the princess, have the king disinherit her, then raise her from the dead or perform a quest to save her.  Unless she plotkilled by Sephiroth, the raising should work.  If she was plotkilled by Sephiroth, a quest should allow the Paladin to atone and save her or at least make her death more significant.  Perhaps she could become more powerful than you can possibly imagine, and haunt the paladin until he is capable of returning to his vocation.

2) Have the king abdicate his throne to his daughter and forever change his kingdom into a "queendom".  Nonexistence is a terrible fate for a kingdom, and all 0 of its inhabitants would suffer eternally.  This would lead to an interesting story when a man attempts to take over the kingdom, but that could be handled later.

3) Determine that the ritual that the king found was misinterpreted.  Perhaps the ritual says that the paladin must "take the princess's life upon the highest altar in the kingdom".  While this looks like a euphemism for killing, it could just as easily be a euphemism for marriage, a small drawing of blood, or even the cutting of the princess's hair.

[kenada]

I’m now going to use my system to evaluate the examples posted in this thread.

Edit: This post is obsolete. Don’t reply to it anymore.

No, the problem, the core of the issue, is the "Chaotic Neutral" characters who think it's perfectly acceptable to rob everyone in sight…

Chaotic Evil. Robbing someone is inflicting economic harm on the target (= Evil). Robbery is usually unlawful (= Chaotic).

No, the problem, the core of the issue, is the "Chaotic Neutral" characters who think it's perfectly acceptable to … cast charm spells on the barmaid.

Neutral Neutral unless casting spells on someone else is unlawful, then Chaotic Neutral. The evaluation of this act is independent of any subsequent act.

In many RPGs, such as World Of Darkness, a "spirit of murder" would not be considered inherently evil. It causes murder, seeks out murder, thrives on murder; all this is true. But it does so because that's what it is. One can no more blame a spirit of murder for influencing murder than one can blame the sun for rising.

Chaotic Evil. It inflicts harm (= Evil), and murder is typically unlawful behavior (= Chaotic).

Cows and chickens are both somewhat intelligent, as are animals that are hunted, etc.  There is some distinction between "farmable" and "too smart to eat," but it is arbitrary and decided entirely by those with power.

Neutral Evil. Inflicting harm (= Evil). Killing animals for food is generally lawful (= Lawful), but most creatures would do it regardless of the law (= Chaotic). While animals are generally Neutral Neutral, Neutral Neutral creatures are not above committing a necessary Evil act, which is how I would classify “killing things to eat”.

Here is a scenario: the death penalty is to be administered to a man who has been convicted of treason.  Our PCs think that this does not deserve the death penalty because his crime seemed like a relatively benign crime, so they mount a rescue.

Chaotic Good. They are helping someone (= Good), but they are breaking the law (= Chaotic).

The treason caused a weakness in the city's defenses to be revealed, leading to an assault by an unrelated third party and multiple deaths.

Chaotic Evil. They inflicted harm on the city (= Evil), and their actions were unlawful (= Chaotic).

I’ve not bothered to define arithmetic on alignments, so I will avoid commenting on what the aggregate alignment is for this scenario.

A horrible something (what really does not matter, necromantic plague, demonic ascension, total annihilation, etc) assaults a Lawful Good kingdom. A ritual conveniently finds its way into the hands of the Lawful Good king, which works thus:

a Paladin from outside the kingdom without any connections to it must come and sacrifice the King's eldest daughter, damning her soul for all eternity, or the kingdom and all its inhabitants will suffer a terrible fate.

The choice, while horrible, seems simple enough: either damn one soul or doom thousands.

Sacrificing the princess is Lawful Neutral. It does inflict harm (= Evil), but sometimes Neutral-aligned characters recognize the utility in evil actions. The King is the King (= Lawful).

Saving the princess is Chaotic Evil. Killing the whole kingdom is inflicting harm (= Evil), and going against the king is disregarding structural authority (= Chaotic).

I'm speaking in general terms; I'm assuming that the rules as written hold true (Red Dragons are Chaotic Evil 99.9% of the time); I'm also assuming that the PCs are familiar enough with the local area to easily locate the guards, and so would have heard numerous stories about the Red Dragon nearby and how it was attacking things, eating everyone inside, and carrying off everything of value.

That said, both motivation (why you did it/are going to do it) and reaction (how you react to unforeseen consequences) count for a lot. Stealing from a Red Dragon and giving the money to the local guards to distribute back to the people is a Lawful Good act.

Lawful Neutral. Inflicting harm on the dragon (= Evil), but you are helping out a lot of the citizens of the city (= Good). The PCs appear to be working with the local authority to return stolen property (= Lawful).

[Measure Zero]

You say that it's absolutely Evil to commit murder. 

nope.

I said that a creature that randomly murders living creatures wherever it goes for no reason (other than "that's just the way it is") would be defined as "Chaotic Evil". I can site numerous examples from D&D to back this up.

So you don't say that murder (which is distinct from killing) is evil?  That is a strange kind of absolute morality you have there if this is true.

EDIT: I just saw your wolf example. It's killing in order to eat. It's not evil for the wolf to kill and eat a bunny, it's not evil for it to kill and eat a person. It's not really capable of understanding what evil is, and since its a natural creature with more or less normal instincts, it gets defined as Neutral.

EDIT: continued. The spirit of murder, on the other hand, would not be defined as "natural". It would be a necromantic construct or interloper from the negative energy plane; even if it's also not really capable of understanding what evil is, that does not make its actions okay. If both the wolf and the spirit were assaulting a village, they would both need to be "dealt with", but the reasons are different.

EDIT 2: yes, ultimately, if you push on this point hard enough, you can twist it so that they are no different and the game is really just making arbitrary distinctions to speed things up. that's the whole point. Absolute Morality keeps things simple and lets players run around having fun.

It's as evil to kill a wolf that is trying to eat you as it is to kill a murder spirit that is trying to make murders.  After all, they both gotta eat, and it just happens that one of them "eats" murder instead of babies.  There is no reason to assume that a murder spirit would have to have come from another plane or that it would be in any sense unnatural.  But killing them is as immoral is stopping a flood from destroying your city: they are outside the concerns of morality.

Murder is killing an intelligent being in an unjustified manner.  Cows and chickens are both somewhat intelligent, as are animals that are hunted, etc.  There is some distinction between "farmable" and "too smart to eat," but it is arbitrary and decided entirely by those with power.

Actually, the rules are pretty clear on what is and is not an intelligent being: intellect of 3 or higher.

I don't think that draining a person's intelligence before killing him stops the killing from being a murder.  And PCs can't measure a cow's intellect to determine if that particular cow is really a dumb brute or is just playing dumb to avoid persecution.

This is hubris of the worst sort (it's not murder when I kill a fly for no reason), and definitely Evil. There is no excuse for this in a world where food can be magically conjured, even it is built in to the cosmology that certain beings are just "lower" than others and morality doesn't apply to them.

Yeah, this is a problem in one of the "current" versions of D&D (pathfinder), where create food/water are 0th-level spells that can be cast infinitely.

In all previous editions, however, your example is fundamentally flawed.

Even if every single spellcaster capable of casting "create food/water" prepared it in every available slot every single day, the amount of food would be less than 10% of what's needed to feed even a small community; the larger the population, the lower the percentage - a bustling metropolis ends up with something like 3%.

I'm pulling from my memory here, but The Math has been done in several different places, and I can dig it up if you really want to see it. It's all based on the average/expected number of X class/level based on community size in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Plus, the food/water needs to be stored, transported, etc. And there's the issue of the used spell slots, that could have otherwise been used to heal wounds, remove diseases/poisons, boost/accelerate a larger number of grown/farmed food, and all the other mundane uses they could have been put to. And this is assuming that the deities in question are perfectly okay with their "level 20 avatar of all that they represent in the world" spending his days feeding the same few hundred people all the time instead of converting new worshipers and defending the faith.

And no, crafting doesn't help either: items of this sort are always either charge-based or uses-per-day, and creating them takes not only spell slots, but time and huge amounts of gold (which is also why there are animated golems doing the farming, among other things).

(Yes, technically the "create your own item" generic rules allow for permanent continuous versions, but that's clearly not the intent, and those rules have numerous other problems when applied to a variety of spells. (Examples using the various "conjure/transmute" spells to create infinite wealth have popped up and were errata-ed; the same trick could be used to create an "infinite food/water loop", but that doesn't mean it actually works.) Also, generic "create your own item/spell/monster/race/class/etc" rules always create lots of problems, and really shouldn't be counted when discussing these sorts of things.)

This has been thoroughly explored in multiple editions of the game, pathfinder is the only one where it's actually a valid accusation, and that's only because they tweaked the rules for 0th level spells in order to make low-level spellcasters a bit more flexible.

The short version is: spell-casters are rare and have better things to do than spend their days feeding a small portion of the population. It's not a bad way to fend off starvation for a few days, but it flat out does not work on any kind of long-term scale.

Spell casters are rare because being a spell caster is hard.  If there was a divine imperative and people were being smitten left and right for killing animals, then more resources would be put aside and more people would undergo training to learn those spells.  There would be more food-making clerics if people took this seriously.  Now for making magic items that produce the food, there is nothing that says that the items have to be charge based or limited to a certain number of uses per day.  There could be a magic altar in Pelor's temple that pops out food when gold is sacrificed there; I'm sure that the practice of destroying wealth to avoid moral corruption is something that Pelor could get behind (thus empowering the altar).

[kenada]

A horrible something (what really does not matter, necromantic plague, demonic ascension, total annihilation, etc) assaults a Lawful Good kingdom. A ritual conveniently finds its way into the hands of the Lawful Good king, which works thus:

a Paladin from outside the kingdom without any connections to it must come and sacrifice the King's eldest daughter, damning her soul for all eternity, or the kingdom and all its inhabitants will suffer a terrible fate.

The choice, while horrible, seems simple enough: either damn one soul or doom thousands.

Sacrificing the princess is Lawful Neutral. It does inflict harm (= Evil), but it helps a lot of people (= Good). A neutral perspective sees that there is occasional utility in Evil actions, but I would expect the king to feel really bad about it (and probably shift alignments to Lawful Neutral). The king is the king (= Lawful).

ftfm

[Measure Zero]

Sacrificing the princess is Lawful Neutral. It does inflict harm (= Evil), but it helps a lot of people (= Good). A neutral perspective sees that there is occasional utility in Evil actions, but I would expect the king to feel really bad about it (and probably shift alignments to Lawful Neutral). The king is the king (= Lawful).

Is killing the princess an evil act if she volunteers for it?  What if it's punishment for a terrible crime, and she can only be forgiven after being purged by the smiting hand of a paladin of a specific order?  This sort of scenario is more likely than the whole "paladin turns super evil and takes over the world" scenario.

And an alignment shift for the king is not likely.  It's much more likely that he (regardless of alignment) would go a little nuts after being forced to sign his own daughter's death warrant.  His insanity could manifest in all sorts of behavior, but the presence of many Lawful Good advisers would probably bend it in that direction.  The rule of cool applies here: an insanely benevolent king would be more entertaining than an insanely bureaucratic king.

[kenada]

Sacrificing the princess is Lawful Neutral. It does inflict harm (= Evil), but it helps a lot of people (= Good). A neutral perspective sees that there is occasional utility in Evil actions, but I would expect the king to feel really bad about it (and probably shift alignments to Lawful Neutral). The king is the king (= Lawful).

Is killing the princess an evil act if she volunteers for it?  What if it's punishment for a terrible crime, and she can only be forgiven after being purged by the smiting hand of a paladin of a specific order?  This sort of scenario is more likely than the whole "paladin turns super evil and takes over the world" scenario.

Yes to both because I’m not considering motivations behind inflicting harm. I’m not entirely happy with that (e.g., is mowing one’s grass an evil act?), but I’ve not yet come up with a revision that I like.

And an alignment shift for the king is not likely.  It's much more likely that he (regardless of alignment) would go a little nuts after being forced to sign his own daughter's death warrant.  His insanity could manifest in all sorts of behavior, but the presence of many Lawful Good advisers would probably bend it in that direction.

I suppose it might be more appropriate for his alignment to shift if he made a trend of it.

The rule of cool applies here: an insanely benevolent king would be more entertaining than an insanely bureaucratic king.

I’m not particularly fond of the rule of cool.

[kenada]

I’m also willing to accept that being Good is just really fucking difficult.

[Measure Zero]

Harm isn't harm without bad consequences.  Sending her to Celestia as a savior of her people wouldn't be a bad consequence at all.  In a world where people have documented accounts of the afterlife, where people can come back from the dead with ease, and where mortals and gods respond to each other, death isn't as big a deal as you seem to be making it out to be.  Being imprisoned or converted to a different religion would be more harmful, I believe.

[kenada]

Yeah, I’m starting to think my definition is not salvageable.

Edit: Let’s try this refinement first before starting over completely. I chose ‘wrongful intention’ instead of  ‘malice’ because malice is ‘the intention or desire to do evil’.

Evil: Causes harm to others through wrongful intention.

Edit 2: I really hate to do this, but I’m going to borrow some stuff from Wikipedia..

Intention includes the following:

• Direct intention - the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur.
• Oblique intention - the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.

The definition of wrongful that I am using is ‘(of an act) not fair, just, or legal’.

[kenada]

Let’s try on the new definition of Evil.

No, the problem, the core of the issue, is the "Chaotic Neutral" characters who think it's perfectly acceptable to rob everyone in sight…

Chaotic Evil.

No, the problem, the core of the issue, is the "Chaotic Neutral" characters who think it's perfectly acceptable to … cast charm spells on the barmaid.

Neutral.

In many RPGs, such as World Of Darkness, a "spirit of murder" would not be considered inherently evil. It causes murder, seeks out murder, thrives on murder; all this is true. But it does so because that's what it is. One can no more blame a spirit of murder for influencing murder than one can blame the sun for rising.

Chaotic Evil.

Cows and chickens are both somewhat intelligent, as are animals that are hunted, etc.  There is some distinction between "farmable" and "too smart to eat," but it is arbitrary and decided entirely by those with power.

Context dependent. If there are practical, other options; then killing animals for consumption would be Neutral Evil, otherwise it is Neutral Neutral.

Here is a scenario: the death penalty is to be administered to a man who has been convicted of treason.  Our PCs think that this does not deserve the death penalty because his crime seemed like a relatively benign crime, so they mount a rescue.

Chaotic Good.

The treason caused a weakness in the city's defenses to be revealed, leading to an assault by an unrelated third party and multiple deaths.

Chaotic Evil.

A horrible something (what really does not matter, necromantic plague, demonic ascension, total annihilation, etc) assaults a Lawful Good kingdom. A ritual conveniently finds its way into the hands of the Lawful Good king, which works thus:

a Paladin from outside the kingdom without any connections to it must come and sacrifice the King's eldest daughter, damning her soul for all eternity, or the kingdom and all its inhabitants will suffer a terrible fate.

The choice, while horrible, seems simple enough: either damn one soul or doom thousands.

Lawful Neutral unless the princess volunteered. Then it would be Lawful Good.

Trading the kingdom for the princess is still Chaotic Evil.

I'm speaking in general terms; I'm assuming that the rules as written hold true (Red Dragons are Chaotic Evil 99.9% of the time); I'm also assuming that the PCs are familiar enough with the local area to easily locate the guards, and so would have heard numerous stories about the Red Dragon nearby and how it was attacking things, eating everyone inside, and carrying off everything of value.

That said, both motivation (why you did it/are going to do it) and reaction (how you react to unforeseen consequences) count for a lot. Stealing from a Red Dragon and giving the money to the local guards to distribute back to the people is a Lawful Good act.

Lawful Good. A party bringing a dragon to justice clearly lacks ‘wrongful intent’, assuming that the only realistic means of doing so is to slay it.

[Measure Zero]

The murder spirit is not evil, even though it causes evil acts to occur.  The beings it influences are its food source.  There is no malice intended (if that is now the requirement), just hunger.  The spirit cannot continue existing without doing this; it has no choice.  Its alignment is neutral by default.

That isn't to say that a murder spirit has to be neutral.  One that understands what it is and causes the least amount of harm possible might actually be good, while one that understands what it is and causes as much mayhem as it can to gain power would be evil.  Without any intentionality at all, the spirit is as morally culpable as gravity is when a tree falls on your house.