(1) There are no objectively evil acts in D&D. (Whether or not there are any in reality is a topic for philosophers.) Morality is frequently broken down into "Intentions", "Actions", "Outcomes", and "Character". These can, and do, frequently conflict with one another, and whether or not one takes priority over another is once again for philosophers to suss out.
The Operator acknowledging that he is "not good" doesn't mean that he is objectively evil, but rather that he has suddenly become self-aware that his lifetime of actions are irredeemably opposed to his values. (Good intentions, Evil Outcomes).
It's easy to oversimplify morality in a game setting, which is probably a good choice, since otherwise people would stop playing to argue about it.
(2) I'm admittedly not very familiar with Frank Castle, but my understanding is that his motivation is the murder of his family, not "making the world a better place", even if that can be considered an outcome. As his name, "Punisher", suggests, his priority is vengeance, not community growth. By the author's own words, "...a man who knows he's going to die and who knows in the big picture his actions will count for nothing, but who pursues his course because this is what he has chosen to do."
He is a broken man who seeks vengeance because that's what he's good at and was personally victimized by cruel circumstance.
(3) Which part are you confused with? "Ought", "insanity and ignorance" as amoral qualities, or the second part?
(i) "What one 'ought' to do" is the central pillar of morality. ("Good" versus "Bad")
(ii) In order to be a "Moral Agent", a conscious choice must be made. Without requisite information, or with too much noise, the choice becomes arbitrary, negating its moral value. (i.e. beasts and elementals)
(iii) The second is basically me partially agreeing with you, and then paraphrasing the definition of "evil" according to the D&D alignment chart.
You will note that this discussion - just like literally every alignment discussion ever had - illustrates quite well that an engaging, complex character can often be fit into at least two or three alignment categories depending on your perspective. Try to use Lawful and Evil as guiding concepts, but don't get too hung up on the details because alignment is a messy, subjective business.
OR... you could reject the DM imposing alignment on you altogether because that's BS. It's your character and you get to choose how you act. The DM gets to control literally everything else, but not the PCs. Warlocks don't have to be complicit allies of an evil patron - they can be victims looking for a way out of their pact or selfless enough to sell their own soul in order to obtain the power to protect others. You can be revived with a pact for any number of reasons and purposes, but you should be in control of those.
(1) There are no objectively evil acts in D&D. (Whether or not there are any in reality is a topic for philosophers.) Morality is frequently broken down into "Intentions", "Actions", "Outcomes", and "Character". These can, and do, frequently conflict with one another, and whether or not one takes priority over another is once again for philosophers to suss out.
No, D&D has always been pretty clear that there are, in fact, objectively evil actions that are evil regardless of intent or outcome. Murdering the innocent or surrendering combatants, torture, ****, or slavery are always evil acts, no exceptions. A character who continuously does evil acts, regardless of intentions, is never good aligned. The Operative, who unhesitatingly murders children and civilians who haven't committed any crimes aside from being someone who the person he's after knows, is a textbook example of being Lawful Evil, he's just abnormally polite about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, D&D has always been pretty clear that there are, in fact, objectively evil actions that are evil regardless of intent or outcome. Murdering the innocent or surrendering combatants, torture, ****, or slavery are always evil acts, no exceptions. A character who continuously does evil acts, regardless of intentions, is never good aligned. The Operative, who unhesitatingly murders children and civilians who haven't committed any crimes aside from being someone who the person he's after knows, is a textbook example of being Lawful Evil, he's just abnormally polite about it.
Would you mind posting a link to the reference you're using?
I've taken the liberty of writing a more comprehensive response, but as this is Dndbeyond and not a philosophy forum, feel free to ignore it.
Are you familiar with the Trolley Problem? Who decides whether someone is "innocent" or not?
What if a malevolent parasite has bound itself to a child, and the only way to kill it before it takes over the world is to also kill the child? Either the child dies, or everyone dies, including the child.
What if the combatants who surrender come from an army which habitually uses surrender as a ploy to get behind enemy lines? You don't know if that's the case with these individuals, but odds are good that a lot of innocent people are going to die because of your "mercy".
What about parents who make their child do chores? At what moment does that become imprisonment or slavery? When they turn 18? 16? 12? 8?
Obviously, parents are expected to protect and prepare their children, for their own benefit. There is no hard line when that stops being true, but eventually, certain behaviors stop being acceptable. Putting a grown man or woman on a table and putting a diaper on them against their will is frowned upon, even if it is their own parent doing it.
Mortals are inherently limited, which means that there will always be uncertainty. Whenever there is uncertainty, actions can not be assessed as either wholly "Good" or "Bad" because it is impossible to know what would have happened had a different choice been made. There are many examples, such as **** and slavery, that are pretty strongly one-sided, but causality is complicated.
(1) There are no objectively evil acts in D&D. (Whether or not there are any in reality is a topic for philosophers.) Morality is frequently broken down into "Intentions", "Actions", "Outcomes", and "Character". These can, and do, frequently conflict with one another, and whether or not one takes priority over another is once again for philosophers to suss out.
The Operator acknowledging that he is "not good" doesn't mean that he is objectively evil, but rather that he has suddenly become self-aware that his lifetime of actions are irredeemably opposed to his values. (Good intentions, Evil Outcomes).
Except that it does. besides the whole thing of he himself admitting that he is a monster and that he has no place in a good society (you know, 'cus he's evil), the action sthat he commits are evil in the setting.
It's easy to oversimplify morality in a game setting, which is probably a good choice, since otherwise people would stop playing to argue about it.
Mhm. That's not really relevant to anything in this thread but thank you for giving is this insight into your gaming.
(2) I'm admittedly not very familiar with Frank Castle, but my understanding is that his motivation is the murder of his family, not "making the world a better place", even if that can be considered an outcome. As his name, "Punisher", suggests, his priority is vengeance, not community growth. By the author's own words, "...a man who knows he's going to die and who knows in the big picture his actions will count for nothing, but who pursues his course because this is what he has chosen to do."
He is a broken man who seeks vengeance because that's what he's good at and was personally victimized by cruel circumstance.
I think you need to read up a bit. The Punisher explicitly states that heis goal is not vengeance and he makes a clear distinction between that and punishment. Also, good is not limited to nothing but "community growth" (whatever that even means). And cherrypicking a quote from one of many authors is kind of pointless since there are many different versions of the Punisher and I was talking about a specific, well-defined version of the character.
(3) Which part are you confused with? "Ought", "insanity and ignorance" as amoral qualities, or the second part?
Don't be obtuse. The question is why you chose to bring up these completely irrelevant topics to this particular thread. Nothing else.
You will note that this discussion - just like literally every alignment discussion ever had - illustrates quite well that an engaging, complex character can often be fit into at least two or three alignment categories depending on your perspective. Try to use Lawful and Evil as guiding concepts, but don't get too hung up on the details because alignment is a messy, subjective business.
OR... you could reject the DM imposing alignment on you altogether because that's BS. It's your character and you get to choose how you act. The DM gets to control literally everything else, but not the PCs. Warlocks don't have to be complicit allies of an evil patron - they can be victims looking for a way out of their pact or selfless enough to sell their own soul in order to obtain the power to protect others. You can be revived with a pact for any number of reasons and purposes, but you should be in control of those.
These are some very good points and some good advice. As you mention, characters can often act according to more than one alignment. In these cases it might be useful to think of it as special circumstances and act accordingly. You might normally be against torture (typically good) but when you finally catch the villain who murdered your entire family you might break a few fingers and cut of an ear (typically evil). Afterwards you might question if what you did was right and, depending on the character, you might even feel bad about it.
Rather than trying to tie it to absolutes, I prefer tying the alignment to a few other concepts.
For law vs chaos, I look at proactive vs reactive, do you plan ahead for various situations or do you react to things as they happen?
For good vs evil, I look at selflessness vs selfishness, do you work to benefit others or to benefit yourself?
Most people are neutral.
I'd agree that most people fall on the neutral scale. I prefer "order" vs chaos instead of law, though but that is more or less semantics. I also find the shopping cart test to be quite handy. It's basically this. After you've done some shopping you are expected to return your shopping cart to the right place. There is no real punishment if you don't, no reward if you do and no-one will be seriously affected no matter your choice. In short, there is really nothing at stake. Depepnding on how you act you can quite easily fit the entire alignment chart in there. From returning the cart to it's proper place because it's the right thing to do and it means that the next person will have an easier time (LG) to throwing it in a bush because **** it, who cares (CE).
(1) There are no objectively evil acts in D&D. (Whether or not there are any in reality is a topic for philosophers.) Morality is frequently broken down into "Intentions", "Actions", "Outcomes", and "Character". These can, and do, frequently conflict with one another, and whether or not one takes priority over another is once again for philosophers to suss out.
No, D&D has always been pretty clear that there are, in fact, objectively evil actions that are evil regardless of intent or outcome. Murdering the innocent or surrendering combatants, torture, ****, or slavery are always evil acts, no exceptions. A character who continuously does evil acts, regardless of intentions, is never good aligned. The Operative, who unhesitatingly murders children and civilians who haven't committed any crimes aside from being someone who the person he's after knows, is a textbook example of being Lawful Evil, he's just abnormally polite about it.
A perfect example of "Good does not mean nice, and evil does not mean mean brutish."
No, D&D has always been pretty clear that there are, in fact, objectively evil actions that are evil regardless of intent or outcome. Murdering the innocent or surrendering combatants, torture, ****, or slavery are always evil acts, no exceptions. A character who continuously does evil acts, regardless of intentions, is never good aligned. The Operative, who unhesitatingly murders children and civilians who haven't committed any crimes aside from being someone who the person he's after knows, is a textbook example of being Lawful Evil, he's just abnormally polite about it.
Would you mind posting a link to the reference you're using?
I've taken the liberty of writing a more comprehensive response, but as this is Dndbeyond and not a philosophy forum, feel free to ignore it.
Are you familiar with the Trolley Problem? Who decides whether someone is "innocent" or not?
What if a malevolent parasite has bound itself to a child, and the only way to kill it before it takes over the world is to also kill the child? Either the child dies, or everyone dies, including the child.
What if the combatants who surrender come from an army which habitually uses surrender as a ploy to get behind enemy lines? You don't know if that's the case with these individuals, but odds are good that a lot of innocent people are going to die because of your "mercy".
What about parents who make their child do chores? At what moment does that become imprisonment or slavery? When they turn 18? 16? 12? 8?
Obviously, parents are expected to protect and prepare their children, for their own benefit. There is no hard line when that stops being true, but eventually, certain behaviors stop being acceptable. Putting a grown man or woman on a table and putting a diaper on them against their will is frowned upon, even if it is their own parent doing it.
Mortals are inherently limited, which means that there will always be uncertainty. Whenever there is uncertainty, actions can not be assessed as either wholly "Good" or "Bad" because it is impossible to know what would have happened had a different choice been made. There are many examples, such as **** and slavery, that are pretty strongly one-sided, but causality is complicated.
This issue is only exacerbated by Fantasy Worlds.
For sure there are evil acts. Attunement to Vencas hand or eye change your alignment to neutral evil. The act of willingly changing your alignment to evil is in fact an evil act.
I followed those links. I got a page about the Baldur's Gate video game, and a page on how to align text in the wiki. Neither seems very germane to the discussion or has much to do with the various editions of D&D. There hasn't been any official rules about actions which are always considered Evil from the time they were calling the game Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and onward. I can't speak to what's in the Basic D&D boxed sets. There have been examples of what are commonly considered Evil acts, but no hard and fast rules.
In fact, D&D waffles a bit about what it means to be Evil. Different editions have had slightly different takes on the matter. We are discussing the 5th Edition here.
The Operative does come across as pretty Lawful. He is part of a hierarchy. He knows this and accepts it. He does as he is told willingly and he expects his commands to be obeyed. He is not Good. He does what he knows perfectly well are terrible things in pursuit of following his orders. He is not Evil either. He's not doing what he does out of self interest, or a pure lack of compassion. He is certainly not malevolent. He takes no pleasure in the harms that he wreaks. I'd call him Lawful Neutral.
The Punisher has been around for a long time, and there have been many different writers telling his stories. Each has had their own "take" on his personal goals and motivations. You really can't say there is a Definitive Version of The Punisher. It has been pretty consistent that he is a Vigilante. He considers himself above the law. He does what he feels is right and does not care what Society has to say about it. That's really the hallmark of a Chaotic. His most commonly presented motivation is to prevent others from suffering the same kind of tragedy that he went through. His first target was Organized Crime and he branched out from there. He fights Evil, without compunction, but he is usually presented as having some degree of compassion. He isn't going around taking whatever he wants. He isn't motivated by self interest. He is willing to do pretty nasty things to the Bad Guys, but he doesn't do so for the pleasure of it. I'd call him Chaotic Good or possibly Chaotic Neutral depending on which version of him you like.
I do agree that Alignment is not a straight-jacket. People often do uncharacteristic things. They may regret what they have done later. Even the most Evil of creatures may have an unexpected soft spot. They might broil someone in oil and laugh while they do it, but they won't harm a hair on the head of a child and may even respond quite brutally against anyone else who tries it. How you play your character is entirely up to you. The Alignment you have chosen is meant to be a guideline to your roleplaying. In the current edition of the game it means nothing more. Spells like "Know Alignment" have been removed from the game. Paladins no longer have to be Lawful Good only. There aren't even any rules about changing Alignment if your character's actions consistently fail to follow the guidelines presented.
I followed those links. I got a page about the Baldur's Gate video game, and a page on how to align text in the wiki. Neither seems very germane to the discussion or has much to do with the various editions of D&D. There hasn't been any official rules about actions which are always considered Evil from the time they were calling the game Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and onward. I can't speak to what's in the Basic D&D boxed sets. There have been examples of what are commonly considered Evil acts, but no hard and fast rules.
Baldur's Gate IS a D&D game, you do realize that, right? And the second link goes to wikpedia's page on D&D alignments, even though for some reason the actual link is broken (probably due to this forum's formatting) so you need to copy the text link.
In fact, D&D waffles a bit about what it means to be Evil. Different editions have had slightly different takes on the matter. We are discussing the 5th Edition here.
Well, we should be but for some reason other editions were brought up.
The Operative does come across as pretty Lawful. He is part of a hierarchy. He knows this and accepts it. He does as he is told willingly and he expects his commands to be obeyed. He is not Good. He does what he knows perfectly well are terrible things in pursuit of following his orders. He is not Evil either. He's not doing what he does out of self interest, or a pure lack of compassion. He is certainly not malevolent. He takes no pleasure in the harms that he wreaks. I'd call him Lawful Neutral.
He has commited mass murder for selfish reasons while showing a complete lack of compassion for his victims. So yeah, that's pretty evil.
The Punisher has been around for a long time, and there have been many different writers telling his stories. Each has had their own "take" on his personal goals and motivations. You really can't say there is a Definitive Version of The Punisher.
Exactly. I also think it's kind of weird to focus on a different version of the Punisher than the one used as a specific example.
It has been pretty consistent that he is a Vigilante. He considers himself above the law. He does what he feels is right and does not care what Society has to say about it. That's really the hallmark of a Chaotic.
Not really. Being lawful doesn't mean that you have to obey the letter of the law (but on that topic, there is that run when Frank started murdering people for littering because that was against the law) but that you believe in law order and order as a way to maintain stability in society. The very reason why he became the Punisher was that the legal system was corrupt. Had the laws that Frank believed in worked, he might not have become a vigilante.
His most commonly presented motivation is to prevent others from suffering the same kind of tragedy that he went through. His first target was Organized Crime and he branched out from there. He fights Evil, without compunction, but he is usually presented as having some degree of compassion. He isn't going around taking whatever he wants. He isn't motivated by self interest. He is willing to do pretty nasty things to the Bad Guys, but he doesn't do so for the pleasure of it. I'd call him Chaotic Good or possibly Chaotic Neutral depending on which version of him you like.
Again, murder and torture is deep in the realms of Evil.
My two cents, having just played a LE character: If you obey someone, it's because you respect their power (or, situationally, their usefulness). You're manipulative, power-hungry, and very willing to make deals with the devil, so to speak. Warlock works great for this alignment, depending on the alignment of your patron of course. You see yourself as "better than." People should be listening to you and following your orders, not the other way around. I'd recommend taking a look at the flavor text of the Paladin Oath of Conquest for further role-play ideas - not that they are necessarily LE, but they tend that direction more than any other class/subclass combo I'd say.
Regardless of edition, objective morality in D&D obviously exists just because of the description of the Outer Planes and the various creatures that inhabit them. Specifically, different demons and devils are formed from the souls of people who committed specific acts while they were alive and mortal. No "but it was for a good cause" or "I was just following orders" exceptions- you get a one-way express ticket up the Styx once you croak.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Regardless of edition, objective morality in D&D obviously exists just because of the description of the Outer Planes and the various creatures that inhabit them. Specifically, different demons and devils are formed from the souls of people who committed specific acts while they were alive and mortal. No "but it was for a good cause" or "I was just following orders" exceptions- you get a one-way express ticket up the Styx once you croak.
This....
Forgotten Realms has for sure Objectively evil creatures. Other settings might stray a bit from this but "core" 5e has, for sure, objectively evil things.
The best example of lawful evil is Darth Vader. The Empire as a whole could also be described as lawful evil.
Also: Don Vito Corleone from the Godfather, a Predator, Ras al Ghul, the Red Skull, Ming the Merciless (maybe, he can be chaotic), the Cardassians and the Dominion.
It appears that my paraphrasing was taken out of context. I don't think anyone is arguing against objective morality, generically, within the framework of D&D. Good and Evil definitively exists with strong boundaries within D&D.
My statement was that there are no "objectively evil acts". (In the sense of an action in a vacuum of intention) However, Optimus Grimus found a good exception to the rule. Certain interactions with prescribed cosmic Evil/Good artifacts and deities are prescriptively Evil/Good. "Magical Good/Evil" is a mechanism that can be handled independently from the traditional application of morality.
Akin to the rule "Specific trumps General", there are no objectively evil acts*, unless specifically called out as such.
Generally, when people refer to an "evil act", such as "murder", the word carries implied intentions, otherwise it would be called "homicide". Whether or not the act of ending a particular life is "Evil" or "Good" requires knowing the circumstances that lead up to it. Similarly, "torture" is defined as follows:
"the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain."
As a means of punishment or coercion, "torture" applies to large swaths of modern military and justice systems. Mental and physical torture are used in interrogation and the US punitive system is frequently regarded as cruel and inhumane. Children may experience extreme anguish when told "No", because they haven't yet been calibrated to the "real world". However, typically no one considers telling a child "No" to be an objectively Evil act. It's more complicated than that.
The part of torture that makes it seem black and white is when it qualifies for the second part of the definition; when it is "for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain". (i.e. when the "intention" of the actor is personal gratification.)
Semantics is an area of study that is simultaneously woefully neglected by most, and frequently put on too high of a pedestal by those who do study it.
"Specifically, different demons and devils are formed from the souls of people who committed specific acts while they were alive and mortal."
Would you mind linking to the resource specifying specific acts? The first few entries I found state otherwise.
The entry on Lemures states: "and were made from the wicked, cruel, and selfish mortals that found their souls in Hell." No specific acts, just personality traits.
The entry on Nupperibo states: "spawned from the souls of the incompetent and indolent." No specific acts, just personality traits.
There may be others with more specific entries, but the origin of such creatures seems to be deliberately ambiguous. (If there is one that includes something like "murder" or "torture", then please refer the the previous section about implied intentions.)
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
The original* meaning of this proverb is that "good intentions without action is inadequate to get into heaven". It is essentially an admonition of laziness and lip service, not saying that hell is filled with people who conduct "evil" acts in good faith.
This type of proverb falls into a category of many that tend to get misused. Another fun example is "Blood is thicker than Water". Many use it to mean that family should mean more than anything, but the full saying is "Blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", which essentially means "The vows you take are more important than who you are related to". In direct opposition to common usage.
The links provided earlier in the thread explicitly contradicted the point they were trying to establish, as well as several other cases that followed, so I'm not certain how to respond to those.
Obviously the moral value of those mundane actions doesn't apply to everyone and every circumstance, because otherwise PC adventurers would be performing acts of evil whenever they engage in any combat, which probably isn't the intended interpretation.
The killing, hurting, and oppression of others is an evil act when the reason for doing so isn't considered justified. Justification is based on intent. (Typically self-defense versus accumulation of power or opposing something that is fundamentally evil, like a demon.)
Soul Coins are basically a physical representation of infernal imprisonment. I would count interacting with, or acting against, "celestials" and "demons" as "magical good/evil", which I previously addressed.
The use of "act" may have been a poor choice on my part, as people regularly use it to mean something which is effectively inseparable from the motivation for performing an action.
If you can find a specific example of D&D defining a specific non-magical(i.e. celestial/infernal/magic/etc) action as morally good or evil, I'd be happy to concede.
For example, I suspect burning down an orphanage is used as an example of evil somewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was phrased "Burning down an orphanage is typically considered evil", to be used as a guideline, rather than as a hard and fast rule. From there a DM can freely declare that certain actions are or aren't evil in their own games. (Which effectively makes morality objective within a given game, but subjective across D&D as a genre. With the exception of magical morality.)
Though, if "burning down an orphanage" became objectively evil, then players and NPCs could exploit that "rule" to achieve all kinds of undesirable ends in the same way that modern businessmen create "charities" to protect their laundering schemes.
Anything "objective" changes the playing field in a way that can lead to problems later.
That's why I put the asterisk (*) on "original*". The usage you're referring to was coined in 1855, and was predated in the 1670's in a book of proverbs, and other sources spanning time, geography, and culture. I understand that it is now commonly used according to the second meaning, but it's important to reflect on its history. Proverbs and "common wisdoms" tend to get their weight from authorship and longevity, otherwise they're just anonymous memes of Abraham Lincoln complaining about internet speeds.
That's not to say that the new meaning isn't valuable or valid, it's just worth taking it in the appropriate context. Otherwise, an argument would consist of two people posting the exact same proverb to mean contradictory things, which doesn't serve much benefit.
I do enjoy a game with more moral grey myself and this discussion is very interesting to say the least. However it has seemingly went beyond the intended topic but I would love to see more of it. Where would this best be continued?
I feel it's still fairly well on topic, how you can still have "good intentions" of vanquishing the demonic plague of the abyss and still be fully Lawful Evil ( :D ), but what I usually do is start another thread on the General Discussion forum about whatever part of the topic you want to pursue further.
One thing that I find interesting is that players often can play a Good alignment but can justify the moral contradictions (angling for more treasure, desecrating a tomb because it is necessary, breaking into a keep). But there is a perception among some that an Evil aligned character wouldn't work toward group goals or behave honorably. Playing a Lawful Evil character currently, I find it is the one Evil alignment where it is very possible to work towards the "greater good", provided it serves that characters personal gains. The issue is when that's not possible (and a good DM will create that narrative).
Let's face it, adventurers are a mix of motives and the things that keep them working together may be treasure and being heroic. But they also depend on each other to survive. Can't be the self serving evil lord if you don't live long enough to get there.
If you have any motivation to start a separate thread to discuss this, it might be nice to start from scratch, but I suspect that the OP has been given plenty of content to sift through already.
That said, you mentioned The Book of Vile Darkness, which is a great resource to reference now, and I wish I had read it more closely earlier, since it provides many good examples both for and against.
Specifically, it simplifies "levels of intent" to: Accidental acts, reckless or negligent acts, and intentionally evil misdeeds. (pg 6)
It provides the example of a Paladin who is climbing and accidentally causes a rockslide that kills a bunch of people. (Not Evil per the book)
Then provides the same example where the Paladin was warned of the potential risk, but thinks he is skillful enough to avoid it, thus causing the event due to hubris. (Not Evil, but not Good. Paladin may lose abilities until atoned.)
Finally, it provides the same example where he clearly sees the danger, but continues in order to flee an Owlbear. (Evil. Sacrificing others for self-benefit.)
Further on, it provides an example of insanity/deception:
"A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly) that all of the people are demons." (Evil)
"A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so he puts poison in the supply." (Probably not evil. A good character should exhaust other options before using such an indiscriminate approach.)
Specifically for Evil Acts, the BoVD mentions the following:
Lying (Commonly employed by villains, but not necessarily evil)
Cheating (i.e. defying legitimate rules, such as rigging an election or fixing a race)
Theft
Betrayal ("Betrayal does not need to be intentional - or at least it does not have to start intentionally.")
Murder (Specifically, murder is "the killing of an intelligent creature for nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like")
Vengeance (Not necessarily evil, but leads to evil acts)
Since Star Wars has been evoked, I'm agreeing with Vader. Also Palpatine. Yes he was advancing the Dark Side but his way of doing so was always through the manipulation or institutionalization of "orders." Even The Final Order, if the whole Sith plot had been successful would have established a static Dark Side hegemony, with him at the top. Jabba and Boba Fett I'd say and most intergalactic gangsters (Pikes, Black Sun, etc) were a different shade of Lawful Evil. Sure they operated outside or in the margins of of what was law in the Republic and Empire, but they believed in a code that while oppressive was still transactional. The Maul in the animated series I think are the closest to Chaotic Evil you get in Star Wars. Maybe Ventriss, who was too undisciplined for the Sith though probably winds up Chaotic Neutral leaning toward good if you read _that_ novel. The Nighsisters as a whole might be more Neutral Evil. At least Mother Talzin, her flavor of the Dark Side was more in service of it than manipulating it to establish an ordered power base.
Moff Gideon, definitely Lawful Evil. In fact any character Carlos Esposito plays in LE. Period.
Lawful Evil believes in some sort of rule that, in some cases literally, promotes some ideal of "strength" and power over those who "lack" that strength, and that imbalance perpetuates the power structure. How Lawful Evil is performed by characters within those power structures vary dependent on where they are positioned within the hierarchy (and also whether that hierarchy is in itself Lawful Evil or a Lawful Neutral or Good system which can be exploited by an Lawful Evil character ... Lawful Evil characters in a Non LE power system I'm guessing would be more likely to be ruthless in terms of ambition and accomplishment of mission, but not likely to embezzle or intentionally sabotage the system unless a greater power and greater opportunity attracts them).
So sadism, opportunism, zealous power worship, hatred of scapegoated "lessers," idealogical commitment to literally "bad" ideas, etc. Any of these traits could be used as a focus to drive an LE PC.
For a brainstretch, check out the movie A Few Good Men and Jack Nicholson's character. If not the whole movie at least "the speech" (context: a "code red" is a hazing order that in this case led to lethal results, trigger warning: some language, disclosure: I used Col. Jessup as my model for Capt. Zodge in DitA ). You have hear someone who lives what he thinks is a reified code (his more hardened take on what a solider should be) within a system of codes (the military) set up to ostensibly defend a set of codes (American "democracy" or hegemony depending on your point of view). He upholds systems as one of the men "on that wall", even thought the system his service ultimately upholds (the one that allows people at cocktail parties who think of military service as a joke) is something he holds in contempt.
End of the day alignments aren't team jerseys (i.e. if an a powerful portal ushers in an Infernal invasion, all the LE characters on the prime material plane aren't going to join the ranks). People can wind up working in the same machinery with very different views as to the "why" they do what they do, which will lead to variance in the "what" they do. And sometimes conflict comes of it. At least that's how things work within my game world.
(1) There are no objectively evil acts in D&D. (Whether or not there are any in reality is a topic for philosophers.) Morality is frequently broken down into "Intentions", "Actions", "Outcomes", and "Character". These can, and do, frequently conflict with one another, and whether or not one takes priority over another is once again for philosophers to suss out.
The Operator acknowledging that he is "not good" doesn't mean that he is objectively evil, but rather that he has suddenly become self-aware that his lifetime of actions are irredeemably opposed to his values. (Good intentions, Evil Outcomes).
It's easy to oversimplify morality in a game setting, which is probably a good choice, since otherwise people would stop playing to argue about it.
(2) I'm admittedly not very familiar with Frank Castle, but my understanding is that his motivation is the murder of his family, not "making the world a better place", even if that can be considered an outcome. As his name, "Punisher", suggests, his priority is vengeance, not community growth. By the author's own words, "...a man who knows he's going to die and who knows in the big picture his actions will count for nothing, but who pursues his course because this is what he has chosen to do."
He is a broken man who seeks vengeance because that's what he's good at and was personally victimized by cruel circumstance.
(3) Which part are you confused with? "Ought", "insanity and ignorance" as amoral qualities, or the second part?
(i) "What one 'ought' to do" is the central pillar of morality. ("Good" versus "Bad")
(ii) In order to be a "Moral Agent", a conscious choice must be made. Without requisite information, or with too much noise, the choice becomes arbitrary, negating its moral value. (i.e. beasts and elementals)
(iii) The second is basically me partially agreeing with you, and then paraphrasing the definition of "evil" according to the D&D alignment chart.
You will note that this discussion - just like literally every alignment discussion ever had - illustrates quite well that an engaging, complex character can often be fit into at least two or three alignment categories depending on your perspective. Try to use Lawful and Evil as guiding concepts, but don't get too hung up on the details because alignment is a messy, subjective business.
OR... you could reject the DM imposing alignment on you altogether because that's BS. It's your character and you get to choose how you act. The DM gets to control literally everything else, but not the PCs. Warlocks don't have to be complicit allies of an evil patron - they can be victims looking for a way out of their pact or selfless enough to sell their own soul in order to obtain the power to protect others. You can be revived with a pact for any number of reasons and purposes, but you should be in control of those.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Rather than trying to tie it to absolutes, I prefer tying the alignment to a few other concepts.
For law vs chaos, I look at proactive vs reactive, do you plan ahead for various situations or do you react to things as they happen?
For good vs evil, I look at selflessness vs selfishness, do you work to benefit others or to benefit yourself?
Most people are neutral.
No, D&D has always been pretty clear that there are, in fact, objectively evil actions that are evil regardless of intent or outcome. Murdering the innocent or surrendering combatants, torture, ****, or slavery are always evil acts, no exceptions. A character who continuously does evil acts, regardless of intentions, is never good aligned. The Operative, who unhesitatingly murders children and civilians who haven't committed any crimes aside from being someone who the person he's after knows, is a textbook example of being Lawful Evil, he's just abnormally polite about it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Would you mind posting a link to the reference you're using?
I've taken the liberty of writing a more comprehensive response, but as this is Dndbeyond and not a philosophy forum, feel free to ignore it.
Are you familiar with the Trolley Problem?
Who decides whether someone is "innocent" or not?
What if a malevolent parasite has bound itself to a child, and the only way to kill it before it takes over the world is to also kill the child? Either the child dies, or everyone dies, including the child.
What if the combatants who surrender come from an army which habitually uses surrender as a ploy to get behind enemy lines? You don't know if that's the case with these individuals, but odds are good that a lot of innocent people are going to die because of your "mercy".
What about parents who make their child do chores? At what moment does that become imprisonment or slavery? When they turn 18? 16? 12? 8?
Obviously, parents are expected to protect and prepare their children, for their own benefit. There is no hard line when that stops being true, but eventually, certain behaviors stop being acceptable. Putting a grown man or woman on a table and putting a diaper on them against their will is frowned upon, even if it is their own parent doing it.
Mortals are inherently limited, which means that there will always be uncertainty. Whenever there is uncertainty, actions can not be assessed as either wholly "Good" or "Bad" because it is impossible to know what would have happened had a different choice been made. There are many examples, such as **** and slavery, that are pretty strongly one-sided, but causality is complicated.
This issue is only exacerbated by Fantasy Worlds.
Well, there is. Here are som wiki links that you can read up on. https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Alignment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Alignment
Except that it does. besides the whole thing of he himself admitting that he is a monster and that he has no place in a good society (you know, 'cus he's evil), the action sthat he commits are evil in the setting.
Mhm. That's not really relevant to anything in this thread but thank you for giving is this insight into your gaming.
I think you need to read up a bit. The Punisher explicitly states that heis goal is not vengeance and he makes a clear distinction between that and punishment. Also, good is not limited to nothing but "community growth" (whatever that even means). And cherrypicking a quote from one of many authors is kind of pointless since there are many different versions of the Punisher and I was talking about a specific, well-defined version of the character.
Don't be obtuse. The question is why you chose to bring up these completely irrelevant topics to this particular thread. Nothing else.
These are some very good points and some good advice. As you mention, characters can often act according to more than one alignment. In these cases it might be useful to think of it as special circumstances and act accordingly. You might normally be against torture (typically good) but when you finally catch the villain who murdered your entire family you might break a few fingers and cut of an ear (typically evil). Afterwards you might question if what you did was right and, depending on the character, you might even feel bad about it.
I'd agree that most people fall on the neutral scale. I prefer "order" vs chaos instead of law, though but that is more or less semantics. I also find the shopping cart test to be quite handy. It's basically this. After you've done some shopping you are expected to return your shopping cart to the right place. There is no real punishment if you don't, no reward if you do and no-one will be seriously affected no matter your choice. In short, there is really nothing at stake. Depepnding on how you act you can quite easily fit the entire alignment chart in there. From returning the cart to it's proper place because it's the right thing to do and it means that the next person will have an easier time (LG) to throwing it in a bush because **** it, who cares (CE).
A perfect example of "Good does not mean nice, and evil does not mean mean brutish."
For a Lawful Evil character, just imagine them playing D&D, doing the perfect number crunching for the ultimate in min/max-ing their character :-)
Then apply that logic to everything the character does.
Stick to the letter of the law (RAW) when it would benefit you; start arguing the "spirit of the law" (RAI) when it would benefit you.
For sure there are evil acts. Attunement to Vencas hand or eye change your alignment to neutral evil. The act of willingly changing your alignment to evil is in fact an evil act.
I followed those links. I got a page about the Baldur's Gate video game, and a page on how to align text in the wiki. Neither seems very germane to the discussion or has much to do with the various editions of D&D. There hasn't been any official rules about actions which are always considered Evil from the time they were calling the game Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and onward. I can't speak to what's in the Basic D&D boxed sets. There have been examples of what are commonly considered Evil acts, but no hard and fast rules.
In fact, D&D waffles a bit about what it means to be Evil. Different editions have had slightly different takes on the matter. We are discussing the 5th Edition here.
The Operative does come across as pretty Lawful. He is part of a hierarchy. He knows this and accepts it. He does as he is told willingly and he expects his commands to be obeyed. He is not Good. He does what he knows perfectly well are terrible things in pursuit of following his orders. He is not Evil either. He's not doing what he does out of self interest, or a pure lack of compassion. He is certainly not malevolent. He takes no pleasure in the harms that he wreaks. I'd call him Lawful Neutral.
The Punisher has been around for a long time, and there have been many different writers telling his stories. Each has had their own "take" on his personal goals and motivations. You really can't say there is a Definitive Version of The Punisher. It has been pretty consistent that he is a Vigilante. He considers himself above the law. He does what he feels is right and does not care what Society has to say about it. That's really the hallmark of a Chaotic. His most commonly presented motivation is to prevent others from suffering the same kind of tragedy that he went through. His first target was Organized Crime and he branched out from there. He fights Evil, without compunction, but he is usually presented as having some degree of compassion. He isn't going around taking whatever he wants. He isn't motivated by self interest. He is willing to do pretty nasty things to the Bad Guys, but he doesn't do so for the pleasure of it. I'd call him Chaotic Good or possibly Chaotic Neutral depending on which version of him you like.
I do agree that Alignment is not a straight-jacket. People often do uncharacteristic things. They may regret what they have done later. Even the most Evil of creatures may have an unexpected soft spot. They might broil someone in oil and laugh while they do it, but they won't harm a hair on the head of a child and may even respond quite brutally against anyone else who tries it. How you play your character is entirely up to you. The Alignment you have chosen is meant to be a guideline to your roleplaying. In the current edition of the game it means nothing more. Spells like "Know Alignment" have been removed from the game. Paladins no longer have to be Lawful Good only. There aren't even any rules about changing Alignment if your character's actions consistently fail to follow the guidelines presented.
<Insert clever signature here>
Baldur's Gate IS a D&D game, you do realize that, right? And the second link goes to wikpedia's page on D&D alignments, even though for some reason the actual link is broken (probably due to this forum's formatting) so you need to copy the text link.
Well, we should be but for some reason other editions were brought up.
He has commited mass murder for selfish reasons while showing a complete lack of compassion for his victims. So yeah, that's pretty evil.
Exactly. I also think it's kind of weird to focus on a different version of the Punisher than the one used as a specific example.
Not really. Being lawful doesn't mean that you have to obey the letter of the law (but on that topic, there is that run when Frank started murdering people for littering because that was against the law) but that you believe in law order and order as a way to maintain stability in society. The very reason why he became the Punisher was that the legal system was corrupt. Had the laws that Frank believed in worked, he might not have become a vigilante.
Again, murder and torture is deep in the realms of Evil.
My two cents, having just played a LE character: If you obey someone, it's because you respect their power (or, situationally, their usefulness). You're manipulative, power-hungry, and very willing to make deals with the devil, so to speak. Warlock works great for this alignment, depending on the alignment of your patron of course. You see yourself as "better than." People should be listening to you and following your orders, not the other way around. I'd recommend taking a look at the flavor text of the Paladin Oath of Conquest for further role-play ideas - not that they are necessarily LE, but they tend that direction more than any other class/subclass combo I'd say.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
Regardless of edition, objective morality in D&D obviously exists just because of the description of the Outer Planes and the various creatures that inhabit them. Specifically, different demons and devils are formed from the souls of people who committed specific acts while they were alive and mortal. No "but it was for a good cause" or "I was just following orders" exceptions- you get a one-way express ticket up the Styx once you croak.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This....
Forgotten Realms has for sure Objectively evil creatures. Other settings might stray a bit from this but "core" 5e has, for sure, objectively evil things.
Look at characters in media.
The best example of lawful evil is Darth Vader. The Empire as a whole could also be described as lawful evil.
Also: Don Vito Corleone from the Godfather, a Predator, Ras al Ghul, the Red Skull, Ming the Merciless (maybe, he can be chaotic), the Cardassians and the Dominion.
It appears that my paraphrasing was taken out of context. I don't think anyone is arguing against objective morality, generically, within the framework of D&D. Good and Evil definitively exists with strong boundaries within D&D.
My statement was that there are no "objectively evil acts". (In the sense of an action in a vacuum of intention)
However, Optimus Grimus found a good exception to the rule. Certain interactions with prescribed cosmic Evil/Good artifacts and deities are prescriptively Evil/Good. "Magical Good/Evil" is a mechanism that can be handled independently from the traditional application of morality.
Akin to the rule "Specific trumps General", there are no objectively evil acts*, unless specifically called out as such.
Generally, when people refer to an "evil act", such as "murder", the word carries implied intentions, otherwise it would be called "homicide". Whether or not the act of ending a particular life is "Evil" or "Good" requires knowing the circumstances that lead up to it. Similarly, "torture" is defined as follows:
"the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain."
As a means of punishment or coercion, "torture" applies to large swaths of modern military and justice systems. Mental and physical torture are used in interrogation and the US punitive system is frequently regarded as cruel and inhumane. Children may experience extreme anguish when told "No", because they haven't yet been calibrated to the "real world". However, typically no one considers telling a child "No" to be an objectively Evil act. It's more complicated than that.
The part of torture that makes it seem black and white is when it qualifies for the second part of the definition; when it is "for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain". (i.e. when the "intention" of the actor is personal gratification.)
Semantics is an area of study that is simultaneously woefully neglected by most, and frequently put on too high of a pedestal by those who do study it.
"Specifically, different demons and devils are formed from the souls of people who committed specific acts while they were alive and mortal."
Would you mind linking to the resource specifying specific acts? The first few entries I found state otherwise.
The entry on Lemures states: "and were made from the wicked, cruel, and selfish mortals that found their souls in Hell."
No specific acts, just personality traits.
The entry on Nupperibo states: "spawned from the souls of the incompetent and indolent."
No specific acts, just personality traits.
There may be others with more specific entries, but the origin of such creatures seems to be deliberately ambiguous. (If there is one that includes something like "murder" or "torture", then please refer the the previous section about implied intentions.)
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
The original* meaning of this proverb is that "good intentions without action is inadequate to get into heaven". It is essentially an admonition of laziness and lip service, not saying that hell is filled with people who conduct "evil" acts in good faith.
This type of proverb falls into a category of many that tend to get misused. Another fun example is "Blood is thicker than Water". Many use it to mean that family should mean more than anything, but the full saying is "Blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", which essentially means "The vows you take are more important than who you are related to". In direct opposition to common usage.
The links provided earlier in the thread explicitly contradicted the point they were trying to establish, as well as several other cases that followed, so I'm not certain how to respond to those.
Obviously the moral value of those mundane actions doesn't apply to everyone and every circumstance, because otherwise PC adventurers would be performing acts of evil whenever they engage in any combat, which probably isn't the intended interpretation.
The killing, hurting, and oppression of others is an evil act when the reason for doing so isn't considered justified. Justification is based on intent. (Typically self-defense versus accumulation of power or opposing something that is fundamentally evil, like a demon.)
Soul Coins are basically a physical representation of infernal imprisonment. I would count interacting with, or acting against, "celestials" and "demons" as "magical good/evil", which I previously addressed.
The use of "act" may have been a poor choice on my part, as people regularly use it to mean something which is effectively inseparable from the motivation for performing an action.
If you can find a specific example of D&D defining a specific non-magical(i.e. celestial/infernal/magic/etc) action as morally good or evil, I'd be happy to concede.
For example, I suspect burning down an orphanage is used as an example of evil somewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was phrased "Burning down an orphanage is typically considered evil", to be used as a guideline, rather than as a hard and fast rule. From there a DM can freely declare that certain actions are or aren't evil in their own games. (Which effectively makes morality objective within a given game, but subjective across D&D as a genre. With the exception of magical morality.)
Though, if "burning down an orphanage" became objectively evil, then players and NPCs could exploit that "rule" to achieve all kinds of undesirable ends in the same way that modern businessmen create "charities" to protect their laundering schemes.
Anything "objective" changes the playing field in a way that can lead to problems later.
That's why I put the asterisk (*) on "original*". The usage you're referring to was coined in 1855, and was predated in the 1670's in a book of proverbs, and other sources spanning time, geography, and culture. I understand that it is now commonly used according to the second meaning, but it's important to reflect on its history. Proverbs and "common wisdoms" tend to get their weight from authorship and longevity, otherwise they're just anonymous memes of Abraham Lincoln complaining about internet speeds.
That's not to say that the new meaning isn't valuable or valid, it's just worth taking it in the appropriate context. Otherwise, an argument would consist of two people posting the exact same proverb to mean contradictory things, which doesn't serve much benefit.
I do enjoy a game with more moral grey myself and this discussion is very interesting to say the least. However it has seemingly went beyond the intended topic but I would love to see more of it. Where would this best be continued?
One thing that I find interesting is that players often can play a Good alignment but can justify the moral contradictions (angling for more treasure, desecrating a tomb because it is necessary, breaking into a keep). But there is a perception among some that an Evil aligned character wouldn't work toward group goals or behave honorably. Playing a Lawful Evil character currently, I find it is the one Evil alignment where it is very possible to work towards the "greater good", provided it serves that characters personal gains. The issue is when that's not possible (and a good DM will create that narrative).
Let's face it, adventurers are a mix of motives and the things that keep them working together may be treasure and being heroic. But they also depend on each other to survive. Can't be the self serving evil lord if you don't live long enough to get there.
If you have any motivation to start a separate thread to discuss this, it might be nice to start from scratch, but I suspect that the OP has been given plenty of content to sift through already.
That said, you mentioned The Book of Vile Darkness, which is a great resource to reference now, and I wish I had read it more closely earlier, since it provides many good examples both for and against.
Specifically, it simplifies "levels of intent" to: Accidental acts, reckless or negligent acts, and intentionally evil misdeeds. (pg 6)
It provides the example of a Paladin who is climbing and accidentally causes a rockslide that kills a bunch of people. (Not Evil per the book)
Then provides the same example where the Paladin was warned of the potential risk, but thinks he is skillful enough to avoid it, thus causing the event due to hubris. (Not Evil, but not Good. Paladin may lose abilities until atoned.)
Finally, it provides the same example where he clearly sees the danger, but continues in order to flee an Owlbear. (Evil. Sacrificing others for self-benefit.)
Further on, it provides an example of insanity/deception:
"A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly) that all of the people are demons." (Evil)
"A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so he puts poison in the supply." (Probably not evil. A good character should exhaust other options before using such an indiscriminate approach.)
Specifically for Evil Acts, the BoVD mentions the following:
These are either direct quotations, or paraphrasing, so I'll drop this off without additional commentary.
Since Star Wars has been evoked, I'm agreeing with Vader. Also Palpatine. Yes he was advancing the Dark Side but his way of doing so was always through the manipulation or institutionalization of "orders." Even The Final Order, if the whole Sith plot had been successful would have established a static Dark Side hegemony, with him at the top. Jabba and Boba Fett I'd say and most intergalactic gangsters (Pikes, Black Sun, etc) were a different shade of Lawful Evil. Sure they operated outside or in the margins of of what was law in the Republic and Empire, but they believed in a code that while oppressive was still transactional. The Maul in the animated series I think are the closest to Chaotic Evil you get in Star Wars. Maybe Ventriss, who was too undisciplined for the Sith though probably winds up Chaotic Neutral leaning toward good if you read _that_ novel. The Nighsisters as a whole might be more Neutral Evil. At least Mother Talzin, her flavor of the Dark Side was more in service of it than manipulating it to establish an ordered power base.
Moff Gideon, definitely Lawful Evil. In fact any character Carlos Esposito plays in LE. Period.
Lawful Evil believes in some sort of rule that, in some cases literally, promotes some ideal of "strength" and power over those who "lack" that strength, and that imbalance perpetuates the power structure. How Lawful Evil is performed by characters within those power structures vary dependent on where they are positioned within the hierarchy (and also whether that hierarchy is in itself Lawful Evil or a Lawful Neutral or Good system which can be exploited by an Lawful Evil character ... Lawful Evil characters in a Non LE power system I'm guessing would be more likely to be ruthless in terms of ambition and accomplishment of mission, but not likely to embezzle or intentionally sabotage the system unless a greater power and greater opportunity attracts them).
So sadism, opportunism, zealous power worship, hatred of scapegoated "lessers," idealogical commitment to literally "bad" ideas, etc. Any of these traits could be used as a focus to drive an LE PC.
For a brainstretch, check out the movie A Few Good Men and Jack Nicholson's character. If not the whole movie at least "the speech" (context: a "code red" is a hazing order that in this case led to lethal results, trigger warning: some language, disclosure: I used Col. Jessup as my model for Capt. Zodge in DitA ). You have hear someone who lives what he thinks is a reified code (his more hardened take on what a solider should be) within a system of codes (the military) set up to ostensibly defend a set of codes (American "democracy" or hegemony depending on your point of view). He upholds systems as one of the men "on that wall", even thought the system his service ultimately upholds (the one that allows people at cocktail parties who think of military service as a joke) is something he holds in contempt.
End of the day alignments aren't team jerseys (i.e. if an a powerful portal ushers in an Infernal invasion, all the LE characters on the prime material plane aren't going to join the ranks). People can wind up working in the same machinery with very different views as to the "why" they do what they do, which will lead to variance in the "what" they do. And sometimes conflict comes of it. At least that's how things work within my game world.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.