Playing Evil Characters & Factions

[Mystic Warden]

The morality system in DnD works with -for lack of better words in my vocabulary- "absolutes" or "objectives", instead of relative moralities. There are absolute or objectively good beings like angels and there are the opposite devils and demons. You _know_ that those are good or evil and that's that. The same is true for the PCs. It is a bit like Star Wars: you know that Obi-Wan is good and Darth Maul is evil, full stop. Why is this important? Because it is further cemented in by the spells and abilities which are working based on those alignment categories like 'smite evil', or 'protection from good/evil/law/chaos'.

If we try to bring in a relative morality system than all of those rule mechanics should be ignored, re-written, bringing silly results, or even more debates. What would happen if an anti-hero character got targeted by a smite evil ability? Or the above mentioned rampaging Wolverine? Would it work on him or not?

Because of these rule mechanics we can't ignore the categories and have to work with them, regardless how we love or hate them. We can play around with some relativities or flavors or colors but at the end of the day we have to put our characters firmly into one of those 9 boxes. Otherwise we have to throw out the whole alignment based chunk of the game mechanics, too.

[Edge]

At the same time, we must also recognize that alignment is fluid, and a character's alignment may shift and change regularly through their lifetime. Someone who was one alignment may not be so a few days, weeks, months, years later.

Which is why people throwing fits when a DM gives an alignment shift has always rubbed me the wrong way so badly. Those shifts are a necessary and important part of the system.

[Arya]

Yet the good vs. evil can be muddied up even in D&D.

Book of Vile Darkness goes into some scenarios where people who mean well can accidentally cause collateral damage due to a short sight on their end. This in itself is not evil, though they as goodly sorts would feel bad and try to make up for it. On the other hand, when someone anticipates and knows they are about to do some collateral, that is when it becomes evil. When they do not care that the collateral happened.

Book of Exalted Deeds mentions also that trying to redeem someone is a good act. Though some people, including some goodly sort, will be afraid of such people getting corrupted. It may not always be wise to try redeeming, of course. However, it is considered one of the purely good acts out there.

Intention should not be the main factor, but as demonstrated in the BoVD example, it plays when someone knowingly does something bad. If a person uses a relic and does not know it would cause contagion, they may not get those evil points (unless the relic magic-induced shift). When they know it does, though, boom. Evil.

Again, though. As demonstrated in previous portions of the thread, a single small act of malice or otherwise is not enough to make a major shift. It's degrees and quantities.

On that point, this is a +2 to what Edge said. Quantities and degrees, again.


Sincerely,
Arya

Postscript:

Also, on the note slightly less related pertaining to objective good vs. evil in D&D regarding monster types: Planescape has a few examples of fiends and celestials who go against their types. However, these should be treated as incredibly rare and at best only epic level characters with extraordinary experiences will ever be exposed to such nuances. You will find information on such things in the books, including Faces of Evil and the game, Planescape: Torment. 

[Not Batman]

Mar 18, 2017 14:25:36 GMT -5 Arya Kalarathri said:

Yet the good vs. evil can be muddied up even in D&D.

Book of Vile Darkness goes into some scenarios where people who mean well can accidentally cause collateral damage due to a short sight on their end. This in itself is not evil, though they as goodly sorts would feel bad and try to make up for it. On the other hand, when someone anticipates and knows they are about to do some collateral, that is when it becomes evil. When they do not care that the collateral happened.

Book of Exalted Deeds mentions also that trying to redeem someone is a good act. Though some people, including some goodly sort, will be afraid of such people getting corrupted. It may not always be wise to try redeeming, of course. However, it is considered one of the purely good acts out there.

Intention should not be the main factor, but as demonstrated in the BoVD example, it plays when someone knowingly does something bad. If a person uses a relic and does not know it would cause contagion, they may not get those evil points (unless the relic magic-induced shift). When they know it does, though, boom. Evil.

Again, though. As demonstrated in previous portions of the thread, a single small act of malice or otherwise is not enough to make a major shift. It's degrees and quantities.

On that point, this is a +2 to what Edge said. Quantities and degrees, again.


Sincerely,
Arya

Postscript:

Also, on the note slightly less related pertaining to objective good vs. evil in D&D regarding monster types: Planescape has a few examples of fiends and celestials who go against their types. However, these should be treated as incredibly rare and at best only epic level characters with extraordinary experiences will ever be exposed to such nuances. You will find information on such things in the books, including Faces of Evil and the game, Planescape: Torment. 

As to Arya's example from Planescape: Torment, Trias the Betrayer is perhaps one of the best D&D NPCs ever created. Planescape also shows us that even the Deva and Angels are NOT all good. They present an existential evil in that they wish a form of control that inhibits free will and life as a whole. Their constant "purgings" are an all or nothing deal and tons of innocent people are put to death because of minor crimes. This is something we have examined on CD in the past with why common folk are even weary of Aasimars and half-celestials because they fear that the celestial will see something like littering as wrong and "purge" them.

On the note of short sightedness and fluid alignment, there is an amazing example presented in Magneto issue 17. When Magneto is trying to build up a new Genosha, a series of mutants are murdered by a nazi who is taunting Magneto. It turns out that the nazi is an illusion of someone from Mangeto's past, Hitzig, one of the men who commanded Auschwitz during his stay there. The illusions are the creation of a young mutant girl whose powers are spiraling hopelessly out of control and without someone like Charles Xavier around (BECAUSE CYCLOPS FUCKING KILL HIM), there is no hope of stopping her powers from growing more and more powerful and more mutants dying because of it. Magneto HAS to do something about it, so he kills the girl to save ALL of the mutants in Genosha, and potentially the world. Now, Magneto did the right thing in a lot of peoples eyes. He traded one life to save BILLIONS. Magneto understood what he was doing. On the surface, this is an evil act, but when examined in the long term it is not. Ultimately, when I view whether or not a character needs an alignment change, it is because of their motivations with the facts that have been presented to them. A character cannot be held accountable for unknown consequences that arise due to their actions, that's not something they decided, but if they know FULL AND WELL what will happen, than the blame solely lies with them. If a paladin was in the same situation as Magneto, they'd likely have not killed the girl and it would have resulted in many, many more deaths.

Also, seriously. Read this series. It's amazing.

[Deleted]

As to Arya's example from Planescape: Torment, Trias the Betrayer is perhaps one of the best D&D NPCs ever created. Planescape also shows us that even the Deva and Angels are NOT all good. They present an existential evil in that they wish a form of control that inhibits free will and life as a whole. Their constant "purgings" are an all or nothing deal and tons of innocent people are put to death because of minor crimes. This is something we have examined on CD in the past with why common folk are even weary of Aasimars and half-celestials because they fear that the celestial will see something like littering as wrong and "purge" them.

That's a rather limited and poor example, as once an angel or deva goes down that path, they quickly become a fallen celestial.  Those that are truly celestials ARE all good (as far as base mechanics go).  As far as the celestials go, fallen celestials are no longer considered truly celestial (much like paladins falling are not paladins without atonement).  Likewise, if a fiend rises, they are no longer considered truly a fiend.

[Arya]

+2 to what Bella said too, really, even if I brought up those examples (though I was thinking a favorite of mine in this). The ones who go against type are no longer that type eventually. And yes, they eventually have the good/evil/law/chaos/abilities/whatever properties modified and replaced with the new equivalents.

Malkizid when he fell from being a solar was a solar type, but then smacked with baatezu as an additional type. Also, he started to have features that showed his fallen status in his natural form, like his broken crown on his head that constantly bleeds. (Therefore his nickname, the Branded King.)

I do a lot of work with him topside and had a lot of experience on playerside with DMs running stuff involving him. I think he would have been a better example of the point. With the other considerations noted.

Sincerely,
Arya

[Not Batman]

Mar 18, 2017 17:31:00 GMT -5  @belladonna said:

As to Arya's example from Planescape: Torment, Trias the Betrayer is perhaps one of the best D&D NPCs ever created. Planescape also shows us that even the Deva and Angels are NOT all good. They present an existential evil in that they wish a form of control that inhibits free will and life as a whole. Their constant "purgings" are an all or nothing deal and tons of innocent people are put to death because of minor crimes. This is something we have examined on CD in the past with why common folk are even weary of Aasimars and half-celestials because they fear that the celestial will see something like littering as wrong and "purge" them.

That's a rather limited and poor example, as once an angel or deva goes down that path, they quickly become a fallen celestial.  Those that are truly celestials ARE all good (as far as base mechanics go).  As far as the celestials go, fallen celestials are no longer considered truly celestial (much like paladins falling are not paladins without atonement).  Likewise, if a fiend rises, they are no longer considered truly a fiend.

That's the point I was getting at. Outsiders have physical changes that reflect their alignment and place on the Wheel. Asemodeus is another example of an outsider who has changed alignment and become something else and there are hints that the army that Asemodeus holds in reserve contain a great number of fallen celestials who were with him at the time of his fall from grace. D&D has many examples of this happening (Tons of Planescape: Torment), in every instance they gain a new type or gain the 'augmented' subtrait. This is reflected in characters such as O, as well who was a human who spent so much time on the Astral Plane that he lost his physical form and ceased being human. There are minor examples of this within the Githzerai/Githyanki culture with material that ranges from Core, Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms and Planescape in the form of the many Illithid prophecies and the Pronouncement of Two Skies. The Hag Countess is another such character who defied their typical roots and ended up becoming something else entirely. The planes and those who can walk them are morphic and everything is fluid on the Wheel.

As for the rest of the example I presented, look to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels would view something as evil that another group might not either due to desensitization or what have you. A victim turned into a vampire from an unfortunate attack would simply be viewed as something needing to be purged by a deva or paladin, meanwhile more open minded people might try to help the newly turned vampire try to get back to their life or find some medium for them to feed on besides blood. There is another interesting example presented in the Book of Vile Darkness about two fiends who just want to be left alone and live out their life in married bliss, but the paladin who finds them has to decide between letting them live a peaceful and happy life, or just kill two "Evil" beings because they are evil. That kind of blind "kill it cause it's evil, there's no hope for its redemption" is a kind of evil in and of itself. It's kind of like how Batman can be viewed as the bad guy because he keeps up the stupidly pointless struggle with the Joker instead of saving lives and just ENDING the Joker already.

It's nice to try and simply morality and alignment, but it's just not something that easy. Hell, even Star Wars, which is viewed as the simplest and most effective form of alignment systems has some odd cases. Knights of the Old Republic II (Also by Chris Avellone) show Revan making a massive personal sacrifice and turning to the dark side because he NEEDED the power it brought to stop an even great evil when the True Sith would return and served as a potent villain in order to help strengthen the Republic so they can stand a fighting chance when the True Sith arrived (A good thing to do). Kreia who is a grey jedi uses the Dark Side and the Light Side in her quest to destroy the Force because she views the Force as the ultimate puppet master and robs everyone of free will (She is trying to do good here).

TL;DR Impartial viewing of actions on a moral scale is really impossible without examining it through multiple perspectives and evaluating the outcomes because we ourselves are biased creatures. Kantianism vs Utilitarianism.

[Edge]

For the sake of not spiraling into a thousand countless arguments and alignment debates - which I've spent more than enough time in on other forums - I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. We have extremely differing mindsets on this subject and your explanations really read to me like a LE character trying to justify why they're right and Good is wrong - which admittedly makes a lot of sense in relation to your earlier comments regarding Magneto, who is probably one of the best poster boys for non-empire-building Lawful Evil in my observation.

Which is great as a character concept and in-character mindset, but not a standard I'd live by or follow as a DM, myself.

[trylobyte]

I think Elz is mixing up the Lawful and Good parts of the alignment in his arguments.  Celestials are not mindless purge-bots, but they do have codes and laws that they follow that may result in them not being shining paragons of super-awesome goodliness by our real-world standards.  Their default response to a minor transgression like littering is generally not going to be murder because they have enough intelligence to understand what disproportionate retribution is and enough sense to not commit it.  They're much more likely to grab the offender, give them a stern lecture (which may make the target wish they were dead), then make the offender fix the problem.

The vampire case is more complicated.  Yes a celestial is more likely to go right to killing even if the vampiric victim is innocent.  But there are logical reasons for that.  The celestial's thought process is going to follow a chain and come to the conclusion that killing the person, innocent though they may have been, is the best solution for everybody.  Remember, vampirism is hard to cure and in the time that it takes to find someone to cure it their 'innocent' vampire is slowly getting more and more evil, their soul getting more and more corrupt, and they're hurting more and more people just to survive.  Thus by killing them immediately the celestial is making the decision that sending their soul to its proper afterlife now is better for that person than going on a wild goose chase and potentially losing that soul to darkness.  The more kindly among adventurers might say 'But there's always a chance!' but the celestial has been around long enough and seen the situation often enough to know that no, for most people, there really isn't.

[Not Batman]

Mar 19, 2017 5:43:57 GMT -5 trylobyte said:

I think Elz is mixing up the Lawful and Good parts of the alignment in his arguments.  Celestials are not mindless purge-bots, but they do have codes and laws that they follow that may result in them not being shining paragons of super-awesome goodliness by our real-world standards.  Their default response to a minor transgression like littering is generally not going to be murder because they have enough intelligence to understand what disproportionate retribution is and enough sense to not commit it.  They're much more likely to grab the offender, give them a stern lecture (which may make the target wish they were dead), then make the offender fix the problem.

The vampire case is more complicated.  Yes a celestial is more likely to go right to killing even if the vampiric victim is innocent.  But there are logical reasons for that.  The celestial's thought process is going to follow a chain and come to the conclusion that killing the person, innocent though they may have been, is the best solution for everybody.  Remember, vampirism is hard to cure and in the time that it takes to find someone to cure it their 'innocent' vampire is slowly getting more and more evil, their soul getting more and more corrupt, and they're hurting more and more people just to survive.  Thus by killing them immediately the celestial is making the decision that sending their soul to its proper afterlife now is better for that person than going on a wild goose chase and potentially losing that soul to darkness.  The more kindly among adventurers might say 'But there's always a chance!' but the celestial has been around long enough and seen the situation often enough to know that no, for most people, there really isn't.

I did not mean to suggest that celestials might kill people for minor transgressions (Mass purges require Sodom and Gomorrah levels of screwed up), but from the eyes of an average townsfolk, this could be a valid fear when he suddenly is faced with a giant winged celestial being that is shattering his perception of the world. The vampire example was meant to show that it's really hard for us, as humans, to really be able to look at every situation and be a true impartial judge of morality without the tools I've stated previously and then some. Morality is a really tough subject and everyone will view it different because we all -are- so vastly different. That's why the array of evil characters we could see would be wildly varied and to best tend to it, one could be better equipped by understanding these moral systems and such. We as a species have been debating what is good and what is evil and why evil even exists in the first place since...Epicurus. Hell, one of the more popular debates in my circle of friends is "How evil is Batman? Is the Joker really a better person than Batman?" No, the Joker is evil as hell. Batman is...pretty evil too. That said, one of the best exchanges in comic history that is relevant to this conversation came from The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller.

Batman: All the people I've murdered...by letting you live. (IT'S A LOT!)

Joker: I never kept count.

Batman: I did.

Joker: I know. And I love you for it.

[Mystic Warden]

I read a very good advice to DMs long time ago which said: if the players try to logically explain to you, why their act was not evil than that act was evil. An absolute morality system, which DnD employs with the nine alignment boxes and representing those nine types with real manifestations of those forces (angels, demons, devils, alignment-tied special abilities etc.) is IMHO more about feeling than logic. Again, as in Star Wars, you simply feel if a character is good or evil. It might be colored, because not just the gray can have 50 shades to it, but the white and the black as well. But ultimately, when you come up with a character, be it a PC or an NPC you chose from white, grey or black, THAN color it to make it interesting. Because if you approach it from the other way you most probably will have issues about finding the most appropriate box for the character and can go into endless debates about why is he evil or not evil or chaotic or neutral, etc. etc.

Of course there are ways for all characters to change here, too. A minor shift means you simply change the shade of your white/gray/black. A major shift when you jump from one of those nine boxes to an other. Again the main thing is you have to feel what you want to accomplish with the change, then make it up accordingly. If an unexpected change comes (typically from participating on a DM event) you have to work/talk with the DM even after the event to make it all right and acceptable for everybody. As Edge said, if a DM gives +1 or +2 change to your alignment score it is a fine indication of his judgement of the situation, just giving you something to think about. Unless this would be the last straw to actually make the PC jumping alignment boxes it should not be taken too seriously, and if your character is at the border of jumping alignments than you already had a lot of such feedback previously. IMHO a DM should not modify the alignment score by more than a few points for each instance, unless some really earth-shattering happened, because than the player might feel he lost control over his PC somewhat and this is stressing. The same way we put character permadeath largely in the hand of the player, alignment changes and adjustments should be mostly a player decision, too. Exceptions might always happen, of course, but usually the above should be norm IMHO.

And speaking of exceptions, like earlier mentioned fallen celestials and reformed devils: we should not forget to filter out the distortion of the media. Like the question: really do more airplane accidents happen nowadays than 20 years ago or is it just the better flow of information and tragedy-focused newscasting making it seems so for us? Despite the many stories, novels, computer games, etc. which are about such exceptional characters, who were changed against their type, we should remember that it is a story exactly because it is something special. E.g for each Fall-from-Grace there are thousands of normal succubi who are doing their succubi thing just as expected. Their story would probably be boring, as we know exactly what they do, therefore it will never be a story. But they are out there! We should not let the exceptions with their better media coverage cloud our judgement about what is the normality and how things 99% of the time work when we put our arguments forward.

[Arya]

Mar 19, 2017 5:43:57 GMT -5 trylobyte said:

The vampire case is more complicated.  Yes a celestial is more likely to go right to killing even if the vampiric victim is innocent.  But there are logical reasons for that.  The celestial's thought process is going to follow a chain and come to the conclusion that killing the person, innocent though they may have been, is the best solution for everybody.  Remember, vampirism is hard to cure and in the time that it takes to find someone to cure it their 'innocent' vampire is slowly getting more and more evil, their soul getting more and more corrupt, and they're hurting more and more people just to survive.  Thus by killing them immediately the celestial is making the decision that sending their soul to its proper afterlife now is better for that person than going on a wild goose chase and potentially losing that soul to darkness.  The more kindly among adventurers might say 'But there's always a chance!' but the celestial has been around long enough and seen the situation often enough to know that no, for most people, there really isn't.

[offtopic] Trivia: Jander Sunstar was a sun-elven vampire who somehow managed to keep from going evil (Forgotten Realms/Ravenloft), and is CN/CG depending on reference. He was over seven hundred years old. Granted, Libris Mortis goes into all amount of detail about how human minds in addition to the implications of undeath are not built for living a long time. He might have had sun-elven privilege there. >.> 

Still, safer to assume not likely to happen. Ravenloft is kind of weird and full of vampires anyway. Carry on!

Sincerely,
Arya

Postscript: By the way - Jander never sparkled. <.< Hah. [/offtopic]

[Edge]

I'm pretty sure that falls into the same "exception that's an extremely minute percentile" as fallen celestials and risen fiends.

[Arya]

I know. Implied in the not likely to happen. ;-) I had a moment of nostalgia. I read Vampires of the Mist and loved it. :-D

Besides, it was a nerdy off topic point, hehe.  ^.^


Sincerely,
Arya