I was assuming that gods are more or less capable of providing moral guidance to their members and that good and evil goods would not condone evil or good acts. You and Neylo raise some good questions about the nature of the D&D gods and those questions poke some holes into my arguments. I’m not really prepared to address the questions about the nature of the gods; I simply don’t have the expertise to do so, at least in a Fourth Edition vein.
Instead, permit me to reiterate my other point, that being that the D&D universe is Manichean. In a Manichean universe, good and evil are in direct opposition and are real forces that act or react to the world. While alignment-based effects, like protection from evil, are uncommon in Fourth Edition, the fact that alignment does play a mechanical effect in the game indicates that the cosmic laws D&D universe recognize the difference between good and evil. So alignment matters because the rules (and therefore the physical universe) say so.
As for “nobody thinks of themselves as evil” well, maybe nobody thinks they are evil in the real world, but plenty of people do recognize their own evil acts and consider some acts they commit to be vile. Interestingly when examining actions and their motivations, people generally ascribe situational reasons for acting when they themselves act poorly but consider the same actions to be indicative of another’s character when that third party performs the same act. As a point of reference, think about the last time you saw someone driving wicked fast on the thruway, dodging in and out of lanes and traffic to get ahead. You might think to yourself “what a jerk!” but the last time you drove in a reckless manner your probably justified it as necessary to make an appointment. In short, people, as a rule, define others by their deeds but define themselves, or others with whom they closely identify, by their intents.
Being good or evil person isn’t a matter of intent for the most part. Instead, being good or evil is generally the cumulative total of one’s morally charged actions. People don’t think of themselves as evil because they dislocate their actions, particularly the actions they are ashamed of, from their self-image. Consequently, the definition of who is good and who is evil ultimately comes from outside of the individual. In the real world, it is the morals and ethics of one’s society that defines evil, but in D&D morality is enforced by some unnamed outside force as I’ve documented above.
Consider the case of a barbarian leader who raids a village, kills all the adults whether or not they are armed, and enslaves the children to force them to work at a grist mill. That’s evil. It doesn’t matter that the one remaining child grows into a well-oiled Austrian who returns to kick the barbarian leader’s head in and thereby dissolve the hippy death cult the leader had built around himself, nor does it matter that the chain of events could have arguably resulted in the best possible outcome for the Austrian and that the barbarian leader took credit for the Austrian’s success. It doesn’t even matter if the barbarian leader had planned the whole thing from the start or that he might have needed laborers to mill the grain so that he could feed his family. Killing noncombatants and enslaving children is an evil act and even James Earl Jones can’t escape that fact and that makes the barbarian leader evil.
What’s more, the genre needs evil villains because that is the nature of the game. This whole game is based on over-the-top action and over-the-top moral situations are a great way to bring in the action. Not every enemy need to be a mustache-twirling rogue who’s tied a damsel to the train tracks, but in most games the players and DM accept a level of moral objectiveness as an element to the genre. Presenting an unambiguous moral situation is a good way to engage the players and their characters and a good way for the players to develop a rapport with their characters. It is just part of the genre, doesn’t always need to be part of it, but it is present in a great many cases. Plus, when you do play with the mustache-twirlers, it makes the occasional morally ambiguous antagonist that much more interesting; the contrast brings out more in the shadows of gray.
What does this mean for Mastema’s character? It all boils down to the character being evil because he commits evil acts. It doesn’t matter whether or not he is doing these evil acts for the good of another because the acts themselves are inherently evil and taint him as such. Nor does it matter what his intent is as talk is cheap. He might be a tragic figure who brokered his soul with the devil to save his people, he might have a flawed moral compass, or he might just be a jerk, but the fact is he’s evil because he does evil. Evil to him who evil does.
Rule one isn’t “The DM is always right.” Rule one is: Everyone should be having fun at the table.
Plans for 5e: Kill the d20, and replace it with a bell curve for task resolution.
I was assuming that gods are more or less capable of providing moral guidance to their members and that good and evil goods would not condone evil or good acts. You and Neylo raise some good questions about the nature of the D&D gods and those questions poke some holes into my arguments. I’m not really prepared to address the questions about the nature of the gods; I simply don’t have the expertise to do so, at least in a Fourth Edition vein.
Instead, permit me to reiterate my other point, that being that the D&D universe is Manichean. In a Manichean universe, good and evil are in direct opposition and are real forces that act or react to the world. While alignment-based effects, like protection from evil, are uncommon in Fourth Edition, the fact that alignment does play a mechanical effect in the game indicates that the cosmic laws D&D universe recognize the difference between good and evil. So alignment matters because the rules (and therefore the physical universe) say so.
As for “nobody thinks of themselves as evil” well, maybe nobody thinks they are evil in the real world, but plenty of people do recognize their own evil acts and consider some acts they commit to be vile. Interestingly when examining actions and their motivations, people generally ascribe situational reasons for acting when they themselves act poorly but consider the same actions to be indicative of another’s character when that third party performs the same act. As a point of reference, think about the last time you saw someone driving wicked fast on the thruway, dodging in and out of lanes and traffic to get ahead. You might think to yourself “what a jerk!” but the last time you drove in a reckless manner your probably justified it as necessary to make an appointment. In short, people, as a rule, define others by their deeds but define themselves, or others with whom they closely identify, by their intents.
Being good or evil person isn’t a matter of intent for the most part. Instead, being good or evil is generally the cumulative total of one’s morally charged actions. People don’t think of themselves as evil because they dislocate their actions, particularly the actions they are ashamed of, from their self-image. Consequently, the definition of who is good and who is evil ultimately comes from outside of the individual. In the real world, it is the morals and ethics of one’s society that defines evil, but in D&D morality is enforced by some unnamed outside force as I’ve documented above.
Consider the case of a barbarian leader who raids a village, kills all the adults whether or not they are armed, and enslaves the children to force them to work at a grist mill. That’s evil. It doesn’t matter that the one remaining child grows into a well-oiled Austrian who returns to kick the barbarian leader’s head in and thereby dissolve the hippy death cult the leader had built around himself, nor does it matter that the chain of events could have arguably resulted in the best possible outcome for the Austrian and that the barbarian leader took credit for the Austrian’s success. It doesn’t even matter if the barbarian leader had planned the whole thing from the start or that he might have needed laborers to mill the grain so that he could feed his family. Killing noncombatants and enslaving children is an evil act and even James Earl Jones can’t escape that fact and that makes the barbarian leader evil.
What’s more, the genre needs evil villains because that is the nature of the game. This whole game is based on over-the-top action and over-the-top moral situations are a great way to bring in the action. Not every enemy need to be a mustache-twirling rogue who’s tied a damsel to the train tracks, but in most games the players and DM accept a level of moral objectiveness as an element to the genre. Presenting an unambiguous moral situation is a good way to engage the players and their characters and a good way for the players to develop a rapport with their characters. It is just part of the genre, doesn’t always need to be part of it, but it is present in a great many cases. Plus, when you do play with the mustache-twirlers, it makes the occasional morally ambiguous antagonist that much more interesting; the contrast brings out more in the shadows of gray.
What does this mean for Mastema’s character? It all boils down to the character being evil because he commits evil acts. It doesn’t matter whether or not he is doing these evil acts for the good of another because the acts themselves are inherently evil and taint him as such. Nor does it matter what his intent is as talk is cheap. He might be a tragic figure who brokered his soul with the devil to save his people, he might have a flawed moral compass, or he might just be a jerk, but the fact is he’s evil because he does evil. Evil to him who evil does.
I like your moral example, and I think I can come up with a scenario where you can argue that it's actually good, from a utilitarian perspective. I don't think the results you offered really work from a utilitarian standpoint - utilitarianism is about the greatest good for the greatest number, not just grasping for some silver lining in a massive dark cloud. But moving on:
First, that intents are irrelevant to morality isn't agreed upon. Immanuel Kant felt that intent was the most important thing. This is the difference between an intentionalist and a consequentialist - we agreed to call Mastema's character a consequentialist, so he'd agree with you. He's focused on results. As a utillitarian, he's concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a laudable goal, but without more Kantian caveats (Kant is famous for his categorical imperative, which basically says "don't do anything that you wouldn't want to be made a universal law, and don't use people as a means to an end") it can lead you to some very dark actions.
Let's return to your barbarian. Let's say he's trying to unite warring tribes against a looming threat, but they aren't listening to him. This town is in a vulnerable place, and he knows they're going to be the first to go. Without the tribes setting apart their differences, this town and all others will fall to the... gnolls, let's say. So he comes up with a plan - he and his trusted soldiers burn the village to the ground and make it look like a gnoll attack. They slaughter everyone present, leaving no survivors. On its own, this is horribly evil. However, because of this atrocity, the warring tribes do, in fact, set aside their differences and recognize the gnolls as a true threat. Because of this, they are able to prepare in time and turn away the gnoll invaders, saving thousands more lives.
Let's even say that the gnolls would have somehow missed the village in question, and gone on to ravage only the other lands. Would it have been better for the barbarian to let that happen? Or, and let's keep in mind that in this scenario we're not offering any other options, was the more moral act to sacrifice this village to save the kingdom?
Let's offer a different scenario - the barbarian knows that a warband of gnolls has come ahead of the horde and it plans to attack the village. He could warn the village and aid in its defense, but if he does then the tribes still will not take the gnoll threat seriously and, scattered, they will be overwhelmed by the horde. Conversely, he could allow the warband to destroy the village, doing nothing himself, so that the tribes unite. Which of these two options is the most moral? If you're a Kantian, it's the former. If you're a utilitarian, it's the latter. Neither is "good" or "evil" in any objective sense.
Some people don't like this level of moral complexity in their D&D games, but I can only imagine getting bored constantly playing in a black and white world.
I always hate when someone brings Watchmen into the forum, because there is an event in which the end did NOT justify the means. If you are planning to bring a benefit to society as a whole, you need to be sure of two things: first, that the catastrophe that you are planning to prevent will actually happen (or is at least extremely likely to happen); and second, that your plan, if it involves the sacrifice of a massive number of lives, will not be foiled by your own incompetence.
For all of Veidt's supposed genius, he really didn't think everything through, especially since he should have just asked Dr. Manhattan to remove any evidence of his plan. In the end, his plan would ultimately fail, because the proof that he had orchestrated everything was uncovered and would eventually be shared. In fact, if aggressions could have been cooled in other ways, such a controversy would probably result in war with more likelihood than just leaving everything alone.
Point being, if you want the end to justify the means, make sure that the means result in the end you intend.
Sorry about this rant, but I really hate when people bring Watchmen into a philosophical debate and hold it up like some philosophical Bible. Alan Moore was a great writer, but many of his works don't age well, and Watchmen in particular is a problem because it relied on most of the heroes being not only fallible, but downright stupid, and even more ignorant of events surrounding them than an average person. And, since Veidt's ultimate victory is implied to soon be overturned by the truth, the narrative goes from moral ambiguity (was Veidt right in what he did?) to just an exercise in futility. Maybe it's just me, but after reading Watchmen, I didn't feel impressed, or inspired, or anything like that. I just felt hollow and vaguely annoyed. As a catalyst for debate, Watchmen seems to have served its purpose. As a credible novel worthy of conversation and analysis, though, not so much. Everything is laid out for everyone to see, with very little subtext or implication. In order for something to be considered a great novel, it should make us rethink the human condition, either as what we are capable of doing (To Kill a Mockingbird shows us just how much evil some people are willing to commit to preserve their own sense of decorum), or inspire us regarding how much humanity can achieve. Watchmen does neither. In its utilization of superheroes, it actually shoots itself in the foot, because superheroes are inherently viewed as not like the normal human race, so any lessons that could be gleaned from it are already watered down. It's not particularly inspiring unless one is planning a similar cataclysm in order to save the world (and in such a time of religion dictating wars, it probably wouldn't work anyway. Doom-crying terrorist organizations would just devour the planet claiming that God wants to smite the earth anyway), and unless one has led a particularly sheltered life, the characters aren't particularly startling. Hell, they're not really complex, either. Any character development isn't actually shown, as we don't get to SEE Veidt's descent into plotting his little Armageddon. We got some with Rorschach, but to me it just felt stilted rather than dramatic or disturbing, and it still didn't really explain the process through which he went unhinged, just that he became mentally unstable. Rorschach is easily the most interesting character, although even his political views are pretty straw-man. His opening monologue is pretty much par for the course among most of the radicals, even a little tame.
Sorry for derailing this thread, but I just had to get that off my chest. Thank you for your time, and goodnight.
The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.
Adun, while I appreciate your perspective on the material, I think your entire post should have been preceded with a giant *SPOILER ALERT* for those who have yet to read Watchmen .
(It may have already been spoiled, but yours is the only post I read.)
I hardly think we're going to solve anything by focussing on the discussion whether the ends do justify the means or not. Point being that some of us have made a clear conclusion in opposite directions and -well- we're not really going to crack that nut here, are we? At least not in a fully conclusive manner.
An idea that I found most interesting came from my own party, namely that if we were to define something by a value as intangible and actually plain undefinable as an alignment, it should be done by the maniest and loudest of voices. Simply put, no one holds judgement over right and wrong, but in a whole we are the only ones capable of ever giving judgement (unless you wish to adhere to a god's word, which as pointed out above is just as selfserving and subjective as the word of any of us, so even then you'll have to listen to more or all gods which is just an aristocratic version of the above).
So actually, what my party suggested was that at specific intervals we could hold sort of a discussion on what the alignments are of everyone in the party, perceived by the party members and the DM. Regardless of whether you think it's right, you'll be given the alignment that your party thinks you are and the alignment they will respond to. There is after all no licence to show your party members that you are indisputably good. If your party thinks you are evil, you perhaps aren't but that doesn't matter since your party surely thinks so and will treat you like it.
Similarly, it is up to your DM to decide how local villagers or gods perceive you, based on what they've seen you do and accomplish in respectively their limited or elaborate knowledge. If you destroyed a temple of Kord to prevent his barbarous followers to have slaves competing against each other in life and death for some kind of feast in Kord's honor, Kord will perceive you as evil for destroying his temple, or even good for stopping this feast which he had not licenced. Many other gods (evil, neutral and good) will perceive you as evil for the plain act of destroying a temple. However some others, like the patron gods of the slaves will see another picture and perceive you as good. But then again, if these patron gods were evil themselves, good gods might perceive you as evil anyway, regardless of the saving of lives.
Anyway, the point is that no matter how you turn it, even in the mechanics of D&D, you are subject to the re-actions of the others in your campaign setting. So perhaps you should prefer to build a decent background and ethical system for your character, and better leave the exact alignment question unanswered and only filled in by the necessary interactors when they need to respond to you.
It would be a nice effect for my character to suddenly realize that everyone in his party considers him plain evil, while that was never his intention, which opens opportunities for a plot-turner and introduces possibilities for character evolution.
Adun, while I appreciate your perspective on the material, I think your entire post should have been preceded with a giant *SPOILER ALERT* for those who have yet to read Watchmen .
(It may have already been spoiled, but yours is the only post I read.)
Also, Rorshach is awesome!
It was pretty much spoiled by moviegoers to their friends after the movie came out (and I read the comic, I didn't watch the movie), but I may as well throw it into a sblock.
The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.
Well, right, but that just raises the question again doesn't it - was it right for Rorschach to get the word out, or was it wrong? From a utilitarian standpoint, he was wrong. From a Kantian standpoint, he was right.
My point was that the end didn't really justify the means, because he didn't take enough precautions to ensure that Rorschach didn't get the word out (or anybody else potentially getting the word out, for that matter). It was just a bad example of this viewpoint overall, in which one leak automatically undoes the end, and therefore the means are not justified.
Now, I'll present another controversial (although less so) case: In Warcraft 3, where Arthas has to slay an entire city in order to prevent them from becoming undead, the end actually did justify the means. The people were going to die anyway, and if they were allowed to go "peacefully" in their sleep, they would rise as undead and devour more innocent people. Although Arthas pretty much went bat-crap insane after that, I never saw the event as such an abomination because the "culling" felt more like a kindness, killing them instead of letting them be damned to undeath, where they may or may not be able to see every atrocity they're forced to commit; not to mention the lives potentially saved from being overwhelmed by a resurgence of undead.
What do you think this represents, if you suspend your knowledge of how Arthas ends up and just focus on the event itself, in which a paladin slaughters a city doomed to become mindless undead? Evil character who butchered innocents because it was the quickest solution, good character whose hand was forced due to time constraints and the threat of being overrun by former innocents? Something different altogether?
The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.
In particular, something caught my eye in your original call:
"Good seeks peace, not war, therefore it doesn't have either the motivation nor sufficient knowledge to wage war."
You realize how patently incorrect that is, don't you? And that war is a tool of diplomacy? If this is your PC's mindset, I don't see anything other than simply chaotic evil for him.
Good characters can be among the best war-makers, simply because the most efficacious strategies end the wars fastest.
Go rent a copy of "Seargeant York" - it might help you see that side of things. Plus it's a decent old movie ).
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
You realize how patently incorrect that is, don't you?
Well, considering the plentiful of examples already raised above of how evil saves the day when good would fail... does indicate that it isn't such a patently incorrect statement. I agree it is short-minded to only use evil, or good for that matter, but that's just a tiefling warlock speaking. What had you reckoned his opinion would be? Throw puppies and flowers at the enemy? I reckon he'd go for the infernal tortures of the Nine Hells... I'm just saying, his opinion is bound to be biased that way.
Good characters can be among the best war-makers, simply because the most efficacious strategies end the wars fastest.
You just said that good characters are the best war-makers, because they are the most efficient. My character sais that evil characters are the best war-makers, because they are the most efficient.
My character would really need to hear a better argument than a simple inversion to conclude that good actually is more efficient...
.
