Are you using a loophole to "find a reason to wage war" thus being LE gillrmn?
That would be great but Selune is complete opposite of that: CG.
Hence, we selunites carry a brand with us(just like standard issue wax seal) and use it to burn the word "Thou is evil" by using silverfire. After that we sing this song to establish our chaotic nature while we skin them ali... I mean "cleanse the soul of the evil(the one which we branded)".
That is how we do our good work
EDIT: oops! I meant Moonfire.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
That would be great but Selune is complete opposite of that: CG.
Hence, we selunites carry a brand with us(just like standard issue wax seal) and use it to burn the word "Thou is evil" by using silverfire. After that we sing this song to establish our chaotic nature while we skin them ali... I mean "cleanse the soul of the evil(the one which we branded)".
That is how we do our good work
Oh, I was referring to you, not your "character"
But how would I protect myself in character against such an assault...by a Mystran-learned Anti-Magic zone and counter-singing with the true version of course
But how would I protect myself in character against such an assault...by a Mystran-learned Anti-Magic zone and counter-singing with the true version of course
Radiant attacks are light based - that means exposure to unknown kinds of radiations.
There is no defense against radiation exposure. Even if you thwart near-term annihilation, your long term future is doomed b:laugh (Evil bear here)
Also I meant Moonfire. Though silverfire should refer to moonfire and mystra's fire should have been bluefire but D&D designers are only human...
~~~~troopers march~~~~
Evil:
Discussing evil is evil. Let me demonstrate.
Evil should mean intention and not action. An action with good intention but unfortunately bad effect should not be regarded as evil(even though it is unfortunate). However, over time, in D&D official campaigns as well as stuff prevalent among players, evil has been tied to actions most of the time (case of Aribeth's lover being evil in NWN2 and many other stories).
However, even if we stick to intetion thing, then problem emerges what intentions are evil. There are many situations which lie on the opposite of percieved side. For example, being selfish is evil? Then what about Mother who protects her child by any means possible? She is not selfish - willing damning herself for no benefit. On the other hand she is selfish for she is doing it for "her child" only and is ready to kill other children for her child. So is Mother's love evil? There is no answer (*looks at people heatedly discussing getting dissappointed*). There are many other situations.
For example, in dark side if Luke had killed his father would he have turned evil? Is dark side a virus of moral compass? I do find the fact that one mistake or act could make a person "evil" is very shallow.
In the end, concept of evil is very immature and illogical. Evil is simply based on present perceptions and conceptions. The surgeons who advanced medicine and surgery used to operate on cadavers in early days and they were called evil. Their research has saved millions of lives today.
So evil does not exist. It is just created by us when we discuss it.
Finally, Hence, Therefore In context of game - please do not discuss what is evil and what is good. Just pretend. This game is to be played like a drama - to be enjoyed. Its concepts are not perfect but they have to be flexible so that people are able to tell stories. For that is what D&D is - a tool to tell inspiring stories. Not a place to discuss classifications and stuff.
EDIT: And before examples of dictator comes - as I said evil is a perception. Not a fact. Hence if you think certain example is evil (No citations please as discussions should always be non-political) it is perception and not a fact. If you say X is evil, and I agree with you "yes certainly" that means that you and me perceive X is evil. It is not an attribute of X.
EDIT 2:
Wow I had an epiphany
There is no answer (*looks at people heatedly discussing getting dissappointed*).
True wisdom is understanding that there are some questions to which there are no answers.
Yawn lawful Evil. I never get along with them in Pen and Paper games and I usually play Chaotic Good. We should not talk about real life but I am neither criminal or saint in real life. Means I don't donate money to good causes.
If you like GC you are unlikely to enjoy LE.
Why shouldn't we talk about Good vs Evil in real life? It's a reference point. And FYI you can be evil without trying to kill everyone. Just saying.
I think what people in this thread to much confuse with that good means to have to be some generous fund raiser. Selfiness = evil? Lol that would make me very evil in real life then.
Fundraiser? OK. Sure. w/e
Oh and I'm not sure how far you will get misquoting me.
Consider a range 1-100. At the 1 end there is utter selflessness. At the 100 end there is utter selfishness.
1 will always act with first thought to others, never considering self. The cost to self does not matters. The cost to others is everything.
100 will always act with first thought to self, never considering others. Self is the only thing that matters. Impact to others is not a consideration.
Normal sentient beings fall somewhere in the middle.
I don't consider me evil because a true evil character would do anything if he/she thinks one will not be caught by authorities. Regardless of what laws exist there are some moral codes which are basic things in a community i.e don't murder people etc.
They would do anything to further their own agenda if they felt the benefit was high enough and the risk was low enough.
Now you tell me - who defines these moral codes you speak of? The majority? So what about murder and cannibalism in pre-contact Papua New Guinea? What about the ritual **** of virgin nieces and daughters in pre-contact native Australia?
You can be cool character regardless if you are good or evil in pen and paper games. My favorite Forgotten Realms evil character from books is likely Artemis Entreri a deadly assasin.
Yes they can. However cool has nothing to do with good or evil.
Whatever alignment Artemis Entreri has it is not Lawful Evil. Likely Artemis Entreri is Neutral Evil with slight tendency to Chaotic Evil.
Moot point. He is certainly evil. He acts only to further his own agenda. Impact to others does not matter. If harming others provides significant benefit to his agenda without impacting him he will do it.
I disagree with your definition of what evil is, but this is offtopic. Lets concentrate on how a evil charater is in DD world. Since we can not even agree on definition what evil is there will be many different "evil" characters.
On to topic: If I would play an evil DD character I would not care if I do other people harm. If I would play chaotic good I would still not give all the gold away as Robin Hood to poor people. Well thats my view of things.
Exactly what I said. "Self before all else". Which is the same as "selfishness without selflessness".
Evil should mean intention and not action. An action with good intention but unfortunately bad effect should not be regarded as evil(even though it is unfortunate). However, over time, in D&D official campaigns as well as stuff prevalent among players, evil has been tied to actions most of the time (case of Aribeth's lover being evil in NWN2 and many other stories).
However, even if we stick to intetion thing, then problem emerges what intentions are evil. There are many situations which lie on the opposite of percieved side. For example, being selfish is evil? Then what about Mother who protects her child by any means possible? She is not selfish - willing damning herself for no benefit. On the other hand she is selfish for she is doing it for "her child" only and is ready to kill other children for her child. So is Mother's love evil? There is no answer (*looks at people heatedly discussing getting dissappointed*). There are many other situations.
I'd argue that it's generally a scale and thus a mixture of selflessness and selfishness. So you'll usually have "good" and "bad" together.
Where does it cross the line into "evil" tho? That's the question.
I have difficulty understanding your example. I don't see "mother kills other kid to for her kid" as problematic.
Mother's instincts as good - mother interposes herself between her child and another child, allowing her own life to be taken in order to protect.
Mother's instincts as evil - mother pulls out a gun and shoots the other kid.
For example, in dark side if Luke had killed his father would he have turned evil? Is dark side a virus of moral compass? I do find the fact that one mistake or act could make a person "evil" is very shallow.[/COLOR] A single act does not an evil Sith make. I debunked "actions as defining good or evil" much earlier in this thread.
In the end, concept of evil is very immature and illogical. Evil is simply based on present perceptions and conceptions. The surgeons who advanced medicine and surgery used to operate on cadavers in early days and they were called evil. Their research has saved millions of lives today.
So evil does not exist. It is just created by us when we discuss it.
Just because some people called them evil doesn't make them evil. Just because you say evil doesn't exist doesn't make you right.
If "evil" is nothing but a perception you will have no issues with a close loved one being kidnapped, *****, mutilated and kept as a slave. As long as the person who does that doesn't perceive themselves as evil.
Finally, Hence, Therefore In context of game - please do not discuss what is evil and what is good. Just pretend. This game is to be played like a drama - to be enjoyed. Its concepts are not perfect but they have to be flexible so that people are able to tell stories. For that is what D&D is - a tool to tell inspiring stories. Not a place to discuss classifications and stuff.
Sounds like a neat way to avoid the topic.
Feel free not to read this thread. But since this thread is specifically about "evil" I am interested in examining all aspects of evil within this thread.
EDIT: And before examples of dictator comes - as I said evil is a perception. Not a fact. Hence if you think certain example is evil (No citations please as discussions should always be non-political) it is perception and not a fact. If you say X is evil, and I agree with you "yes certainly" that means that you and me perceive X is evil. It is not an attribute of X.
And so you have now excused all behaviours and actions within life!
So long as the person doing something doesn't think it's evil then it's ok for them to do it.
I object to the sick wording and refrain from any comments on that.
Secondly, you are completely misunderstanding the point here. Evil is perception and not attribute. And I am a human who acts on his perception and emotion. However it has nothing to do with discussion.
If I perceive your actions as evil will I disapprove? yes. Will I pulverize you? Possibly if I am not indifferent. But personal opinions like that have nothing to do with discussion. Neither has it to do anything with real life.
0
elewyndylMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Consider a range 1-100. At the 1 end there is utter selflessness. At the 100 end there is utter selfishness.
1 will always act with first thought to others, never considering self. The cost to self does not matters. The cost to others is everything.
100 will always act with first thought to self, never considering others. Self is the only thing that matters. Impact to others is not a consideration.
Normal sentient beings fall somewhere in the middle.
Well if you want to study evil I see that as analysis like pure mathematical values. Yes I can see some logic in the above, but for me Evil is not that simple.
Mother's instincts as good - mother interposes herself between her child and another child, allowing her own life to be taken in order to protect.
Mother's instincts as evil - mother pulls out a gun and shoots the other kid.
Now you tell me - who defines these moral codes you speak of?
Personally for me it is Christianity.
Anyway what is neutral/good is generally accepted in the Western world by authorities though yeah the system is not even near fair that is unfortunately true.
I object to the sick wording and refrain from any comments on that.
My apologies. I was discussing adult concepts and while I felt the need to point out certain aspects of certain individuals for a specific purpose I truly did not want to upset anyone. I am sorry for upsetting you.
Secondly, you are completely misunderstanding the point here. Evil is perception and not attribute. And I am a human who acts on his perception and emotion. However it has nothing to do with discussion.
I think you are missing my point.
If evil is perception then abominable acts cannot be considered so, nor can those committing said acts. That is, so long as the entity committing them doesn't consider those acts/themselves evil.
Make no mistake. Actions are a part of this picture, but they aren't in-an-of-themselves "evil". However they have relevance.
How can a person commit abominable acts? How does perception allow this? My proposition addresses this, yours does not. Yours simply ignores the question.
If you want to pretend evil doesn't exist then it's almost as if "congratulations, you dicvoerred a reason not to read this thread".
If I perceive your actions as evil will I disapprove? yes. Will I pulverize you? Possibly if I am not indifferent. But personal opinions like that have nothing to do with discussion. Neither has it to do anything with real life.
Again, actions are not my concern. But they have a bearing on the topic "what is evil". Because we can hold actions up and say "what relevance does this action have to evil".
Acts and actions don't an evil entity make. Even actions some folk may describe as evil. But who can perform abominable acts? I argue that someone in whom evil has taken hold and outweighs their humanity can perpetrate abominable acts. Someone who suppresses their empathy or has none to start with.
And thus "selfishness without selflessness" seems to me to answer "what is evil". That's certainly in line with 4e's concept of evil.
Well if you want to study evil I see that as analysis like pure mathematical values. Yes I can see some logic in the above, but for me Evil is not that simple.
To find the root of a matter we often need to simplify. From there we can see how our proposition fits in with various examples and complications.
In any case, that was an example meant to represent an idea. People were taking "selfishness/selflessness" in isolation and representing them as a boolean. Humans tend to have both.
Anyway what is neutral/good is generally accepted in the Western world by authorities though yeah the system is not even near fair that is unfortunately true.
Because it leads to topics like Religion and politics. Religion and politics are topics that should be avoided.
Er. You just brought up religion? If you'd like a relevant pointer regarding my theory in the context of Christianity PM me.
The Evil Alignment It is my right to claim what others possess.
Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.
Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others' freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them.
The Zhentarim are all about the power of the organisation and it's members, at any cost. If this means hurting others then so be it. According to the Player's Handbook this is an evil organisation.
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
edited October 2012
I'm sorry to be a downer but we must not get into debates of Real World Religious Views or Politics, no matter how related they may seem. Let's keep the discussion and debates related soeley to the information we have on how Alignments work in the D&D Rule-sets. From here on out, I will be removing posts that contain Real-World Religious and/or Political views and opinions.
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
edited October 2012
Here is an article worth more notice on 4E Alignment:
In today's final preview article, we look at the nature of good vs. evil -- and more importantly, what these terms mean for your character!
Like everything else for 4th Edition of D&D, we thought long and hard about the alignment system we wanted to launch with the new edition. The struggle of good heroes against evil villains is one D&D's core tenants. The D&D alignment system possesses a heritage and brand identity we did not want to lose. If we could overcome a couple of issues associated with the traditional alignment system without introducing new problems, we knew that we absolutely had to preserve the system so players could still talk about their lawful good paladin or the chaotic evil demon they vanquished.
As we saw it, several issues plagued D&D alignment, including:
A character's alignment, chosen at character creation, can become a straight-jacket on that character's actions. Consider the paladin we've all seen in play, "I had to attack the rogue, I'm lawful good," or the rogue, "I'm chaotic good! That means sometimes I push you off the bridge; come on, don't get mad!" or some similar sentiment when presented with a role-playing choice. For this reason, many characters stuck with neutral: a nebulous self-serving alignment (as was then defined), a "me first" mentality that didn't necessarily promote party cohesion either.
In 3rd Edition, choosing an alignment usually had the unfortunate mechanical repercussion of making the aligned player vulnerable to an opposing aligned attack of a foe. It's not really ideal that being good made you more vulnerable to demonic attacks, for instance. Another reason some players stuck with the neutral alignment of previous editions.
The alignment system was tied to game cosmology, in ways that sometimes translated to physical effects that didn't lead to fun gameplay.
So we came up with a new alignment system for 4th Edition, though one not completely unlike the previous version. It saves most of the old terms, if not their cosmological or gameplay significance. If any statement can sum up the new system, it is: "Alignment means making an effort." --Michele Carter.
Thus was born the concept of unaligned. More importantly, the concept that unaligned is benign. Being unaligned is not the neutral alignment of previous editions. Someone who is unaligned is assumed to be an "easy-going" and sometimes even helpful person, especially when it's easy to be helpful. Just like in real life, where it's arguable that many people (cocooned in their routines and safe lives provided by a supporting civilization) are unaligned, your fantasy character can enjoy the same freedom from thinking too hard about morality but still be granted the benefit of doubt when they are judged.
Of course, many players will feel benign isn't good enough, and so declare themselves good or lawful good. These characters are willing to put themselves in harm?s way to uphold a virtue or save an innocent's life, even if there is the very real possibility they could lose their own life in the process. Such willingness for self-sacrifice is not benign; it is good. --Bruce Cordell
- - - - - - - - -
If you choose an alignment, you're indicating your character's dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil. In a cosmic sense, it's the team you believe in and fight for most strongly.
Alignment
A character's alignment (or lack thereof) describes his or her moral stance:
Good: Freedom and kindness. Lawful Good: Civilization and order. Evil: Tyranny and hatred. Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction. Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
For the purpose of determining whether an effect functions on a character, someone of lawful good alignment is considered good and someone of chaotic evil alignment is considered evil. For instance, a lawful good character can use a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters.
Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiance you might have. If you're a high-level cleric with a lawful good alignment, you're on the same team as Bahamut, regardless of whether you worship that deity. Bahamut is not in any sense the captain of your team, just a particularly important player (who has a large number of supporters).
Most people in the world, and plenty of player characters, haven't signed up to play on any team -- they're unaligned. Picking and adhering to an alignment represents a distinct choice.
If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you.
Here's what the four alignments (and being unaligned) mean.
The Good Alignment
Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do.
If you're a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need. You're not required to sacrifice yourself to help others or to completely ignore your own needs, but you might be asked to place others' needs above your own.... in some cases, even if that means putting yourself in harm's way. In many ways, that's the essence of being a heroic adventurer:
The people of the town can't defend themselves from the marauding goblins, so you descend into the dungeon -- at significant personal risk -- to put an end to the goblin raids.
You can follow rules and respect authority, but you're keenly aware that power tends to corrupt those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit their power for selfish or evil ends. When that happens, you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly.
It's better for authority to rest in the members of a community rather than the hands of any individual or social class. When law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory, and good characters feel compelled to fight it.
Good and evil represent fundamentally different viewpoints, cosmically opposed and unable to coexist in peace. Good and lawful good characters, though, get along fine -- even if a good character thinks a lawful good companion might be a little too focused on following the law, rather than simply doing the right thing.
The Lawful Good Alignment
An ordered society protects us from evil.
If you're lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what's right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.
When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so.
However, you would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods.
The Evil Alignment
It is my right to claim what others possess.
Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.
Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others' freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them.
The Chaotic Evil Alignment
I don?t care what I have to do to get what I want.
Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn't directly contribute to their interests.
By the standards of good and lawful good people, chaotic evil is as abhorrent as evil, perhaps even more so. Chaotic evil monsters such as demons and orcs are at least as much of a threat to civilization and general well-being as evil monsters are. An evil creature and a chaotic evil creature are both opposed to good, but they don?t have much respect for each other either and rarely cooperate toward common goals.
Unaligned
Just let me go about my business.
If you're unaligned, you don't actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don't go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.
A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren't undecided about alignment. Rather, they've chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.
I'm sorry to be a downer but we must not get into debates of Real World Religious Views or Politics, no matter how related they may seem. Let's keep the discussion and debates related soeley to the information we have on how Alignments work in the D&D Rule-sets. From here on out, I will be removing posts that contain Real-World Religious and/or Political views and opinions.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
I have been especially vigilant on this point, since this topic can easily steer into those waters if one is not careful. If I do accidentally head in that direction please PM me so that I can correct my posts.
My apologies. I was discussing adult concepts and while I felt the need to point out certain aspects of certain individuals for a specific purpose I truly did not want to upset anyone. I am sorry for upsetting you.
I think you are missing my point.
If evil is perception then abominable acts cannot be considered so, nor can those committing said acts. That is, so long as the entity committing them doesn't consider those acts/themselves evil.
Make no mistake. Actions are a part of this picture, but they aren't in-an-of-themselves "evil". However they have relevance.
How can a person commit abominable acts? How does perception allow this? My proposition addresses this, yours does not. Yours simply ignores the question.
If you want to pretend evil doesn't exist then it's almost as if "congratulations, you dicvoerred a reason not to read this thread".
Again, actions are not my concern. But they have a bearing on the topic "what is evil". Because we can hold actions up and say "what relevance does this action have to evil".
Acts and actions don't an evil entity make. Even actions some folk may describe as evil. But who can perform abominable acts? I argue that someone in whom evil has taken hold and outweighs their humanity can perpetrate abominable acts. Someone who suppresses their empathy or has none to start with.
And thus "selfishness without selflessness" seems to me to answer "what is evil". That's certainly in line with 4e's concept of evil.
I think you are still missing a point.
Just because you don't consider someone evil does not mean you also judge their actions as acceptable. That also does not mean that non-acceptable actions are evil.
Acts like **** or pedophilia are absolutely damnable by most ethic codes, but are not inherently evil. In some cultures they're acceptable or even part of the tradition. And even if an act is considered abominable, the one who commits it is not necessarily a bad person - they might be range from a genuinly bad person to a mentally sick individual to simply being stupid.
Actions do not determine the good or evil in a person. They can be indications but to actualy judge genuine "good" or "evil" they're largely irrelevant. The only way to judge good from evil is to look inside a person's head. Consequently, one can only judge good and evil for oneself.
But anyway, your definition about evil in 4e is what really applies in D&D and what is most relevant in this particular discussion.
All I know is I am against alignment systems in general. I find them unnecessary.
true
Aligment system suck hard. One of the most immature character design like showing little kids bad character and say he's bad because he wears black clothes.
Karma system is way better, you do goog things u become good.
but ...
The best system you could see is in witcher2 game . You do some good stuf for some people then they see you good you do bad for other then they see you bad. Same as in real life there is no man that everyone have only good or bad opinion.
I hope cryptic have some courage to make some interesting story.
I hope so, if not Elder Scroll Online devs said its important that player can be a villain. b:cute
Yes but the problems with becoming a villain is that in the end you always get less then if you chose the RIGHT path.
And here is my question ****** why it have to be this way? If someone chose to be evil he should get more because of greed or something.
I want to see in game that going evil path it's not only for sake of saying we have that option but "I did evil things and everyone hates me but it was GOD DAMN WORTH IT".
To be honest i want to see a game that promote evil and hard choice is to be good not otherwise.
I ignore 4E alignments honestly, it seems like they wanted to dumb the game down or something, and I love having multiple choices. I find that I like to know alignment so that I can figure how to create and RP my character. I use it as part of my back story.
For example, Bandobras the psion halfling was a slave to an evil captain for years. When he was released, he had gained evil tendencies towards others. Not that he went around hurting people, but when he and his group of three were surrounded by displacer beasts, he psychicly communicated with them. They said they wanted to know what halfling tasted like. He told them he had a better meal idea. A village of halflings down the road were sacrificed to the beasts, and me and my friends came back and looted their village later on. If I had been a good character, like one of my companions, I would have attempted to fight the beasts and died. But since I was NE I found it to my benifit to live and let others die. Side-note, I'm also multiclassed thief, so I LOVE loot....not that it affected my choice at ALL. *cough*
My point though is that having alignment helps build your character. Being unaligned is good, by all means, but it also leaves your character to be you essentially. I always considered the idea of creating a character was that you were trying to not be yourself, but someone else. If I wanted to play myself in a game, I'd just go live and make real money in life. :-)
Thing is when some one makes a character for the first time the pretty much always to one degree or another make a personality like themselves. Mostly because they are busy trying to get used to the game environment. After that they start to deviate more. Or at least that is what I have noticed.
Plus, with MMO's that point is probably even more true once you realize that the game mechanics start taking more of a leading role than RP. RP usually becoming focus later on when the player gains more experience and starts looking for more avenues of play.
0
elewyndylMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Er. You just brought up religion? If you'd like a relevant pointer regarding my theory in the context of Christianity PM me.
Better yet, let's get to core 4e rules...
The Zhentarim are all about the power of the organisation and it's members, at any cost. If this means hurting others then so be it. According to the Player's Handbook this is an evil organisation.
Selfishness without regard for others.
You still seem to miss the point that Evil is not all about selfishness. Lets discuss in DD terms. Lets take a Cleric of Bane or a Cleric or Malar(Beast lord Lycanthropes example Werewolves). They could do evil deeds due to their religion.
There can be other motivations to do "evil" deeds then selfisness. Lets take me for example. I honestly admit that sometime I can smile with evil grin if I kill players in PvP.
Sadism is a lust. I have sadism absolutely I admit that. However there is a line I do not hurt people in real life. I might tease my brother if I win in a boardgame etc. Friendly teasing also among my friends. The difference with real good friends is that I know which of them accept little teasing and do not take it to seriously.
I am not saying that I have sadism in sex life, but I do enjoy to kill players in PvP and to tease my friends if I win in boardgames.
Lets implement sadism in DD world. Drow priestess that with sadistic glee hurts other drow. Thats what I understand about drow. They are wicked. They do not want to simple to kill no instead they like to influence pain. I can understand that because I do have sadistic wants and I like to see sadistic horror movies.
A Cleric of Pelor might still have some sadistic wants, but he will keep them in check due to his religion. Maybe that Pelor Cleric will say some sadistic comment when defeating an Evil opponent, but he will not torture them.
You also said that Chaotic Evil is stupid. Well yeah in some cases if we talk about a stupid monsters. However drow society is Chaotic Evil. They do have motivations like rise in ranks get more power, their evil god Lolth and also sadism. If you are in a society where sadism is more or less unchecked it can get pretty nasty.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited October 2012
Consider this the final warning, You may not discuss your real religion in this thread no matter how relevant it seems.
Consider this the final warning, You may not discuss your real religion in this thread no matter how relevant it seems.
Ok confirmed.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited October 2012
To me, D&D alignment, as well as real alignment, has little to do with feelings and everything to do with actions.
Selfishness is NOT evil...but evil deeds are by nature are almost always selfish. The extra step of requirement is to take joy in such actions.
The key term to remember is "No matter the cost." People aren't evil for refraining from donating to charities however I can easily argue somebody is evil for stealing from charities.
But even so one action doesn't describe a person in fiction or in real life. If one evil action maimed me forever evil I guess I should turn myself in.
With this considered I could easily argue Artemis Entreri isn't evil. No more evil than Darth Vader at least.
He committed many evil tasks but he did so only because he felt it was them or him. He took joy in punishing people for causing him trouble but he didn't choose to hurt people without first given cause. With all this I would say Artemis Entreri is Chaotic Neutral.
Just as Jarlaxle is very clearly a profiteer. He doesn't care what damage is bestowed. He doesn't care what happens to the common person as long as he becomes wealthier from it. But he isn't intentionally cruel to any and while he may feel like people must fend for themselves he doesn't outright seek to harm people.
So then, what exactly is evil?
Drow priestesses are great examples of evil characters. Not only are they self-centered to the point they literally care about nothing other than their own power they also revel in the fact that's all they care about. They don't harm others for purpose, they harm to remind others of their power.
In any case the most correct answer is that all of this is merely up to perspective. Drow priestesses don't consider themselves evil, they are merely defined as such by their actions which are both selfish and cruel.
Evil is not something that can be defined in black and white in either fiction or reality. Though the goodly gods of Aber-Toril may view the Evil deities as Evil, I assure you the roles are reversed for the Evil Deities. The only reason Evil Deities are Evil in the Forgotten Realms is because they match our current society's view of evil.
If we lived in Ancient Rome we may have a completely different viewpoint.
In any case the most correct answer is that all of this is merely up to perspective. Drow priestesses don't consider themselves evil, they are merely defined as such by their actions which are both selfish and cruel.
Evil is not something that can be defined in black and white in either fiction or reality. Though the goodly gods of Aber-Toril may view the Evil deities as Evil, I assure you the roles are reversed for the Evil Deities. The only reason Evil Deities are Evil in the Forgotten Realms is because they match our current society's view of evil.
If we lived in Ancient Rome we may have a completely different viewpoint.
Exactly it's all about the your point of view and what moral filters you have adopted.
Entreri is very very cynical, not evil, at least by his own standards. I liked how they went in to his past some and hope to see more of him after R A Salvatore gets done this series.
syfylisMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited October 2012
D&D alignment = racist ideology !
It's just simple puting everyone to same basket, If you were to find yourself in d&d world you judge drow as bad because he's a drow. You don't know how his or her life look like, what his world view or beliefs.
The reason in my view why alignment exist is to make life easy for dungeon master in pen and paper game but in mmo world it's just look chessy, unrealistic and it is racist.
It's just simple puting everyone to same basket, If you were to find yourself in d&d world you judge drow as bad because he's a drow. You don't know how his or her life look like, what his world view or beliefs.
The reason in my view why alignment exist is to make life easy for dungeon master in pen and paper game but in mmo world it's just look chessy, unrealistic and it is racist.
I'm not sure about racist sir, but consider this. Let's say about 85% of Drow Society is evil, it's very safe to ASSUME that all Drow are evil then. Of course there are exceptions to almost every rule, but to be cautious over worry free invites death in Forgotten Realms almost every where you go. If I lived in the world, I'd assume drow were all evil unless they've proven themselves a few times, that being said I wouldn't attack them on sight either. ( From fear of retribution or that they're good, I won't say )
But it's not lazy on the dm's part, most drow worship Lolth, who is as evil as it gets. It's like running into a vampire/werewolf, you might not attack them, but I guarantee you won't trust them to watch your back while you sleep. It's the same in RL. When you meet someone, do you take every word they say for truth because you can't prove them wrong, or do you keep them at a safe distance till you know you can trust who they are? If I met a drow, you bet I'd be skeptical of his stand in life and no way would I trust him right out.
Just because you don't consider someone evil does not mean you also judge their actions as acceptable. That also does not mean that non-acceptable actions are evil.
Definition of evil
adjective
1. profoundly immoral and wicked:
his evil deeds
no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption
...snip...
Note the mention of deeds, also know as actions. That's not by accident. Actions may flag evil, though they do not define it. Even thought actions may be described as evil.
More importantly "immoral and wicked".
Certain acts, performed consciously, cannot be described in a moral sense other than immoral (aka bad aka evil). Those specifically are acts performed in the full knowledge that they will bring harm and distress to another person or persons.
This is not religion and a perspective supported by the currently popular Humanist movement.
Acts like **** or pedophilia are absolutely damnable by most ethic codes, but are not inherently evil. In some cultures they're acceptable or even part of the tradition. And even if an act is considered abominable, the one who commits it is not necessarily a bad person - they might be range from a genuinly bad person to a mentally sick individual to simply being stupid.
I argue that it is inherently evil to, with full knowledge, commit acts which bring pain and distress to others. I maintain that to do so one must suppress their empathy - to be more concerned with their own agenda than the welfare of others.That is, concern with self unmitigated by empathy or concern for others.
Actions do not determine the good or evil in a person. They can be indications but to actualy judge genuine "good" or "evil" they're largely irrelevant. The only way to judge good from evil is to look inside a person's head. Consequently, one can only judge good and evil for oneself.
Only if you join the ostrich-head-in-the-sand camp that says there is no good and there is no evil.
Even the currently popular Humanist philosophy differentiates between right and wrong. Evil is simply wilfully committing immoral (aka bad aka evil) actions.
Following your logic I can do as I wish, so long as I don't think I am evil.
I ignore 4E alignments honestly, it seems like they wanted to dumb the game down or something, and I love having multiple choices. I find that I like to know alignment so that I can figure how to create and RP my character. I use it as part of my back story.
For example, Bandobras the psion halfling was a slave to an evil captain for years. When he was released, he had gained evil tendencies towards others. Not that he went around hurting people, but when he and his group of three were surrounded by displacer beasts, he psychicly communicated with them. They said they wanted to know what halfling tasted like. He told them he had a better meal idea. A village of halflings down the road were sacrificed to the beasts, and me and my friends came back and looted their village later on. If I had been a good character, like one of my companions, I would have attempted to fight the beasts and died. But since I was NE I found it to my benifit to live and let others die. Side-note, I'm also multiclassed thief, so I LOVE loot....not that it affected my choice at ALL. *cough*
My point though is that having alignment helps build your character. Being unaligned is good, by all means, but it also leaves your character to be you essentially. I always considered the idea of creating a character was that you were trying to not be yourself, but someone else. If I wanted to play myself in a game, I'd just go live and make real money in life. :-)
The idea was more that alignments wouldn't tie you down, that you could play your character concept as you like and choose an alignment only if you want. By RAW it is completely legal not to choose an alignment.
enygmasoulMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited October 2012
Meh. Don't mind me. I'm just riding a black unicorn down the side of an erupting volcano while drinking from a chalice filled with the laughter of small children.
Nothing evil about that at all.
(and I sang death death devil devil devil devil evil evil evil evil songs...)
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use "
-- Galileo Galilei
Comments
Are you using a loophole to "find a reason to wage war" thus being LE gillrmn?
Hence, we selunites carry a brand with us(just like standard issue wax seal) and use it to burn the word "Thou is evil" by using silverfire. After that we sing this song to establish our chaotic nature while we skin them ali... I mean "cleanse the soul of the evil(the one which we branded)".
That is how we do our good work
EDIT: oops! I meant Moonfire.
Oh, I was referring to you, not your "character"
But how would I protect myself in character against such an assault...by a Mystran-learned Anti-Magic zone and counter-singing with the true version of course
Radiant attacks are light based - that means exposure to unknown kinds of radiations.
There is no defense against radiation exposure. Even if you thwart near-term annihilation, your long term future is doomed b:laugh (Evil bear here)
Also I meant Moonfire. Though silverfire should refer to moonfire and mystra's fire should have been bluefire but D&D designers are only human...
Discussing evil is evil. Let me demonstrate.
Evil should mean intention and not action. An action with good intention but unfortunately bad effect should not be regarded as evil(even though it is unfortunate). However, over time, in D&D official campaigns as well as stuff prevalent among players, evil has been tied to actions most of the time (case of Aribeth's lover being evil in NWN2 and many other stories).
However, even if we stick to intetion thing, then problem emerges what intentions are evil. There are many situations which lie on the opposite of percieved side. For example, being selfish is evil? Then what about Mother who protects her child by any means possible? She is not selfish - willing damning herself for no benefit. On the other hand she is selfish for she is doing it for "her child" only and is ready to kill other children for her child. So is Mother's love evil? There is no answer (*looks at people heatedly discussing getting dissappointed*). There are many other situations.
For example, in dark side if Luke had killed his father would he have turned evil? Is dark side a virus of moral compass? I do find the fact that one mistake or act could make a person "evil" is very shallow.
In the end, concept of evil is very immature and illogical. Evil is simply based on present perceptions and conceptions. The surgeons who advanced medicine and surgery used to operate on cadavers in early days and they were called evil. Their research has saved millions of lives today.
So evil does not exist. It is just created by us when we discuss it.
Finally, Hence, Therefore
In context of game - please do not discuss what is evil and what is good. Just pretend. This game is to be played like a drama - to be enjoyed. Its concepts are not perfect but they have to be flexible so that people are able to tell stories. For that is what D&D is - a tool to tell inspiring stories. Not a place to discuss classifications and stuff.
EDIT: And before examples of dictator comes - as I said evil is a perception. Not a fact. Hence if you think certain example is evil (No citations please as discussions should always be non-political) it is perception and not a fact. If you say X is evil, and I agree with you "yes certainly" that means that you and me perceive X is evil. It is not an attribute of X.
EDIT 2:
Wow I had an epiphany
True wisdom is understanding that there are some questions to which there are no answers.
Why shouldn't we talk about Good vs Evil in real life? It's a reference point. And FYI you can be evil without trying to kill everyone. Just saying.
Fundraiser? OK. Sure. w/e
Oh and I'm not sure how far you will get misquoting me.
Consider a range 1-100. At the 1 end there is utter selflessness. At the 100 end there is utter selfishness.
1 will always act with first thought to others, never considering self. The cost to self does not matters. The cost to others is everything.
100 will always act with first thought to self, never considering others. Self is the only thing that matters. Impact to others is not a consideration.
Normal sentient beings fall somewhere in the middle.
They would do anything to further their own agenda if they felt the benefit was high enough and the risk was low enough.
Now you tell me - who defines these moral codes you speak of? The majority? So what about murder and cannibalism in pre-contact Papua New Guinea? What about the ritual **** of virgin nieces and daughters in pre-contact native Australia?
Yes they can. However cool has nothing to do with good or evil.
Moot point. He is certainly evil. He acts only to further his own agenda. Impact to others does not matter. If harming others provides significant benefit to his agenda without impacting him he will do it.
Off topic? Not according to the subject...
Exactly what I said. "Self before all else". Which is the same as "selfishness without selflessness".
Where does it cross the line into "evil" tho? That's the question.
I have difficulty understanding your example. I don't see "mother kills other kid to for her kid" as problematic.
Mother's instincts as good - mother interposes herself between her child and another child, allowing her own life to be taken in order to protect.
Mother's instincts as evil - mother pulls out a gun and shoots the other kid.
Just because some people called them evil doesn't make them evil. Just because you say evil doesn't exist doesn't make you right.
If "evil" is nothing but a perception you will have no issues with a close loved one being kidnapped, *****, mutilated and kept as a slave. As long as the person who does that doesn't perceive themselves as evil.
Sounds like a neat way to avoid the topic.
Feel free not to read this thread. But since this thread is specifically about "evil" I am interested in examining all aspects of evil within this thread.
And so you have now excused all behaviours and actions within life!
So long as the person doing something doesn't think it's evil then it's ok for them to do it.
"...to which I will never have an answer." yeah I reckon you are right
Secondly, you are completely misunderstanding the point here. Evil is perception and not attribute. And I am a human who acts on his perception and emotion. However it has nothing to do with discussion.
If I perceive your actions as evil will I disapprove? yes. Will I pulverize you? Possibly if I am not indifferent. But personal opinions like that have nothing to do with discussion. Neither has it to do anything with real life.
I completely agree with above.
Personally for me it is Christianity.
Anyway what is neutral/good is generally accepted in the Western world by authorities though yeah the system is not even near fair that is unfortunately true.
Because it leads to topics like Religion and politics. Religion and politics are topics that should be avoided.
Lets discuss DD Forgotten world please. There you can discuss organisations like the Zhentharim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhentarim
I think you are missing my point.
If evil is perception then abominable acts cannot be considered so, nor can those committing said acts. That is, so long as the entity committing them doesn't consider those acts/themselves evil.
Make no mistake. Actions are a part of this picture, but they aren't in-an-of-themselves "evil". However they have relevance.
How can a person commit abominable acts? How does perception allow this? My proposition addresses this, yours does not. Yours simply ignores the question.
If you want to pretend evil doesn't exist then it's almost as if "congratulations, you dicvoerred a reason not to read this thread".
Again, actions are not my concern. But they have a bearing on the topic "what is evil". Because we can hold actions up and say "what relevance does this action have to evil".
Acts and actions don't an evil entity make. Even actions some folk may describe as evil. But who can perform abominable acts? I argue that someone in whom evil has taken hold and outweighs their humanity can perpetrate abominable acts. Someone who suppresses their empathy or has none to start with.
And thus "selfishness without selflessness" seems to me to answer "what is evil". That's certainly in line with 4e's concept of evil.
In any case, that was an example meant to represent an idea. People were taking "selfishness/selflessness" in isolation and representing them as a boolean. Humans tend to have both.
Er. You just brought up religion? If you'd like a relevant pointer regarding my theory in the context of Christianity PM me.
Better yet, let's get to core 4e rules... The Zhentarim are all about the power of the organisation and it's members, at any cost. If this means hurting others then so be it. According to the Player's Handbook this is an evil organisation.
Selfishness without regard for others.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
In today's final preview article, we look at the nature of good vs. evil -- and more importantly, what these terms mean for your character!
Like everything else for 4th Edition of D&D, we thought long and hard about the alignment system we wanted to launch with the new edition. The struggle of good heroes against evil villains is one D&D's core tenants. The D&D alignment system possesses a heritage and brand identity we did not want to lose. If we could overcome a couple of issues associated with the traditional alignment system without introducing new problems, we knew that we absolutely had to preserve the system so players could still talk about their lawful good paladin or the chaotic evil demon they vanquished.
As we saw it, several issues plagued D&D alignment, including:
So we came up with a new alignment system for 4th Edition, though one not completely unlike the previous version. It saves most of the old terms, if not their cosmological or gameplay significance. If any statement can sum up the new system, it is: "Alignment means making an effort." --Michele Carter.
Thus was born the concept of unaligned. More importantly, the concept that unaligned is benign. Being unaligned is not the neutral alignment of previous editions. Someone who is unaligned is assumed to be an "easy-going" and sometimes even helpful person, especially when it's easy to be helpful. Just like in real life, where it's arguable that many people (cocooned in their routines and safe lives provided by a supporting civilization) are unaligned, your fantasy character can enjoy the same freedom from thinking too hard about morality but still be granted the benefit of doubt when they are judged.
Of course, many players will feel benign isn't good enough, and so declare themselves good or lawful good. These characters are willing to put themselves in harm?s way to uphold a virtue or save an innocent's life, even if there is the very real possibility they could lose their own life in the process. Such willingness for self-sacrifice is not benign; it is good.
--Bruce Cordell
- - - - - - - - -
If you choose an alignment, you're indicating your character's dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil. In a cosmic sense, it's the team you believe in and fight for most strongly.
Alignment
A character's alignment (or lack thereof) describes his or her moral stance:
Good: Freedom and kindness.
Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
For the purpose of determining whether an effect functions on a character, someone of lawful good alignment is considered good and someone of chaotic evil alignment is considered evil. For instance, a lawful good character can use a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters.
Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiance you might have. If you're a high-level cleric with a lawful good alignment, you're on the same team as Bahamut, regardless of whether you worship that deity. Bahamut is not in any sense the captain of your team, just a particularly important player (who has a large number of supporters).
Most people in the world, and plenty of player characters, haven't signed up to play on any team -- they're unaligned. Picking and adhering to an alignment represents a distinct choice.
If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you.
Here's what the four alignments (and being unaligned) mean.
The Good Alignment
Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do.
If you're a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need. You're not required to sacrifice yourself to help others or to completely ignore your own needs, but you might be asked to place others' needs above your own.... in some cases, even if that means putting yourself in harm's way. In many ways, that's the essence of being a heroic adventurer:
The people of the town can't defend themselves from the marauding goblins, so you descend into the dungeon -- at significant personal risk -- to put an end to the goblin raids.
You can follow rules and respect authority, but you're keenly aware that power tends to corrupt those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit their power for selfish or evil ends. When that happens, you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly.
It's better for authority to rest in the members of a community rather than the hands of any individual or social class. When law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory, and good characters feel compelled to fight it.
Good and evil represent fundamentally different viewpoints, cosmically opposed and unable to coexist in peace. Good and lawful good characters, though, get along fine -- even if a good character thinks a lawful good companion might be a little too focused on following the law, rather than simply doing the right thing.
The Lawful Good Alignment
An ordered society protects us from evil.
If you're lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what's right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.
When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so.
However, you would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods.
The Evil Alignment
It is my right to claim what others possess.
Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.
Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others' freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them.
The Chaotic Evil Alignment
I don?t care what I have to do to get what I want.
Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn't directly contribute to their interests.
By the standards of good and lawful good people, chaotic evil is as abhorrent as evil, perhaps even more so. Chaotic evil monsters such as demons and orcs are at least as much of a threat to civilization and general well-being as evil monsters are. An evil creature and a chaotic evil creature are both opposed to good, but they don?t have much respect for each other either and rarely cooperate toward common goals.
Unaligned
Just let me go about my business.
If you're unaligned, you don't actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don't go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.
A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren't undecided about alignment. Rather, they've chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.
Source: Link
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
I think you are still missing a point.
Just because you don't consider someone evil does not mean you also judge their actions as acceptable. That also does not mean that non-acceptable actions are evil.
Acts like **** or pedophilia are absolutely damnable by most ethic codes, but are not inherently evil. In some cultures they're acceptable or even part of the tradition. And even if an act is considered abominable, the one who commits it is not necessarily a bad person - they might be range from a genuinly bad person to a mentally sick individual to simply being stupid.
Actions do not determine the good or evil in a person. They can be indications but to actualy judge genuine "good" or "evil" they're largely irrelevant. The only way to judge good from evil is to look inside a person's head. Consequently, one can only judge good and evil for oneself.
But anyway, your definition about evil in 4e is what really applies in D&D and what is most relevant in this particular discussion.
true
Aligment system suck hard. One of the most immature character design like showing little kids bad character and say he's bad because he wears black clothes.
Karma system is way better, you do goog things u become good.
but ...
The best system you could see is in witcher2 game . You do some good stuf for some people then they see you good you do bad for other then they see you bad. Same as in real life there is no man that everyone have only good or bad opinion.
I hope cryptic have some courage to make some interesting story.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
Yes but the problems with becoming a villain is that in the end you always get less then if you chose the RIGHT path.
And here is my question ****** why it have to be this way? If someone chose to be evil he should get more because of greed or something.
I want to see in game that going evil path it's not only for sake of saying we have that option but "I did evil things and everyone hates me but it was GOD DAMN WORTH IT".
To be honest i want to see a game that promote evil and hard choice is to be good not otherwise.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
For example, Bandobras the psion halfling was a slave to an evil captain for years. When he was released, he had gained evil tendencies towards others. Not that he went around hurting people, but when he and his group of three were surrounded by displacer beasts, he psychicly communicated with them. They said they wanted to know what halfling tasted like. He told them he had a better meal idea. A village of halflings down the road were sacrificed to the beasts, and me and my friends came back and looted their village later on. If I had been a good character, like one of my companions, I would have attempted to fight the beasts and died. But since I was NE I found it to my benifit to live and let others die. Side-note, I'm also multiclassed thief, so I LOVE loot....not that it affected my choice at ALL. *cough*
My point though is that having alignment helps build your character. Being unaligned is good, by all means, but it also leaves your character to be you essentially. I always considered the idea of creating a character was that you were trying to not be yourself, but someone else. If I wanted to play myself in a game, I'd just go live and make real money in life. :-)
Plus, with MMO's that point is probably even more true once you realize that the game mechanics start taking more of a leading role than RP. RP usually becoming focus later on when the player gains more experience and starts looking for more avenues of play.
There can be other motivations to do "evil" deeds then selfisness. Lets take me for example. I honestly admit that sometime I can smile with evil grin if I kill players in PvP.
Sadism is a lust. I have sadism absolutely I admit that. However there is a line I do not hurt people in real life. I might tease my brother if I win in a boardgame etc. Friendly teasing also among my friends. The difference with real good friends is that I know which of them accept little teasing and do not take it to seriously.
I am not saying that I have sadism in sex life, but I do enjoy to kill players in PvP and to tease my friends if I win in boardgames.
Lets implement sadism in DD world. Drow priestess that with sadistic glee hurts other drow. Thats what I understand about drow. They are wicked. They do not want to simple to kill no instead they like to influence pain. I can understand that because I do have sadistic wants and I like to see sadistic horror movies.
A Cleric of Pelor might still have some sadistic wants, but he will keep them in check due to his religion. Maybe that Pelor Cleric will say some sadistic comment when defeating an Evil opponent, but he will not torture them.
You also said that Chaotic Evil is stupid. Well yeah in some cases if we talk about a stupid monsters. However drow society is Chaotic Evil. They do have motivations like rise in ranks get more power, their evil god Lolth and also sadism. If you are in a society where sadism is more or less unchecked it can get pretty nasty.
Selfishness is NOT evil...but evil deeds are by nature are almost always selfish. The extra step of requirement is to take joy in such actions.
The key term to remember is "No matter the cost." People aren't evil for refraining from donating to charities however I can easily argue somebody is evil for stealing from charities.
But even so one action doesn't describe a person in fiction or in real life. If one evil action maimed me forever evil I guess I should turn myself in.
With this considered I could easily argue Artemis Entreri isn't evil. No more evil than Darth Vader at least.
He committed many evil tasks but he did so only because he felt it was them or him. He took joy in punishing people for causing him trouble but he didn't choose to hurt people without first given cause. With all this I would say Artemis Entreri is Chaotic Neutral.
Just as Jarlaxle is very clearly a profiteer. He doesn't care what damage is bestowed. He doesn't care what happens to the common person as long as he becomes wealthier from it. But he isn't intentionally cruel to any and while he may feel like people must fend for themselves he doesn't outright seek to harm people.
So then, what exactly is evil?
Drow priestesses are great examples of evil characters. Not only are they self-centered to the point they literally care about nothing other than their own power they also revel in the fact that's all they care about. They don't harm others for purpose, they harm to remind others of their power.
In any case the most correct answer is that all of this is merely up to perspective. Drow priestesses don't consider themselves evil, they are merely defined as such by their actions which are both selfish and cruel.
Evil is not something that can be defined in black and white in either fiction or reality. Though the goodly gods of Aber-Toril may view the Evil deities as Evil, I assure you the roles are reversed for the Evil Deities. The only reason Evil Deities are Evil in the Forgotten Realms is because they match our current society's view of evil.
If we lived in Ancient Rome we may have a completely different viewpoint.
Exactly it's all about the your point of view and what moral filters you have adopted.
Entreri is very very cynical, not evil, at least by his own standards. I liked how they went in to his past some and hope to see more of him after R A Salvatore gets done this series.
Neverwinter Thieves Guild
It's just simple puting everyone to same basket, If you were to find yourself in d&d world you judge drow as bad because he's a drow. You don't know how his or her life look like, what his world view or beliefs.
The reason in my view why alignment exist is to make life easy for dungeon master in pen and paper game but in mmo world it's just look chessy, unrealistic and it is racist.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
I'm not sure about racist sir, but consider this. Let's say about 85% of Drow Society is evil, it's very safe to ASSUME that all Drow are evil then. Of course there are exceptions to almost every rule, but to be cautious over worry free invites death in Forgotten Realms almost every where you go. If I lived in the world, I'd assume drow were all evil unless they've proven themselves a few times, that being said I wouldn't attack them on sight either. ( From fear of retribution or that they're good, I won't say
But it's not lazy on the dm's part, most drow worship Lolth, who is as evil as it gets. It's like running into a vampire/werewolf, you might not attack them, but I guarantee you won't trust them to watch your back while you sleep. It's the same in RL. When you meet someone, do you take every word they say for truth because you can't prove them wrong, or do you keep them at a safe distance till you know you can trust who they are? If I met a drow, you bet I'd be skeptical of his stand in life and no way would I trust him right out.
OK. Let's check out the Oxford dictionary's definition of evil.
Note the mention of deeds, also know as actions. That's not by accident. Actions may flag evil, though they do not define it. Even thought actions may be described as evil.
More importantly "immoral and wicked".
Certain acts, performed consciously, cannot be described in a moral sense other than immoral (aka bad aka evil). Those specifically are acts performed in the full knowledge that they will bring harm and distress to another person or persons.
This is not religion and a perspective supported by the currently popular Humanist movement.
I argue that it is inherently evil to, with full knowledge, commit acts which bring pain and distress to others. I maintain that to do so one must suppress their empathy - to be more concerned with their own agenda than the welfare of others.That is, concern with self unmitigated by empathy or concern for others.
Only if you join the ostrich-head-in-the-sand camp that says there is no good and there is no evil.
Even the currently popular Humanist philosophy differentiates between right and wrong. Evil is simply wilfully committing immoral (aka bad aka evil) actions.
Following your logic I can do as I wish, so long as I don't think I am evil.
Well it's a quote from the PHB.
But the dictionary one is at least as relevant to the discussion. And interestingly, compatible too!
Nothing evil about that at all.
(and I sang death death devil devil devil devil evil evil evil evil songs...)
-- Galileo Galilei