Morality in RPGs
In some RPGs, D&D in particular, morality is a part of the game. You have shining paladins battling hoards of chaotic orcs… and chaotic barbarians fighting and defeating a despotic ruler to rule in their place. Spells, what classes you can become a member of, items, and so forth are all influenced by and also influence one’s moral alignment.
However there is a huge amount of debate over what kinds of acts, thoughts, personalities, et cetera fall under what alignment.
Since I’m going to be discussing things in terms of the D&D morality system, I may as well give the way that they define alignment in D&D. In D&D there are 2 axes of morality. One is good/evil and the other is law/chaos. On either axis one can take one of those two alignments or be neutral. So someone can, for example, be Neutral Good or Chaotic Neutral.
Now, as for how they define good, evil, law, and chaos:
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness[sic], and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
People keep bringing up the example of Robin Hood as a prime example of a CG thief in an attempt to say that while theft is chaotic, it is neither good nor evil.
Now, as one can read above, doing harm to another is considered evil. However, concern for the dignity of others, respecting life, and altruism are good.
When Robin Hood steals from Prince John, he is harming Prince John. This is doing harm to another, and thus is Evil.
When he uses some of the stolen money to care for people, he is being altruistic, respecting life, and is showing concern for the dignity of his fellow beings. His intent is to use the gold to ransom king Richard, a noble intent, but intent does not always translate into deeds.
The good that he does (keeping people from dieing from starvation, uplifting spirits, and giving things he could keep) outweighs the evil (stealing from a despot), and this is why his alignment is considered “Good.”
By the same token, killing a band of killing, marauding orcs is both good, and evil. You harm them (evil) but you prevent harm to many others (good).
Now, obviously, if Robin could have convinced Prince John to stop being a bad person, that would have been [I]more[/I] good than stealing the money to give it to the peasants. If you could scare the orcs back to their homeland and be assured they would never go raping or pillaging again, that would be more “good”… because you had not done the evil.
This is why in many groups that I think truly embrace the ‘good’ outlook, the PCs attempt non-violent solutions when there is a glimmer of hope that it will work.
Unfortunately, there are many people out there, in the real world, who believe that if there is any taint of evil (such as harming another) to your actions that your actions are, in sum total, evil, rather than recognizing that in a world of greys one cannot always be shining white.
This might be an interesting plot to explore in a game world, with idealistic priests opposing paladins who seek to make a pre-emptive strike against their opponents in the coming army.
As for Lawful behavior you’ll note that trustworthiness, and reliability are all large parts of Lawful behavior. The only element above that actually references the laws of man is the part about respect for authority. It also notes that on the down side Lawfulness can be reactionary adherance to tradition, but it’s interesting to note that adherance to tradition, even if it isn’t reactionary, is a very lawful trait.
An interesting moral quandary to investigate for a lawful character might be which takes precedent, the traditions and honors of one’s tribal culture, or the lawful rule of an authority which bids you abandon them.
In addition, it may be entirely lawful behavior for someone to put their oath, their honor, and the traditions of their people above the laws of a nation they are currently passing through, especially if that nation embraces values far different from one’s own. I could see it as being very lawful good behavior, especially for a Paladin passing through a neutral or slightly evil territory. What Gaming paladin would honor the barbaric traditions of orcs over the traditions of his own people? By the same token, why should he honor the traditions of a barbaric human nation?
On the other hand, authority has power over anyone within it’s realm of influence whether they agree with the authority or not, and lawful characters generally recognize this and attempt to stay within the lines, to avoid ruffling feathers, making waves, and the like.
Chaotic behavior, can lead to many different archetypes. Chaotic behavior implies the freedom to do whatever you want, however you want, without caring about how other people will think about you. This can lead to some really interesting and unique solutions to a situation, but can also, unfortunately, lead to a character just plain old deciding they don’t want to do what they said they would, or not to think about how their actions might affect others. Thus, the irresponsible tendency of the alignment.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:50 am
One of the hardest things I find with alignments is that people who equate “good” with “nice” or “kind.” Any kind of warrior archtype is going to be violent, and will consider violence as a possible course of action early in the decision making process. It has nothing to do with alignment; that’s just how the character is trained to handle a situation. The Paladin’s response to evil has a very good chance of involving the word “smite”. A Good Barbarian is still going to think in terms of “Thog smash”.
Second on the list of problems are alignment based spells, items, and effects. I’m sorry but ever since I was a kid I’ve been exposed to a morality that states that a weapon or tool can be used for good or evil equally well depending on the hands that wield it. More than once I’ve been tempted to send my wizard into the slaughtered ruins of our enemies, raise them as skeletons, then send them to the local orphanage to tuck the kids in and tell them bedtime stories. I’m weird like that.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am
A fighter can easily be kind. If a starving kid looks up at the character on his way back from the dungeon, or a farmer who has no way to pay for help asks for aid in saving his family from orcs, a good character may well help either of them, in a kindly fashion. It just so happens that the fighter may help by causing the orcs that captured the family to go splut, and the ranger may feed the kid by killing a wild boar (or giving him a piece of the boar he killed on the way into town).
As for the spells, there are actually specific rational for this. Typically, evil aligned spells call upon the powers of darkness, or energy from an elemental plain of negative energy that represents the antithesis of life. Such powers are said to be either corrupting (the evil ones) or destructive to the world as a whole (negative energy ones), or both. Similarly with rebuking undead.
However some campaigns and splat books have dealt with the paradigm of ‘using evil to do good’. In Complete Scoundrel, there is a summoning prestige class which allows one to cast conjuration spells with the evil descriptor without it being an evil act. The class eventually grants many abilities to those who ‘trick demons’ into doing the work the character wants them to do.
Some campaign settings, such as Arcanis, state that an act is only evil if you perform it in an evil way, or for an evil purpose. For example, a necromancer who raises dead using the following incantation: “Long past warriors of our nation. Though you deserve your rest, your nation requires your assistance yet again to repel the invaders. In death we call you to repel those who you fought in life!” in order to save a village from being over-run and slaughtered is not performing an evil act.
On the other hand, a necromancer who raises a person’s loved one to mentally torture them, or one who spills the lifeblood of a sentient being as a part of the ritual is definitely performing an evil act.
On the other hand, evil items are ones that by their very nature are attuned to evil. While a flaming longsword can do good or ill in the hands of any wielder, an unholy longsword is specifically meant to be harmful to goodness, and support evil. They are designed to attack beings of another alignment, and do so even as such a character uses them. So while a good character could wield a +1 unholy longsword, it’d be harder, and in most circumstances be of less use, than wielding a simple +1 longsword.
On the other hand, neutral characters would have no such problem. If you want to play a gritty champion who uses the evil tools and some of the tactics of the enemy against them, this fits in very well with a LN follower of St. Cuthbert.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Unholy weapons are hard to make an argument about since Good is generally cooperative, and when not tends to prefer compromise over violence.
But what about a Holy weapon? A demon might wish such a weapon to strike down a devil, or vice versa. Likewise the whole concept breaks down when evil fights evil — the Good side clearly profits by playing one against the other, but that would be an act of betrayal — an arguably evil act. Certainly arranging for a massacre is less than laudable.
The Negative Energy Plane is NOT evil. That in and of itself brings question to the entire morality of spells that draw upon it and creatures animated through it. Why is animating the bones of a skeleton evil, while animating a statue neutral? What is so special about the corporeal remains of the dead that makes them inviolate?
September 5th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Well if a Demon wants to strike down a devil, or visa versa, they’ll likely use a weapon along the law/chaos axis, this would also allow them to strike down some of their celestial enemies as well, should said celestials choose to interfere, or should they be encountered in any way.
The problem is that it’s be pretty darn hard to imbue any weapon with sheer goodness and holyness when you, yourself are a thing of profanity. And I doubt any beings of goodness and light would want their potent weapons to wind up a resource for evil, so I can easily see the -2 negative levels being built in.
As for the negative energy, it is it’s self not evil. However, keep in mind that negative energy leads directly to the decay of any world you bring it into. Causing damage to your world, and to the prime material as a whole could easily be classified as evil, neh?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Hmm. Supplying Evil with tools of destruction that are most effective against eachother and less effective against Celestials. You’re right, there’s no reason to distribute such weapons to the enemy. *sarcasm*
Decay is natural. Decay is necessary. Old things must die for new things to grow. Purging fires invigorate the forest to new growth. Decomposing flesh and fauna feed insects.
Also, in D&D cosmology, positive energy is equally destructive. One might as well describe Heal as damaging to the Prime Material.
And as a final point, you make a wonderful case for traveling to Hell and channeling as much negative energy as possible.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Right. So I make a shocking, flaming sword that is sharper than any mundane sword, specifically for fighting the forces of evil, thus also imbuing it with holy energy that they happen not to be able to use on me. Of course I want them to be able to use the shocking, and flaming abilities on me.
And yes, Decay is natural. However, allow me to be more specific, negative energy actually damages the matter the world it’s self is made of, disrupting that natural cycle, at least according to some interpretations. Note that I’m playing devil’s advocate here.
And positive energy is damaging only so far as a sudden influx of additional energy can be damaging in a confined area.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
As Josh has said.. Negative Energy destroys positive energy, and vice versa. It is not simply decay, which, as indicated, is a natural function of the world..
As for the animating the dead/animating a statue?
Necromancy, in theory, specifically brings back a dead soul to inhabit the corpse, powered by negative energy, and forced into slavery.
Animating a statue, if done by enslaving an elemental, could also be seen to be an evil act, as I would posit any act of slavery is evil, or utilitarian at absolute best.
However, I believe that the general animation spells do not necessarily invoke possession via an elemental.