Emphasis on gray

[Spazmo]

The single-most appropriate action the Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Bard/Barbarian that I played in my most recent D&D campaign could do according to alignment was constant use of a Rod of Wonder. No matter what situation it was almost certain to cause chaos, in most cases affecting both the predominantly good party I was adventuring with and the predominantly evil NPCs/monsters we encountered.

Four words: Deck. Of. Many. Things. Good times...

 

[Section8]

I agree that mercenaries are definitely one of the more defined neutral roles, and it's a shame that a few recent RPGs have perverted the demand of payment to be an evil act.

Deck of Many Things

You better believe I took as many draws from that thing as I could. It resulted in my first character death, but I was given ample compensation for my troubles. :D

 

[Spazmo]

My groups first characters were hopeless munchkins, so we naturally had about a dozen wish spells each lying around which naturally eliminated all the bad effects from the Deck of Many Things. Of course, now, I realise that only the worst DMs will actually put a Deck of Many Things in their campaigns.

 

[Section8]

It's not necessarily bad DMing, it depends on what sort of group of adventurers you have. The guys I DM for start dividing up loot while NPCs/Monsters are still wielding/holding it. I run the game like Monty because that's what they like. None of the campaigns I run are particularly complex either, because if I leave too much room for choice, everybody wants to do differnt things and nobody is willing to compromise.

 

[Spazmo]

Yes, but the Deck can only totally unbalance your campaign. It's only suitable to be used by PCs who are about to be retired. I mean, when the one fighter PC gets a castle and about a hundred valuable gems, and the mage PC loses all his worldly possessions and spells, it just doesn't work.

 

[Sustenus Paul]

The problem with the binary Good/Evil system (and by proxy all the various alignment systems that approximate it [which is basically all alignment systems of note]) is what I like to think of as Active/Indifferent engine. When you get down to it, only psychotics and agsty teenagers are actually For Evil. Basically, an Evil character is simply Indifferent to Goodness. This makes neutrality a bit difficult to mitigate, since you are either For Good (and hence Good Aligned) or Indifferent to Good (and hence Evil). Most "average" type characters are Good Aligned because, all else being equal they'd rather others were happy and will act on this in small ways.

The "classic" D&D "true neutral" is actually good, since he works to preserve some arbitrary "balance" because he feels that is what is best for the world. A bit philosophically and psychologically dodgy, but if such a character ever existed, his heart would be in the right place. A supposedly Lawful Neutral character would be either Good (if he felt orderliness was a more importance aspect of solid, productive civilization than anything else), or Evil (if he simply couldn't stand Chaos and he felt brutal tyrrany was preferable to having his peace of mind disturbed). A Chaotic Neutral character would likely be Evil (since his personal need for independance outmoded all other considerations), unless maybe if he was an anarchist who worked for absolute liberty for all (in which case he'd be good). And all of the characters mentioned in this paragraph would be rare cases of bizarre psychosocial disorderd.

So, in the end, all Neutral really ends up is either "Evil, but not sadistically so" or, more likely "Good, but not very". This is why I think a numerical system is preferable a binary one. On the other hand, only the D&D series of CRPGs ever really make a good run of using alignment, since it allows you to use appropriate weapons and spells. Using Karma/Alignment interchangeably like the Fallout series does (granted there are local reputations independant of karma, but they tend to go down even for good/evil acts no one would have a realistic way of learning about) has always seemed silly to me, since it doesn't take into account characters with a level of subtlety to their actions.

To conclude, neutral quests would be pointless because neutrality is an artificial stance.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Yeah, that's a pretty good summation on how I feel about evil alignments in general. Most of the time it should just be expressed as a general indifference to others' needs and rights, but there's always the tendency for the designers to take it too far. That's where you get the nonsensical idea of balance at true neutral and evil guys promoting evil for its own sake. Really it should have just been kept as a quick aid to roleplaying for newbies to help them get into the minds of different characters better, but it got institutionalized somewhere along the way. If you can sum up your character's outlook on the world in two words, it's probably not much of a character.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

No, evil isn't indifference to good. Evil is putting yourself well above that of everyone else. It's all about putting your needs ahead of anyone else's and the consequences be damned. I think that's what Walks with the Snails is getting at in his post. It's the sense that you're more important than the rest of the world, so if you kill a few people in the process of self caterization, no big loss.

This is why Trajkov and the Master in Fallout weren't really, truly evil. They were just sort of warped. They were doing bad things for the right reasons, but they didn't see it as "bad things". They think they're helping, and in the case of Trajkov, maybe they are. In the case of the Master, he just didn't have all the facts.

Of course, one could argue that both these villians lost sight of humanity due to their sudden growth in power. After all, the Master became a superbeing in only a few days because of the long FEV soak he had. Trajkov had the canisters to make him powerful. Both believed they were helping their "people" because of this, they were fighting the good fight.. Even though that fight not be a fight that everyone who is affected wants or needs, that's what those two believed.

 

[Sustenus Paul]

No, evil isn't indifference to good. Evil is putting yourself well above that of everyone else. It's all about putting your needs ahead of anyone else's and the consequences be damned. I think that's what Walks with the Snails is getting at in his post. It's the sense that you're more important than the rest of the world, so if you kill a few people in the process of self caterization, no big loss.

And this is different from "Indifference to Good" how? I was defining Good as the happiness and well-being of others, so either you care (and hence try not to kill them in the process of getting what you want), or you are Indifferent. I don't see how what you're saying is any different from what I'm saying. If you do nasty things in the name of what you genuinely believe to be some greater good, you are still "good-aligned", if arguably warped.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

And this is different from "Indifference to Good" how? I was defining Good as the happiness and well-being of others, so either you care (and hence try not to kill them in the process of getting what you want), or you are Indifferent. I don't see how what you're saying is any different from what I'm saying. If you do nasty things in the name of what you genuinely believe to be some greater good, you are still "good-aligned", if arguably warped.

Indifference to Good would cover both Neutral and Evil, as you also briefly mentioned. This type of definition blurs the line and basically ends up just being, "Anything not good". Saying that you're "Indifferent" to the subject of good means you may or may not do good or you may simply never do good. It covers the range from agnosticism on the subject to outright abandonment of it.

It's like saying a trout is a fish, but not all fish are trout. Someone "indifferent" to good may be evil, but not all those indifferent to good would be evil.

The difference between my post and yours is the clarification.

 

[Sustenus Paul]

Indifference to Good would cover both Neutral and Evil, as you also briefly mentioned. This type of definition blurs the line and basically ends up just being, "Anything not good". Saying that you're "Indifferent" to the subject of good means you may or may not do good or you may simply never do good. It covers the range from agnosticism on the subject to outright abandonment of it.

It's like saying a trout is a fish, but not all fish are trout. Someone "indifferent" to good may be evil, but not all those indifferent to good would be evil.

The difference between my post and yours is the clarification.

No, all those truly Indifferent to Good would be Evil, which is why Neutrality is BS for anyone other than the mentally disturbed. Even if you show only a slight interest in virtue (i.e., you simply don't do massively evil things to get what you want), you are being "Slightly Good", not "Neutral". Unless you were completely random and did Good deeds on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but not on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, with Sunday alternating each week, you are going to either be concerned for others or not. If you are concerned for others, you are at least slightly Good. If you are not concerned for others, you are going to be Evil, because Evil gets you better stuff for less work.

 

[Deathy]

That's essentially simplistic, putting people into two categories.
"You're either good or not-good"
What about being in an organisation that essentially preys on others (not-good) but also has an honor system that says that you are not to prey on other members of that organisation.
This is where your idea about 'good = caring about others' falls flat.
You care about others, just not all others.

Furthermore, there are those that would prey on others, but their sense of morality prohibits them from going past a certain limit, ie: killing defenseless women and children for gain.

The whole point is, morality can't be classified into simple black and white areas.

 

[Sustenus Paul]

That's essentially simplistic, putting people into two categories.
"You're either good or not-good"
What about being in an organisation that essentially preys on others (not-good) but also has an honor system that says that you are not to prey on other members of that organisation.
This is where your idea about 'good = caring about others' falls flat.
You care about others, just not all others.

Furthermore, there are those that would prey on others, but their sense of morality prohibits them from going past a certain limit, ie: killing defenseless women and children for gain.

The whole point is, morality can't be classified into simple black and white areas.

Well, yes and no. I think you'd either have to say it's too complex to quantify at all and not have any alignment in the game (the realistic but dull way), say it's too complex for good and evil to be meaningful, and use some other set of traits, like saying "my character is Disciplined but Noncomformist and Compassionate but Amoralistic" (the realistic but incredibly difficult way), for things to work like that. If you are going to use the good/evil shorthand, it pretty much is black and white.

The whole "honor among thieves" type BS is BS. It's a pragmatic arrangement, not a moral one. You agree not to prey on other members of your organization so you know you don't have to watch your own back in their presence. There is no genuine consideration for others there, simply a more enlightened self-interest.

As for your other example, this falls decidedly into the definition of "Slightly Good". You are displaying some consideration for others.

Ideally in this scenario, there would be a numerical alignment system, but one that only fell below "zero" for pointless sadism. So a character who always took the easiest path, regardless of consideration for others, would have an alignment of absolute zero, while anyone who went out of there way at all ever to help (or at least not hurt) others would have at least a small positive alignment. Granted, in terms of dealing with society, you probably would be considerd evil if your score was a low non-zero, but to me this makes more sense than evil being negative numbers, good being positive numbers, with some theoretical "neutral" character remaining at absolute zero.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Really when it comes down to it, most real people aren't simply going to be good/evil. Different situations will elicit different respones from people. Whether its greed, lust, power, laziness, etc., everyone's got their weaknesses as well as their strengths. There's also the matter of motivation and justification; the same action can be good or evil depending on your reasons. Just a simple number isn't really going to be that enlightening. Okay, great, on a scale of 0 to 100 on the morality meter, I'm a 50. What's that mean? I'm totally passive and never take action to help or harm others? I live a life of debauchery but give money to starving orphans? I preserve the lives of the people of an entire kingdom through the indiscriminate slaughter of people from another, equally large, kingdom? The D&D system if anything is at least a little more descriptive, even if it does lump people into a few categories that may or may not give the whole picture.

 

[Sustenus Paul]

Really when it comes down to it, most real people aren't simply going to be good/evil. Different situations will elicit different respones from people. Whether its greed, lust, power, laziness, etc., everyone's got their weaknesses as well as their strengths. There's also the matter of motivation and justification; the same action can be good or evil depending on your reasons. Just a simple number isn't really going to be that enlightening. Okay, great, on a scale of 0 to 100 on the morality meter, I'm a 50. What's that mean? I'm totally passive and never take action to help or harm others? I live a life of debauchery but give money to starving orphans? I preserve the lives of the people of an entire kingdom through the indiscriminate slaughter of people from another, equally large, kingdom? The D&D system if anything is at least a little more descriptive, even if it does lump people into a few categories that may or may not give the whole picture.

How enlightening do you need things? I mean, we're talking about a system for approximating a character's "righteousness" for the purposes of reputation/magical karma/whatever, not in depth pyschoanalysis.

Again, I'll say if you have an alignment system, you really have two useful options. You can try to sum up the different relevant scales a person could be judged on (I once drew up an expanded version of the D&D alignment system that had 4 axes: Moral/Amoral, Compassionate/Sadistic, Disciplined/Undisciplined, and Obedient/Noncomformist), which would be interesting but probably more complex than it would be useful. Or you can use a shorthand that isn't particularly descriptive, but gives you a fairly precise value that can be used for in game calculations.

The system I propose is crude in that it only approximates all the influences on a character into a simple rating of "how much does he take others into consideration", but it's (IMO) more logically sound than what currently exists and no more difficult to implement.