POLL: What is your alignment (in real life!)

Remove all ads!

One doesn't become evil for being a Treblinka guard. Besides, it would be hard to support the claim that a low private guard is evil for not... I don't know... trying to swim accross the North Sea and join the allies? Things change when guards aren't risking their lives should they decide to treat the prisoners in a humane way, like those in Abu Ghraib who let their imagination loose and made a pastime of tormenting the captives. I wouldn't like to judge those people, but that behaviour is an example of evil deed in a classic form: for fun, because it feels good.

However, you do raise an important point and that point is, as I see it, contempt. Contempt for the wronged allows the wrongdoer to feel justified or even indifferent, as if he killed a dog and not a human, for instance. That's what made Nazi criminals or those raping and pillaging soldiers from Vietnam able to act like normal, law-abiding, kind and considerate fellows between people they considered equal to themselves.

That said, I would risk an assumption that contempt is the core of evil. Someone who doesn't feel contempt can hardly be evil and when he actually does something we could rate objectively evil, he acts as a tool of destruction rather than the author.

Compassion can break that contempt and defeat, putting some border in place that even those people won't cross. Does it mean their problem is that they first of all lack compassion? Possibly so. Who does evil doesn't show compassion. It's reasonable to assume he doesn't feel it, either (or it would prevent him from hurting the victims). Lack of compassion would also be at the core of evil, though does someone deprived of compassion understand the significance of his choice and the action that follows? Doubt that.

Still, we can pretty much take as granted that contempt and lack of compassion are prerequisites for being evil. I don't see that in people who claim evil alignments here.

 

I think I am Lawful Evil. I don't consider myself a psychotic bastard, though.

I follow the rules not because I think they all make sense, but because otherwise I would be punished if caught breaking them. But if I see the chance of bending or breaking a rule to my sole benefit, and not being caught, I'd try it.

In fact, most people I know are lawful evil. People don't break the speed limit in the highway when there are policemen around, but they run like devils when they are not in sight. Most people would not go back to a shop to return money if they discovered that the shopkeeper gave them too much change. How many people cheat in exams, games and even love if given the opportunity?

Is this the behaviour of a good-aligned person? I think not. Does this mean that all those people go and hit their partners and childern at home, and go aroud killing and stealing because they break some rules? Neither. They simply take advantage of a profitable situation, and bend the rules to their profit.

I agree with Chev in that a degree of contempt is required for this. You wouldn't break a rule if you respected it.

 

How to evaluate not returning surplus change is a matter of perception I guess. It also depends on the motive. If someone is happy to get some money without working for it and doesn't think much about other's loss, I bet that would be chaotic. After all, if some Good-aligned characters are thieves and steal from people, how could we expect them to return overchange? A harsh and abrupt variant of LN alignment might think "it's his own fault, that will teach him to pay attention". Heck, even a stern law-abider might think that way. An Edwin-ish LE character might enjoy the idea of undue profit without committing theft. A CN, as a rule, wouldn't give a damn and a TN could do either, depending on whatever criteria he applies. Cheating in games doesn't have to be evil, either. And I can't see kids cheating in tests at school as committing an evil act. Chaotic or eye-for-an-eye-lawful (the teacher asks mean questions so the student cheats in return or in defence), but not evil. A Good-aligned person perhaps dislikes such methods and is unlikely to use them, but that's because Good is somehow tied with Order, much like Evil tends to crave destruction (Chaos) and doesn't mean one can't be Chaotic and still Good or Lawful but Evil.

I don't mean to be unduly critical, but obeying the law out of fear of punishment doesn't make one Lawful. Chaotic doesn't mean stupid and if breaking the law gets you in trouble, a Chaotic character, realistically, will likely avoid it. After all, alignment is not obsessive-compulsive disorder. Likewise, a Lawful character may well break the law if forced to.

As I see it, most people are TN: they are just by default but transgress if it's profitable and they have no compulsion to obey or disobey the law, choosing whatever fits their current needs. If they develop more fixed principles, they drift towards more decided alignments, more likely keeping one axis at neutral than going for an extreme alignment.

Also, there will always be disagreement as to what extent of Lawful, Chaotic, Good or Evil inclination qualifies you for an alignment. Still, badass attitude or Bible thumping quite obviously doesn't make it. It takes some consistency to maintain an alignment and when there is no such consistency, the case is not of unstable, shifting alignment but rather of neutrality on a given axis.

Let's make a test: You are travelling trough desert. A lone and axhausted merchant carrying a small sack, probably a caravan survivor, crosses your path and says he has had nothing to drink for two days. He asks one of your goatskins with water. You are close to a settlement, but you are in hurry and cannot afford going back to resupply. One goatskin is enough for him to make it to the settlement. If you refuse, he will die. If you give it, you will not die of thirst, but you will definitely suffer dehydration before the end of your journey. What do you do?

[ September 01, 2004, 17:57: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chaotic good for sure.

 

I think you are overanalyzing something meant for a game and just for a game.

I like to think that everyone reality is just his or her own alignment.

 

To answer your question chev: I take him with me and share the water with him as needed ensuring that he does not drink the whole thing at once.

I help people when I can. I go out of my way in most situations. However I'm not going to start giving away all my stuff. I'm hoping after I graduate from University with my MCom I'll be able to make a heap of money and use that for assisting others. Long term development and the big picture. Not 'How can I do good now?' rather 'How can I do the most good?".

 

I still say I am Chotic Good. I am not Evil, under any definition, nor am I apathic enough to be Neutral. I care for my fellow man, and I will help him even if it causes me to lose something.

I would not say I am Lawful, because I do not think that someone should be punished just for being Evil, even though they haven't done anything to that effect. I do break the law in some cases. I speed, and would not hesitate to jay walk. I don't shoplift anything large then some grapes, and I would return change to a store if it was a large amount.

The difference between Good and Evil is never a clear line, but a grey area. I play in that grey area sometimes. And that makes me Chaotic. But not Evil.

 

@Chevalier

I would help the man back to the settlement, gladly sharing my water with him. But not out of charity or goodwill, but because in any case I am better off doing it.

If I help him, he will owe me a boon. If he happens to have something valuable in that sack that he wants to part with, or knows of someone who would be glad to reward me for my actions, that will be good for me. I could also profit from the sole knowledge of his travels through the desert, where he was ambushed and by whom, where he found shelter...

On the other hand, I will gain nothing by not helping him. I will know nothing of the road ahead, which could lead me to the ambushers. Also, if he reached the settlement on his own, he would speak badly about me, which could hinder any further dealings that I may have with its people should I return.

By helping the merchant in that situation, I am helping myself.

 

@Colthrun: That's not evil, though I don't remember you claiming an evil alignment, anyway. To me it looks somewhere close to the idea behind Lawful Neutrality. A Good character might act on the same motive, though charity and goodwill would make him share the water even if no reward were in question. By the way: you're in a hurry in this example, so going back to the city for the glory isn't an option. It's a clear choice: give him water and you get dehydrated but you both live, or not give him water and you're fine but he dies. Doesn't mean there's nothing tricky here - like the opportunities created by the sack he's carrying.

@Abomination: Not saying a Neutral (Good vs Evil axis) character wouldn't absolutely act like that, but it looks like a Good alignment example. Sounds a bit like the LG way of thinking.

Now maybe some answers from people claiming evil alignment in real life?

 

@Chev: I'd drag the guy along to the settlement, because of the public relations value. Mainly, it would not cause me undue harm, but if a word of my deed reaches people, they'd be inclinded to thinlk of me as someone "good"... that, and there's always the fact that if he's the lone survivor of a merchant caravan, he might come in useful later... say, if he ever srets up shop and I go drop by, I'm bound to get some severe discounts.

Besides, if I just left him there, who is to say he won't run into someone else and thus possibly be able to affect my reputation negatively? Of course, I could just kill him, but that would not profit me in any way, shape, or form.

 

I would first of all ask myself; "What the hell am I doing in the desert?" After that, I would probably share my water, depending on the attitude of the man. If he is a greedy bastard, let him rot in he... err... desert. :? But if he is a nice fellow that seems to care for people, I would gladly share my water with him. That is why I don't consider myself good nor lawful.

Also, by my thinking, a good one would try to make people redeem their actions, and since I hate nazis and kick the crap out of them at ever chance I get, I wouldn't call myself good.

However, since I do not go out of my way to kick their asses or kick their asses for fun, well, okay, a little bit of fun, I don't consider myself evil ethier.

Therefore, I am Neutral, IMHO

Then, I am a Syndicalist. I believe that the fascist ideals we uphold in this world, ideals that doesn't promote a truly democratic goverment, I consider myself chaotic. I do not believe that the goverment need to care about if I wear a seatbelt in the car or if I wear a helmet when I hike. They should have laws, that I agree on, but I could never be able to follow all those stupid laws we have now. Remove the pettyness, remove the beraucracy(sp?), remove the current un-democratic goverments we have today.

After that rant, you see why I consider myself Chaotic.

 

@Ara: That would work if you were in a familiar area or one you're going to revisit and it cost you nothing to share the water. The idea is you're in a hurry and carrying no surplus weight, not even water. You have just enough of everything to make it. If you share, you're 100% to arrive at your destination sick from dehydration, although you won't die. If you go back to the settlement (there's a reason why it's called settlement and not town), you're going to be late for something important.

Sorry to disappoint you, but as of now, it looks more like True Neutral than Evil

 

Well, since I am chaotic, i can always blame temporary insanity for being late, and I can never be sure if I return or not.



Are you trying to claim that I am not chaotic?

 

Nah, don't get me wrong. It's not like I'm making a point of questionning people's alignments or whatever such. Only the fact of people claiming to have (rather than aspire to) evil alignments in real life awoke my skepticism and set me in bitching mode. Guess I'd better shut up before I end up hijacking the thread

 

Heh, well, it WAS that test of yours that says that i am chaotic evil, remember?

 

Chevalier, I have to say that I find your ideas of good and evil quite peculiar. Keeping another person’s money can barely be considered a good or a purely neutral act. Regardless of how insignificant the extra change given by mistake might be, regardless of the motives for keeping it, you are conscientiously and willingly taking what is now rightfully the shopkeeper’s. That is called stealing, and it’s considered wrong by all societies.

What does a person need to do, in your opinion, to be considered evil? Could you provide separate examples of what you think should be the behaviour of each one of the three evil alignments in real life?

I am not claiming to be a mass murderer, a ruthless thief, or a member of the Conservative Party , which seems to be the general idea of an “evil person”. I claimed to be Lawful Evil, because the description of the alignment provided in all games I have played fits my personal view of the world. Perhaps the name of my alignment should be Egoistic Neutral or similar, but the only one of the offered alignments that fits, is Lawful Evil. Different motivations drive people to do things, and mine are neither selfless nor aimed at a greater good.

And I don’t care about the damn balance.

(Edit: spelling)

[ September 02, 2004, 18:00: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

 

That's why it's forbidden by laws.

Still, a thief can be lawful. A predictable thief that always mugs the same kind of people in the same alley using the same weapon to threaten them, as Oaz put it in some thread in the D&D forum, is Lawful. Then you also have the structure of an underground society of thief guilds and the like, with rulers and subjects, "legitimate" authority and usurpers, power struggles, established patterns of behaviour and ways of solving conflicts, and the like.

The same way, stealing doesn't have to be immediately evil. It surely doesn't qualify for a good act on its own and is wrong indeed, but one can't really speak of evil alignment if someone doesn't return a couple of cents of overchange. If it happened in a game I DMed, I would give a Good or a Lawful character a hard time, but it wouldn't be enough for alignment change. A paladin would fall for that, sure, but if I made him change his alignment that would be for a serious breach of his vows, obligations etc and not the act in itself. Similarly, a monk could get in trouble with me as DM, but that would be for the breach of discipline and letting momentuous instincts take over his actions.

Even if we assume that ends don't justify means (and I agree here), the authors of such objectively evil acts don't really exhibit evil in acts they commit with a good end in mind. For instance, stealing from rich merchants to feed hungry children hardly makes one evil, although it does expose to a high risk of going down the evil path. If the character stole not to acquire goods for himself but to deprive the victim of them, the journey would be even faster.

Most thieves in D&D are actually Neutral in alignment. This means they won't probably steal the last penny from you or physically harm you in the process beyond what's needed to get your fat purse. What they do may be evil, but it lacks the intensivity to merit an evil alignment. This is especially true for people growing up in the streets and knowing no other life.

The situation starts looking different when the character's newly discovered inclinations develop into a bad habit, especially if the character is unrepentant of his actions. Considering this practically always happens at some point, it's safe to expect alignment change in the future. However, a single act doesn't make it.

As for Good-aligned theieves and such, I agree that Good-aligned thieves, although theoretically viable, are unrealistic. An iconic kind-hearted rogue is a very rare exception and one that confirms the rule. That is because he isn't really a rogue in the normal sense. A strange system of values in a character that doesn't assign much value to private property and disdains the social structure and discriminative in choosing rich targets that will make up for the loss (think Imoen, perhaps) could make it, though. It still wouldn't exempt him from normal expectations of Good alignment, meaning some selflessness and readiness to make sacrifice for others would be required of him. Very unlikely, as I said, but still possible as I also said

 

maybe alignments are boguss... maybe we don't have alignments, maybe were just humans or dwarvs or elvs or gnomes or halflings or half-orcs or yuan-tis etc!

 

You were confused again heh? Mixing things up...

CS is not an alignment. I's more like a constellation or true Aura and it stands for Celestial Superior.

Will you ever learn?

Now don't answer me with: "That's what I ment with Chaotic Stupid..."

 

Chaotic Good seems the closest fit for me.