486
Tasha's alignment (startrek.website)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 96 points 10 months ago

Honestly, treating 'Evil' as just self-interested to the point of being willing to place your own desires above the wellbeing of others is actually one of my favourite takes on it, because

A) It makes it legitimately challenging but also very rewarding to be Good (I mean, what NPC isn't going to like someone that actually successfully respects their wishes and needs when helping them?)

B) It opens up Evil as a legitimate option for party members that isn't an instant dealbreaker

C) It allows you to run creatures meant to be 'inherently evil' (devils and chromatic dragons in particular) as assholes but not completely unthinking and unreasonable, which makes them a LOT scarier- these are intelligent creatures that should be just as witty and dangerous to hold a conversation with as they are to fight. A dragon that's undeniably a selfish bastard but can make compelling cases to try and out-RP the players and get them to fall into traps or hesitate to fight them, or a Devil that knows just how to play the role of a corruptor, someone who tempts the party and plays to win the big game.

[-] Tarcion@sh.itjust.works 25 points 10 months ago

Yeah. Unpopular opinion, I know, but I really like alignment. It's pretty easy to say "puts self above others" = evil and "puts others before self" = good.

My quick version of law v chaos is "puts societal structure above individual freedom" = law and "puts individual freedom above societal structure".

Feels like a framework closer to how people actually behave and doesn't invite in-party conflict.

[-] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 10 months ago

so the whole alignment thing is just a political compass?

[-] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Always has been

[-] Hexarei@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago

Yeah I generally run any non-neutral alignment as "Willing to go out of your way to perform acts of [help/harm], with the alignment being determined by why you did it and whether you feel satisfied by the outcome, and you intentionally do those acts in a [principled/unpredictable] manner."

As a result, most creatures are generally neutral - They may lean in one direction or the other, but a paladin's divine sense will only reveal evil if someone would actively make choices to harm others, feeling no remorse. Any good deeds are an extension of selfishness, done for the purpose of some kind of gain (lawful: gain is calculated or for an existing purpose, chaotic: gain is for whatever they wanted at the time)

A good alignment for a paladin sense means you're willing to make active choices to sacrifice things important to you (or perhaps for your survival) for the purpose of helping others. That can be as simple as giving up something you wanted or as heavy as charging into a burning building to rescue the occupants. (Lawful: does it because it's the right thing to do, chaotic: does it because it felt right at the time)

[-] Susaga@ttrpg.network 10 points 10 months ago

I disagree with that interpretation. Evil shouldn't be going out of your way to cause harm, it should be willingly causing harm to get your way. The harm is the method, not the goal.

Like, a good person driving down the road will swerve and crash their car to avoid hitting a dog. A neutral person would stop the car and see if they can move the dog, or at least drive around it. An evil person wouldn't even slow down. Why should they have to be a minute late because some idiot dog decided to stand in the wrong place?

Meanwhile, if the evil person swerved and crashed their car to hit a dog who wasn't even on the road, their car would be wrecked and their journey would be totally ruined. They'd be just as foolish as the good person. If you're going to have your actions bound by the same restrictive moral guidelines as good people in a new coat of paint, you might as well be good.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 10 months ago

no extra steps, that's exactly what chaotic evil is

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Except she follows the law, she just finds loopholes that you could throw a nuke through. She announced her attack on the factory, and didn't attack the town. She also wrote a dissertation on how to shell a town legally.

I'd say lawful evil, trending towards neutral evil

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I'd figure Chaotic neutral because to be evil you have to actively do things with malice. If it's for personal gain according to their personal morality, it's neutral because they could fall in line with the law by coincidence.

[-] DawnPaladin@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

Doing evil because it's fun and doing evil because it's profitable are both evil. An evil alignment doesn't require you to relish the screams of your victims - you just have to decide "those lives are not as important as what I want."

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Numhold@feddit.de 10 points 10 months ago

If your personal morality allows you to do anything, as long as you profit from it in some way, you don‘t have any morality at all. You‘re evil.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Okay then what's the difference between someone who's apathetic and someone who actively likes hurting people? Nothing? Those are the same alignment? I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

[-] DawnPaladin@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If you're apathetic because it's none of your business or you're afraid for your family, that's neutral. If you're apathetic to their pleas for mercy as you evict them into the snow so you can make more money, that's evil.

The core question is: are you willing to hurt others to benefit yourself?

[-] Numhold@feddit.de 6 points 10 months ago

It‘s dependent on context. If you live in an oppressive regime that commits atrocities in front of your eyes, you may let them happen because you fear for your own safety if you intervene. That‘s the neutral way. A good person would join a resistance group, even if it means putting yourself in danger. An evil person would apply as a henchman to the evil overlord, not because they‘re a sadist that craves harming other people, but because it‘s an easy job and it pays well.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Eagle0600@yiffit.net 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nah. Evil is where the harm your actions do to other people doesn't stop you from doing it. Neutral is where you wouldn't put yourself especially at risk or especially out of your way to help others, but you wouldn't hurt them either, even if it benefited you. Obviously there's a spectrum there, most neutral people would do harm to others if they had a gun to their head. Enjoying the harm you do unto others is sadism, which is separate from alignment. A good or neutral person can be a sadist, but their morality will prevent them from hurting others even if they enjoy it. In short, sadism provides a motive (of which there are many others), alignment provides the restriction or lack thereof.

Tl;dr if order a village slaughtered to take all their stuff, I don't care how dispassionate or purely self-interested you are, you're evil. If you murder people because you're paid to, and don't much care about the details, you're evil.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Infynis@midwest.social 35 points 10 months ago

Isn't acting purely in self interest the general definition of chaotic neutral?

[-] Enk1@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

If while acting in your own self-interest you knowingly, through action or inaction, allow others to come to harm, even indirectly, that is evil. In the same way that a character knowingly doing something that benefits others would arguably make them good. A chaotic neutral person may act on a whim or in self-interest the majority of the time, but I doubt they'd let their actions cause actual harm to others.

But trying to pigeonhole human behavior into a rigid matrix of alignments is inherently flawed, people are much more complex than that. Fortunately, DND allows the DM free reign to define that or allow it to be a grey area - in reality, "alignment" will always be fluid.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

If while acting in your own self-interest you knowingly, through action or inaction, allow others to come to harm, even indirectly, that is evil.

I think most Americans buy products made via unethical labor practices, and which damage the environment, harming everyone.

Are you really making the argument that the vast majority of Americans are evil?

[-] Enk1@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

As an American, I'm not not making that argument.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Numhold@feddit.de 5 points 10 months ago

There‘s also the distinction between allowing evil practices for your personal gain and allowing them to avoid harming yourself. The latter would be a neutral alignment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 4 points 10 months ago

By that description, the vast majority of people are evil. Well, both evil and good, since most people at least occasionally do things that aren’t in their self-interest to help others. But primarily evil, thanks to the inaction clause on the evil side and nothing comparable on the good side.

They’re also more evil the more educated they are, since they’re more aware of ways that people are suffering harm that they could potentially abate.

For example, if you are not homeless and you are aware that some people are homeless and a storm is coming, if you don’t help them all find shelter - to the extent of bringing them into your own home even if it means you end up not having a place to sleep - by your definition, you’re evil.

I’m not a fan of that definition, either for D&D or anything else, but if it works for your table, great!

[-] Enk1@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

An "evil" act does not make a person evil necessarily. We all do bad shit sometimes. My point was it's a grey area that can't be defined with 9 alignments outside of the structure of a game, but knowingly allowing your actions to cause harm to others is an evil act.

That being said, the idea of good and evil is entirely the result of fiction. I don't believe there's a black and white "good and evil" in reality. Human actions and motivations can't be defined so broadly IMO.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Susaga@ttrpg.network 12 points 10 months ago

I prefer to think of good vs evil as altrusim vs egoism. LG is "the laws should protect everyone" and LE is "the laws should protect me". CG is "everyone should be free to live as they please" and CE is "I should be free to live as I please". Acting in pure self-interest with no regard for ideals would be CE, or maybe NE depending on how it's done.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago

Yeah, at best it's chaotic neutral. It's not evil. Evil is a desire to harm others. Self interest isn't evil, just not good. I would say true neutral because it's not acting in a desire to rebel against laws either, but I could see an argument for chaotic neutral.

For reference for people familiar with BG3, the dead three are evil gods. They actively want to cause harm/death. Evil isn't just someone who doesn't care. Evil is someone who cares and wants to harm.

[-] fushuan@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Evil isn't the desire to harm others. Devils don't desire to claim people's souls for the lulz, they do it for power. Everything they do is to gain power, for their own benefit. They don't care if the souls will become lemures or a snack, they just try to convince people and scheme for their own benefit anyway.

Demons are way more brutal, they don't really gain pleasure from pain per-se, they also want power, but their approach is way more direct. If they can gain power by killing all those people and bathing in their blood, thay will forcefully do it, not by deceiving the human through a shitty contract, but by forcing their power.

Devils are LE, demons are CE. All in all, evil is the disregard of moral consequences when finding ways to benefit yourself.

Deceiving someone to sign a shitty contract so they now must slave away for you? LE.

Kidnapping someone and forcing them to do stuff to your benefit? CE.

Reaching a fair accord so that you allow people in need to work for you for a fair price, where both parties give a bit so no one is really getting taken advantage off? Either LG or LN depending on the context.

Offering to kill the bad monster that is terrorising the town for free, and disregarding the lucrative offers from it because it's the right thing to do? Any good alignment.

Any of those people could have desires of harm, it's how they channel their wants that puts them in different places in the alignment chart.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

This is the classic theological definition of evil. Evil isn't the anti-good, it's the absence of good. Good is typically regarded as some kind of selflessness or care for other, so evil is basically selfishness. There's nuance, but I wanted to support the challenge to dualistic world view.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 10 months ago

A "theological" definition doesn't really work in a world where there are actual gods and some of them actively want to cause suffering. The theology of D&D (and most other fantasy settings) is not the theology of Earth Christianity of the 21st century.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 23 points 10 months ago

No idea who the char is here, but self interest with no regards to morality sounds more chaotic neutral than CE to me.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

It's chaotic evil. But many make the same mistake you do. Evil is not defined by cruelty.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 12 points 10 months ago

Isn't self interest without regard to anything else true neutral? Good would mean helping people, evil would mean hurting people. Lawful means following the laws, chaotic means rebelling against laws. True neutral has no regard for anyone else and no regard for laws.

[-] Omnificer@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Lawful doesn't mean following the laws. A lawful person isn't obligated to follow the law in the Kingdom of Baby Eating.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 10 months ago

Lawful: "the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life"

Lawful means you obey the rules. However, presumably you have your own set of ethics, as well as probably the belief in a god that also has their own rules. You have to reconcile these. Obviously if your god is about protecting innocent lives and you think the babies being eaten are innocent and deserve protection, you probably aren't going to obey all the laws in the KoBE.

[-] ULS@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Isn't chaos neutral? Chaos is the base state? Chaos is the law of God/Universe? All other man made law is idealism and can be either good or evil?

Aren't laws an act against God/Universe? They are independent of honest reality? They are created as a mask/detergent/escape from reality/present/God/universe?

Laws are the opposite of faith in God/"God"?

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 10 points 10 months ago

Nah, there's a whole bunch of Lawful Neutral deities that uphold natural laws, and the Great Balance, like Jergal, Kelemvor, and Mystra. A lot of Good/Lawful Good deities as well, especially when it comes to the natural passage of life and death. Messing with that natural law gets you on the wrong side of like half of any given pantheon. There are even evil gods, like Bane, that are all about law.

[-] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 9 points 10 months ago

No, no, let her cook. Giving up on alignment altogether is a good move

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

They don't call it Tasha's Uncontrollable Laughter.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

CE specifically goes out of its way to be evil, though. What you described is CN. CE characters would be your standard "mad scientist" from a 90's cartoon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Archpawn@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I feel like it's not clear on whether evil is being willing to hurt people for some minor benefit to you, or if that's neutral and evil is being willing to make personal sacrifices just to cause harm. The first one is about as evil as you get in real life, but real life doesn't have demons.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
486 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

10343 readers
37 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS