Quoth the Raven and themes.

[A G Thing]

Wonderfully Evil of course!

But while Scanea does have its pitfalls, it can add a lot to a game if used correctly and sparingly too. I just think it needs to be used carefully.

[Dark Angel]

Hmm, not that I want to, well, critisize or something, but why do I see everything on the page - as long as I'm not logged in - in pink?
Has it something to do with the nest QtR? I'd understand it if it were love. Or comedy.
At least, it would fit in both cases.
k.

I think it is in the Breaking News thread in an effort to meet our princess pimping overlords halfway. Of course in the dark, the hellish pink glow is a might unsettling.

[Dark Angel]

Wonderfully Evil of course!

But while Scanea does have its pitfalls, it can add a lot to a game if used correctly and sparingly too. I just think it needs to be used carefully.

True, but my guys already walk around with hands on weapons and challenge almost every official and guards person in my game.

P1: I hit with my mace of disruption, they are evil aren't they?
DM: How do you know?
P1: How many non evil officers are there in Ravenloft?
DM: ...You don't know...
P1: I'll take my chances.
DM: You know just because they might be evil doesn't mean you can justify attacking right?
P1: I'll take my chances.

[alhoon]

?!?

That's the opposite of Elena Faith-hold. They're assuming evil in EVERY person with influence or power. Many terrorists started from that path. The possibilities here are endless.
Even if they're correct, killing that person may be bad in the short/long term. That evil guard while totally lacking in compassion and too eager to beat poor people may actually also do his job keeping other evil elements at bay.

Personally, in my campaigns most officers are NOT evil as Ravenloft is a place with ... Dark Powers and evil people/stuff but the majority, the vast majority are still totally human. Some bad, some good, some in between. But the "some bad" part isn't too big.

[Dark Angel]

That was a particular situation in Falkovnia and most evil officials are easier to pick out of crowds in my game. One of my fonder misconception was straight out if Adam's Wrath. A PC slipped into the monastery and was sneaking about. She found the 'lovely room of death' (the room full of corpses) when a member of the order heard her. She had a pain in the butt intelligent sword that HATED evil priests and was trying to sate its hunger. So she slipped behind and hit it, made sure it was evil, and paused when I said the monk wasn't evil. She paused and said, but she is a monk right (i.e. cleric). I said no and then revealed the puckered flesh and massive frame. That sword was pissed and the PC was not thrilled either!

[alhoon]

How can tell if a creature is evil in Ravenloft? Not to mention, that those monks are IMO more evil than neutral. No morals or compassion means evil, it doesn't mean neutral. When a child is dying of hunger next door and you throw your spare food to your over-weight dog and kick the child's mother when she comes begging, you're not neutral.

[Jimsolo]

How can tell if a creature is evil in Ravenloft? Not to mention, that those monks are IMO more evil than neutral. No morals or compassion means evil, it doesn't mean neutral. When a child is dying of hunger next door and you throw your spare food to your over-weight dog and kick the child's mother when she comes begging, you're not neutral.

What about Inevitables? They are absolutely devoid of morals or compassion. I think that 'no morals or compassion' is in many ways the definition of certain types of LN.

Evil people HAVE morals, they are just either perverted or ignored. I think that to be evil, you have to know the difference between right and wrong and choose wrong anyway. (Either because you have a flimsy justification for why your 'point of view' is 'correct' or because you just enjoy giving in to your darker nature.)

Terminators are true neutral. Animals are neutral. Vermin are (usually) neutral. And most of them are utterly devoid of any kind of morality or compassion.

That's just my take on it, I guess.

[High Priest Mikhal]

Morality is predicated on intent and actions. Animals and creatures with animal-like intelligence (1-2) are neutral because they don't have the mental capacity for intent beyond the most instinctual drives. Mindless creatures that are Neutral are in much the same boat; those that have an alignment other than Neutral are affected by some outside force (negative energy for undead, for which evil could be considered an entropic aspect of the soul).

Intelligent creatures who are evil, much as Jimsolo said, are either deluded or actively pursuing evil for its own sake. The latter does tend to be rarer since few evil people think of themselves as evil. Even psychopaths, who will ruthlessly eliminate anyone or anything that gets in the way of their ambitions, will often justify things to themselves ("They didn't deserve it," "They weren't strong enough," etc.). Very few admit to being evil and those who do are the ones who have utterly abandoned any pretenses. Those are the worst monsters--figuratively and literally.

[alhoon]

Well I don't use inevitables in my game and if I do, I have them have morals. An inevitable wouldn't kill innocents because it's convenient IMO; he would take pains to avoid it. I believe the "I had to finish my mission whatever the cost" kind of guy is evil, not neutral in most cases.

As far as the setting is concerned, in Gothic horror "mindset" there is clearly right and wrong, good and evil set into stone whether the protagonist/villain realizes it or not. The psychopath that kills red-haired women because he's absolutely sure they are born with a curse that will turn them to murdering hags because he's crazy, is considered evil, even if he doesn't his actions are wrong because of mental instability.

If we move away from 19th-century point of view of course, and we have evil and morality as something subjective, things change.

[High Priest Mikhal]

Inevitables don't kill people or commit evil acts just because it's convenient. They do so if there's no other way to get around a problem that hinders their mission. Their moral neutrality isn't any kind of disregard for good and evil, or a concern for balance. They literally are Law, with no other aspect to their personalities. They're also constructs, not outsiders, so that implies an inability to think beyond the duties programmed into them.

For a fine example of such, check out Obligatum VII from the chapter on Pandorym in Elder Evils. This is a being who doesn't care about good or evil, cause or effect, just in fulfilling its mission to free Pandorym from its unlawful imprisonment. Even if freeing Pandorym means it will destroy the gods--and potentially the rest of reality. It's not mindless, far from it actually, but it has a mission and it will see it through or be destroyed trying. As its six predecessors did.

[Jimsolo]

Well I don't use inevitables in my game and if I do, I have them have morals. An inevitable wouldn't kill innocents because it's convenient IMO; he would take pains to avoid it. I believe the "I had to finish my mission whatever the cost" kind of guy is evil, not neutral in most cases.

Hmm. Interesting way to look at it. It's certainly a departure from how alignments are usually run, but if it works for you, more power to you!

I think it's worth noting that the D&D alignment doesn't always necessarily mesh with Ravenloft notions of good and evil. It's completely possible to take actions which are neutral by conventional D&D standards and find that they incur a Dark Powers check, since they are considered 'evil' by the fickle standards of the Demiplane of Dread.

From what I know of Adam's Wrath, incidentally, I DO agree with your assessment that those monks seem more evil than neutral. My only point of contention is the idea that 'no morals' makes you evil by default. I think that 'no morals' is the absolute definition of moral neutrality.

[alhoon]

I think that 'no morals' is the absolute definition of moral neutrality.

Well, If I recall correctly it's actually the definition of a sociopath...

[Jimsolo]

Not quite. Close, though.

A sociopath--I assume you mean a violent sociopath--also enjoys (on some level) the damage they inflict. They also understand right and wrong, they just don't care. That's what makes them Evil.

Extreme Lawful Neutral individuals such as Inevitables (as well as Formians, Justicars, and Modrons) don't believe in (or don't understand) the concept of right and wrong at all. They understand only order--specifically, the 'natural order' as they see it.

A Lawful Neutral person can act without compassion or morality without being evil. In the example given (a monk who refuses to give a starving child food and then assault the child) it seems unlikely that the monks would be considered Good or even Neutral assuming they act like that on a regular basis. (A Good person can commit an Evil act without instantly switching to an Evil alignment, and vice versa.) Refusing to feed a starving child is not necessarily indicative of an Evil alignment, however. It's at best a Neutral action (if there is some support structure that the child could be going to, or if the money/food is earmarked for something else) and at worst an Evil action being committed by a Neutral person. (Assuming I understand the situation correctly--you're referencing a specific scene from a module, correct? Or was your example hyperbole given in reference to something else?)

Note again, that the Dark Powers operate independently of the alignment system. Dark Powers checks can infrequently occur for actions which are not necessarily Evil actions, and rarely occur for actions which are Good (from a moral perspective).

Now, all that being said, I've seen DMs take the view that only beings of a more simplistic, less nuanced mindset can have a morally Neutral alignment. They say that humans have a greater complexity to their motivations than animals, constructs, or outsiders. While I don't necessarily think this is the best way to approach the system, I think that viewpoint might work better in Ravenloft than it does anywhere else.

[High Priest Mikhal]

Actually neither definition is entirely right or wrong. Sociopathy is actually a fairly complex idea with no singular definition even among psychologists and other professionals. Commonly accepted ideas are violations of social norms and antisocial behavior (potentially evil), a lack of empathy and morals without the murderous ruthlessness of psychopathy (potentially neutral), or simply having morals that differ from the average person (potentially good; for an example of "good," reread VRGtt Shadow Fey).

I would also appreciate it if people were more sensitive about the subject. Those of us with Asperger's have sometimes been incorrectly and inappropriately labeled "sociopathic" by some due to our perceived lack of empathy and suffered for it socially, financially, and professionally. If you do, please be sure it refers to those who meet only the strictest criteria (for simplicity, those who meet the first two definitions I listed above).

[Jimsolo]

Let's be clear: we're discussing in-game morality, not real world morality. The D&D alignment system is most effective when applied to fictional characters, and should not be extrapolated to real life situations or to our real life issues. It's only going to lead to hurt feelings.

In addition, this thread was intended to discuss possible themes for this year's Quoth the Raven. We've gotten a little off topic. If we'd like to talk about morality, compassion, ethics, and their relation to in-game morality or real world issues, then I think it would be best (and less confusing) if someone started a separate thread for that.