Practicality Is Not Evil And I Shall Not Recant

[bearsarebrown]

Ok, even if we don't dismiss it, it is still a LOT easier for the "bad guys" to animate legions of minions than it is for the "good guys" to forcibly convert them. (It takes a lot less powerful magic.)

I'll give you that.

@Hijax, Elder Evils largely draw inspiration from Lovecraft which is an 'evil universe.' But this done skew the powers of Good/Evil quite far. Especially when you start being devoted to them.

@Solo, why is that quote from Hitler?

[Hijax]

I think the real balancing factor is the fact that adventurers are usually good

That's a metagame restriction heavy-handedly imposed by many DMs via fiat. How many games where that isn't enforced via DM fiat have "mostly" good adventureres? In my experience... not many.

Sorry allow me to rephrase that, adventurers mostly fight evil creatures.

Adventurers mostly fight whatever earns them the most. evil creatures just happens to be a lot better than good creatures at amassing wealth.

but yeah, this does put a but of regulation on the power, i'll give you that.

[ninjarabbit]

I think one reason good wins more often than not is because the neutrals will side with the good side more often than the bad side. Good neighbors are better to have than evil neighbors.

[Hijax]

I think one reason good wins more often than not is because the neutrals will side with the good side more often than the bad side. Good neighbors are better to have than evil neighbors.

...
good point.

[PhaedrusXY]

@Solo, why is that quote from Hitler?

You mean why does it include Hitler? I think he no doubt counts as "evil", and the nazis also had Socialist in their name, but I am not sure I'd agree that the Germans didn't work well together during WW2. I think that is a better example of "evil" socialists working together effectively.  

I also agree that socialism has more to do with "law", as far as D&D alignments go, than it does with "good". (The D&D alignments are basically crap, though. Even D&D itself isn't consistent in how it treats them.)

I think one reason good wins more often than not is because the neutrals will side with the good side more often than the bad side. Good neighbors are better to have than evil neighbors.

Yeah, but it is a lot easier to not go along with the good guys than it is the bad guys. The good guys will probably at most give you a stern "talking to" about not being "a team player", if you turn down their offer to join their cause and "fight teh ebil". The bad guys might burn your village down, or just kill you and reanimate your corpse because it doesn't talk back as much.

People are, if anything, inherently lazy and cowardly. They don't get motivated to really do anything that requires effort unless it is their own ass that is about to get put on the fire. They don't care much if it is their neighbor, especially if that neighbor isn't right next door and/or they don't like them, anyway. They'll also cave in morally to save themselves more often than not.

So when the bad guys come by and say "tell us where the rebels are hiding, or we'll string grandma up", most people will tell them where the rebels are hiding... If the bad guys otherwise leave them alone, they won't even care much that the rebels all got burned at the stake. After all, they're still ok, right?

[Solo]

You mean why does it include Hitler? I think he no doubt counts as "evil", and the nazis also had Socialist in their name, but I am not sure I'd agree that the Germans didn't work well together during WW2. I think that is a better example of "evil" socialists working together effectively. 

Germans didn't work together very well. Infighting between the Luftwaffe, SS, Gestapo, and Wehrmacht was fearsome. Hitler had a habit of promoting people he liked rather than those who had actual talent, and had them at each other's throats so that no one would be powerful enough to oust him.

[bearsarebrown]

]You mean why does it include Hitler? I think he no doubt counts as "evil", and the nazis also had Socialist in their name, but I am not sure I'd agree that the Germans didn't work well together during WW2. I think that is a better example of "evil" socialists working together effectively.  

Nonono, I'm talking about this.

You misquoted (I didn't say that. I was quoting bearsarebrown).

My apologies.

[Hallack]

Within this schema good always wins

Being "socialistic" in and of itself doesn't mean you always win. In fact, if you read any Ayn Rand, you might draw the exact opposite conclusion.

Ayn Rand wrote a book to specifically counter the writings of 6000 years of human experience and writing.  She wrote a book with no observed truth in it.  But is it popular with fascists, as it was written to please them.

The observed truth is that the "Tribe" beats the individual.  Socialism wins.

A comrade that shares your goals and desires, with which you hold common interest is in all ways more useful than unintelligent slave, or 'partnerships' with partners that will betray for there own advantage.  In this way good beats evil, or 'common benefit' beats 'selfishness'.

I agree that Socialism has much more to do with law than good/evil.  It takes laws to enforce socialistic aspects of society as there is always those who would not want to contribute without that coercion/consequence due to self interest. 

Evil can be socialistic. I don't understand why there is some misconception that evil guys can't work together. Maybe it's because literature often makes the big bads Stupid Evil or cripplingly selfish/prideful.

Real life examples of Evil not working together well include examples such as Hitler and Mussolini, the Confederacy, and the Chinese Communist Party from 1940 to 1980.

I think that even the lists of what we bring out as "evil" in this discussion shows even more reason why there is such disagreement on alignment and such within the game.

May have been the losing side...Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

-Malcom Reynolds

"Tribe" beats individual. Socialism wins.

  Um, that is not necessarily socialism.  Mutual self interest can very easily lead to a group to work together. 

That stuff aside... in a world with necromancers and spawning undead I think it all comes down to metagame fiat handwaving to establish the balance between good/evil in any particular campaign.  Really the topic I think as to be dealt with on a by campaign basis as even the rules and fluff for how the multiverse is formed and functions is mutable as per the WoTC books.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

This isn't optimization; wrong forum. And some of the sick practices mentioned here are just begging for a lock. Of course if all one cares about is power then one ends up evil. This is not new. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one with an education/wisdom score above 12.

[Agita]

This isn't optimization; wrong forum. And some of the sick practices mentioned here are just begging for a lock. Of course if all one cares about is power then one ends up evil. This is not new.

I fail to see anything lock-worthy here.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one with an education/wisdom score above 12.

So do I. And?

[Hijax]

Of course if all one cares about is power then one ends up evil.

which is exactly why it is questionable why good still prevails in the DnD universe.

[Senevri]

Unless you have permission from the deceased to handle the body in such a way.

Uh... I think this is, in fact, how the church of Wee Jas handles it...
Yup.

Wee Jas thinks of herself as a steward of the dead. Though she is a relatively benign death goddess, she has no problem with undead being created - as long as they are not reanimated against their will, and their remains are procured in a lawful manner.

Remember, DnD skeletons and zombies are typically mindless automatons who do as they're told.

Take the farmer's corpse, for an example; Buried into the soil, or re-animated to help the widow out in daily tasks of keeping a farm?

[Akahi]

good doesn't prevail, as with the real world, D&D world is a harsh, dangerous and uncaring place, I have read monster manuals and seen a lot more of evil monsters than good ones, so yeah, bad guys are, by rule, stronger and/or more than good guys.
and that's why is such an event when good guys win against bad guys, that's why they are called "heroes" because odds, rationality, logic and common sense said they were gonna lose and die horribly, but, they lived to tell of their victory (or, at least, someone lived to tell of their victory and horrible death for the cause).

The thing is, while good doesn't prevail, evil doesn't either, not openly, not the theatrical, black-plate-wearing, undead-rising, purity-defyling and fall-of-all-righteousness evil. But the little evil that most people do everyday, indifference and lazyness.

Back to wether it is or not evil to rise an army of shambling corpses, that depends only on the DM look at the value of life, in my campaigns, life is a valuable, unique thing, something that, when lost, can never be recovered, and making life falsifications (read: undead) is quite an act of being an evil/insane dick (and yes, for those who really wanna know, resurrection and other spells that actually bring back the dead are banned)

my two copper pieces

[bearsarebrown]

To an extent, Good is one side. And evil is everyone else. Good as a whole is likely to work together. People are evil for many different reasons. That's why Evil doesn't dominate over Good. The war between Devils and Demons is a perfect ingame example. They're to busy fighting each other to attack Celestia.

@PlzBreakMyCampaign
We get it, you think highly of yourself.

[Hallack]

True, general factionalism between alignments and even other interests is probably the biggest roadblock to evil dominance.

Consider that if one evil faction was gaining dominance not only would the "good" be trying to knock them down but also the other "evils" with other goals.

Competing interests is the most logical base for the balance I think.

[PhaedrusXY]

True, general factionalism between alignments and even other interests is probably the biggest roadblock to evil dominance.

Consider that if one evil faction was gaining dominance not only would the "good" be trying to knock them down but also the other "evils" with other goals.

Competing interests is the most logical base for the balance I think.

I agree completely with this hypothesis. It's also why it seems so much more grim if you're in a LotR-style campaign where some overpowering evil forces them all to join his side. The good guys are basically screwed then... unless they can find and destroy the magical MacGuffin that is the key to his power, of course.

[Paradox]

Assuming that Objective good/evil exists, I genuinely think that animating undead is evil, though that is because I make a few assumptions.

My first assumption is that creating a construct is not evil. The process requires the enslavement of a sentient being, though (an elemental). This being is a second class creature, similar to a mule or dog, therefore enslaving it is not evil.

My second assumption is that an elemental is required because it is possible to be a being of non-mass. (the elemental, that is)

My third assumption is that the elemental possess the qualities in which it is possible to animate a form (similar to how robotics work).  Elementals are roughly humanoid beings, so it makes sense that binding a spirit that knows how to make a humanoid form work would be necessary.

My fourth assumption is that animating a dead body would require as much, if not more, intricate control over the form. Based on that, it would require the binding of something in a similar vein as an elemental is to a construct.  But placing an elemental into a body is very costly and creates a flesh golem.  

My fifth assumption is that, due to necessity for a mindless undead, a fragment of a dead spirit is bound to the decaying flesh, because a soul would have the necessary properties that would enable to animate a dead body in a reasonable fashion.  

My sixth assumption is that binding a previously dead spirit into a husk for your own use is evil.  The previously dead spirit is in pain, which is what I assume causes the undead to hate the living so much.

To an extent, Good is one side. And evil is everyone else. Good as a whole is likely to work together. People are evil for many different reasons. That's why Evil doesn't dominate over Good. The war between Devils and Demons is a perfect ingame example. They're to busy fighting each other to attack Celestia.

I don't know why everyone has this need to compartmentalize everything.  It's completely possible that there could be a war between two 'good' factions, and it could be brutal as fuck.  I think good and evil interests could work harmoniously together, if they don't think in terms "hey i am of a gud subtype & ur an EVIL subtype lets fite," which is like saying you hate someone based on their name.

[Negative Zero]

I think the idea is that, by the D&D definitions of good and evil, good groups are far more likely to cooperate for mutual benefit, while evil groups are more likely to fight each other, or betray one another during opportune times, for maximum personal gain (especially short-term gain).

[bearsarebrown]

I think the idea is that, by the D&D definitions of good and evil, good groups are far more likely to cooperate for mutual benefit, while evil groups are more likely to fight each other, or betray one another during opportune times, for maximum personal gain (especially short-term gain).

Yes, exactly what I was trying to say.

@Paradox
What if you raise intelligent undead?

[Lycanthromancer]

@Paradox
What if you raise intelligent undead?

Depends on the outcome. Necropolitans can be any alignment, and the ritual isn't inherently evil (despite raising an OMGITSANUNDEAD!).

Vampires and wights and such? Bad.

Of course, enervation isn't evil, despite any creature being killed via negative levels rising as an uncontrolled wight, so...

...yeah.