Evil but No Good

[Occluded Sun]

Look Occluded Sun, if you want to simplify alignment down to Black and White Morality I can't stop you.

I'll keep that in mind if I should ever want to do that.

But classifying the relative position of any action on the two axes D&D uses for alignment is really quite simple - as long as you keep in mind that Good and Evil (and Law and Order) are proper names for diametrically opposed concepts, not the miniscule general English terms.

Complaining that a character can't be Lawful because he does illegal things, as people in this thread have done, is utter idiocy, and doing so ought to draw scorn and contempt for anyone with even the slightest grasp of the concepts involved.

Unfortunately, it seems I'm the only such person here.

[virgil]

Look Occluded Sun, if you want to simplify alignment down to Black and White Morality I can't stop you.

I'll keep that in mind if I should ever want to do that.

But classifying the relative position of any action on the two axes D&D uses for alignment is really quite simple - as long as you keep in mind that Good and Evil (and Law and Order) are proper names for diametrically opposed concepts

[Occluded Sun]

Black and White Morality refers to the idea that something is one of two categories. In more sophisticated models, there are not only intermediate states (gray) but colors of all kinds.

As I said before, I seem to be the only person here with a rudimentary understanding of the relevant concepts. Or maybe you lot are all doped up on cough medication or something, it's hard to say. Degenerative neurological diseases for the lot of you, perhaps? Concussive brain damage?

[Mask_De_H]

Black and White Morality refers to the idea that something is one of two categories. In more sophisticated models, there are not only intermediate states (gray) but colors of all kinds.

As I said before, I seem to be the only person here with a rudimentary understanding of the relevant concepts. Or maybe you lot are all doped up on cough medication or something, it's hard to say. Degenerative neurological diseases for the lot of you, perhaps? Concussive brain damage?

How do you type so legibly with your head that far up your ass? Braille keyboard?

[MGuy]

I imagine he does something similar to what they did in an episode of Southpark where people were farting into wine glasses so they could sniff it up. I think he's been doing a lot because it seems he is actually getting less coherent.

[Leress]

How are Law and Order diametrically opposed to each other?

[Occluded Sun]

Sorry, I was thinking and my fingers typed the secondary train of thought rather than the primary. That should be Law and Chaos.

As the movie notes, Batman has rules. The Joker? Not a one. Batman is seriously inconveniencing himself to the point of self-sacrifice in order to save the city he loves, while the Joker wants to watch the world burn. Guess which one is Lawful Good, and which is Chaotic Evil?

I'd just *love* to read an intelligent explanation of how the Joker is actually Lawful Good, since any alignment can be made compatible with any actions. Explain that to us, posters. I want to watch.

(And you can present us with an explanation for how Lex Luthor is Chaotic Good, too. That should be *fascinating*.)

[virgil]

I'd just *love* to read an intelligent explanation of how the Joker is actually Lawful Good, since any alignment can be made compatible with any actions. Explain that to us, posters. I want to watch.

Weren't you the one going on about how Jainists show why we can torture & slaughter orcs while retaining moral purity? Isn't that the same argument, that you used to justify killing sophonts in the name of Good, equally usable on the Joker?

[MGuy]

Sorry, I was thinking and my fingers typed the secondary train of thought rather than the primary. That should be Law and Chaos.

As the movie notes, Batman has rules. The Joker? Not a one. Batman is seriously inconveniencing himself to the point of self-sacrifice in order to save the city he loves, while the Joker wants to watch the world burn. Guess which one is Lawful Good, and which is Chaotic Evil?

I'd just *love* to read an intelligent explanation of how the Joker is actually Lawful Good, since any alignment can be made compatible with any actions. Explain that to us, posters. I want to watch.

(And you can present us with an explanation for how Lex Luthor is Chaotic Good, too. That should be *fascinating*.)

So you want to cast batman in Dark Knight as lawful good when the movie goes out of its way to tell you Harvey is actually the guy representing law while batman and joker are pretty much the same person with differing ideals? How many actually innocent people does the joker actually personally harm in that movie?

[Occluded Sun]

Weren't you the one going on about how Jainists show why we can torture & slaughter orcs while retaining moral purity?

No, and that's what known as the Fallacy of the Complex Question: introducing counterfactual assertions in the form of a question's phrasing. The Jainists illustrate the point that arguing over whether an action is evil is totally counterproductive when it comes to D&D alignment. What matters is whether it's Evil, not whether it's evil.

Isn't that the same argument, that you used to justify killing sophonts in the name of Good, equally usable on the Joker?

I don't recall justifying killing anything in the name of Good. Or justifying anything at all, for that matter.

Do you have a carbon monoxide detector in your home? Have you checked your plumbing for old welds that might contain lead? Sniff a lot of glue, virgil? I'm confident we can find the reason for your confusion if we just try enough.

[virgil]

I don't recall justifying killing anything in the name of Good. Or justifying anything at all, for that matter.

Fine, not in the name of Good with a capital G, because capitalization matters to you. But your memory seems to be like a sieve when it comes to the justification...

If they're not people, then it isn't particularly evil to slaughter them.
...
If you went about mowing down blades of grass and stepping on ants, a Jainist would be horrified, but most people wouldn't consider that evil. Who's right - the average person, or the Jains?

Once you write off the Joker's murders from the moral calculus of determining whether he's Chaotic Evil, you've got quite a bit of wiggle room to justify whatever alignment you want.

[Chamomile]

Dedication to one's art is given as a sign of Lawful behavior in various D&D books. The Joker is most definitely dedicated to his art. He rejects plans that don't properly follow the rules of comedy (comic timing, good metaphors, if you have to explain the joke it's not good enough, etc. etc.) and frequently rails against Harley for failing to do so. So that's Lawful. He's also repeatedly shown to be acting out of a sincere belief that everyone is pure evil, and is trying to expose people for what they really are: Remorseless, selfish psychopaths. Since he believes everyone he is targeting is Evil, no amount of killing or torturing them is itself Evil (see Book of Exalted Deeds: Biological warfare and sexual torture is fine so long as you do it to the bad guys, or even just the neutral guys). Plus, the majority of Joker's kills are his own henchmen, who, being in it for the cash, are presumably Evil.

Lex Luthor is a self-starting entrepreneur who doesn't follow anyone's rules but his own. So Chaotic is basically a giveaway. So far as Good/Evil is concerned, well, his primary motivation is to eliminate as a threat an alien superbeing with godlike powers who has appointed himself the defender of law and order on Earth without receiving the endorsement or even asking the opinion of any actual legal authority on Earth. Again, nothing Luthor does in the process of defeating Superman is as bad as what Book of Exalted Deeds presents as the tools of Good, let alone worse.

[sendaz]

Reminds me of a verse from Zhuan Falun:
(for reference to the tale, practitioners are not supposed to take the life of any living creature.)

"One day Sakyamuni was going to take a bath in a forest, and he asked a disciple to clean the bathtub.
His disciple went to the bathtub and found it full of insects crawling everywhere. The insects would be killed if he cleaned the bathtub.
The disciple came back to Sakyamuni and said: 'The bathtub is full of insects.' Sakyamuni did not look at him and replied: 'You should go and clean the bathtub.'
The disciple went back to the bathtub and did not know how to clean it, as doing so would kill the insects. He again came back to Sakyamuni and said: 'Master, the bathtub is full of insects. If I clean it, the insects will be killed.'
Sakyamuni looked at him and said: 'What I asked you to do was to clean the bathtub.'
The disciple understood all of a sudden, and he went and cleaned the bathtub right away."

[Occluded Sun]

You're grasping at straws. "Dedication to art" is a potential sign of Lawfulness, it's not diagnostic or definitive. The Joker likes to improvise, and repeatedly gambles his reign of terror and life itself on purely probabilistic risks. He is grossly inconsistent about which has the greater priority: success at his criminal endeavors or dark and twisted comedy.

I just *love* how you suggest Luthor's rigorousness and consistency are signs of being Chaotic (they're Law traits). He has no qualms about using the legal system as a weapon, and doesn't try to overthrow or undermine the social order - he wants to dominate it instead. Your claims about 'bad' are non-sequiturs.

Nice try. Well, no, that was a pretty pathetic try.

Once you write off the Joker's murders from the moral calculus of determining whether he's Chaotic Evil

Wow, you have totally missed the point. Points, actually:

1) There's no justification in the material you quoted.
2) There are instead very pertinent questions which you ignored.
3) You utterly failed to demonstrate how those actions were or were not Evil.

The Joker not only doesn't avoid hurting random people, he actively seeks to do so for its own sake. He actively tries to hurt people for his own amusement. Guess what that is?

Evil!

[Berkserker]

Wait, so is that supposed to mean that doing something you're morally opposed to in the course of doing something else is fine because the action to which you're morally opposed is not your primary intent?

[Occluded Sun]

About that bathtub thing... it seems that story is about vicious evil spirits from other dimensions disrupting human society.

I think it would be better to stick to Zen parables or Aesop's Fables, and not stories told by deranged lunatics.

[Grek]

No, the moral is that if the Master tells you to do something, do it. He is the Master and you are the disciple. Trust the Master not to lead you astray, even if it seems to contradict prior teachings.

(Yes, that is a very stupid moral. But it is also the intended reading)

[virgil]

The Joker not only doesn't avoid hurting random people, he actively seeks to do so for its own sake.

What's your definition of people? Obviously you don't consider orcs or fiends to be sufficiently under the term 'people' for their slaughter to be an evil act. This has been asked of you before...

2) There are instead very pertinent questions which you ignored.

[Occluded Sun]

What's your definition of people? Obviously you don't consider orcs or fiends to be sufficiently under the term 'people' for their slaughter to be an evil act.

"Obviously"... meaning that there's no logical, rational basis for this idea and you're running with your insane knee-jerk reaction that you can't justify or explain.

It's the glue, isn't it? Listen, virgil, there are people who can help. The damage to your brain can't be fixed, but you can compensate for it with time and effort. You don't need to do this alone.

[virgil]

What's your definition of people?

Answer the question.

[MGuy]

What's your definition of people?

Answer the question.

He can't.

[deaddmwalking]

Occluded Sun is trying to put the cart before the horse. Trying to explain why the Joker is Lawful Good is stupid because Lawful and Good are not well defined. He concedes that there are lots of shades of gray. He has also asserted that if you cross a non-defined boundary than he is the sole authority to judge whether that act remains within the allowable sphere for that action.

The 'sophisticated' members of this debate claim that for most people (real or fictional) they don't fit neatly into a little box.

Let's look at the Joker, for a moment. In the United States we have to ask the question of 'competency'. If someone is insane to the point that they cannot judge the moral quality of an act, we cannot label them evil. A bear that mauls a child is not evil because it is incapable of considering it's actions within a moral framework. The fact that the Joker keeps ending up in Ark ham Asylum seems to indicate that he is incapable of judging the morality of his actions. If a player wrote 'neutral' on his or her character sheet, it'd be hard to argue that the player were wrong.

Now, we know that Batman is an illegal vigilante. Gotham is itself a corrupt city. Authority figures routinely rig elections or sell themselves to special interests. The people of Gotham have long since given up on trying to change the system from within. To free the people from the tyranny of an incompetent and disaffected elite, the Joker creates situations where common people are put into danger only due to the incompetence of their protectors. By shining a light on their staggering failures, he hopes to create a better society. If Chaotic Good is seeking a good end with no regard to the means, he might well qualify. In any case, there is certainly an argument for Chaotic Neutral is not Chaotic Good.

Of course, we could consider whether he might qualify as another alignment. What about Lawful Evil? While he's often portrayed as an insane loner, the Joker actually runs a hierarchical organization. A demagogue tends to be a hallmark of the Lawful Evil archetype. Of course, he does break the law - is that a characteristic of Lawful Evil characters? If published modules are any indication, bandits and thieves' guilds are full of law breakers. It appears the desire to assert control of established power structures (or creating your own) are examples of Lawful Evil characters.

Ultimately, you could describe the Joker as fully half the alignment spectrum without changing a single act or action. All that apparently matters is what he hopes to achieve by his actions.

Final stop - you write anan alignment on your character sheet and nearly any action is allowable if not justified. Even if something is way out of what you'd expect, it can be argued that a single action isn't enough to outweigh all history. If you've been saintly your entire life and you commit genocide in a moment of extreme anguish (for example, after a member of that race killed your spouse) it is unclear whether or at what point your alignment should change. If any action can be performed by anyone of any alignment, there is very little predictive power that alignment gives. It is when two people think they know what alignment 'means' that you get intra - table conflict. And for what? After tossing out alignment we haven't missed it.

[Mechalich]

When considering D&D alignment it is important to remember that it is an objective moral system. All judgments about moral questions are made from outside the personal perspective by a nominally omniscient background system that sorts people's alignments to the relevant outer planes upon their deaths.

It does not matter what the Joker thinks or believes, his personal judgments mean nothing. The D&D alignment system makes no allotment for mental illness, in fact, it in some sense goes so far as to define several of the evil alignments using terms of mental illness - neutral evil and psychopathy most obviously.

D&D alignment is a device for taking the some total of a person's behaviors, weighing them against a divinely determined set of measures, and then placing them into a box. The principle problems are that people cannot agree on how to organize the boundaries between the boxes and how to weigh the very measures to sort actions into them. That the boxes are incredibly non-intuitive and mostly defined through comparisons with made up fantasy beings with arbitrary forms of behavior certainly doesn't help.

Also, because alignment is a fiction and even the best set of guidelines for making moral judgments in a fantasy setting is nebulous (and D&D hasn't exactly produced a lot of sterling examples) it has to be adjudicated by each GM, and every GM will have differences in perspectives on morality ranging from small to incomprehensibly vast, making it functionally impossible for alignment to be consistent from table to table - but this is true for any system that imposes objective morality, including WoD Humanity and others. It means asking the GM to take over the role of god and determine not the outcomes of simple combat actions or skill challenges as mediated by dice, but extremely deep moral questions. Not surprising that it doesn't work well.

[hyzmarca]

It does not matter what the Joker thinks or believes, his personal judgments mean nothing. The D&D alignment system makes no allotment for mental illness, in fact, it in some sense goes so far as to define several of the evil alignments using terms of mental illness - neutral evil and psychopathy most obviously.

I have to disagree. What the Joker believes matters, and his actions do not, except in so far as they reflect his beliefs.

Alignment isn't a about behavior, it's about beliefs and philosophies. Those beliefs are expressed through behavior, but the behavior itself is unimportant. If an evil person goes his entire life without committing even a single evil deed, then he still goes to an evil afterlife.

Each alignment is supposed to represent a set of related beliefs that follow a general trend.

[Kaelik]

Conservation of Stupid Den Posts: The Amount of Stupid Posts on the Den can never be decreased not increased.

When you ban silva, slave owning racists who advocate genocide try to explain why everyone but them doesn't understand good and evil.