Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like I said in my post?

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But do you feel that there are still traits or charcteristics behind Good and Evil, or are they simply opposites?

Most Fantasy/Mythological Morality is based on the idea that there is an intended heirarchy or design, and that it is good to further that, and evil to subvert it. So Elves are good because they are supposed to live forever in the forests, and Orcs are evil simply because they try to stop that.

Good question. Let me rephrase your ideas a bit: First, good and evil could be only defined by their relationship to each other (like left and right). Second, one is an arbitrarily posited quality and the other is simply its opposite or lack (like hot and cold). The first option is closer to what I am thinking of purely because Goodness (the alignment) and goodness (the moral quality) may be different.

So in your view, alignment is closer to blood type than anything else. It affects what can mingle with what, but for the most part it has no actual moral value. I'm O-, that simply means I can't take any blood other than O-. I'm Good, that simply means I can't use Evil items.

Let's say a certain village is controlled by a paladin, i.e., a Lawful Good NPC. It is her practice to use detect alignment on every newborn child. If the child detects as Evil, she has it drowned. I don't think it is up to the DM to tell the players -- much less the PCs -- whether this is good or evil. It's a matter of perspective. Moreover, simply knowing that the paladin has a Lawful Good alignment does not explain her motivations.

Hmm, but in a world where Good/Evil have no intrinsic values, why would anybody care if somebody is Evil, rather than "evil?" Or is this old school grim supersticion?

A

larger issue is dropping the dualistic mindset. Alignment is not "this or that" but rather "more like this than that." There are nine alignments, not just two. One technique useful in escaping the good/evil dualism is thinking of the alignments (and again this is just a metaphor) as astrological signs. Person A may feel being a Sagittarius is extremely meaningful while Person B does not even know her sign.

Hmm... well I do agree that not all Good characters are as good as others. A certain wiggle room for how closely aligned a character is necessary.

That brings up another question -- do PCs know their alignment? I think they clearly can, in some way, given spells like Detect Alignment. I would say that alignment is a thing PCs can find out and that what they find could surprise them. DMs could even consider keeping alignment secret until the information becomes available in-game.

This is the real crux. I'm sure most D&D gamers have speculated as to their own alignments, and what's interesting is that most people see themselves as different than a third party observer would. Sure, some of that is subjectivity and different definitions involved, but even for people I know well, I have a hard time pinning down a real alignment.

I don't like secret alignments, because it's something about a character that they don't control. If I want to play a tortured Lawful Evil character that really wants to act Chaotic Good, I should be able to. I'd hate to play a chaotic good character for three months, only to find out that I tested positive for Evil.

 Da Boss wrote:
Like I said in my post?

Sort of yes, emphasis on sort of.

The key difference is, your concept of alignment is still a "rating" of morality. If you judge them good, you label them Good. By contrast, I sever that explicit in-game connection between good and Good. Whatever connection remains is implicit, which is to say, to the extent it exists it will emerge out of the act of roleplaying over time.

 Manchu wrote:
That brings up another question -- do PCs know their alignment? I think they clearly can, in some way, given spells like Detect Alignment. I would say that alignment is a thing PCs can find out and that what they find could surprise them. DMs could even consider keeping alignment secret until the information becomes available in-game.

This was exactly what I was thinking. Unless they have some obvious pressing reason during character creation that tells them they wouldn't.

 Manchu wrote:

In this way, characters don't just "have opinions." Rather their alignment is matter of being actors on the cosmic stage, even at low levels, or at least being the vectors of cosmic action. A chaotic PC does not just resent rules. Rather, the very principle of chaos manifests through her being in the material world. That is not to say that the PC must be roleplayed as some kind of agent of chaos. She may reject her nature and strive for internal and external order. Or she may be oblivious to her nature. In any case, her nature abides.

This reminds me a bit of the world of darkness/changeling of nature,deameaner and vice/virtue, respectively. There was no right and wrong, good or evil, but simply prominent things your character engaged in for better and worse. Roleplaying these had rewards, but you were not required to embrace and constantly do these things.

 Manchu wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Like I said in my post?

Sort of yes, emphasis on sort of.

The key difference is, your concept of alignment is still a "rating" of morality. If you judge them good, you label them Good. By contrast, I sever that explicit in-game connection between good and Good. Whatever connection remains is implicit, which is to say, to the extent it exists it will emerge out of the act of roleplaying over time.

I still feel that Good has to have some sort of theortical basis to be valid, beyond simpley "not evil." Especially since law/chaos has a pretty clear basis, especially with regard to temperment.

I've felt at it's broadest, Good is about putting others over self, while Evil is about putting self over others. Neutral, in this regard, is the absenve of either sacrifical or exploitative tendencies.

So, to use your village example, the Paladin is about the needs of the group, and thus only wants villagers that are also willing to sacrifice for others, or at least not exploit others. A person born with the tendency to exploit others is a threat, and should be killed at birth. That's consistent with Good, while being in no way a good act by most morality.

 Polonius wrote:
So in your view, alignment is closer to blood type than anything else.

Superficially, yes. That could be the end of it, as far as a given character is concerned. Another character might believe there is some "real" connection between Goodness and goodness. I am not saying that neither character can be right or that the former is right. I'm just saying that such a question should not be answered by the rules of a game or only one single player (the DM). Similarly:

 Polonius wrote:
in a world where Good/Evil have no intrinsic values, why would anybody care if somebody is Evil, rather than "evil?"

To clarify, I am not saying that Good and Evil have no intrinsic value. That is an open question that certain players or groups may want to address and others may not. Just looking through a MM, one can see that Evil and evil are at least generally related.

 Polonius wrote:
So, to use your village example, the Paladin is about the needs of the group, and thus only wants villagers that are also willing to sacrifice for others, or at least not exploit others. A person born with the tendency to exploit others is a threat, and should be killed at birth. That's consistent with Good, while being in no way a good act by most morality.

That's a great analysis but it isn't the only possible one. If one of the rules of the game is "X is the only interpretation of morality" then the game is less interesting than it could be. Suddenly, players don't have questions or rather the only questions they do have are completely technical. That will spill into the roleplay, too. You brought up superstition above, which is another account and just as interesting. I can easily imagine an outraged PC confronting the paladin about her "outdated superstitions."

Well, I'm trying to seperate morality from the concept of Inherent Good/Evil. So the Paladin is doing what she feels is best (slaying Evil), while ignoring the repulsive evil aspects of, you know, baby killing.

A world with precisly known Good/Evil should have some sort of basis for the distinction. I'm sure different groups can craft their own, but I think when you look at most epic, Good/Evil stories, at their heart they all involve Evil rebelling against the Cosmic Order. At the heart of every great epic, there is the story of the restoring to order (not lawfulness). Sauron (and Morgoth before him) were rebelling against hte authority of Illuvatar. Lucifer rebelled against God. The Giants will rebel against Asgard. think of how many fantasy epics involve restoring rightful rules to the throne, or more recently, restoring democracy.

This relates to the selfless/selfish dichotomy, but perhaps more subtley, and without the moral overtones. Good is, deep down, about being comfortable with ones place in the cosmos. Evil, conversely, is about the need to improve ones place in the cosmos. That Good characters/races tend to start life in a much better place than their Evil counterparts, is just part of the fun.

I think this fundamental conservatism/progressivism (in a non-political sense) helps to illuminate the difference between the sides in a way that is not strictly moral.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, to expound a bit, Elves aren't inherently good because they have some inherent morality, but because they live in a world in which being an Elf is awesome. They want to preserve that type of world. On the flip side, being an Orc pretty much always sucks. Gaining a better position, by any means necessary, is a driving force.

Maybe you are assuming I am doing world-building?

No -- I would use everything in D&D "as is" under the rubric of natural alignment. As I mentioned above, even the most casual look at any MM shows there is some positive correlation between Evil and evil.

Still, what can be precisely known (as you put it) is not the whole story -- but it is still part of the story. When we zoom out, Good and Evil look a lot more clearly like good and evil. But when we zoom in to the level where adventures happen, there seems to be more ambiguity.

To expand, or alter your idea... what about making the "Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic" an attribute, instead of the "good/evil" part?

Ie. If I create a paladin, traditionally, they are Lawful Good. Under this system of thought, they're simply Lawful, which allows for some modicum of "good/evil" to be portrayed by me, the PC. I mean, if I created this paladin based loosely on Judge Dredd, and execute the prisoner we just executed because during interrogation, he reveals that he was a soldier and deserted, would that make me evil? I'd say no, but there are others who, in DnD and other similar systems would say that, as a paladin, I should NEVER, EVER execute an unarmed prioner, because that's Evil.


When I read your bit on the "world view" and how things like Gravity can be viewed as Law, this is sort of what I'm going for as well: ie, a Lawful character would attempt to find out, know and follow all laws of the nation/land they are in. a "Neutral" PC wouldn't go out of their way to learn or not learn something (ie, if they're neutral good, they may wish to learn a local custom so as to not offend their host, but it won't bother them so much if they "jaywalk" across the street), but a Chaotic character won't care at all, and will always do things their way.

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe you are assuming I am doing world-building?

No -- I would use everything in D&D "as is" under the rubric of natural alignment. As I mentioned above, even the most casual look at any MM shows there is some positive correlation between Evil and evil.

No, I mean, I like it. I think that while every DM will create his own world, you'd be hardpressed to think of one in which the core morality for "Good" was carve out your own place in the world. Likewise, "Evil" Dark Lords don't threaten to overtake the world with generosity and selflessness.

I'm just thinking of what actually is at the core of Good and Evil. It has to be something that relates to the later good and evil we see in practice.

Still, what can be precisely known (as you put it) is not the whole story -- but it is still part of the story. When we zoom out, Good and Evil look a lot more clearly like good and evil. But when we zoom in to the level where adventures happen, there seems to be more ambiguity.

Well, the ambiguity is a great part of any good campaign. What means will good justify to reach the ends, and all that.

Having inherent and practiced alignment also shows the nature of free will. A character might be inherently Good (by upbrining, culture, or simple birth), but may fight against that by acting in consistently fashion.

Maybe inherent alignment shows what the "true heart" wants. So a declared lawful good paladin might secretly crave power and revenge above all else, and is actually neutral evil. He acts in a Lawful Good manner, and maybe conciously believes that he's LG, but somehow he keeps advancing an agenda of NE.

Tying this into your earlier idea, having a secret, inherent alignment is interesting. Because maybe one day, a paladin finds himself hit with detect evil, and everybody has to decide what to do with the Evil in their midst.

@Ensis Ferrae: That is a variation on the viewpoint concept of alignment. Some games already do that. I once actually played a paladin in a system where paladins only had to be lawful. He ended up torturing people to get answers.

@Polonius: Those are interesting narratives to be sure. In my conception, however, only someone of Lawful Good alignment could be a paladin. It's just that doing things that seem evil, to other people or even to herself, would not effect her status as a paladin UP TO A POINT. That's where the DM's judgment comes in. Even under the rubric of natural alignment, it is possible that a PC's alignment might change. How, when, and why are rulings to be undertaken with extreme judiciousness.

Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't really catch the distinction between "evil" and "Evil"?

 Da Boss wrote:
Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't really catch the distinction between "evil" and "Evil"?

he's using the Caps version to denote a character's alignment... Ie, if the Joker were a character, he'd be Chaotic Evil, when he sets a bank on fire, that's evil.

 Da Boss wrote:
Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't really catch the distinction between "evil" and "Evil"?

Not at all ~ I think I am suggesting something fairly radical.

I use the capitalized word Evil to refer to an alignment, that is a term of art in the game. Other examples (we'll stick with 3E) include Wisdom, Half-Orc, Fortitude, and Devil.

I use the uncapitalized word evil to refer to the imprecise everyday use of the word. This is like calling someone wise because they show good judgment as opposed to referring to them having a high Wisdom score or using the word "devil" in the sense of the Jersey Devil (i.e., some legendary monster) as opposed to a Baatezu.

So how about an example?

Sarah is playing a Half-Orc paladin called Glurz. Glurz and his companions have been investigating the gassing of certain Dwarven mine shafts and found it all leads back to the cult of Klwstro, the demonic patron of murder by asphyxiation. The party unmasks the mine foreman as a cultist but have no other leads. Lance is playing Dravis, a chaotic neutral rogue. Dravis threatens to pluck out one of the foreman's eyes if he doesn't talk but the foreman refuses to rat out his fellow cultists.

Sarah decides that as a Half-Orc, Glurz was raised in barbaric conditions and has little patience for the niceties of humanocentric society. Glurz therefore pushes Dravis aside and scoops out the screaming foreman's right eyeball while demanding names. Lance objects that this violates Glurz's alignment and argues that Glurz should lose his paladin abilities. The game stops while the group debates about the ethics and morality of torture, with plenty of uncomfortable real-world references, until the DM makes a decision that is bound to leave someone unhappy.

So we have players policing each other's roleplaying, we have a game derailed by debate about something unrelated, we have the DM pressured to referee an argument not really about the game, and we have in the end at least one frustrated player. If the group was using natural alignment, Lance can't tell Sarah how to roleplay Glurz. The issue is not what Lance thinks of how Sarah is roleplaying but what Dravis thinks about Glurz ripping out the foreman's eye.

Perhaps Glruz's actions violate Dravis's personal code or maybe the laws of the kingdom -- great! Those are roleplaying problems and create dramatic conflicts that drive stories. The tension remains in-game where it is fun rather than out-of-game where it kills fun.

I always found it helpful to treat alignment not as a source, but as a destination.

As a DM, I sit down after the game and chart out the actions each character took. I use an algebraic grid to chart their alignment. Each evil action moves them one step down the y-axis, while good actions move them UP the y-axis. Lawful actions move them left along the x-axis, and chaotic ones move them right. The distinction for 'lawful' alignment begins at -25, (likewise for evil, and of course good and chaotic alignments will begin at 25 along their own axes).

Players are informed what their net drift was between games, although not what the specific actions were. If they drift out of their current alignment and into a different one, they will not change the alignment on their sheet (and thus their alignment for the purposes of Detect X and Protection from X spells) until they end three consecutive games in the new zone.

I don't know if that system would be of any help to you, but it was a HUGE help to me. Not only that, the concrete feedback helped my players immensely, both to roleplay changes in their moral/ethical backgrounds, or to strengthen them.

As to your specific example regarding Glurz the paladin, I think that the issue there is not what the GM, Sarah, or anyone else thinks. I think it should be about what Glurz's deity thinks. (And it should be fairly easy to extrapolate.) Ask Tyr, of the Forgotten Realms, and he'd be all "Why are you even asking? Go and do what needs to get done." Ask, say, Lathander, and it's be a different story. "Sorry, Glurz. Enjoy being a fighter, slick."

Paladins are beholden not just to their alignments, but to the gods that empower them. They get some truly awe-inspiring powers, but at the cost of a constant eye over their shoulder.

I admit, I'm not familiar with the concept of 'natural alignment,' but I don't think I would be comfortable with a system where that omnipresent judge wasn't around. Paladins, clerics, druids, rangers, and to a lesser extent barbarians tap into a force which necessitates (either consciously or otherwise) a degree of moral/ethical synchronicity (or alignment, if you will ) in order to achieve. Now, it's entirely possible that there are D&D groups out there where every player is responsible enough to handle a 'natural alignment' system (as I understand it) without just doing whatever they feel like and then just covering it up with some flim-flam about how their character thinks it's okay. My experience has been, however, that there will always be at least one player (if not a whole group of them) who would jump into the 'flim-flam' side of the pool feet first.

"I murder all the orc babies. No dude, it's totally okay with my lawful good deity. They're probably just gonna wind up evil anyway."
"Yeah man, I blew up that high-rise apartment building. There were vampires in it! What do you mean, what about the people who just lived there? Dude, I pulled the fire alarm thirty seconds before the bomb went off. What more do you want out of me?"
"Yeah, I murdered the entire crowd full of witnesses. No, I don't think it's a corrupting action. See, if we hadn't killed them, I'd have had to leave town. Then no one would be here to fight the evil spirits. It was the right thing to do."

The preceding are not hypotheticals. These are REAL examples of excuses I've seen players offer to 'justify' their characters' actions in games that had an alignment system that they had all CLEARLY violated. (As a personal note, I wasn't running any of those games.)

One final notes about something I saw mentioned in this topic, just to get my two cents in. I totally agree that the game should be about more than just good-evil conflicts; law-chaos (ethical) conflicts are just as important, if not more so, than their moral counterparts.

Also, I think it's really good of you to put this much time and effort into the inner workings of your game. It shows a real commitment to excellence as a DM. I hope your players appreciate you for it!

The way we usually handle alignment is that you play your character, and your alignment shifts based upon your character's actions. At least, barring one of the stupid magic items that reverses alignment or something like that, but I don't think we've ever used one of those. It's too "mechanicy". I've had characters that started out cliched anti-heroes turn into genuinely good people, and I've also had people who had the best intentions kind of become jaded donkey-caves.

Personally, I'd like to go one step further and not even write an alignment down on a character sheet until a character is at least 2nd or 3rd level. I kind of feel like general attitude shouldn't determine your alignment, but that actual legitimate choices that impact others should be the deciding factor. I like how it was handled in Planescape: Torment, for example.

This argument about alignment necessarily being tied to behavior is actually very weak but that can be difficult to see because the underlying assumptions (about the mechanic and about morality) are so strong. But the weakness becomes apparent when you apply the same kind of argument to other mechanics in D&D, like class for example. You can play a character to match the well-established class stereotype BUT you can also play totally against that stereotype. You can play a tough magic user who loves waving his broad sword around. You can play a clumsy thief who has learned to distract rather than sneak. This kind of stuff strikes a lot of players as at least as interesting if not more so than deploying the same old stereotypes again and again.

This is easier to see with class because we already accept that, as far as roleplaying goes, class merely suggests a trope that can and probably should be messed with, customized, reinterpreted, etc. With alignment, however, we are a lot more literal-minded for some reason. There is only one kind of Lawful Good and everyone who is Lawful Good is Lawful Good in largely the same way or at least not in contradictory ways. This is boring and players have rightfully criticized it over the years. Many players have dropped alignment altogether because they say it's not sophisticated enough to represent the complexity of a character's moral outlook. Interestingly, those same players have not necessarily dropped class even though class is obviously not sophisticated enough to describe a particular character's "professional" outlook.

As far as changing natural alignment, please note that I did not incorporate it into the text of the rule. Rather, I think it is a matter of ruling -- i.e., a case-by-case determination made in cooperation between a DM and a player to make a particular circumstance more interesting. Otherwise, natural alignment is immutable like blood type or astrological sign. This creates interesting premises because players bring assumptions about good and evil to the table. What is more intriguing: a good-natured person who never does bad things or a bad-natured person who never does bad things?

 Manchu wrote:
This argument about alignment necessarily being tied to behavior is actually very weak but that can be difficult to see because the underlying assumptions (about the mechanic and about morality) are so strong. But the weakness becomes apparent when you apply the same kind of argument to other mechanics in D&D, like class for example. You can play a character to match the well-established class stereotype BUT you can also play totally against that stereotype. You can play a tough magic user who loves waving his broad sword around. You can play a clumsy thief who has learned to distract rather than sneak. This kind of stuff strikes a lot of players as at least as interesting if not more so than deploying the same old stereotypes again and again.

We have a DM who hands out gestalt levels for things he thinks you've been unofficially leveling in every few levels and plays 2-3 CR higher to compensate. I had a dwarven transmuter who had two "levels" of fighter because he did a lot of quarterstaff fighting. Really, I think it should follow that what you've been doing tracks with your class progression somewhat. I don't look at class as a trope as much as I do as a vague job description. I'm sure the brutish wizard that swings a sword around still cast mage armor, or at least is augmenting with spells somehow, or has a good reason not to. The clumsy thief is still using "rogue" skills like bluff and the like. One every couple months, I play a game with friends as a Diviner in a world that puts non-sanctioned wizards to death. For what everyone else sees, I'm the crappiest rogue around.

Anecdotes aside, I think the difference is that class is something you should be able to choose. Alignment isn't, and that's where the difference is. I can go into chemistry, or medicine, or art, and if I'm not good at it, I'm just a person trying to be one of those things. You can be the bard with 9 charisma or the fighter with an 8 con, but you're not good at it. You can't be the Lawful Good character who burns down orphanages and eats puppies.

...I feel like this is getting to the "murder 100 humans to be the most evil ever, but murder 100 hobgoblins and it's heroic" argument. I don't have a better solution other than to not think of it at such a philosophical level, and know your players. It's a game at the end of the day. Don't worry, that feels like a cop out to me too.

This is easier to see with class because we already accept that, as far as roleplaying goes, class merely suggests a trope that can and probably should be messed with, customized, reinterpreted, etc. With alignment, however, we are a lot more literal-minded for some reason. There is only one kind of Lawful Good and everyone who is Lawful Good is Lawful Good in largely the same way or at least not in contradictory ways. This is boring and players have rightfully criticized it over the years. Many players have dropped alignment altogether because they say it's not sophisticated enough to represent the complexity of a character's moral outlook. Interestingly, those same players have not necessarily dropped class even though class is obviously not sophisticated enough to describe a particular character's "professional" outlook.

I got ahead of myself somewhat with the trope comment. Dropping alignment is an interesting concept, so is dropping class. I feel like both components are too integrated into D&D/PF to be able to do so without ramifications. Alignment based spells/abilities are big portions of certain races/classes, and stripping out classes basically leaves it an entirely different system. Perhaps that's the flaw with the "mechanics as fluff" thing that both of those systems have going on a little too often, but I don't know. I have players who are big opponents to the class system though, so if you have recommendations on that front, and at the risk of being off-topic, I'd be interested to hear them.

As far as changing natural alignment, please note that I did not incorporate it into the text of the rule. Rather, I think it is a matter of ruling -- i.e., a case-by-case determination made in cooperation between a DM and a player to make a particular circumstance more interesting. Otherwise, natural alignment is immutable like blood type or astrological sign. This creates interesting premises because players bring assumptions about good and evil to the table. What is more intriguing: a good-natured person who never does bad things or a bad-natured person who never does bad things?

I'd say the second option is an obvious choice on what makes for a more compelling character. I feel like there's been a recent (in the last 50 years or so) rise in popularity of the anti-hero. My question is then "what makes him a bad-natured person?" I loathe the Drizzt syndrome. Race shouldn't dictate if something is good or evil. At the same time, "I'm challenging stereotypes!" is still kind of boring too, at least without something more backing it. It's difficult to reconcile that with my above statement when I admit that's a fundamental part of some races and classes. I guess I mostly draw the line at non-mortals. I think drow/duergar or whatever should be based upon their actual behaviour, but I'm willing to accept that daemons and angels aren't. That's imperfect and not really good enough for the discussion at hand, I know. For example, that doesn't allow for fallen angels or redeemed daemons. I think there's some traditional acceptance of the selective possession of free will going on too.

Really, anytime you try to shoehorn anything into a label, it doesn't always end up being true unless that thing plays the part of the label to the fullest extent. I think that cooperation between players and DMs is essential to making the game enjoyable though, and no one should have to play something they don't want to.

Do you have me on ignore for something I did to you in the past, Manchu?

I was honestly trying to be engaging and helpful, not mean or argumentative.

@daedalus:

I agree emphatically with your last point. My thought is, any information that can be captured on a character sheet is roleplaying training wheels at best. The corollary thought is, everything on the character sheet can inspire roleplay ... and should not constrain it.

Why might someone be bad-natured? Just to give one example, because they grew up amid bad circumstances.

About class -- I like class in D&D. When I don't want to play a game that uses class, I play a different game (e.g., Traveler). I am strongly opposed to getting rid of the fundamentals of D&D, like class and alignment.

@Jimsolo

No I certainly don't have you on ignore! I also don't think you're being mean or argumentative, sorry for sending that vibe. I do think what you are describing is a problem with a player rather than with D&D generally or alignment particularly. I have learned over the years that there is no rule that will control a disruptive player. That's simply a personal issue.

As to "ask the deity" ... for me, this is not really an option outside of certain spells. This is just my taste but I like the deities to be somewhat distant in that they act through their servants rather than entering the world themselves. This way, things stay ambiguous. But even so, "ask the deity" remains a DM judgment call more than anything else (the DM ultimately speaks for the deities), which fits into the Glurz example.

 daedalus wrote:
You can't be the Lawful Good character who burns down orphanages and eats puppies.

I think the most evil characters possible are the ones who have good natures. That is, their evil is so great that they are having to fight against their own inborn sense of wrong to do what they do.