@Kennis I think most people end up neutral in reality, if only by malaise or laziness... but I also think Lawful Neutral guided by a mix of internal introspection (question authority, motives of others, and of course question your OWN motives!) and respect for legitimate authority/love of benevolent order. Lots of very unpleasant deeds have been done with the excuse of doing 'good'. Food aide to seriously impoverished nations often has brutal consequences for the majority of the populace, as local farmers clearly cannot compete with free food! Changing prefernces this way also causes havoc, as locals try to grow new crops utterly unsuited to their region. Yet, the premise was to help. Trying to do good isnt necessarily doing good! People less concerned with short term good wont 'test' good, but might be much better for the world.
@kiwidoc I think a valid complaint for those authors is if the paladin doesnt fall. Paladins cant commit an evil act without falling, and evil opponents would be stupid for not using this tool. Its underhanded, but thats the point! The lore for paladins is clear imho, falling can be a necessity at times if your patron deity isnt lawful good. Paladins that fall but did not offend their deity are likely to have an easy Atonement. But they are still supposed to fall. Its different for a cleric.
Definitions of good and evil in FR isnt really that up to debate... we are given guidelines anyways. Its not always cut and dry, but sophistry shouldnt be used much in such a context; lesser evil is still evil, the paladin still falls.
In real life, evil is coloured by culture; some cultures still stone adulterers, especially women. But I think most cultures agree that adultery should be frowned upon without being criminalized. As a general rule, I doubt evil people are very common in the world, but most people are I would argue self-interested to a fault. Even people who have commited legitimately abhorent acts are not evil the way a DnD evil blackguard is. I suspect most of the truly destructive evil people are breed out by society. Most people willing to commit evil for its own sake would have been put to death in very ancient times, and those that can be socialized often are in lawful societies. However, as I mentioned, people in brutal societies are often socialized to commit hortible acts, especially during conflict. Many require resocialization of some kind. Largely, these people tend to be evil as a group due to the population as a whole not questioning its actions. Evil could perhaps be summed up by acting in a way that affects others without considering their needs, feelings and expectstions. I think of this as active empathy... even those lacking ordinary empathy can learn this, if they are willing. Its not foolproof though; one can never truly know another, and danger lies in believing we understand another.
Of course Wisdom and Evil and coexist. A wise Evil character, for example, will know how to appear to not be evil, how important it is to not backstab his "allies-by-convenience" just because you're evil. In short, what is often called "Stupid Evil" is more like "Unwise Evil" than it is "Unintelligent Evil" to me. "Wise Evil" in a more or less "civilized" culture also probably leans towards Lawful Evil in that it is more likely to try to corrupt or use existing societal frameworks to get ahead and get away with their deeds than to just brute force their way around. They know how society and people works and are able to use that knowledge to their own ends. Examples: Corrupt politicians and the like; Oppressive noblemen who knows how to balance their greed and their whip as to not cause peasant uprisings, or how to balance their ambition to rise to power in such ways that it does not over-extend their actual power; Basically any merchant who abuses people's suffering to make money.
"Wise Evil" does not work very well on their own, but if enough of them gain enough power for a long enough time, they will shape "the system" in such a way that it is constantly reinforcing their hold over it. 19th Century capitalism/liberalism is a great example of this and the suffering it can cause, as is wage-slavery and and "regional monopolism" (as in you earn a shitty wage from the Mining Company/Owner, but said Company/Owner also owns the housing you rent and the store were you buy your food, so all your money goes directly back to their pockets - I don't know what the English expression for this concept is).
I do find a lot of this very interesting. As I've gotten older I've taken those 'faux' alignment tests and started out as neutral good. As I've aged and certainly become wiser, I generally score in the low end of chaotic neutral. I think the wiser you are the more you understand the nature of man, and you certainly learn to trust less and look out for oneself more. If that means giving to the politics and backstabbing to survive, you have to do it.
I'd say you haven't become wiser, in that case, only more cynical and selfish. Cynicism is often hailed as being the same as experienced or "realistic" (particularly by cynics themselves), but the truth is that it is no more realistic than naivete.
I don't think wisdom is really tied to being good or evil. A lot of the 'evil' behaviors which I see being discussed seem to me to be examples of low-wisdom evil characters. An evil character suffering from chronic backstabbing disorder and/or paranoia that prevents them from working with others would have a low-wisdom score IMO, and when I stat NPCs with such behavior in my sessions, that is reflected.
Similarly, a good-aligned character definitely can have a low wisdom score. A moon elf who agrees to follow the "Nice black-skinned, white-haired elf who wants to show me something" into a cave probably isn't overflowing with wisdom, in a more RL-grounded example: the concept of reciprocity (giving stuff with the expectation of receiving something in return) is common in many societies, but excessive altruism can be viewed as foolish or even rude, particularly in band-level societies. Naiveté and excessive self-sacrifice are qualities that may have their roots in 'good' ideas (trust and selflessness) that can be rather bad in excess.
For high Wisdom evil characters, I can imagine a lot of advice from 'The Prince' being applicable. While it may be better to be feared than loved, it's *great* if you can pull off both. A high wisdom character I would imagine having the capacity to be incredibly cruel to his enemies, but reward their followers well-so that their loyalty is unquestionable. Paying your troops and keeping morale high, exercising sound judgment, listening to your inferiors etc are all things that an evil warlord should be perfectly capable of while building pyramids out of the skulls of their enemies.
A good alternative to 'chronic backstabbing disorder' is to have evil characters who find alternative ways of dealing with their enemies. it becomes less viable for the 'good' kingdom downriver to invade your kingdom if you control their water, and if you make it the easiest way for merchants to earn a profit in your lands by working with the you, then you are going to have an easier way to control trade-If I recall correctly, the Zhentarum does just this. Likewise, practices like bribery and blackmail are alternatives to the "Me evil! Kill good, *drool*" and convoluted drow plots that end with everyone with a dagger In their backs. They just need to be represented more.
@Nokkenbuer after the very long posts (which I read), I am curious about your input on this discussion, lots of big posts here, but its an interesting topic.
I'll try, @DreadKhan, though I kind of wish you didn't alert me to this thread. Now, it'll be filled with my half-sensible ramblings and overanalytical walls of text, much of which won't be read and much more of which will digress from the topic, or even my own argument. I have a very, ah, long-winded approach to arguments that many (myself included) find annoying. Jesus Christ, even my introduction is long-winded! Is there such a thing a metaverbosity?
Sorry for the delay, by the way; it's taken well over a few hours since I began typing this, and I started shortly after seeing your post. I've also been taking the time to read the rest of the thread, hence my replies below.
I'll also be posting my replies separately so that they can be easier to address. I originally planned on posting them all at once, but I feared this may prove to be a hassle for those seeking to quote me, especially considering how my walls of text would be combined into a damned fortress were I to not spread them out.
Replying to the original post, I don't see why an evil-aligned person could not be wise. Wisdom can be defined as understanding of the world and how it functions as borne from direct (and indirect) experience, interpreted through the knowledge one possesses and typically expressed through good judgment—"good" being defined as sound or profitable insomuch as it yields a favorable result. Defining wisdom as such, evil-aligned characters certainly can be "wise," even if that wisdom is not altogether wholesome.
Consider it like this: wisdom is borne primarily from experience, most notably or the direct kind, and this experience improves the decision-making skills of the recipient. Not all people are wise in certain aspects, and in what exactly a given individual possesses wisdom can vary depending on his or her actions, which is at least partially influenced by their alignment and temperament. As a result, a Good-aligned person may be very wise when it comes to spotting those requiring need, and how to aid said individuals. Alternatively, an Evil-aligned person may be increasingly experienced in how to manipulate people and cause them suffering. Remember, wisdom can be interpeted as a type of advanced understanding and expertise about a given phenomenon, and how to best respond to said phenomenon for the benefit of a specific entity, indiscriminate of this entity's allegiances or alignments. Therefore, an Evil person can be very wise in modes of torture, whereas a Good person can be versed in the methods of preventing or lessening it.
Now, to address the arguments of the others in this thread:
I usually equate wisdom with common sense. It's also one's ability to effectively accept and deal with life as it is in one's own present. In its rawest form, it is the ability to apply past experience to create the best possible present.
@BelgarathMTH, I find "common sense" as a very poor description and synonym for "wisdom," especially since the former is typically a socially-established construct biased toward behaviors deemed to be "appropriate," while the latter is a more clearly-defined and indiscriminate to social stigmas or whims. Let me explain:
"Common sense," in the best definition of the term in its original sense, is sense or reasoning believed to be common to the average person, such the five primary senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell (hence the origin of the term). From this perspective, only the handicapped or disabled—especially the deaf, mute, and blind—would be considered without "common sense."
Later on, the term was extended to refer to "sense" (used to mean understanding or reason) that is considered basic or common enough that the average person would possess it, such as fire being hot or how it hurts when you stub your toe. Therefore, only the mentally challenged or clinically insane would be without "common sense." From a scientific viewpoint, this version of "common sense" is very much like the instinctual view of the world all organisms possess at vary degrees and which governs behaviors lending to their survival and welfare.
After a while, "common sense" began to be understood in much the same way that we define it today: practical reasoning and sound judgment. This new definition of the term gave rise to the adage that "common sense is not common," espoused by pastors and pseudo-intellectuals alike. As the adage seems to imply, however, this redefinition of the term seems contradictory: how can it be called "common sense" when it is, in fact, not common? Well, it isn't common sense. That's wisdom, or something very close to it. In the end, the observation that "common sense is not common" does hold some true, since the vast majority of people seem to behave in ways which are not reasonable or practical in the slightest.
Where did this definition of "common sense" meaning "practical reasoning and sound judgment" come from anyway? From an etymological sense, there is quite a lot of uncertainty, though it is thought that it was borne out of the increasing reliance people started having on "the People," the commoners, as democracy spread and the purported wisdom of the average person, with all their anecdotes and wild stories, was endorsed. But I digress.
Ultimately, "common sense" is not only uncommon, but it is not the same as "wisdom," either, unless you're willing to admit that the average person is wise (which I very much doubt). Wisdom is an understanding of the world that surpasses common knowledge, something which is admired and idolized as a trait possessed only by the learned, or the leaders, or the lavished. If wisdom is that which is above common knowledge, how then is it the equivalent of "common sense"?
Pedantic qualms aside, I agree with you that wisdom should be understood more as a tool rather than a product of a certain temperament. No matter if you're a generous benefactor or a malicious evildoer, you can be wise just as you can be a fool. Whether being evil is itself "foolish" is usually the biased opinion of one who is not evil, though perchance himself a fool.
The wisdom/intelligence dichotomy in BG, to me, is this: intelligence is your ability to absorb and recall information, while wisdom is your ability to understand and analyze it. That is why high intelligence allows mages to scribe more spells - they are able to recall information more easily - and why clerics get more spells per day - their greater understanding of the mysteries of their faith pleases their god. This is also why the stats synergize in lore - intelligence allows you to warehouse information on weapons and their enchantments, while wisdom allows you to analyze unidentified weapons and recognize those enchantments.
@terzaerian, I see the dichotomy similarly to yours, though slightly different. From my perspective, intelligence is not only the ability (or inability if low intelligence) to memorize, recall, and organize information, but also on how to analyze it using general rules and conventions to determine [all] possible outcomes. Wisdom, I believe, is more of how this information is interpreted when filtered and analyzed through the experiences of the individual in question. Moreover, the wisdom of an individual determines how he or she addresses this information, specifically which outcome(s) or response(s) are preferred and chosen, as well as the means by which it is expressed. In this sense, Wisdom is much closer to Charisma when it comes to how one responds to a situation.
(Charisma, meanwhile, addresses specifically the sociability, likability, and leadership skills of the individual. This can also include their persuasiveness, bartering skills, intimidation factor, etc.)
As for why some characters are able to identify items and recognize enchantments betters, that is due to their "lore" score in the game, which to some extent is influenced by their wisdom (depending on the class). One can easily see how lore is a part of Wisdom as an attribute, however, since Wisdom is borne from experience and the "lore" of a character if effectively their understanding and experience, directly or indirectly, of magical items and their histories in The Forgotten Realms. I'm not disagreeing with you here, by the way. I'm just clarifying for anyone reading.
@DreadKhan, I really liked your posts and if there were an "Add Friend" function on this forum, I would definitely send you a request.
Believe it or not, Socrates is actually my favorite (or at least one of my favorite) philosopher of all time. Despite this, the one disagreement I always had with his arguments is that he always tied everything back to "the Good" and "Goodness." I'm not sure if this was Plato's doing, using Socrates as the mouthpiece he almost certainly did in his writings, but the whole idea of there being an inherent, objective Good in the world by which all things are measured and to which all things are ultimately tied seems so arrogant and presumptuous.
This is also a reason why I suspect it was Plato's ideas "Socrates" was expressing most of the time. Socrates was an avid agnostic and only moderately religious, though very devoted to his beliefs; I find it hard to believe he would claim to know anything, much less some omnipotent non-deity representative of Good and its inherent, necessary existence.
It seems to me that Plato-Socrates failed to understand that wisdom is an attribute and tool, but that in no way necessitates that it must be possessed by those who are good, or is intrinsically good in some way. Just like a weapon, whether that is a gun or a sword or one's own fist, can be used to achieve both noble and nefarious goals, so can wisdom. This whole binding of perceived "noble" qualities with the Good seems less like a sound philosophical perspective and more of a self-lauding form of narcissism. Plato effectively equates all the attributes he either has, wishes to have, or is described as having as "Good" while all other qualities are labeled as less than that. It's all so egocentric. In that respect, I wonder if Plato truly was Lawful Good, or if he was Lawful Neutral with a narcissistic complex.
(You can skip this next part; it's pretty much my metaphysical ramblings about the connection between wisdom and "Good," addressing Plato's argument about wisdom necessarily leading to good behavior or thinking.)
As for wisdom and whether it necessarily leads to Good, that's a hard concept to analyze. My initial reaction would be my usual: if we tried to consider how infinite wisdom would manifest itself, what would that look like? Honestly, I believe something or someone of infinite wisdom would be pretty disengaged from the rest of reality, since it has already accomplished that which it likely sought to achieve (infinite wisdom). If we then consider how wisdom in general manifests itself, that is also difficult to conceive, since wisdom has varying definitions and interpretations between cultures, religions, and even demographics. Given the definition I provided in my initial post, I would assume that wisdom can function indefinitely and endlessly irrespective of the alignment or temperament of the possessor. In a sense, I suppose I can see how wisdom ultimately leads to Good, but then again that's probably my bias and preference for Good speaking.
I personally believe that the ideal world would be one which has a majority of Good, but with limited evil still persisting to act as a reciprocal and polar force to Good. An entire universe of Good is not necessarily any more preferable to an entire universe of Evil, and any preferences for one or another (to me) is more of an indication of bias on the behalf of the evaluator than any sort of universal intrinsic inclination. To me, Heaven is just as boring and mundane as Hell—it's just a different form of stimulation, but in the end you still grow numb to it. For some reason, though, I believe that ultimately Good should ideally be predominant over Evil, if only because organisms are generally more satisfied and content with their respective understandings of what is "Good" rather than that which they define as "Evil." I digress by adding this paragraph to lend some explanation to this sentence, which I believe best sums up whether wisdom leads to Good: I believe that the majority of the time, wisdom will lead to Good, though there is still a chance that it can remain evil if it began as much.
This is all assuming, of course, that wisdom is its own separate entity and not just a tool acquired through experience.
I'm pretty sure Gandhi is considered wise not so much because he was "Good" per se, but rather because he analyzed his experiences and learned from them, modifying his behavior in the light of this new understanding. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler failed to learn from his experiences, and thus he made many poor decisions beforehand. This is all very biased in favor of "Good," though, and I can easily argue that Hitler in fact was wise in his own right because learned from his experiences, such as those as a kid and during his short-lived art career and from his living through World War I, and applied them to make future decisions—some of which were very strategic and wise, such as some of his actions while in the Nazi Party. From the perspective of someone who is "Good," one could argue that what he learned from his experiences were corrupted by bias and misinformation, which ultimately resulting in his "evil" behavior, but I'll end my departure from the main point there.
Your final paragraph really lends credit to wisdom ultimately leading to good, and I'm not sure how to counter it. I just find explaining causing pain and suffering for one's own personal pleasure to be too... Deliberate, I suppose, to be mere "faulty reasoning." I believe that yes, a lot of so-called "evil" can be attributed to mental disorders and the like, but there comes a point at which I wonder if we're trying to psychologically label otherwise evil acts, such as sociopathy or cruelty to animals. Can you truly explain away the actions of every mass murderer, serial killer, animal abuser, and hedonistic torturer as simply "mentally ill"?
I usually define "evil" by the motives and intentions of the individual, not the actions themselves. Stealing for survival isn't evil because it isn't done with malicious intent—unless, of course, it is done maliciously as well as to survive. Something becomes evil when a sane, or otherwise psychologically healthy, individual deliberately commits and act with the intent of causing harm, injury, or suffering; preventing help to alleviate said maladies; and/or encourages either of the aforementioned activities; all with no other purpose, reason, or goal outside of the self-pleasure, havoc, or destruction caused by their application. In other words, it's very rare for true "evil" to occur, if it indeed does occur at all, but before I label anything as "evil" I always make sure to evaluate the exact motive, act, and intended result behind the phenomenon or individual in question before passing judgment.
Lastly, I disagree that wise people cannot "crack" under the pressures of life or whatnot. Being wise doesn't automatically render one invulnerable to the suffering and pains that accompany life, and in fact these very hardships can give birth to wisdom in many respects. No, wisdom is a quality acquired through experience, whether that be one's own experience or learning through the experience of others, just like knowledge is a quality acquired through education and learning, whether that be the teachings of others or one's own self-taught ways. Wise people can still be emotionally vulnerable and prone to fits of depression, mania, jealousy, rage, or even psychopathy.
Just because it looks good to portray wisemen as steadfast in the face of hardships and martyrs to their own wisdom, like the demises of Socrates, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi, that is not always the case. For example, most notable was Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his later years went (quite literally) clinically insane to the point that he was mumbling incoherent phrases and couldn't even recognize his own family. There are also others, though, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, who suffered throughout his life with severe suicidal depression; Albert Camus was also extremely depressed for much of his life, and very apathetic about his own. Throughout the centuries, many philosophers and thinkers have cracked under pressure or had their morality take a nose-dive. Just because someone is wise, that in no way bars them from being foolish, nor does it protect them from breaking under their own burdens.
@kiwidoc, I agree with pretty much everything you said, but seeing how this thread has deviated away from D&D and more into general ethical philosophy, I'll probably stick around to continue the discussion. Strictly regarding D&D, however, you're right: this point is moot because the entire alignment system in the game is an oversimplified bastardization of ethics. However, it is useful as a simplistic depiction of the dynamics and variables involved in ethics, and considering how the only other more complex system of morality and ethics which is as defined and relatively closed as the D&D alignment system would be Kant's ethics system, I'd say this is definitely preferred. You know, at least until I can actually understand just what the hell Kant is saying.
I do find a lot of this very interesting. As I've gotten older I've taken those 'faux' alignment tests and started out as neutral good. As I've aged and certainly become wiser, I generally score in the low end of chaotic neutral. I think the wiser you are the more you understand the nature of man, and you certainly learn to trust less and look out for oneself more. If that means giving to the politics and backstabbing to survive, you have to do it.
I'd say you haven't become wiser, in that case, only more cynical and selfish. Cynicism is often hailed as being the same as experienced or "realistic" (particularly by cynics themselves), but the truth is that it is no more realistic than naivete.
Ah, the rashness of youth. When you are not judged by your merits, you will learn the harsh reality of life. Apologies on resurrecting a dead thread.
I don't like the idea of wisdom leaning towards evil because I believe attributes should be related to power and effectiveness while alignment should remain a choice free of individual power.
A wise chaotic evil character would easily qualify as the joker. Think of the scene in dark knight where he lit a bonfire made of mountains of cash as criminals who were neutral and lawful evil looked on in confusion. His joy doesn't derive from personally climbing the power latter (lawful) or making his life more comfortable (neutral). His aim is to tear such things down and make things burn i.e. "some men just want to watch the world burn" (chaotic evil). How does he achieve this? Relatively inexpensive items that cause mass havoc. Explosives, guns and disorienting masterful traps. Killing isn't the point. Remember, slowly burning, not elimination as a means to another end. Although if killing results in more widespread panic then yes, he will kill. The joker is the epitome of street smarts. He plays with gangs who have been playing the street for lifetimes like his personal gameboard pieces. It's not strictly intelligence. It's wisdom, and insight into human vulnerability and corruption that's profound enough to dwarf the highest ranking crime bosses and your standard clinical psychologist.
The idea that a high wisdom character is more often Lawful than they are Chaotic is something I can agree with because most chaotic evil people, i.e. psychopaths, get themselves killed or incarcerated early on. In dnd, with the help of divine intervention, these high wisdom chaotic evil characters should be drastically more common. Imagine a chaotic evil cleric of ceric or mask that essentially was the joker. He roans around in rusty, multicolored armor until suddenly he raises enough undead at once to destabilize an entire city and starts to use fallen paladins to mop up the rest. But he won't kill the strongest paladin because he wants to show him his city slowly eating itself from the inside out before he forces the paladin to kill him, just so he can fall and become insane. That's high wisdom, chaotic evil.
I cleave pretty closely to the 3.X definition of Wisdom, which is that Wisdom governs one's insight, perceptiveness and intuition. An Intelligent character knows a lot, but a Wise character can look at a particular situation and read the scene much more deeply than the Intelligent character. This makes them much more suited to roles as spiritual guides and counselors (like Druids and Clerics), because their talents give them much greater insight into knowing what it is people (or animals) need.
What exactly the character chooses to do with this insight then depends on their alignment. A Good character would use their understanding to ease suffering, soothe those in grief, provide guidance etc. An Evil character, on the other hand, would probably use their understanding of people to manipulate or gaslight them for their own ends, whether for profit or simple malice.
Comments
@kiwidoc I think a valid complaint for those authors is if the paladin doesnt fall. Paladins cant commit an evil act without falling, and evil opponents would be stupid for not using this tool. Its underhanded, but thats the point! The lore for paladins is clear imho, falling can be a necessity at times if your patron deity isnt lawful good. Paladins that fall but did not offend their deity are likely to have an easy Atonement. But they are still supposed to fall. Its different for a cleric.
Definitions of good and evil in FR isnt really that up to debate... we are given guidelines anyways. Its not always cut and dry, but sophistry shouldnt be used much in such a context; lesser evil is still evil, the paladin still falls.
In real life, evil is coloured by culture; some cultures still stone adulterers, especially women. But I think most cultures agree that adultery should be frowned upon without being criminalized. As a general rule, I doubt evil people are very common in the world, but most people are I would argue self-interested to a fault. Even people who have commited legitimately abhorent acts are not evil the way a DnD evil blackguard is. I suspect most of the truly destructive evil people are breed out by society. Most people willing to commit evil for its own sake would have been put to death in very ancient times, and those that can be socialized often are in lawful societies. However, as I mentioned, people in brutal societies are often socialized to commit hortible acts, especially during conflict. Many require resocialization of some kind. Largely, these people tend to be evil as a group due to the population as a whole not questioning its actions. Evil could perhaps be summed up by acting in a way that affects others without considering their needs, feelings and expectstions. I think of this as active empathy... even those lacking ordinary empathy can learn this, if they are willing. Its not foolproof though; one can never truly know another, and danger lies in believing we understand another.
"Wise Evil" does not work very well on their own, but if enough of them gain enough power for a long enough time, they will shape "the system" in such a way that it is constantly reinforcing their hold over it. 19th Century capitalism/liberalism is a great example of this and the suffering it can cause, as is wage-slavery and and "regional monopolism" (as in you earn a shitty wage from the Mining Company/Owner, but said Company/Owner also owns the housing you rent and the store were you buy your food, so all your money goes directly back to their pockets - I don't know what the English expression for this concept is).
Similarly, a good-aligned character definitely can have a low wisdom score. A moon elf who agrees to follow the "Nice black-skinned, white-haired elf who wants to show me something" into a cave probably isn't overflowing with wisdom, in a more RL-grounded example: the concept of reciprocity (giving stuff with the expectation of receiving something in return) is common in many societies, but excessive altruism can be viewed as foolish or even rude, particularly in band-level societies. Naiveté and excessive self-sacrifice are qualities that may have their roots in 'good' ideas (trust and selflessness) that can be rather bad in excess.
For high Wisdom evil characters, I can imagine a lot of advice from 'The Prince' being applicable. While it may be better to be feared than loved, it's *great* if you can pull off both. A high wisdom character I would imagine having the capacity to be incredibly cruel to his enemies, but reward their followers well-so that their loyalty is unquestionable. Paying your troops and keeping morale high, exercising sound judgment, listening to your inferiors etc are all things that an evil warlord should be perfectly capable of while building pyramids out of the skulls of their enemies.
A good alternative to 'chronic backstabbing disorder' is to have evil characters who find alternative ways of dealing with their enemies. it becomes less viable for the 'good' kingdom downriver to invade your kingdom if you control their water, and if you make it the easiest way for merchants to earn a profit in your lands by working with the you, then you are going to have an easier way to control trade-If I recall correctly, the Zhentarum does just this. Likewise, practices like bribery and blackmail are alternatives to the "Me evil! Kill good, *drool*" and convoluted drow plots that end with everyone with a dagger In their backs. They just need to be represented more.
Sorry for the delay, by the way; it's taken well over a few hours since I began typing this, and I started shortly after seeing your post. I've also been taking the time to read the rest of the thread, hence my replies below.
I'll also be posting my replies separately so that they can be easier to address. I originally planned on posting them all at once, but I feared this may prove to be a hassle for those seeking to quote me, especially considering how my walls of text would be combined into a damned fortress were I to not spread them out.
Replying to the original post, I don't see why an evil-aligned person could not be wise. Wisdom can be defined as understanding of the world and how it functions as borne from direct (and indirect) experience, interpreted through the knowledge one possesses and typically expressed through good judgment—"good" being defined as sound or profitable insomuch as it yields a favorable result. Defining wisdom as such, evil-aligned characters certainly can be "wise," even if that wisdom is not altogether wholesome.
Consider it like this: wisdom is borne primarily from experience, most notably or the direct kind, and this experience improves the decision-making skills of the recipient. Not all people are wise in certain aspects, and in what exactly a given individual possesses wisdom can vary depending on his or her actions, which is at least partially influenced by their alignment and temperament. As a result, a Good-aligned person may be very wise when it comes to spotting those requiring need, and how to aid said individuals. Alternatively, an Evil-aligned person may be increasingly experienced in how to manipulate people and cause them suffering. Remember, wisdom can be interpeted as a type of advanced understanding and expertise about a given phenomenon, and how to best respond to said phenomenon for the benefit of a specific entity, indiscriminate of this entity's allegiances or alignments. Therefore, an Evil person can be very wise in modes of torture, whereas a Good person can be versed in the methods of preventing or lessening it.
Now, to address the arguments of the others in this thread:
(Incoming spam of, like, 5+ walls of text, BTW)
"Common sense," in the best definition of the term in its original sense, is sense or reasoning believed to be common to the average person, such the five primary senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell (hence the origin of the term). From this perspective, only the handicapped or disabled—especially the deaf, mute, and blind—would be considered without "common sense."
Later on, the term was extended to refer to "sense" (used to mean understanding or reason) that is considered basic or common enough that the average person would possess it, such as fire being hot or how it hurts when you stub your toe. Therefore, only the mentally challenged or clinically insane would be without "common sense." From a scientific viewpoint, this version of "common sense" is very much like the instinctual view of the world all organisms possess at vary degrees and which governs behaviors lending to their survival and welfare.
After a while, "common sense" began to be understood in much the same way that we define it today: practical reasoning and sound judgment. This new definition of the term gave rise to the adage that "common sense is not common," espoused by pastors and pseudo-intellectuals alike. As the adage seems to imply, however, this redefinition of the term seems contradictory: how can it be called "common sense" when it is, in fact, not common? Well, it isn't common sense. That's wisdom, or something very close to it. In the end, the observation that "common sense is not common" does hold some true, since the vast majority of people seem to behave in ways which are not reasonable or practical in the slightest.
Where did this definition of "common sense" meaning "practical reasoning and sound judgment" come from anyway? From an etymological sense, there is quite a lot of uncertainty, though it is thought that it was borne out of the increasing reliance people started having on "the People," the commoners, as democracy spread and the purported wisdom of the average person, with all their anecdotes and wild stories, was endorsed. But I digress.
Ultimately, "common sense" is not only uncommon, but it is not the same as "wisdom," either, unless you're willing to admit that the average person is wise (which I very much doubt). Wisdom is an understanding of the world that surpasses common knowledge, something which is admired and idolized as a trait possessed only by the learned, or the leaders, or the lavished. If wisdom is that which is above common knowledge, how then is it the equivalent of "common sense"?
Pedantic qualms aside, I agree with you that wisdom should be understood more as a tool rather than a product of a certain temperament. No matter if you're a generous benefactor or a malicious evildoer, you can be wise just as you can be a fool. Whether being evil is itself "foolish" is usually the biased opinion of one who is not evil, though perchance himself a fool.
(Charisma, meanwhile, addresses specifically the sociability, likability, and leadership skills of the individual. This can also include their persuasiveness, bartering skills, intimidation factor, etc.)
As for why some characters are able to identify items and recognize enchantments betters, that is due to their "lore" score in the game, which to some extent is influenced by their wisdom (depending on the class). One can easily see how lore is a part of Wisdom as an attribute, however, since Wisdom is borne from experience and the "lore" of a character if effectively their understanding and experience, directly or indirectly, of magical items and their histories in The Forgotten Realms. I'm not disagreeing with you here, by the way. I'm just clarifying for anyone reading.
Believe it or not, Socrates is actually my favorite (or at least one of my favorite) philosopher of all time. Despite this, the one disagreement I always had with his arguments is that he always tied everything back to "the Good" and "Goodness." I'm not sure if this was Plato's doing, using Socrates as the mouthpiece he almost certainly did in his writings, but the whole idea of there being an inherent, objective Good in the world by which all things are measured and to which all things are ultimately tied seems so arrogant and presumptuous.
It seems to me that Plato-Socrates failed to understand that wisdom is an attribute and tool, but that in no way necessitates that it must be possessed by those who are good, or is intrinsically good in some way. Just like a weapon, whether that is a gun or a sword or one's own fist, can be used to achieve both noble and nefarious goals, so can wisdom. This whole binding of perceived "noble" qualities with the Good seems less like a sound philosophical perspective and more of a self-lauding form of narcissism. Plato effectively equates all the attributes he either has, wishes to have, or is described as having as "Good" while all other qualities are labeled as less than that. It's all so egocentric. In that respect, I wonder if Plato truly was Lawful Good, or if he was Lawful Neutral with a narcissistic complex.
(You can skip this next part; it's pretty much my metaphysical ramblings about the connection between wisdom and "Good," addressing Plato's argument about wisdom necessarily leading to good behavior or thinking.)
I personally believe that the ideal world would be one which has a majority of Good, but with limited evil still persisting to act as a reciprocal and polar force to Good. An entire universe of Good is not necessarily any more preferable to an entire universe of Evil, and any preferences for one or another (to me) is more of an indication of bias on the behalf of the evaluator than any sort of universal intrinsic inclination. To me, Heaven is just as boring and mundane as Hell—it's just a different form of stimulation, but in the end you still grow numb to it. For some reason, though, I believe that ultimately Good should ideally be predominant over Evil, if only because organisms are generally more satisfied and content with their respective understandings of what is "Good" rather than that which they define as "Evil." I digress by adding this paragraph to lend some explanation to this sentence, which I believe best sums up whether wisdom leads to Good: I believe that the majority of the time, wisdom will lead to Good, though there is still a chance that it can remain evil if it began as much.
This is all assuming, of course, that wisdom is its own separate entity and not just a tool acquired through experience.
I'm pretty sure Gandhi is considered wise not so much because he was "Good" per se, but rather because he analyzed his experiences and learned from them, modifying his behavior in the light of this new understanding. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler failed to learn from his experiences, and thus he made many poor decisions beforehand. This is all very biased in favor of "Good," though, and I can easily argue that Hitler in fact was wise in his own right because learned from his experiences, such as those as a kid and during his short-lived art career and from his living through World War I, and applied them to make future decisions—some of which were very strategic and wise, such as some of his actions while in the Nazi Party. From the perspective of someone who is "Good," one could argue that what he learned from his experiences were corrupted by bias and misinformation, which ultimately resulting in his "evil" behavior, but I'll end my departure from the main point there.
Your final paragraph really lends credit to wisdom ultimately leading to good, and I'm not sure how to counter it. I just find explaining causing pain and suffering for one's own personal pleasure to be too... Deliberate, I suppose, to be mere "faulty reasoning." I believe that yes, a lot of so-called "evil" can be attributed to mental disorders and the like, but there comes a point at which I wonder if we're trying to psychologically label otherwise evil acts, such as sociopathy or cruelty to animals. Can you truly explain away the actions of every mass murderer, serial killer, animal abuser, and hedonistic torturer as simply "mentally ill"?
I usually define "evil" by the motives and intentions of the individual, not the actions themselves. Stealing for survival isn't evil because it isn't done with malicious intent—unless, of course, it is done maliciously as well as to survive. Something becomes evil when a sane, or otherwise psychologically healthy, individual deliberately commits and act with the intent of causing harm, injury, or suffering; preventing help to alleviate said maladies; and/or encourages either of the aforementioned activities; all with no other purpose, reason, or goal outside of the self-pleasure, havoc, or destruction caused by their application. In other words, it's very rare for true "evil" to occur, if it indeed does occur at all, but before I label anything as "evil" I always make sure to evaluate the exact motive, act, and intended result behind the phenomenon or individual in question before passing judgment.
Lastly, I disagree that wise people cannot "crack" under the pressures of life or whatnot. Being wise doesn't automatically render one invulnerable to the suffering and pains that accompany life, and in fact these very hardships can give birth to wisdom in many respects. No, wisdom is a quality acquired through experience, whether that be one's own experience or learning through the experience of others, just like knowledge is a quality acquired through education and learning, whether that be the teachings of others or one's own self-taught ways. Wise people can still be emotionally vulnerable and prone to fits of depression, mania, jealousy, rage, or even psychopathy.
Just because it looks good to portray wisemen as steadfast in the face of hardships and martyrs to their own wisdom, like the demises of Socrates, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi, that is not always the case. For example, most notable was Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his later years went (quite literally) clinically insane to the point that he was mumbling incoherent phrases and couldn't even recognize his own family. There are also others, though, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, who suffered throughout his life with severe suicidal depression; Albert Camus was also extremely depressed for much of his life, and very apathetic about his own. Throughout the centuries, many philosophers and thinkers have cracked under pressure or had their morality take a nose-dive. Just because someone is wise, that in no way bars them from being foolish, nor does it protect them from breaking under their own burdens.
Yes and yes (wisdom)
A wise chaotic evil character would easily qualify as the joker. Think of the scene in dark knight where he lit a bonfire made of mountains of cash as criminals who were neutral and lawful evil looked on in confusion. His joy doesn't derive from personally climbing the power latter (lawful) or making his life more comfortable (neutral). His aim is to tear such things down and make things burn i.e. "some men just want to watch the world burn" (chaotic evil). How does he achieve this? Relatively inexpensive items that cause mass havoc. Explosives, guns and disorienting masterful traps. Killing isn't the point. Remember, slowly burning, not elimination as a means to another end. Although if killing results in more widespread panic then yes, he will kill. The joker is the epitome of street smarts. He plays with gangs who have been playing the street for lifetimes like his personal gameboard pieces. It's not strictly intelligence. It's wisdom, and insight into human vulnerability and corruption that's profound enough to dwarf the highest ranking crime bosses and your standard clinical psychologist.
The idea that a high wisdom character is more often Lawful than they are Chaotic is something I can agree with because most chaotic evil people, i.e. psychopaths, get themselves killed or incarcerated early on. In dnd, with the help of divine intervention, these high wisdom chaotic evil characters should be drastically more common. Imagine a chaotic evil cleric of ceric or mask that essentially was the joker. He roans around in rusty, multicolored armor until suddenly he raises enough undead at once to destabilize an entire city and starts to use fallen paladins to mop up the rest. But he won't kill the strongest paladin because he wants to show him his city slowly eating itself from the inside out before he forces the paladin to kill him, just so he can fall and become insane. That's high wisdom, chaotic evil.
What exactly the character chooses to do with this insight then depends on their alignment. A Good character would use their understanding to ease suffering, soothe those in grief, provide guidance etc. An Evil character, on the other hand, would probably use their understanding of people to manipulate or gaslight them for their own ends, whether for profit or simple malice.