PDA

View Full Version : Is this an evil act?



Geiger Counter
2010-03-19, 09:45 PM
Your out hunting and you kill a deer, it was an awakened deer.

Swordgleam
2010-03-19, 09:46 PM
Did you know it was an awakened deer?

Was the deer evil?

If so, did you know the deer was evil?

In your system of alignment, do actions or intentions count?

Siosilvar
2010-03-19, 09:47 PM
No.qwertyuiop

EDIT: Assuming that is all you're given.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-19, 09:51 PM
Manslaughter, I would say. Accidental homicide. Not evil, not good but not evil ,as it was accidental. Unless, of course, you knew beforehand it was awakened. Then as evil as premeditated murder, which is pretty evil.

Studoku
2010-03-19, 09:51 PM
If you had no idea it was an awakened deer, no.

druid91
2010-03-19, 09:54 PM
So long as you Don't eat the deer and give it a proper burial I think you will be fine, Well unless you knew it was awakened and killed it just because you could.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-19, 09:56 PM
Doesn't matter remotely if it was awakened. If you killed it to watch it die, smear it's entrails on your face and use its departing soul to summon forth a Demon then yeah, it's probably an Evil act reguardless of whether it's capable of long division.

If not, then it's really not an evil act. Deer are not part of your society, you are not bound by the shared social contract that makes civilisation work. It is food, and you needed food.

In the case of genuine hunting, it's not really evil even if you are, infact, aware it was awakened before-hand.

In my opinion, anyway. :smallwink:

Obviously, some would argue that because it is Awakened, it is somehow more important than an Animal, but I'm sure there's a nature god or three around to argue against that point of view.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-19, 09:57 PM
Your out hunting and you kill a deer, it was an awakened deer.

Were you hunting for sport, food, or to show off?

Grumman
2010-03-19, 09:58 PM
It is only an evil act if you knew it was an awakened deer, or the numbers of awakened deer in this forest were so high that your failure to check demonstrated a callous disregard for the consequences of your actions.

Gadora
2010-03-19, 10:15 PM
Did you ask it if it could talk? (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=400)

I'm going to be lazy and have this (and the following pages) be my answer.

Jayngfet
2010-03-19, 10:18 PM
Depends, did you have a brief conversation with it, kill it, and feed it to a couple of wandering human children? :smallamused:(free cookie to whoever gets the reference).

Kurald Galain
2010-03-19, 10:21 PM
Did it have a red nose?

Crow
2010-03-19, 10:26 PM
This is similar to a question I asked a little while ago.

If a man lives in a society in which sailing to distant shores in the name of raid and pillage is an accepted way of gaining fame and fortune, is he evil for doing so?

Graymayre
2010-03-19, 10:33 PM
Why did you kill it?

Did you know beforehand it was awakened?


This is similar to a question I asked a little while ago.

If a man lives in a society in which sailing to distant shores in the name of raid and pillage is an accepted way of gaining fame and fortune, is he evil for doing so?

The society dictates what is good and evil. It may be evil from our perspective but not the society's

ericgrau
2010-03-19, 10:36 PM
Same as accidentally killing a person. Not the worst thing in the world but you can't simply walk away from it. And if you're a paladin, you'd fall and need an atonement for an accidental wrong.

DaedalusMkV
2010-03-19, 10:38 PM
I agree with the "Not Evil unless you knew it was sentient and did it on purpose" crowd. In this case, there's really not a lot of question; you couldn't have asked it first, that would make actually catching anything impossible. There's no visual clue, and unless this particular forest is known to be absolutely full of sentient deer, there was no reason to suspect it.


Crow: In DnD terms, yes, it's being evil. Entire planes of existence can be evil in DnD, so obviously the universe doesn't subscribe to Relativist theories. In real life terms... I'm not opening that can of worms. Suffice to say "evil in at least two ethical systems, not evil in at least two others"...

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-19, 10:39 PM
This is similar to a question I asked a little while ago.

If a man lives in a society in which sailing to distant shores in the name of raid and pillage is an accepted way of gaining fame and fortune, is he evil for doing so?

Hell no, Vikings were pretty badass. Nothing that cool could possibly be evil.

Jayngfet
2010-03-19, 10:40 PM
This is similar to a question I asked a little while ago.

If a man lives in a society in which sailing to distant shores in the name of raid and pillage is an accepted way of gaining fame and fortune, is he evil for doing so?

Yes, every one of them. Please remember the past was a horrible place, and basing a game civilization off those practices isn't a shield from an alignment.

mucat
2010-03-19, 10:52 PM
Deer are not part of your society, you are not bound by the shared social contract that makes civilisation work. It is food, and you needed food.

In the case of genuine hunting, it's not really evil even if you are, infact, aware it was awakened before-hand.

In my opinion, anyway. :smallwink:
And a most disturbing opinion at that. If it were a wandering human foreigner, who is also not part of your society or a party to your social contracts, does the same logic apply?

I would agree with what most others have said: if you knew the animal was awakened, or if there was some reason you should have suspected it might be, then the act is evil (unless the deer was posing some direct threat to you or others.)
If you didn't know, and killed the deer for food or for some other normally acceptable reason, then it was an accident...but one that you should do your best to atone for and put right if possible.

elonin
2010-03-19, 10:53 PM
The whole question of good and evil has to do with duality. I've never cared for how alignment works in dnd. The stock game worlds set the stage in stark terms with obviously good actors and obviously evil actors and the most suspicion being in regards to neutral types who are the only ones that might come up with an interesting answer. A better answer about alignment would be to accept that tribalism and clan behavior is a motivating factor in society.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-19, 10:55 PM
Hell no, Vikings were pretty badass. Nothing that cool could possibly be evil.
Tell that to my ancestors.
Ain't gonna pay no stinking danegeld no more.

Jayngfet
2010-03-19, 10:56 PM
I agree with the "Not Evil unless you knew it was sentient and did it on purpose" crowd. In this case, there's really not a lot of question; you couldn't have asked it first, that would make actually catching anything impossible. There's no visual clue, and unless this particular forest is known to be absolutely full of sentient deer, there was no reason to suspect it.


Crow: In DnD terms, yes, it's being evil. Entire planes of existence can be evil in DnD, so obviously the universe doesn't subscribe to Relativist theories. In real life terms... I'm not opening that can of worms. Suffice to say "evil in at least two ethical systems, not evil in at least two others"...

Thats a neutral opinion at best. There's a point where justifications get so heavy they outweigh the intention or thought behind it. You can't be good and BS some excuase whenever there's something you want to do thats too ambiguous. Good implies you make *sacrifices* and can form opinions of your own.

Amiel
2010-03-19, 10:57 PM
More information needed.

chiasaur11
2010-03-19, 11:01 PM
Depends, did you have a brief conversation with it, kill it, and feed it to a couple of wandering human children? :smallamused:(free cookie to whoever gets the reference).

Are you also planning to eat the children?

Are they accompanied by a Marshwiggle, possibly played by Tom Baker?

Important questions.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-19, 11:08 PM
Are you also planning to eat the children?

Are they accompanied by a Marshwiggle, possibly played by Tom Baker?

Importnt questions.
The stag was lying anyway. He said he was tough!

Crow
2010-03-19, 11:09 PM
Tell that to my ancestors.
Ain't gonna pay no stinking danegeld no more.

Well my ancestors say "Pay Up!".

...well before you kicked their butts later on.

The Shadowmind
2010-03-19, 11:09 PM
If you did not know the deer was Awakend, and had no reason to suspect so, then said act is not evil, it is neutral. Not attempting the fix the death is evil(reincarnate is a valid method).
Another important question is, how did you know the deer was awakened if you killed it? Did you talk just before the finishing blow? Speak with dead on a creature you thought was just food? It was singing in the middle of the forest, and you thought it was a hallucination from hunger?
Not enough information given.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-19, 11:14 PM
Well my ancestors say "Pay Up!".

...well before you kicked their butts later on.
They didn't call him Alfred the Great for his shredded cheese, dude.:smallamused:

Amiel
2010-03-19, 11:17 PM
Afterwards, eat it.

Don't have a cow, man, eat deer.

Abd al-Azrad
2010-03-19, 11:20 PM
Just to be difficult...

Why is an Intelligence score of greater than 2 the defining distinction between an evil killing and a good killing? Or the presence (or absence) of a magic spell? It seems awfully arbitrary, especially since these things do not change the nature of an act: that you killed a "food thing."

Yes, I'm bringing the vegetarian argument into a D&D debate. Because I am the true evil.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-19, 11:29 PM
Just to be difficult...

Why is an Intelligence score of greater than 2 the defining distinction between an evil killing and a good killing? Or the presence (or absence) of a magic spell? It seems awfully arbitrary, especially since these things do not change the nature of an act: that you killed a "food thing."

Yes, I'm bringing the vegetarian argument into a D&D debate. Because I am the true evil.
Three is the 'talk threshold'. And to quote Schlock Mercenary, "Food that talks is not food." (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20031130.html)

Ormur
2010-03-19, 11:30 PM
Sapience makes it evil if the hunter knew about it. If he didn't and had no way of knowing then it's a tragedy, but not evil. Although in D&D you should always take extra care only to hunt the creatures you know aren't sapient. Since a deer would usually not be I can see it as very unfortunate but an ignorant hunter might presume that a unicorn was just another weird animal that tasted good. Hunting such an unknown creature might be negligent to the point of evil.

DaedalusMkV
2010-03-20, 12:31 AM
Thats a neutral opinion at best. There's a point where justifications get so heavy they outweigh the intention or thought behind it. You can't be good and BS some excuase whenever there's something you want to do thats too ambiguous. Good implies you make *sacrifices* and can form opinions of your own.
I never said it was a *good* act, just not an evil one. Again, unless you take any form of hunting or gathering to be evil on the off-chance that some sort of magic made it sentient (and magic can make anything sentient), there was no way for the people to know not to kill this specific deer, when all the others would just be normal sources of food. A Good party would likely be greatly upset at accidentally killing someone, and might try to find a way to either bring the deer back to life or make amends for it somehow. A Paladin would get either a stern reprimand or a "no-quest-required" Fall depending on the deity he worships. But it's no more evil than accidentally killing someone when the Bad Guy shoots down your Airship; regrettable, but not something you could stop from happening.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-20, 01:10 AM
Normal deer are sentient. They have awareness. What would they have eyes for, if they couldn't see with them?

Serious question: What is it about someone being dumb that makes it morally acceptable to kill him? If intelligence does make a moral difference like that.

Is it a sliding scale? Like, if a parrot can talk worse than a human but better than a rabbit, does that mean that eating the parrot is better than eating a human but worse than eating a rabbit? Are mind flayers less evil for preying on humans than they would be for preying on other mind flayers? If it's not a sliding scale, then where exactly is the line drawn, and on what basis?

Hey, human infants don't talk. And I hear that they are both delicious and nutritious!

Math_Mage
2010-03-20, 04:44 AM
Just to be difficult...

Why is an Intelligence score of greater than 2 the defining distinction between an evil killing and a good killing? Or the presence (or absence) of a magic spell? It seems awfully arbitrary, especially since these things do not change the nature of an act: that you killed a "food thing."

Yes, I'm bringing the vegetarian argument into a D&D debate. Because I am the true evil.

Sapience is a far more meaningful (if less easily recognizable IRL) distinction than vegetable vs. animal. That D&D makes the former easier to determine does not diminish its intrinsic importance in any way.

I second the question asking how the OP knew the deer was awakened. Did some local huntsman find out about what they did and, horrified, inform them of their heinous crime?

EDIT: I see Devils Advocate is living up to the name. :smallamused:

Perhaps a better distinction would be self-awareness. This doesn't make it any easier to judge, of course.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 05:16 AM
Your out hunting and you kill a deer, it was an awakened deer.

Does the deer have green skin? If so, then by common fantasy parlance, you can kill all you want, and you'll be fine.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-20, 05:45 AM
Eating a human infant is bad under utilitarianism not because of the distress of the infant but that of everyone else.

And yes, intelligence is a sliding scale. Where you draw a line, or how you weight the feelings of beings of different intelligence, is a difficult question, and I don't have a good answer.

For anyone about to suggest that "weight the feelings of all beings equally, no matter their intelligence", consider a Borg-like hivemind. Are their lives worth less because they're linked together?

Math_Mage
2010-03-20, 11:33 AM
Eating a human infant is bad under utilitarianism not because of the distress of the infant but that of everyone else.

And yes, intelligence is a sliding scale. Where you draw a line, or how you weight the feelings of beings of different intelligence, is a difficult question, and I don't have a good answer.

For anyone about to suggest that "weight the feelings of all beings equally, no matter their intelligence", consider a Borg-like hivemind. Are their lives worth less because they're linked together?

Yes. See: Buggers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle6hmw2g74?from=Main.EndersGame). The collective consciousness is worth more; the individual body is worth less.

Yukitsu
2010-03-20, 11:59 AM
I'd say no, it's not. The text given for awaken seems to imply that you are untapping some form of potential that was already there to grant the animal a different type of sentience. This means a bog standard animal is much the same as an awakened animal from a moral standpoint, since they apparantly all have that mental capacity within them.

Or, the awaken spell merely imparts a false soul into the creature, since D&D is heavily Cartesian, this soul is not actually the character of the creature, who could more accurately be described as possessed, and is still thus OK to eat.

Or, even if despite the above, all meat is evil simply on the premise that something has to die to attain it. Which, if true, means virtually all creatures are evil by necessity, as back then, with such a lifestyle, attaining needed nutrients while eating no meat is difficult, or impossible.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-20, 12:06 PM
Normal deer are sentient. They have awareness. What would they have eyes for, if they couldn't see with them?

Serious question: What is it about someone being dumb that makes it morally acceptable to kill him? If intelligence does make a moral difference like that.

Is it a sliding scale? Like, if a parrot can talk worse than a human but better than a rabbit, does that mean that eating the parrot is better than eating a human but worse than eating a rabbit? Are mind flayers less evil for preying on humans than they would be for preying on other mind flayers? If it's not a sliding scale, then where exactly is the line drawn, and on what basis?

Hey, human infants don't talk. And I hear that they are both delicious and nutritious!

I Believe the word used was Sapient, not sentient.

Vizzerdrix
2010-03-20, 12:08 PM
Talking animals are abominations that need to be destroyed. It is an act of good to kill it.

Deer ruin crops, orchards and often attack people when in heat. Killing deer is in itself an act of good.

Using every part of an animal you kill is good. Burying it after you kill it is an act of Evil.

Death to Fieldscourge Banehoof! May his mighty antlers decorate the clan lodge!

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 12:19 PM
Eating a human infant is bad under utilitarianism not because of the distress of the infant but that of everyone else.

But what if I want baby backed ribs?
Chile's baby backed ribs, barbecue sauce :smallbiggrin:

Jergmo
2010-03-20, 12:38 PM
Or, even if despite the above, all meat is evil simply on the premise that something has to die to attain it. Which, if true, means virtually all creatures are evil by necessity, as back then, with such a lifestyle, attaining needed nutrients while eating no meat is difficult, or impossible.

Something must die for you to live. There is no way around it, even if you're a vegetarian. You can say "well, I'm just killing plants!" but the point is moot. Plants may very well have spirits residing within as well. And those plants were fertilized by dead predators, which gained sustenance from herbivores, which gained sustenance from those plants, which everything was fertilized from dinosaur atoms (http://www.daisyowl.com/comic/2009-04-17).

It's the circle of life, and that's just how it works. Eating meat isn't murder, animals should merely be killed in as humane a way as possible.

Edit: And by eating plants, you're taking food away from herbivores, which takes food away from predators, which takes away food for plants. Way to harm the ecosystem, jerk! We're built to take in a balance of meat and plants, not a focus on one! (Heck, our organ and special teeth for processing greens are vestigial now. Their only remaining purpose is to cause you agony leading to them being removed, or exploding randomly to kill you by flooding your body with poison.)

Swordgleam
2010-03-20, 12:39 PM
Did you ask it if it could talk? (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=400)

I'm going to be lazy and have this (and the following pages) be my answer.

I was up until 3 am last night and it's almost entirely your fault. I hope you're happy.

DaedalusMkV
2010-03-20, 12:47 PM
I'd say no, it's not. The text given for awaken seems to imply that you are untapping some form of potential that was already there to grant the animal a different type of sentience. This means a bog standard animal is much the same as an awakened animal from a moral standpoint, since they apparantly all have that mental capacity within them.

Or, the awaken spell merely imparts a false soul into the creature, since D&D is heavily Cartesian, this soul is not actually the character of the creature, who could more accurately be described as possessed, and is still thus OK to eat.

Or, even if despite the above, all meat is evil simply on the premise that something has to die to attain it. Which, if true, means virtually all creatures are evil by necessity, as back then, with such a lifestyle, attaining needed nutrients while eating no meat is difficult, or impossible.

Plants can be Awakened as well. Also Constructs. In other words, we can give true intelligence to both inanimate and nonliving creatures. In both cases, the argument that it was just "tapping into reserves that were already there" just doesn't fly; plants have no nervous system and no guiding intelligence whatsoever, which means that they couldn't possibly have the potential for sapience, and Constructs are magically-animated machines, usually Mindless.

Again, if you consider hunting anything to be wrong because it might be made intelligent/self-aware by magic, you have to take eating plants to be the same because a Druid could awaken them just as easily. Hell, the water you drink might have a weak Water Elemental (or other type of spirit) in it, in which case drinking water could be considered evil because you might wind up destroying a form of life. Oh, and walking is wrong because you might step on an Awakenable insect, and in the forest you'd never even see it... IMO, the premise is flawed, unless you consider the death of all moral beings an acceptable compromise.

Roderick_BR
2010-03-20, 12:59 PM
Why did you kill it?

Did you know beforehand it was awakened?



The society dictates what is good and evil. It may be evil from our perspective but not the society's

That means the society is evil. THEY may think they are not, but morally, thety are. See Doctor Doom from Marvel Comics, for example. He believes himself to not be "evil" and that everyone would be better off if he took control. Ask anyone (besides himself) if he's evil.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 01:18 PM
Something must die for you to live. There is no way around it, even if you're a vegetarian. You can say "well, I'm just killing plants!" but the point is moot. Plants may very well have spirits residing within as well. And those plants were fertilized by dead predators, which gained sustenance from herbivores, which gained sustenance from those plants, which everything was fertilized from dinosaur atoms (http://www.daisyowl.com/comic/2009-04-17).


What if you're a rockatarian? I'll admit it is a little uncomfortable when you have bowel movements, but you have to stick your principals.
Well you and Toasty, your toaster who you think is alive. Also you're a bum but that is neither here nor there.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-20, 01:18 PM
Yes. See: Buggers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle6hmw2g74?from=Main.EndersGame). The collective consciousness is worth more; the individual body is worth less.

Bugger individuals are less intelligent. Well, actually, "non-intelligent" fits better. They're just puppets for the Queen.

Which, being more intelligent, is worth more than a human.

Jergmo
2010-03-20, 01:20 PM
What if you're a rockatarian? I'll admit it is a little uncomfortable when you have bowel movements, but you have to stick your principals.
Well you and Toasty, your toaster who you think is alive. Also you're a bum but that is neither here nor there.

You're still eating dead dinosaurs, Mr. Goron!

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 01:26 PM
If eating dinosuars is wrong, than I don't want to be right.:smallbiggrin:

Mewtarthio
2010-03-20, 02:06 PM
I second the question asking how the OP knew the deer was awakened. Did some local huntsman find out about what they did and, horrified, inform them of their heinous crime?

The OP isn't the hunter. The OP is some celestial bureaucrat who sorts people into the appropriate afterlives. The hunter found out the deer was awakened when that druid came screaming out of the underbrush.


Again, if you consider hunting anything to be wrong because it might be made intelligent/self-aware by magic, you have to take eating plants to be the same because a Druid could awaken them just as easily. Hell, the water you drink might have a weak Water Elemental (or other type of spirit) in it, in which case drinking water could be considered evil because you might wind up destroying a form of life. Oh, and walking is wrong because you might step on an Awakenable insect, and in the forest you'd never even see it... IMO, the premise is flawed, unless you consider the death of all moral beings an acceptable compromise.

So, the only way to be Good is to become a lich so you don't have to eat? :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 02:27 PM
The OP isn't the hunter. The OP is some celestial bureaucrat who sorts people into the appropriate afterlives. The hunter found out the deer was awakened when that druid came screaming out of the underbrush.



So, the only way to be Good is to become a lich so you don't have to eat? :smallbiggrin:

Elan don't have to eat. Become an Elan.

Sliver
2010-03-20, 02:56 PM
Or be a Warforged! Best druids ever!

Tetsubo 57
2010-03-20, 03:02 PM
I'd have to go with manslaughter, or more properly deerslaughter.

As for eating the corpse, not an evil act in my book. But then again I don't see cannibalism as an evil act either. And this isn't even in the same species. Especially if you killed the awakened deer at a distance. You may never even know that it was awakened.

As for Norse raiders, yeah, invading, raping, pillaging and murdering people is an evil act. Or if you prefer different terminology, immoral. Invading someone's territory is immoral (this is different than a 'visit'). Taking peoples stuff without their permission is immoral. Raping people (non-consensual sex) is immoral. And killing a person without their consent is immoral. Sorry, going a viking was not a moral act.

Emmerask
2010-03-20, 03:07 PM
So all soldiers are inherently evil?

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 03:15 PM
So all soldiers are inherently evil?

Motives matter too. Defending your country is a neutral act. So as long as how the soldiers kill doesn't have other reasons for it to be evil: it is neutral (no rape, etc).

Tetsubo 57
2010-03-20, 03:38 PM
So all soldiers are inherently evil?

Defending your nation or the nation of an ally is moral. But invading another nation without provocation... not moral. Lets not get into any real world examples, OK? You would also have to obey the 'rules of war' which are currently the Geneva Conventions.

Emmerask
2010-03-20, 04:11 PM
Didnīt want to go into real world issues there I was talking about d&d nations soldiers Tethyr, Amn etc ^^ although I could have made my question a bit more clear :smallwink:

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-20, 04:40 PM
Does it matter? One evil act doesn't necessarily make someone evil.

In a medieval society, hunting and killing a deer for food considered morally acceptable. In that time period it was very difficult to impossible for you and your family to be perfectly healthy without eating meat of some kind(fish counts as meat). Unless of course you were wealthy enough to simply buy your food.

So in that context, killing animals for food is perfectly alright, it doesn't matter that the modern world its no longer necessary it is in the hunters world.

The awaken Deer looks like an animal, and for all practical purposes appears to be food. So killing it for the purposes of consumption would be considered an accident.

The evilness of it should depend on the remorse the hunter feels for the accident. The closest real life analogy would be, a hunter see's a deer in the foliage and takes a shot, however in his way there is another hunter who is wearing camouflage who ends up taking the bullet.

Its a classical hunting accident, the only different in this D&D example is the deer happens to actually be the sapient.
So in the case of accidental evilness the morality of the act should depend on the remorse after learning the truth.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 04:52 PM
The evilness of it should depend on the remorse the hunter feels for the accident. The closest real life analogy would be, a hunter see's a deer in the foliage and takes a shot, however in his way there is another hunter who is wearing camouflage who ends up taking the bullet.

Its a classical hunting accident, the only different in this D&D example is the deer happens to actually be the sapient.
So in the case of accidental evilness the morality of the act should depend on the remorse after learning the truth.

Wait are you saying that eating the corpse of the accidental death of the hunter is wrong?
I mean, it is just going to rot. If you still bad after eating it (I promise it will be seasoned wonderfully): you can puke it into a hole and we will bury it.

Vizzerdrix
2010-03-20, 04:55 PM
Wait are you saying that eating the corpse of the accidental death of the hunter is wrong?
I mean, it is just going to rot. If you still bad after eating it (I promise it will be seasoned wonderfully): you can puke it into a hole and we will bury it.

Starbuck! I'm surprised you'd waste perfectly good hunter by throwing it up. I expected better of you:smallfrown:

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-21, 02:41 AM
This issue actually seems pretty straightforward. "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." A deer, especially a non-awakened one, is presumably innocent. Thus killing it is destroying an innocent life, presumably for entertainment (for sport) or for material gain (for food). "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Killing is a subset of both hurting and oppressing. Thus, Evil. Simple! :smallsmile:


If a man lives in a society in which sailing to distant shores in the name of raid and pillage is an accepted way of gaining fame and fortune, is he evil for doing so?
Well, doing so isn't non-Evil for being acceptable. Non-Chaotic, sure. That sort of distinction is what the Law/Chaos axis is there for, after all. That's why it makes me sad when people -- be they players, DMs, or D&D writers -- reclassify Lawful and Chaotic things as Good or Evil. No one seems willing to let Law and Chaos be about anything important. Oh, poor, neglected ethical axis! I care about you.

As to whether he's Evil: Deeds don't dictate alignment. "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment", so if your general moral and personal attitudes don't change, your alignment doesn't change. That's what makes it not a straitjacket.


The society dictates what is good and evil. It may be evil from our perspective but not the society's
Depends on what you mean by "good" and "evil". A lot of this is semantics. But your usage of the terms translates more to the Lawful and Chaotic alignments, if I'm understanding you right.


Yes, every one of them.
What about fantasy adventurers who break into the homes of ugly fanged people, kill them, and take their stuff? Is every one of them Evil, regardless of motivation and intent?


Three is the 'talk threshold'. And to quote Schlock Mercenary, "Food that talks is not food." (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20031130.html)
"Just because something can talk doesn't mean that it's intelligent."
"Hey, yeah! Parrots can talk. And we're allowed to eat them, right?"


Sapience is a far more meaningful (if less easily recognizable IRL) distinction than vegetable vs. animal.
Sentience seems way more morally significant a distinction than sapience.


Eating a human infant is bad under utilitarianism not because of the distress of the infant but that of everyone else.
Ah, so it's better to do it in secret.

I'm pretty sure that the infant's feeling count, too. So do the cannibal's.


Where you draw a line, or how you weight the feelings of beings of different intelligence, is a difficult question, and I don't have a good answer.
The general problem with utilitarianism in practice is that it requires one to work with quantities that we can, at best, guess at.

I wish to learn more of this hypothetical "pleasure calculus"! Is it truly as erotic as advertised? (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=599)


I Believe the word used was Sapient, not sentient.
Several participants in this thread have been (mis)using "sentient".


You can say "well, I'm just killing plants!" but the point is moot.
What point?


Plants may very well have spirits residing within as well.
So what? Hypothetically containing a spirit is not the same thing as plainly having a mind.


Eating meat isn't murder
Murder is Chaotic. Whether a killing is Evil is a separate issue.


And by eating plants, you're taking food away from herbivores
I personally buy my produce, rather than steal it from other creatures. I assume that it comes from people who grow it in the first place. Meat, on the other hand, is unavoidably taken from animals.


Way to harm the ecosystem, jerk!
These days, meat is generally produced for human consumption by growing lots of plants and feeding them to herbivores, which are then slaughtered. Feeding humans directly with plants requires growing far fewer plants, and using less land and less water and so forth, then feeding humans with meat.


We're built to take in a balance of meat and plants, not a focus on one! (Heck, our organ and special teeth for processing greens are vestigial now. Their only remaining purpose is to cause you agony leading to them being removed, or exploding randomly to kill you by flooding your body with poison.)
Every human being alive is no doubt descended from a successful rape somewhere in his or her ancestry. Being "natural" doesn't make something good. On the contrary, morality is all about rising above "nature", which as a whole is horrendously inhumane.


Deer are not part of your society, you are not bound by the shared social contract that makes civilisation work.

You would also have to obey the 'rules of war' which are currently the Geneva Conventions.
Law and Good, while they have some overlap, are not the same thing. Cruel exploitation of innocents is Evil and defense of innocents is Good, regardless of the rules in place, be those rules written or unwritten.

Tetsubo 57
2010-03-21, 02:45 AM
The real world doesn't fit into neat little alignment categories...

Drend
2010-03-21, 02:58 AM
No. I (due to the pronoun usage in the OP) do not live in a world where deer are (or can be) sentient. Deer are an acceptable food source. Nom Nom deer. Killing is NOT an inherently evil act. Everyone kills living beings every day by simply washing their hands.

elonin
2010-03-21, 06:27 AM
Killing to eat is not an evil act. Everyone must eat and is a part of nature thus not evil. We only think that eating "intelligent" animals is evil because we fill that niche

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-21, 08:53 AM
Humans, generally speaking, do not need to kill animals to eat. And presently, more plants are killed in order to produce meat than to produce an equivalent amount of vegetables. So saying that vegetarianism isn't any better than meat-eating because it also involves killing living things actually doesn't make a lot of sense, since it kills fewer plants as well as fewer animals.


I (due to the pronoun usage in the OP) do not live in a world where deer are (or can be) sentient.
Yes, you do. Again, I ask: Why have they eyes, if they do not see? And how can a deer see without forming a mental representation of its environment based on visual sensation? Is that not what seeing is? And how can one have a mental representation without a mind?


Deer are an acceptable food source.
Sometimes Evil things are acceptable.


The real world doesn't fit into neat little alignment categories...
Do D&D characters fit any better? The typical "Good-aligned adventurer" actually kills a lot more people than most "Neutral Commoners", doesn't he?

Either the alignments aren't neat little categories or almost no one fits into any of them, be they real people or fictional characters.

The White Knight
2010-03-21, 09:15 AM
I'm sure generations of children would say "yes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eHr-9_6hCg).

Jergmo
2010-03-21, 09:55 AM
I'm sure generations of children would say "yes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eHr-9_6hCg).

Disney animals are sapient, though I guess humans are oblivious to this.

Ormur
2010-03-21, 10:02 AM
The sapience thing is about not killing creatures that can reflect on their own existence and mortality. Cows don't rebel and try to escape the slaughterhouse. By eating meat we're of course eating creatures with feelings but not creatures that can contribute to the debate about the morality of them being eaten. That is the sole province of sapient beings.

A normal deer wouldn't be able to argue for it's own continued life, but an awakened deer could. Even if it couldn't speak a humanoid language it could still formulate those arguments and theoretically communicate them to you by magical means. That's what makes it evil, you're taking away choice.

The ecological argument for vegetarianism is another thing entirely. If the planet only had 100.000 humans they could eat meat for every meal without impacting the ecology negatively. It's just that we are 6 billion and so eating meat fed by crops might harm the ecosystem and reduce the amount of food available to poorer people. On the other hand meat eating is often the only way of utilizing some areas for nutrition. Grazing animals can sustain themselves in areas that can't be used for growing crops, we can't grow food in water and sometimes the easiest way of getting sufficient protein is from animals. One part of the reason for the success of European agriculture and by extension civilization was it's utilization and consumption of animals.

Jergmo
2010-03-21, 10:13 AM
The ecological argument for vegetarianism is another thing entirely. If the planet only had 100.000 humans they could eat meat for every meal without impacting the ecology negatively. It's just that we are 6 billion and so eating meat fed by crops might harm the ecosystem and reduce the amount of food available to poorer people. On the other hand meat eating is often the only way of utilizing some areas for nutrition. Grazing animals can sustain themselves in areas that can't be used for growing crops, we can't grow food in water and sometimes the easiest way of getting sufficient protein is from animals. One part of the reason for the success of European agriculture and by extension civilization was it's utilization and consumption of animals.

Also, meat is delicious! Mmm...sweet, juicy sirloin steak...

Sliver
2010-03-21, 10:18 AM
Also, meat is delicious! Mmm...sweet, juicy sirloin steak...

You evil, heartless fiend! How could you say such a thing! Now I'm hungry! :smallfurious:

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 10:20 AM
You evil, heartless fiend! How could you say such a thing! Now I'm hungry! :smallfurious:

I agree because today is Bean Day.

Sliver
2010-03-21, 10:45 AM
I agree because today is Bean Day.

Today? :smallconfused: (http://www.holidayinsights.com/other/beanday.htm)

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 10:51 AM
No, the other Bean day when you've left in the cupboard is beans.

Jergmo
2010-03-21, 10:56 AM
We must partake in the Bean!

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-21, 10:57 AM
No, the other Bean day when you've left in the cupboard is beans.Turkey, lobster, sweet potato pie!
Pancakes piled up 'til they reach the sky!
Lots of starches, lots of greens,
Fancy chocolate-covered...beans!

CockroachTeaParty
2010-03-21, 11:34 AM
I blame the awakened deer for not taking steps to identify him/herself as awakened. An awakened deer could walk up to the nearest druid, or maybe even a town, and politely ask for someone to make them a sign that reads 'I am a talking deer,' or what have you. They could then drape this sign over their back, or hang it on their antlers, thus forging another layer of defense against literate potential hunters.

An awakened deer has little business waltzing around nature. He should be working in the nearest town with a harness and plow, contributing to society! He should be earning his keep!

Any awakened deer that still fiddles around in the forest, remaining silent and unobtrusive, is little more than a Communist. And those dirty, rotten, filthy Commies are most certainly Evil, thus killing them is a Good act.

Jergmo
2010-03-21, 11:40 AM
I blame the awakened deer for not taking steps to identify him/herself as awakened. An awakened deer could walk up to the nearest druid, or maybe even a town, and politely ask for someone to make them a sign that reads 'I am a talking deer,' or what have you. They could then drape this sign over their back, or hang it on their antlers, thus forging another layer of defense against literate potential hunters.

An awakened deer has little business waltzing around nature. He should be working in the nearest town with a harness and plow, contributing to society! He should be earning his keep!

Any awakened deer that still fiddles around in the forest, remaining silent and unobtrusive, is little more than a Communist. And those dirty, rotten, filthy Commies are most certainly Evil, thus killing them is a Good act.

Socialist Hippie Communists!

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 11:43 AM
Wait, aren't all Communist Socialist? That seems unneccessary...

Jack_Simth
2010-03-21, 11:55 AM
Wait, aren't all Communist Socialist? That seems unneccessary...
Not technically. Communism is a form of government; Socialism is a form of economy. Theoretically it's possible to have them independent of each other, but in the vast majority of cases the one breeds the other, so the distinction is mostly irrelevant.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 11:59 AM
Not technically. Communism is a form of government; Socialism is a form of economy. Theoretically it's possible to have them independent of each other, but in the vast majority of cases the one breeds the other, so the distinction is mostly irrelevant.

Can you give an example of how you'd have a Capitalist Communist or a Democratic Communist?

Jack_Simth
2010-03-21, 12:16 PM
Can you give an example of how you'd have a Capitalist Communist or a Democratic Communist?

Capitalist (Economic system) Communist (Government system) or a Democratic (government system) Socialist (Economic system)?

As I said, they tend to breed each other, but it is possible (just barely on the first, not so hard on the second).

In communisim, everything is owned by the government... but you could, in theory, still sell services (installation of hardware, doctor visits, and so on), letting capitalism be possible (to an extent).

Democratic socialism is quite possible - that's what happens when everyone votes that all property be equally distributed.

Neither happens (at least, not for long - they're unstable), but they're both technically possible.

Emmerask
2010-03-21, 12:35 PM
I blame the awakened deer for not taking steps to identify him/herself as awakened. An awakened deer could walk up to the nearest druid, or maybe even a town, and politely ask for someone to make them a sign that reads 'I am a talking deer,' or what have you. They could then drape this sign over their back, or hang it on their antlers, thus forging another layer of defense against literate potential hunters.


Hm could the druid not think that an awakened animal is against nature and slay that fiend on the spot?^^


/edit and donīt take apart and analyse a simple joke like

Socialist Hippie Communists!
:smalltongue::smalltongue:

randomhero00
2010-03-21, 01:15 PM
Even if you knew it was awakened, I don't think it'd be strictly evil. A jerk thing to do for sure, but not quite evil territory.

Ormur
2010-03-21, 08:03 PM
Even if you knew it was awakened, I don't think it'd be strictly evil. A jerk thing to do for sure, but not quite evil territory.

Would hunting humans for food be just a jerk think too. Maybe you just like how they taste and they are of course the most dangerous game (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMostDangerousGame) (yeah right (http://www.theonion.com/articles/maverick-hunters-human-beings-as-prey-plan-not-as,1878/)).

I just don't see how it would be different from hunting humans for sport, which I think is pretty firmly in evil territory.

Leon
2010-03-22, 01:14 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/298864264_99d3c053d2.jpg

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-22, 02:34 AM
I blame the awakened deer for not taking steps to identify him/herself as awakened.

How about wearing a sign that reads, "Hello, I'm an awakened dear and can talk please don't shoot me"


Humans, generally speaking, do not need to kill animals to eat.

Yes generally speaking in modern society but in a medieval time generally speaking humans do need to kill animals to survive. It would have been very difficult for most families to stay fed and healthy without consuming some meat in the middle ages.
Its a biological fact that humans are built to be omnivores, are teeth are adapted for both as is our digestive system. Before we developed the tools to kill large game we ate insects and small animals we could catch or kill by chucking rocks at it.

Nero24200
2010-03-22, 04:18 AM
It depends. Killing purely for fn or sport may be considered evil. Killing for food, not so much, otherwise every good character would need to be vegeterian. In fact, so would any animal that eats meat.

A hungry tiger would quite happily jump and eat other animals, would it be evil if it ate a person instead though?

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-22, 06:12 PM
Hm could the druid not think that an awakened animal is against nature and slay that fiend on the spot?^^
Well, an awakened animal is initially friendly to the druid who awakened it, so I'd expect it to be more supportive of nature than the average human. Awakened animals have Druid as their favored class, I imagine.

Anyway, druids are presumably allowed and encouraged to do Evil, Good, Lawful, and Chaotic things in support of nature -- whatever the heck "nature" is supposed to mean in this context -- so pointing out that a druid might do something doesn't really give a good idea of its alignment. Druids and nature itself are both Neutral as a whole.


Also, meat is delicious!
Ah, but many other foods are also delicious. An option should be considered in contrast to the available alternatives. To proceed otherwise is silly.


It depends. Killing purely for fn or sport may be considered evil. Killing for food, not so much, otherwise every good character would need to be vegeterian.
Ah, but if one can survive equally well on other food, then killing because one enjoys meat more than other food is itself killing ultimately for pleasure rather than for survival or health. It's rather like the difference between an assassin who kills because he likes killing and an assassin who kills so that he can afford hookers and blow, because he likes hookers and blow. The latter might act much nicer under different circumstances, but they're both making the same basic moral trade-off. Of course, if we accept that alignment does just represent a creature's general moral and personal attitudes, then it seems that perhaps a Neutral character could routinely behave Evil without changing alignment.

Of course, for an ideal utilitarian, everything is about maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering anyway, be it killing, food, survival, health, money, hookers, blow, or whatever.


A jerk thing to do for sure, but not quite evil territory.
What's the difference? Do you just mean that it's not all that much more evil than things that ordinary people do on a regular basis?

Ice, in an absolute sense, is hot. It has, under normal terrestrial circumstances, a temperature significantly above absolute zero. It contains plenty of heat. Nevertheless, it isn't exceptionally hot in an everyday context, and thus is not typically described as "hot".

Plenty of routine human activities are evil in the sense that ice is hot.