PDA

View Full Version : what alignment does a soldier have?



Shademan
2010-09-29, 11:01 AM
you know how wars were in medieval times. Soldiers burned and looted and killed and generally treid to debase the enemy economy, when the ywere not fighting each other.
Now, say that you have two nations at war in D&D. The soldier might be a wee bit lenient on the whole "rape and kill farmers" thingie, but they are still following orders, burning farms and looting, in short, debasing the life of innocents, which is considered evil.
So are all soldiers evil? Is the commander that orders them evil? the general who devised the strategy?

your thoughts please.

BeholderSlayer
2010-09-29, 11:03 AM
They should obviously be lawful. I would say that the good/neutral/evil is dependent on many things and is inconclusive.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 11:05 AM
They should obviously be lawful. I would say that the good/neutral/evil is dependent on many things and is inconclusive.

Low Medieval Soldiers? Not lawful at all. Danes would give up on a raid as soon as it proved too difficult. Fyrds disband upon reaping season. Soldiers abandon duty all the time.

Burning&Looting is a staple and often beyond the leaders' capability to hold them back. CE.

DabblerWizard
2010-09-29, 11:06 AM
Any soldiers you have in-game, are as evil or good as you want (or as evil or good as the DM wants).

I make that statement with the assumption that in-game soldiers don't have to be inherently evil. If you disagree, and believe that they do have to be inherently evil, in game, then that will noticeably impact how you represent those NPCs.

Tiki Snakes
2010-09-29, 11:09 AM
Twice the length of the middle to the end.

Er, which is to say, I don't know, which soldier are we talking about?
You can't really generalise that broadly. Soldiers have people alignments. It varies.

I mean, you can't even guarentee that worshippers of an Evil God are Evil, I doubt we could comfortably come to an alignment for an entire career.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 11:09 AM
Any soldiers you have in-game, are as evil or good as you want (or as evil or good as the DM wants).

I make that statement with the assumption that in-game soldiers don't have to be inherently evil. If you disagree, and believe that they do have to be inherently evil, in game, then that will noticeably impact how you represent those NPCs.

Well, the guy came and opened a thread about something that can be defined as anything, everything and nothing at the same time. It's the quintessential alignment thread. With all the consequences that brings.

Gorgondantess
2010-09-29, 11:09 AM
From an absolutist sense, a medieval type soldier is CE (raping, pillaging, killing innocents wantonly, etc.)
From a relativist sense, as they're actually encouraged to do that kind of thing (killing means less of your enemy's people, raping means more of yours, pillaging means more wealth into your country, etc.), and in the heat of battle when everyone else is doing it, and you have adrenaline, and you're drunk on your own power, people tend to forget morality- however, still, no one raises a word about the atrocities, so they're generally neutral.

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 11:09 AM
Depends. Is the army voluntary, or are most soldiers conscripted? If it's voluntary I'd say joining the army is a lawful act, but doesn't mean the person is lawful. Good/evil will govern what wars they fight in and how they behave.

dsmiles
2010-09-29, 11:10 AM
your thoughts please.

My thoughts:
Soldiers are, IMO, generally neutral. Ranging from Lawful through True to Chaotic, depending on the individual.
Some do it out of loyalty to their country/throne (LN or N), some do it for the pay (N or CN), some do it because they're sadistic bastards who like to rape, pillage, and torture villagers (CN, though these may indeed be NE, or even CE). I generalize the armies of my fantasy campaign worlds as mostly true neutral (the selfish version, not the balance version), primarily because they just follow orders (usually under pain of imprisonment or death). The "upper-level management (Company Commanders and above)," as it were, I will generally assign a basic individual personality to, but not the grunts (unless it happens to come up during play).

Shademan
2010-09-29, 11:14 AM
note that I asked about soldiers in a rather generic D&Dverse where they might be ordered to to the pillagin and burning but MIGHT show restrain on the rapin' and killin'. Since people in D&D tend to have a slightly more modern outlook on morality.
well in some settings...

Tiki Snakes
2010-09-29, 11:16 AM
note that I asked about soldiers in a rather generic D&Dverse where they might be ordered to to the pillagin and burning but MIGHT show restrain on the rapin' and killin'. Since people in D&D tend to have a slightly more modern outlook on morality.
well in some settings...

Soldiers don't have an alignment. They are just people. Just look at the number of different depictions of them in the various media. They will cover the same range of alignments as their base populations, no more, no less. Every single one of them will have joined for his own reasons, and act as his nature compells him.

If you need a short-hand to guess how they will react en-mass, that's another matter, but will still vary wildly, and boils down to how do you want them to act.

Greenish
2010-09-29, 11:20 AM
All. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyNLN-cKsp8&ob=av3n)

jiriku
2010-09-29, 11:20 AM
There's room for all alignments in a typical army. People join for different reasons, they fight for different reasons, and your typical lord is more concerned about whether a new recruit will kill the lord's enemies than why the recruit is willing to do so. Unless you've got an atypical lord who screen out applicants based on their moral/ethical stance, you'll see all sorts.

Now some alignments may not be well represented; for example, if the lord is a tyrannical despot, few chaotic good individuals will choose to serve in his army (although some might, seeing it as the best way to protect home and family).

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 11:30 AM
There's room for all alignments in a typical army. People join for different reasons, they fight for different reasons, and your typical lord is more concerned about whether a new recruit will kill the lord's enemies than why the recruit is willing to do so. Unless you've got an atypical lord who screen out applicants based on their moral/ethical stance, you'll see all sorts.

Now some alignments may not be well represented; for example, if the lord is a tyrannical despot, few chaotic good individuals will choose to serve in his army (although some might, seeing it as the best way to protect home and family).

A good-aligned lord would be more likely to screen out evil applicants than an evil lord would be to screen anyone. That's actually a fair test for the alignment of the nation, what kind of behavior is tolerated in their armed forced.

Da'Shain
2010-09-29, 11:31 AM
As an easy shorthand, decide on the alignment of the army in general (i.e. its goals and methods fall in the category of ... what?), then simply say that the average soldier of that army can only deviate from it by one step (like a cleric and their god). There will be outliers, of course, but this'll make it slightly simpler, I think, while still retaining some realism.

If the army goes around slaughtering innocents and encouraging rape as a reward for its soldiers, it's most likely Evil. If it tends to avoid collateral damage but doesn't mind inflicting it when necessary or to make a point, and neither approves or punishes rape, it's probably Neutral. The Lawful/Chaotic aspect should be a little easier to define for an army, I'd say.

Zen Master
2010-09-29, 11:44 AM
I'm not entirely convinced I buy the premiss in the first place. Sure, burning, looting, pillaging and rape took place in the middle ages, but I strongly doubt it was something that all soldiers of all armies in all wars of all ages did.

I rather suspect in many wars it was considered an ill omen to burn the farms on lands you kinda planned to support your troops in the future - and to rape, steal from or kill the people you wanted to remain loyal to the greater kingdom.

Now, on a raid, that's one thing. But a war of conquest? Yea sure, if the general is stupid or terminally evil or just determined to demonstrate the willingness to stomp all under the ironshow heels of his boots.

As for the soldiers? Well - 'tis a grey zone, no? If killing civilians is evil, does that make the pilot of a fighter-bomber evil? Of course target acquisition with a sword is generally more accurate than with bombs from 6000 feet, but still.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 11:46 AM
As for the soldiers? Well - 'tis a grey zone, no? If killing civilians is evil, does that make the pilot of a fighter-bomber evil? Of course target acquisition with a sword is generally more accurate than with bombs from 6000 feet, but still.

You're saying that it's less evil to kill from a distance. Or that it's okay to kill someone whose face you don't know.

grimbold
2010-09-29, 11:53 AM
well theyre definetly chaotic maybe only neutral and evil. It is possible to be good i suppose but some of their acts are definetly on the evil side of the behavior spectrum

Strawberries
2010-09-29, 11:55 AM
you know how wars were in medieval times. Soldiers burned and looted and killed and generally treid to debase the enemy economy, when the ywere not fighting each other.
Now, say that you have two nations at war in D&D. The soldier might be a wee bit lenient on the whole "rape and kill farmers" thingie, but they are still following orders, burning farms and looting, in short, debasing the life of innocents, which is considered evil.
So are all soldiers evil? Is the commander that orders them evil? the general who devised the strategy?

your thoughts please.

Too broad a category, I think. "The army" isn't an entity, the individual soldiers in it are. And you can't assume "the army" will act as one being. I don't think that's ever been the case, even in real life.
So, a soldier that rapes, kills and destroys? Evil. One that destroys, but tries to avoid killing innocents when possible? Neutral. One that goes out of his way to protect noncombatants, even if they are "the enemy?" Good. Sorry if I sound categorical, but I think it's as simple as that.

As for "following orders" as an extenuating circumstance (shiftinh the alignment from something/E to L/N)? Sorry but I can accept it, expecially in a black and white morality world like D&D usually is. Not even in a gray one, really.

Zore
2010-09-29, 11:55 AM
I'm not entirely convinced I buy the premiss in the first place. Sure, burning, looting, pillaging and rape took place in the middle ages, but I strongly doubt it was something that all soldiers of all armies in all wars of all ages did.


I can't actually think of an example of a war where this didn't happen. It way pretty much ubiquitous up until very recently. Even now it still occurs more often than not. The burning, looting, raping and pillaging is an almost universal truth of war that is only overcome with extreme discipline and some way to hold people accountable for their actions. So it may happen less in a D&D setting with active Paladins and Clerics going around on battlefields..

Telonius
2010-09-29, 12:14 PM
You're saying that it's less evil to kill from a distance. Or that it's okay to kill someone whose face you don't know.

I think the issue there is more collateral damage.

To the OP: depends on the setting. Just in general, spoils of war would typically be seen as neutral with regards to law/chaos. If you win, you get the other guy's stuff, including his farms, his land, his livestock, his food, his gold, his jewels, his slaves, his peasants, and his daughters. That's just how war worked up until a couple centuries ago. (To one of the previous commenters, yes, this is how nearly all wars, soldiers, and armies behaved up until around 1650-ish at the earliest). For good/evil? It would probably never be Good. Neutral at best, Evil at worst.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 12:30 PM
I think the issue there is more collateral damage.


Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".

Greenish
2010-09-29, 12:37 PM
Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".Bah, everyone knows collateral damage doesn't count, that's why it's called "collateral damage" instead of "slaughtered innocent civilians". :smallamused:

true_shinken
2010-09-29, 12:39 PM
you know how wars were in medieval times.

You know how D&D is fantasy and does not take place in medieval Europe?

Shademan
2010-09-29, 12:42 PM
You know how D&D is fantasy and does not take place in medieval Europe?

you know how to read the entire post?
and the rest of the topic?

Coidzor
2010-09-29, 12:43 PM
A good-aligned lord would be more likely to screen out evil applicants than an evil lord would be to screen anyone.

I doubt that you'll find alignment screening without going into the realms that border on DP-PZ on the outskirts of the Tippyverses without having a paladin infestation.


That's actually a fair test for the alignment of the nation, what kind of behavior is tolerated in their armed forced.

Now this, on the other hand, y'know, makes sense.


Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".

Uh... Yeah? :smallconfused:

Because otherwise you, y'know, would have people turn evil from accidents.

And there's something about premeditation, y'know?

Emmerask
2010-09-29, 12:44 PM
Any alignment the nation or nations people have will be in the army.
So a soldier may have any alignment :smallwink:

A drow (faerun) army will be almost exclusively evil.
A Solar army will almost exclusively be good (maybe a soon to be fallen angel will be in their midst?)

An army of say Baldurs Gate will consist of evil, good and neutral alignment soldiers.

hamishspence
2010-09-29, 12:48 PM
If "survival" counts as a kind of "personal gain" then a soldier who debases and destroys the innocent because if he doesn't his bosses will kill him, still fulfills the typical behaviour of Evil characters.

Which is to say "debases/destroys the innocent for personal gain".

So "just following orders" doesn't really work.

Chaelos
2010-09-29, 12:53 PM
As an average, I'd tend to say Lawful Neutral, especially in a professional, non-conscript military. The willingness to follow proper, lawful orders is one of the cornerstones of a professional soldier; now, you have room for both evil and good in that category, but the majority of full-time soldiers are probably going to be in the LN category.

Now, broaden the scope to encompass non-professional militaries, and I'd wager you get a lot more heterogenous in terms of moral outlooks.

lsfreak
2010-09-29, 01:13 PM
I'm going to say that the alignment system is far too modern in its bias and can't be used to usefully evaluate pre-modern actions. If you forced me to even though it's highly anachronistic, I'd say they were, on the whole, Neutral Evil, with the vast majority of the people being True Neutral (you can't afford much else when the entirety of your life is spend working to survive).

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 01:19 PM
I'm going to say that the alignment system is far too modern in its bias and can't be used to usefully evaluate pre-modern actions. If you forced me to even though it's highly anachronistic, I'd say they were, on the whole, Neutral Evil, with the vast majority of the people being True Neutral (you can't afford much else when the entirety of your life is spend working to survive).

The traditional D&D system is meant for high fantasy. Men and women are equal, most societies don't practice slavery, and even your lowly peasant has a chance to become a PC. It also explicitly assumes that there is always a "good" action in any situation, and that option generally is not suicidal.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 01:24 PM
Uh... Yeah? :smallconfused:

Because otherwise you, y'know, would have people turn evil from accidents.

And there's something about premeditation, y'know?

The kicker is: it's not less evil. It might not be a motivator to change alignments, but it's just as evil as doing exactly the same thing intentionally.

true_shinken
2010-09-29, 01:27 PM
I'm going to say that the alignment system is far too modern in its bias and can't be used to usefully evaluate pre-modern actions. If you forced me to even though it's highly anachronistic, I'd say they were, on the whole, Neutral Evil, with the vast majority of the people being True Neutral (you can't afford much else when the entirety of your life is spend working to survive).

This.
/thread

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 01:32 PM
I doubt that you'll find alignment screening without going into the realms that border on DP-PZ on the outskirts of the Tippyverses without having a paladin infestation.



Now this, on the other hand, y'know, makes sense.



Uh... Yeah? :smallconfused:

Because otherwise you, y'know, would have people turn evil from accidents.

And there's something about premeditation, y'know?

To be fair, I was thinking more "You have a reputation for killing puppies? Get out of here!" than "Please stand here while we detect evil on you."

As far as evil and accidents, most moral systems use the "reasonably expectation" standard. If a reasonable person could predict that an action was likely to result in the loss of innocent life, then that action is evil. So blowing up an inn that's housing an evil general is still evil because you should have known that it would kill innocents. Blowing up the evil general's tent when he happens to have a few innocent children along is not evil because you had no reason to expect they would be there.

Jayabalard
2010-09-29, 01:36 PM
Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".Kind of like killing the guy who unexpectedly ran out in front of your car vs swerving to kill the guy walking into the coffee shop because you don't want to wait. Or the construction worker who pushes the button to demolish the condemned building who didn't know about the kids that had snuck in there vs the guy who blows up the school full of kids because the gubment didn't pay his ransom money. The former is less evil than the latter.

He's implying that the bomber who kills civilians is less evil than the guy on the ground who's killing civilians, since the bomber has a less accurate target acquisition method, so the guy with the sword makes a conscious decision to kill that particular person.

lsfreak
2010-09-29, 01:41 PM
As far as evil and accidents, most moral systems use the "reasonably expectation" standard. If a reasonable person could predict that an action was likely to result in the loss of innocent life, then that action is evil. So blowing up an inn that's housing an evil general is still evil because you should have known that it would kill innocents. Blowing up the evil general's tent when he happens to have a few innocent children along is not evil because you had no reason to expect they would be there.

Most moral systems, yes. D&D alignment, no. D&D alignment is objective: this action is evil, no arguing, your motivation doesn't matter, that it was the lesser of two evils isn't of consequence.

This is one of the reasons that many people have problems with D&D's alignment. Objectivity is definitely not immediately apparent, assuming it exists at all, in real-world morality.

Avilan the Grey
2010-09-29, 01:42 PM
My answer to the original question would be "any", although Chaotic would be rare, if we are indeed talking about soldiers and not warriors, since if you are actually a soldier, you are in an army with a command structure and rules. But any Neutral or Lawful combination, from Evil to Good is perfectly okay.

...of course if you are chaotic, and your country conscripts people... welcome to the army!

Jayabalard
2010-09-29, 01:47 PM
The traditional D&D system is meant for high fantasy. Men and women are equal, most societies don't practice slavery, and even your lowly peasant has a chance to become a PC. These really don't have anything do do with one another; you can have men and women be unequal in high fantasy and you have have widespread slavery in high fantasy.

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 01:52 PM
Most moral systems, yes. D&D alignment, no. D&D alignment is objective: this action is evil, no arguing, your motivation doesn't matter, that it was the lesser of two evils isn't of consequence.

This is one of the reasons that many people have problems with D&D's alignment. Objectivity is definitely not immediately apparent, assuming it exists at all, in real-world morality.

I'm not sure this is specifically brought up. The sens I get is that an evil action undertaken without the knowledge that it would be evil is still evil but not as evil as undertaking it intentionally. E.g. the exalted feats say a character who intentionally breaks their vow permanently loses the benefits; a character who unintentionally breaks it loses the benefits until they atone.


These really don't have anything do do with one another; you can have men and women be unequal in high fantasy and you have have widespread slavery in high fantasy.

Wrong term I guess. D&D is an idealized high fantasy that is not meant to be realistic in terms of medieval morality.

Coidzor
2010-09-29, 01:58 PM
Most moral systems, yes. D&D alignment, no. D&D alignment is objective: this action is evil, no arguing, your motivation doesn't matter, that it was the lesser of two evils isn't of consequence.

This is one of the reasons that many people have problems with D&D's alignment. Objectivity is definitely not immediately apparent, assuming it exists at all, in real-world morality.

Also, acts of which you are unaware can turn you from an ordinary person into a simultaneously drooling and cackling psychotic idiot.

true_shinken
2010-09-29, 01:59 PM
Wrong term I guess. D&D is an idealized high fantasy that is not meant to be realistic in terms of medieval morality.

I totally agree. Actually, using medieval morality for your standard D&D world is completly unrealistic since a D&D world has less prejudice (else different intelligent races wouldn't work together, while in medieval Euroupe people were killed just for the color of their skin), more lore (with magic, plane travel and whatnot), less disease/higher birthrates (with divine magic flowing around), actual gods (while having less restrictive churches) and bikini chainmail. Bikini chainmail alone can make a society a lot less likely to be evil.

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 02:05 PM
Also, acts of which you are unaware can turn you from an ordinary person into a simultaneously drooling and cackling psychotic idiot.

The effects of the helm of opposite alignment are rather disturbing for any moral system

Jayabalard
2010-09-29, 02:29 PM
Most moral systems, yes. D&D alignment, no. D&D alignment is objective: this action is evil, no arguing, your motivation doesn't matter, that it was the lesser of two evils isn't of consequence.That's really just not accurate at all.

now if you said
"Most moral systems, yes. The way I adjudicate D&D alignment, no." or "Most moral systems, yes. The way I my DM adjudicates D&D alignment, no."

you might be correct.

You conflating "objective" with "context-free" ... it's possible for an action to be ambiguously evil or good without the complete context, and still be objectively rather than subjectively good/neutral/evil once you have that context. That's how you get things that the rules describe as "usually an evil act" ... these depend on context.

As an example: in general, evil actions also require the context "has the mental capacity to distinguish between good and evil" ... so a lion chasing down a child, playing with it until it's too battered, bleeding and otherwise injured to be any fun, and then finally killing and eating it is not committing an evil act. A human that did so on the other hand...

Tyndmyr
2010-09-29, 02:43 PM
you know how wars were in medieval times. Soldiers burned and looted and killed and generally treid to debase the enemy economy, when the ywere not fighting each other.
Now, say that you have two nations at war in D&D. The soldier might be a wee bit lenient on the whole "rape and kill farmers" thingie, but they are still following orders, burning farms and looting, in short, debasing the life of innocents, which is considered evil.
So are all soldiers evil? Is the commander that orders them evil? the general who devised the strategy?

your thoughts please.

It depends on the soldier. Personally, I tend to shy away from rape and such in RPGs. Generally, you're better off using slightly less sensitive topics to show the horrors of war.

However, waging war isn't inherently evil in D&D. Nor does every soldier in it commit such deeds. War isn't a license to do anything at all, but it's not damning either. It's just the world in which he lives. What determines his alignment is what he does within the constraints of that world.

wayfare
2010-09-29, 03:56 PM
Pretty dicey premise...

I would say that armies are fairly well given over to neutrality -- at the lowest levels you don't really have to understand orders, just follow them. Surrenduring your moral imperative to another person sounds neutral to me.

Then, I would apply the good/evil alignment as per the commander of the army. You could even base it on the society.

The individual soldier will vary as per role, but your rank-and-file guy is Neutral X.
Lawful neutral is the easiest for the classic "I just follow my orders" kind of soldier. That said, these tend to be disciplined troops, who will question suspect orders.

True neutral is more of a mercenary type.

Chaotic neutral probably would get kicked out of an army real quick -- the only functional use I see here is a "suicide squad" type character.

Neutral Good sounds like an armu medic type, or a conscientious objector type. A conscript from a good-aligned society may also be neutral good, as might a gruff-but-lovable quartermaster/drill sergeant (a person who invests a lot in people, w/o connecting to a particular system of belif)

Neutral Evil characters just lackl compunction. While a true neutral or lawful neutral army member may question orders that seem suspect, the lawful evil soldier will just say -- ok. He won't think abput the moral component to his actions, he won't concern himself with the consequences.

My 2 cp.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-09-29, 04:01 PM
First off define soldier does it include peasant conscripts using simple spears and farm implements or does it only count those actually trained and equipped for warefare[they still might be conscripted, but its a world of difference].

A better question would be is what alignment does a good soldier have? People can be of any alignment but an army would likely prefer someone of a given alignment and may attempt in instill an alignment.

From a general military perspective you'd want lawful neutral soldiers.
Being lawful they are inclined to follow orders, lawful evil soliders are most likely to partake in murder/rape/plunder even if its NOT your objective.
Lawful Good by cause problems with burning town the town is part of your objective.

But certain armies might have different ideals. The dark army of the evil empire would probably prefer lawful evil in its ranks. While the grand army of the holy republic would want lawful good.

I'll also must point out that the pillage/rape/plunder done by medieval armies was quite often opportunistic and not part of conscious effort of to terrorize the enemy. If you were a soldier in the middle ages your pay was rather irregular. So most soldiers got their money and rewards through pillaging the enemy. [kind of like adventurers in D&D] Now certainly some military leaders used it as a tactic, but it wasn't as encouraged as you all think.

But you know that's real life, D&D is fantasy so we get to use fantasy medieval warfare rules.

WarKitty
2010-09-29, 04:10 PM
I'll also must point out that the pillage/rape/plunder done by medieval armies was quite often opportunistic and not part of conscious effort of to terrorize the enemy. If you were a soldier in the middle ages your pay was rather irregular. So most soldiers got their money and rewards through pillaging the enemy. [kind of like adventurers in D&D] Now certainly some military leaders used it as a tactic, but it wasn't as encouraged as you all think.

But you know that's real life, D&D is fantasy so we get to use fantasy medieval warfare rules.

This +1. You're midway through the shift from mercenary and raiding party to professional army. Your old raiding party didn't get paid for being there, they got paid with whatever loot they could find. Your mercenary company often demanded a share of the loot.

snoopy13a
2010-09-29, 04:34 PM
The kicker is: it's not less evil. It might not be a motivator to change alignments, but it's just as evil as doing exactly the same thing intentionally.

Society pretty much disagrees with you.

Unintentional killing can be:

1) A complete accident where the killer is found to have acted reasonably and the death is no fault of his/her own.

2) The killer is negligent but his/her negligence is "common negligence" and does not rise to the level of a crime. He or she is liable for the tort of wrongful death.

3) The killer's negligence is so gross that it is considered criminal negligence. He or she has committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter (in some jurisdictions, it is criminally negligent homicide).

4) The killer actions were reckless. This is involuntary manslaughter

5) The killer actions were reckless and evidenced a depraved heart and a callous disregard for human life. This is murder.

6) The killer did not intend to kill but intended serious bodily harm and the victim died as a result. This is common law murder (it is manslaughter in some jurisdications).

7) In the furtherance of a dangerous felony (arson, rape, burglary, robbery, etc), the killer (or an accomplice) accidently, negligently, or recklessly kills someone. This is called felony murder.

In addition, society justifies an intentional killing when the person is acting in self-defense or the defense of others, or as a soldier during war and excuses intentional killing when the person is insane or an infant. Furthermore, an intentional killing can also be voluntary manslaughter if the killer is reasonably provoked (or reasonably in extreme emotional distress) and in some jurisdictions is unreasonably acting in self-defense.

Society bases its punishment (if any) for a killing based on the mens rea of the actor and the circumstances of the killing. Saying that a killing is at the same level of evilness no matter what flies in the face of society's laws and values.

jgumbyrx
2010-09-29, 04:45 PM
well, I think that Frank and K (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeonomicon_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Socialomicon) have discussed this topic pretty well.

true_shinken
2010-09-29, 05:38 PM
Society pretty much disagrees with you.

He's talking about D&D alignment, not real life morality.

ericgrau
2010-09-29, 06:19 PM
Soldiers in D&D can fight for good or bad causes, be very loyal or loyal for about as long as it's convenient. Conversely anyone from any alignment might be conscripted as a soldier. They tend towards an alignment about as much as a fighter does, which is to say not much.

History also varies by time period, location, historian interpretation (amazingly biased and highly selective about editing original source quotations whenever writing about a controversial topic) and it varies in just about everything else too. Not that history is all that relevant to the game. I'm only mentioning it as further reason to avoid stereotypes. For that matter the alignment system suffers from stereotypes in general.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 06:23 PM
Society pretty much disagrees with you.

Unintentional killing can be:

1) A complete accident where the killer is found to have acted reasonably and the death is no fault of his/her own.

2) The killer is negligent but his/her negligence is "common negligence" and does not rise to the level of a crime. He or she is liable for the tort of wrongful death.

3) The killer's negligence is so gross that it is considered criminal negligence. He or she has committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter (in some jurisdictions, it is criminally negligent homicide).

4) The killer actions were reckless. This is involuntary manslaughter

5) The killer actions were reckless and evidenced a depraved heart and a callous disregard for human life. This is murder.

6) The killer did not intend to kill but intended serious bodily harm and the victim died as a result. This is common law murder (it is manslaughter in some jurisdications).

7) In the furtherance of a dangerous felony (arson, rape, burglary, robbery, etc), the killer (or an accomplice) accidently, negligently, or recklessly kills someone. This is called felony murder.

In addition, society justifies an intentional killing when the person is acting in self-defense or the defense of others, or as a soldier during war and excuses intentional killing when the person is insane or an infant. Furthermore, an intentional killing can also be voluntary manslaughter if the killer is reasonably provoked (or reasonably in extreme emotional distress) and in some jurisdictions is unreasonably acting in self-defense.

Society bases its punishment (if any) for a killing based on the mens rea of the actor and the circumstances of the killing. Saying that a killing is at the same level of evilness no matter what flies in the face of society's laws and values.

You are mixing things.
1) The fact it's evil doesn't mean people won't accept it.
2) The fact it's evil doesn't mean you intended to do it.
Remember? Evil deeds don't have to be intentional to be evil. Killing an innocent accidentally is still an evil deed. How liable to punishment you are because of it has nothing to do with it.
------------
The main reason for this is simple: Inside the game, alignments are absolute. If doing something is evil, then doing that something is evil no matter what caused it or the intentions behind it or even the very damn gods' opinions on it. It's still evil.

lsfreak
2010-09-29, 06:40 PM
That's really just not accurate at all.

now if you said
"Most moral systems, yes. The way I adjudicate D&D alignment, no." or "Most moral systems, yes. The way I my DM adjudicates D&D alignment, no."
Unfortunately, that's not not alignment is presented in D&D, at least not in 3.5. There are a list of things that are, unequivocally, evil, such as using [Evil] spells, making use of undead, summoning fiends, inflicting despair, and so on. There is no caveat about using torture when the fate of reality is at stake - it is evil. It might be the right thing to do, and but it's still evil. I absolutely think this is a problem with alignment as presented, and that you should change during a game, but it is how D&D alignment works.


As an example: in general, evil actions also require the context "has the mental capacity to distinguish between good and evil" ... so a lion chasing down a child, playing with it until it's too battered, bleeding and otherwise injured to be any fun, and then finally killing and eating it is not committing an evil act. A human that did so on the other hand...

Lions lack an Intelligence of 3 or greater, and thus are outside the scope of D&D morality. That's part of the D&D alignment system. Likewise, the truly insane (that is, not a part of the same reality as the rest of us) are probably outside the scope of alignment, but I'm unaware if this has been commented on officially.

WhiteHarness
2010-09-29, 06:41 PM
I vote for "Unaligned." ;)

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 06:49 PM
I vote for "Unaligned." ;)

I vote for "Cacophony of swords, beer and farming tools".

Moriato
2010-09-29, 07:01 PM
A lawful good person might become a soldier to defend their faith, family, and country

A neutral good person might become a soldier to defeat a violent society, and bring peace to the land

A chaotic good person might become a soldier to avenge a percieved wrong against them or their society

A lawful neutral person might become a soldier because it's what their ruler asked of them

A true neutral person might become a soldier to bring down an oppresive government, or bring some order to a chaotic one

A chaotic nuetral person might become a soldier because... it seemed like a good idea at the time

A lawful evil person might become a soldier to have a lawful way to sate his bloodlust

A neutral evil person might become a soldier for spoils and power

A chaotic evil person might become a soldier simply to tear his enemy limb from limb and revel in the bloody chaos of battle

A person of any alignment might become a soldier for glory, fame, or honor. I'm sure that a sufficiently large army would have soldiers of every alignment

Coidzor
2010-09-29, 07:09 PM
I vote for "Cacophony of swords, beer and farming tools".

So, Oktoberfest is an alignment now? :smallbiggrin:

Morph Bark
2010-09-29, 07:19 PM
The kicker is: it's not less evil. It might not be a motivator to change alignments, but it's just as evil as doing exactly the same thing intentionally.

So is killing someone who is realistically threatening you and everyone else with death just as evil as accidentally dropping a bag of sand from your hot air balloon to get higher and have it hit an old man performing community service and kill him without ever meaning to, or even knowing that you killed him?


So, Oktoberfest is an alignment now? :smallbiggrin:

Well, I thought Christmas already was, so I don't see why not. :smallconfused::smallwink:

Snake-Aes
2010-09-29, 07:31 PM
So is killing someone who is realistically threatening you and everyone else with death just as evil as accidentally dropping a bag of sand from your hot air balloon to get higher and have it hit an old man performing community service and kill him without ever meaning to, or even knowing that you killed him?

You are making a different situation. I compared "killing an innocent on purpose" with "Killing an innocent by accident". Both are evil. "Killing the guy who is one round away from stabbing you and everyone you love" is not evil.

Coidzor
2010-09-29, 07:32 PM
Hence what I said about actions one doesn't even know about turning one from a normal person into a slavering caricature.


Well, I thought Christmas already was, so I don't see why not. :smallconfused::smallwink:

Well, it does have stats, after all.

Ormur
2010-09-29, 08:58 PM
Soldiers, at least when entering the army are probably composed of people of all alignment, although perhaps with a bias towards evil since the army was sometimes a dumping ground for criminals and it might attract the sort of people that actually like to pillage and burn.

Once in the army I suppose many will surrender their moral imperative to their commanders or fellow soldiers. It's pretty easy to engage in behaviour you'd never consider otherwise when it's condoned by your superiors and perpetrated by your comrades. This is well documented. Nevertheless individual soldiers are still moral agents and should be held responsible for their actions. The Nuremberg defence is no defence.

Of course in D&D just killing isn't evil but if the army commanders or the soldiers in general encourage blatantly evil stuff like raping, pillaging and murdering innocents their influence is probably enough to shift the alignment of most soldiers firmly towards evil with some managing to stay neutral or even good but the latter would require counteracting the other soldiers and might be considered seditious.

On the other hand you could also have more idealistic versions of armies which would punish such evil behaviour and strive to be at least neutral. There the soldiers would probably just maintain their previous alignments but realistically there should always be some bad apples. If the cause is "the good cause" it might include a disproportionate number of champions for goodness.