Why is only killing subjective (Another alignment thread)

[Talakeal]

When they give a detailed explanation of alignment in 3.5 books source books they typically choose to have alignment be almost completely objective. It is the action rather than the intent that matter, and the ends never justify the means, and if you disagree with the author you a R-O-N-G wrong.

Using poison, casting [evil] spells, dealing with evil outsiders, torture, all evil, all the time.

However, the act of killing, which is in most real world ethical systems among the most evil of acts, is subjectively evil. There are numerous exceptions where killing is all right, and even paladins are routinely expected to kill creatures simply because they are evil, even if there is another option.

I understand that the game grew out of war games and that combat is a big part of the game, and obviously combat where you can't kill anyone is lame. So ok, they let the ethics of killing be decided by the DM and the players, ok, they treat them like adults and let them use their own judgment. This is reasonable on its own, but when viewed as part of an otherwise objective system it seems out of place.

Why did they decide to place the act of killing under a different moral guideline than anything else?

[Sarco_Phage]

What? Murder isn't subjective.

Or shouldn't be.

Murder is a legal definition. That is all.

[Sacrieur]

http://facepwn.com/posters/lawful_good.jpg

(Batman is actually neutral good, but w/e).

[Sarco_Phage]

Replying with an image macro and nothing else isn't very polite, you know.

Also, Batman is a psychopathic manchild who never got over the death of his parents. I'd say he's incapable of being lawful good.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Killing and murder are different. Murder is in cold blood, killing is in the heat of combat.

[Sarco_Phage]

Killing and murder are different. Murder is in cold blood, killing is in the heat of combat.

:/

And what if the heat of combat was initiated because you attempted to kill someone in cold blood?

[Sacrieur]

Replying with an image macro and nothing else isn't very polite, you know.

Also, Batman is a psychopathic manchild who never got over the death of his parents. I'd say he's incapable of being lawful good.

"pictures hold 1000 words" (or something)

Anyway, batman is neutral good, but the point comes across. How could crusaders or wars be fought if killing was inherently evil? Evil would overrun everything, and that's just bad.

[cfalcon]

Why did they decide to place the act of killing under a different moral guideline than anything else?

Because you can kill for good reasons, or for bad reasons. There's "justifiable homicide". There's no "justifiable torture" or "justifiable rape".

You can kill in self defense, or for the safety of others. You can kill someone who will otherwise kill innocents. All these acts are not evil. But plenty of actions aren't killing.

In *some* campaigns, a paladin killing, say, a demon... it doesn't matter what the demon did or did not do. Demons lack the ability to choose to do right- their choices are inevitably calculated to cause the most damage, and they are invariably malicious. Is that not true in your games? Then you should definitely let your paladins know that demons are redeemable, so they don't go about killing beings with moral choice. But by default, evil creatures are just flat out evil, not like people, who can make good or evil choices.

That's the biggest point when it comes to paladins slaughtering, say, orcs: in the games where this act has no moral consequence (or is regarded as good), we are dealing with things that ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their intelligence only serves to let them destroy better: they can't be improved, trained, or rehabilitated, they are rotten to the core. Obviously, we have no species wide tenets such as that in the real world.

[Sarco_Phage]

"pictures hold 1000 words" (or something)

Anyway, batman is neutral good, but the point comes across. How could crusaders or wars be fought if killing was inherently evil? Evil would overrun everything, and that's just bad.

Oh god.

Oh god.

Do NOT bring up the topic of crusades, it will lead to naughty places. Especially because the crusades themselves might be considered evil.

Let's say you make a crusade to exterminate the goblin tribes. That's just so evil it reeks of it.

Let's say your crusade was instituted by the head of your order to open new trade routes. Shifty, underhanded, probably evil.

And so on.

[Sacrieur]

Oh god.

Oh god.

Do NOT bring up the topic of crusades, it will lead to naughty places. Especially because the crusades themselves might be considered evil.

Let's say you make a crusade to exterminate the goblin tribes. That's just so evil it reeks of it.

Let's say your crusade was instituted by the head of your order to open new trade routes. Shifty, underhanded, probably evil.

And so on.

Crusades against evil silly.

[Sarco_Phage]

Those were D&D examples I gave, roughly. "Crusade" is a loaded word.

[Sacrieur]

Those were D&D examples I gave, roughly. "Crusade" is a loaded word.

ninja'd?

Anyway, crusade doesn't mean genocide.

[hamishspence]

Is that not true in your games? Then you should definitely let your paladins know that demons are redeemable, so they don't go about killing beings with moral choice. But by default, evil creatures are just flat out evil, not like people, who can make good or evil choices.

That's the biggest point when it comes to paladins slaughtering, say, orcs: in the games where this act has no moral consequence (or is regarded as good), we are dealing with things that ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their intelligence only serves to let them destroy better: they can't be improved, trained, or rehabilitated, they are rotten to the core. Obviously, we have no species wide tenets such as that in the real world.

Orcs haven't been like that for a while- they're "Often Chaotic Evil" (and one of the later MMs- I think MM V) makes it clear that the second most common alignment for them is CN.

Not NE.

The PHB also makes clear that even for "Usually X Evil" creatures- there is some degree of variation as to how much is "cultural" and how much "inborn"- it gives Kobolds and Beholders as the example, and their "usually LE" alignment, is much more culturally-based, than it is for Beholders.

[Sarco_Phage]

What would a crusade against evil be like?

I can justify crusading against Baator, because its denizens are literally made out of evil.

But crusading against Prime Material Plane evil? Gearing up an entire fighting force, several armies strong, to fight some nebulously defined standard, or worse, whatever the guy in the robes tells you is bad?

Yeah, still iffy.


The PHB also makes clear that even for "Usually X Evil" creatures- there is some degree of variation as to how much is "cultural" and how much "inborn"- it gives Kobolds and Beholders as the example, and their "usually LE" alignment, is much more culturally-based, than it is for Beholders.

And even for the beholders, it's made pretty clear that their inherent super-evil status comes partly from the fact that they are so alien as to be working on a completely different moral scale.

[Gettles]

Because action heroes are allowed to kill with impunity.

[Jayabalard]

Why did they decide to place the act of killing under a different moral guideline than anything else?It's not... it's just that the act of killing, in and of itself itself is not aligned. There are a lot of things in the D&D world that are only aligned based on their context.

Cutting someone's flesh with a scalpel isn't inherently evil... Cutting someone's flesh with a scalpel in order to inflict pain (ie, torturing them) is*. The act of sex isn't evil, but rape is.

*Some people might disagree with this (certain fetish communities for example), but D&D says torture is evil, so it doesn't really matter if that floats your boat as far as D&D is concerned (feel free to Rule 0 that part away if you want).


The mix up, I think is in the ideas of objective/subjective vs context free/context sensitive, which aren't the same thing.

Subjective evil = whether the actions are evil or not depends on the state of mind of the person performing the action.

Context sensitive objective evil = whether the actions are evil or not depends wholly on what is actually done free of the performer's mental attitude regarding the good/evil of what they did, but combination of things aren't necessarily just the sum of the parts. So A might not be evil and B might not be evil but A + B is evil.

So what you're talking about isn't subjectively good or evil... it's still the same old objective good/evil that we know and love (or hate) about D&D.

[gbprime]

{{scrubbed}}

In practice, mankind is still very much tribal. Killing people in your tribe/pack/nation is bad for your tribe/pack/nation and you are punished for it. But when your tribe/pack/nation is in conflict with a different tribe/pack/nation, then killing THOSE people is GOOD for your tribe/pack/nation. In those cases, you are forgiven or even rewarded.

Killing is part of what humans are. Killing happens every day as part of feeding and defending most communities. On a subconcsious level, most humans accept it, and by extension their religions do too. Other fantasy species may be above that mentality, but not humans.

And in this game, any humans that are making an effort to deny their natures and not kill things take Exalted Feats to represent it.

[hamishspence]

Cutting someone's flesh with a scalpel isn't inherently evil... Cutting someone's flesh with a scalpel in order to inflict pain (ie, torturing them) is*.

Doesn't the strict dictionary definition of the word, require that it be done with the purpose of extracting information, or as "punishment for a crime"- otherwise it doesn't fit?

[Sacrieur]

It's subjective in the real world too. Like a religious leader rounding up armed rabble from all over Medieval Europe and telling them to go to the Holy Land and exterminate the inhabitants because this will somehow make the world a more godly place. Times like that, "Thou shalt not kill" effectively doesn't make that Top 10 list.

In practice, mankind is still very much tribal. Killing people in your tribe/pack/nation is bad for your tribe/pack/nation and you are punished for it. But when your tribe/pack/nation is in conflict with a different tribe/pack/nation, then killing THOSE people is GOOD for your tribe/pack/nation. In those cases, you are forgiven or even rewarded.

Killing is part of what humans are. Killing happens every day as part of feeding and defending most communities. On a subconcsious level, most humans accept it, and by extension their religions do too. Other fantasy species may be above that mentality, but not humans.

And in this game, any humans that are making an effort to deny their natures and not kill things take Exalted Feats to represent it.

Except paladins can detect evil. It isn't the same. Morality in D&D is more or less objective, at least on the player scale.

That doesn't mean, though, that you're going to be killed by some trigger happy paladin just because your race is largely evil when you behave in ways that are neutral or good. Demons and devils are debatable. Since the accepted view is that they spawn from the Abyss itself, they're inherently evil, but at the same time, they have intelligence, and I'm sure there are a handful good demons.

Killing is justifiable in D&D. I mean a person is killing innocent humans, what do you do? Are you allowed to kill him if that's the only way to stop it? If killing is objectively evil, then it makes you evil to stop him from committing evil, so it presents a moral issue. D&D solves this by making killing to prevent evil a good act.

[Sarco_Phage]

Except paladins can detect evil. It isn't the same. Morality in D&D is more or less objective, at least on the player scale.

And alignment is determined by actions, not by being born into an evil race. It is NOT inherent, but rather a metaphysical taint.

[Yora]

It's actually not "You should not kill" but "You must not murder".
"You should not lie" is also not exactly what the commandment says.

[hamishspence]

That doesn't mean, though, that you're going to be killed by some trigger happy paladin just because your race is largely evil when you behave in ways that are neutral or good. Demons and devils are debatable. Since the accepted view is that they spawn from the Abyss itself, they're inherently evil, but at the same time, they have intelligence, and I'm sure there are a handful good demons.

WOTC had an online article with one.

In the same way, Elder Evils has at least one Celestial with the Good subtype but Evil alignment.


Killing is justifiable in D&D. I mean a person is killing innocent humans, what do you do? Are you allowed to kill him if that's the only way to stop it? If killing is objectively evil, then it makes you evil to stop him from committing evil, so it presents a moral issue. D&D solves this by making killing to prevent evil a good act.

Or, at least, one that's nonevil under normal circumstances.
Even BoED makes an execution "for serious crimes" a nonevil act- so it doesn't have to be solely "to prevent evil"- though that's a part of the reason.


And alignment is determined by actions, not by being born into an evil race. It is NOT inherent, but rather a metaphysical taint.

The MM does use the phrase "These creatures are born with the listed alignment" for Always X alignment creatures- but otherwise, actions are a major part of alignment.

[ThirdEmperor]

I'd say that certain crimes (stealing, killing) are justified if the creature being killed/stolen from is evil. That isn't to say that all goblins are evil and therefor there is never anything wrong with killing goblins, but if the particular goblin you're killing is evil, then there's nothing wrong with killing it. Of course, there's a difference between killing someone in battle, and killing them when you've already defeated them and taken them captive. Other things, like demon summoning and torture, are always evil.

[Hiro Protagonest]

:/

And what if the heat of combat was initiated because you attempted to kill someone in cold blood?

That's considered murder for the guy you attempted to kill, killing in the heat of combat for everyone else.

[Sarco_Phage]

I'd say that certain crimes (stealing, killing) are justified if the creature being killed/stolen from is evil.

That's just abhorrent. Really.

[hamishspence]

I'd say that certain crimes (stealing, killing) are justified if the creature being killed/stolen from is evil. That isn't to say that all goblins are evil and therefor there is never anything wrong with killing goblins, but if the particular goblin you're killing is evil, then there's nothing wrong with killing it.

The Eberron Campaign Setting, as well as BoED, say otherwise-

"being evil" is not enough to justify killing, say, a goblin- there needs to be a better reason like "he's trying to kill somebody" or "you're an executioner and he's been convicted of a death-penalty crime".

Same really applies to almost any evil being.

Though BoVD does argue that for "Always X Evil" creatures- killing them "on sight" is generally justified for the threat they pose.

Later sources may disagree though.

[SmartAlec]

D&D morality sits uncomfortably between the real world, Conan (in which killing wasn't necessarily to the detriment of your personal integrity), and the Lord of the Rings (in which evil monsters were persona non grata). It's always going to be very confused.

[Sarco_Phage]

D&D morality sits uncomfortably between the real world, Conan (in which killing wasn't necessarily to the detriment of your personal integrity), and the Lord of the Rings (in which evil monsters were persona non grata). It's always going to be very confused.

Even in LotR, evil monsters were specifically twisted to be that way, not naturally occurring. As intentional perversions by two gods of evil, that's understandable.

Races in DnD? Aren't.

[Sacrieur]

D&D morality sits uncomfortably between the real world, Conan (in which killing wasn't necessarily to the detriment of your personal integrity), and the Lord of the Rings (in which evil monsters were persona non grata). It's always going to be very confused.

I'm a philosopher. Real world morality is much, much, much more difficult. In comparison, D&D morality is easy and hardly confusing.

They spell out objective morality for you.

[hamishspence]

It might be a case of "evil alignment" being downgraded a bit over time.

How evil did a being have to be to have an Evil alignment, in 1st ed?

How evil does a being have to be these days, to have an evil alignment?

Champions of Ruin places most of the weight of alignment, on acts- especially Evil acts.

If a person is regularly committing Evil acts- even if they have many of the traditional Good traits, like "Will make personal sacrifices for strangers" and "Will not harm the innocent"- by this measure, their alignment will still be Evil.

(Might depend on the nature of the acts though- Heroes of Horror suggests that some acts, like those a Dread Necromancer will normally do (rebuke undead, cast [Evil] spells) don't automatically guarantee an Evil alignment- the character can remain Neutral if their overall behaviour is otherwise Good).

[Teln]

Also, Batman is a psychopathic manchild who never got over the death of his parents. I'd say he's incapable of being lawful good.

Actually, he's every alignment at once. Aren't ~70 years of continuity fun? (My proof of this is spoilered due to huge).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rL1Jjp1dMY8/Sw3vRWrzweI/AAAAAAAAAxs/fMIxw0lZLo8/s1600/batman-alignment.jpg


EDIT: Wow, it took an entire page for somebody to post this?

[Marnath]

Part of the problem is the BoED and the BoVD. A lot of the stuff those books say is very questionable, and I think shows a great deal of personal bias by the author(s). I don't agree with a lot of it. But that might just be because I'm a self-described true neutral.


As far as "stealing from/killing evil beings is ok" I have to say that doesn't bear up well under scrutiny. The greedy merchant who buys up all the food and sells it at 300% cost during a food shortage is evil, but it's definitely not ok(from a good standpoint) to just kill him, or to steal the food which does belong to him after all. Although stealing the food would probably be more chaotic than evil, and more neutral than evil anyway.

[gbprime]

Part of the problem is the BoED and the BoVD. A lot of the stuff those books say is very questionable, and I think shows a great deal of personal bias by the author(s).

And I've thrown morality right in the players faces with it at times... like a lawful good order punishing people by using a dripping water torture... only with Ravages instead of water. Sure, it doesn't hurt if the prisoner isn't evil, but... are you sure this order is Lawful Good? :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

The BoED and BoVD take very different tacks on things.

BoVD has a strong "killing Always Evil monsters is OK" approach- to the extent that it goes so far as to say "allowing a fiend to live, is an evil act".

BoED has a strong theme of "villains can be redeemed" though it does say that for chromatic dragons "there is only the barest glimmer of hope".


Sure, it doesn't hurt if the prisoner isn't evil, but... are you sure this order is Lawful Good? :smallamused:

FC2 has "Intimidating torture" (torture that does no damage) as an Evil act- so, a case could be made that whatever you're using to do it, it still counts.

[Teln]

As far as "stealing from/killing evil beings is ok" I have to say that doesn't bear up well under scrutiny. The greedy merchant who buys up all the food and sells it at 300% cost during a food shortage is evil, but it's definitely not ok(from a good standpoint) to just kill him, or to steal the food which does belong to him after all. Although stealing the food would probably be more chaotic than evil, and more neutral than evil anyway.

Stockpiling food and selling it for a profit is all well and good normally, but when there's a famine on? I say "steal away, Robin Hood". Alternatively, report him to the police and have him arrested as a profiteer. The government can confiscate the stockpile and redistribute it fairly.


Ahh, the joys of being Neutral Good.

[grimbold]

and here comes the classic alignment thread post
D&D alignment can not be defined by the current system as it is broken and frankly impossible to use as it is to subjective to personal bias

[Sarco_Phage]

I'm a philosopher. Real world morality is much, much, much more difficult.

Who do you study? I have a lot of love for Max Scheler, Roque Ferriols, and Amartya Sen, even though at times they're incompatible.

[nyarlathotep]

And even for the beholders, it's made pretty clear that their inherent super-evil status comes partly from the fact that they are so alien as to be working on a completely different moral scale.

This I kind of take issue with mindflayers it could be argued that their method of reproduction and diet make their morality inherently different from most races but beholders are not alien unknowable creatures. They are very simple limited creatures which just so happen to all be horrible hate-filled racists. Their morality is not alien to other races simply abhorrent and extremely limited.

[Marnath]

The BoED and BoVD take very different tacks on things.

BoVD has a strong "killing Always Evil monsters is OK" approach- to the extent that it goes so far as to say "allowing a fiend to live, is an evil act".



Yeah. My response to this is "Mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent."
Like the apprentice at the end of Force Unleashed. Letting a man like Palpatine live is the worst war crime you could commit, especially when it's set, after order 66. I remember screaming at my TV.:smallbiggrin:


Stockpiling food and selling it for a profit is all well and good normally, but when there's a famine on? I say "steal away, Robin Hood". Alternatively, report him to the police and have him arrested as a profiteer. The government can confiscate the stockpile and redistribute it fairly.


Ahh, the joys of being Neutral Good.

I think that assumes a much more modern take on the laws than most pseudo-medieval campaigns probably have. Back in the day that was totally legal.

[Sarco_Phage]

Yeah. My response to this is "Mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent."
Like the apprentice at the end of Force Unleashed. Letting a man like Palpatine live is the worst war crime you could commit, especially when it's set, after order 66. I remember screaming at my TV.:smallbiggrin:

Ehh, Order 66 wasn't so bad. The massacre of a few thousand potentially deadly adversaries and children was nothing compared to Alderaan, trust me.

[hamishspence]

Yeah. My response to this is "Mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent."

It might depend on the villain- but seeking to redeem one is hardly unique to D&D.

The "ex-villain attempting to redeem themselves" is a pretty common archetype.

PHB2 does have as a possible credo for a paladin "Mercy for those that deserve mercy".

[bladesyz]

Stealing is chaotic, not evil.

And the Batman comic just shows how shallowly most D&D players interpret alignments.

To reiterate something from OOTS, Good people can do Bad things. It could be due to ignorance, overwhelming emotions, personality flaws (egotism, prejudice, stubbornness), forced to choose the Lesser Evil, or just Having a Bad Day.

A few out-of-alignment (i.e. uncharacteristic) acts won't change a person's alignment. It's when that person's behavior pattern consistently slants toward a particular alignment, that we're talking about alignment change.

To address the OP, "killing" is not the same thing as "murder". "Murder" has an inherently evil connotation, while "killing" can be done out of self-defense, or the defense of a loved one.

"The ends do not justify the means" also does NOT imply that intent does not matter. Action without intent is meaningless. If we truly did not consider intent, then trying to deceive a lich would count as "dealing" with an evil being. Prescribing medication would count as "using poison". See how absurd that would be?

In the end, morality is a complex issue. Society writes thousands of pages of law, and even then there are more gray areas than not. There really is no hope that a few pages of D&D would be able to solve every moral quandry there are. That's what the DM and the Players are for.

[Tavar]

To be fair to him, though, the issue wasn't whether killing Palpatine was bad. It was that killing him in the apprentice's current emotional state would be bad.

[Sarco_Phage]

Sort of agreed, except that laws are ethical, not moral dealies.

And stealing is chaotic... but can skew towards good, neutral, or evil depending on the context.

Context is everything, people. EVERYTHING.

[hamishspence]

BoVD has a "not always evil" disclaimer for at least one of the acts- but it's lying rather than stealing.

It says "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong" but "wrong" might not mean "always Evil" in this context- with a rather generous reading.

[Marnath]

Ehh, Order 66 wasn't so bad. The massacre of a few thousand potentially deadly adversaries and children was nothing compared to Alderaan, trust me.

I was referring to that time period, not the specific event but you're right.

[gbprime]

BoVD has a "not always evil" disclaimer for at least one of the acts- but it's lying rather than stealing.

It says "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong" but "wrong" might not mean "always Evil" in this context- with a rather generous reading.

And THAT is where the alignment system fails. There's "right and wrong" and then there's "good and evil", but the two are not always the same thing. In fact, we rarely have the luxury of equating them.

[Coidzor]

Doesn't the strict dictionary definition of the word, require that it be done with the purpose of extracting information, or as "punishment for a crime"- otherwise it doesn't fit?

Certainly the fact that they're willing and generally it's not being done to break their mind and kill them is a factor.


Even in LotR, evil monsters were specifically twisted to be that way, not naturally occurring. As intentional perversions by two gods of evil, that's understandable.

Races in DnD? Aren't.

You mean when they're not created or twisted by evil deities to reflect the deities inherent evil, right? Or actually made out of evil like fiends.


And I've thrown morality right in the players faces with it at times... like a lawful good order punishing people by using a dripping water torture... only with Ravages instead of water. Sure, it doesn't hurt if the prisoner isn't evil, but... are you sure this order is Lawful Good? :smallamused:

It's still dripping water torture/waterboarding even if the ravages aren't having their usual effect on them. So that's kind of a bad example, especially because then they're knowingly torturing people for being evil despite having objective proof that they aren't. Sorta just makes them look incompetent as well as evil the way you just described them, rather than actually being LG.


Ehh, Order 66 wasn't so bad. The massacre of a few thousand potentially deadly adversaries and children was nothing compared to Alderaan, trust me.

That's a flawed premise for two reasons, one, Alderaan hadn't happened yet at the time of that, and two, dismissing a massacre of children as meaningless rather than a further reason to ensure he couldn't kill again just because the guy would go on to kill even more people is just odd, since knowing he'd kill again and on a grander scale would be more incentive to treat his past deeds seriously, not less.


To be fair to him, though, the issue wasn't whether killing Palpatine was bad. It was that killing him in the apprentice's current emotional state would be bad.

No it's that force users don't have the self control to not become evil if they kill someone evil while angry. Better to have to atone for being angry while killing someone than to let them go on killing if one is allowed to kill them at all. There's no real way to be fair here.

[Sarco_Phage]

You mean when they're not created or twisted by evil deities to reflect the deities inherent evil, right? Or actually made out of evil like fiends.


I mentioned that earlier, yes, Infernals and Abyssals are literally made out of the evilz.

However, Grummsh, for example, isn't inherently evil. His actions and behavior are. His children, the Orcs, are simply violent and expansionistic. This means that they are more likely to cause and therefore be accounted as evil. Evil is a metaphysical taint.

There's a reason evil auras are even a thing in DnD. Because it can rub off, and it smells bad. But you don't start that way.

[Marnath]

It's still dripping water torture/waterboarding even if the ravages aren't having their usual effect on them. So that's kind of a bad example, especially because then they're knowingly torturing people for being evil despite having objective proof that they aren't. Sorta just makes them look incompetent as well as evil the way you just described them, rather than actually being LG.

I'm pretty sure that was his point, actually.


That's a flawed premise for two reasons, one, Alderaan hadn't happened yet at the time of that, and two, dismissing a massacre of children as meaningless rather than a further reason to ensure he couldn't kill again just because the guy would go on to kill even more people is just odd, since knowing he'd kill again and on a grander scale would be more incentive to treat his past deeds seriously, not less.

I agree completely.


No it's that force users don't have the self control to not become evil if they kill someone evil while angry. Better to have to atone for being angry while killing someone than to let them go on killing if one is allowed to kill them at all. There's no real way to be fair here.

Even more than that, the apprentice is uniquely suited to control his anger. Dude used to be a Sith, you know? If anyone can resist the lure of the darkside, it's someone intimately familiar with it and how it tempts you.

[gbprime]

It's still dripping water torture/waterboarding even if the ravages aren't having their usual effect on them. So that's kind of a bad example, especially because then they're knowingly torturing people for being evil despite having objective proof that they aren't. Sorta just makes them look incompetent as well as evil the way you just described them, rather than actually being LG.

Actually, the logistics of it is to test with a droplet, since Detect Evil can be fooled but the Ravage cannot. If it doesn't burn them they don't strap them down to the McTorture device, as that would be a waste of time and resources. You hand them over to a magistrate and wash your hands of them. It's when the Ravage burns them that they fire up the "torture as a means of repentance" thing.

[Coidzor]

However, Grummsh, for example, isn't inherently evil. His actions and behavior are. His children, the Orcs, are simply violent and expansionistic. This means that they are more likely to cause and therefore be accounted as evil. Evil is a metaphysical taint.

Considering he's a god, and gods are beings of essence and such rather than flesh and bone and mortal minds, you're not guaranteed of that.

And LOTR evil wasn't a metaphysical taint that made the orcs brutish, violent, and expansionistic? :smallconfused:

[Sarco_Phage]

Considering he's a god, and gods are beings of essence and such rather than flesh and bone and mortal minds, you're not guaranteed of that.

Unearthed Arcana stuff, maybe PoV and unreliable
In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven deities drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!"
There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it over the world. The shaft blotted the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No! You Lie! You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps. One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell…here!," he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening a mighty rift and chasms. "And here!," and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!," and the black spear gouged the meadows and made them bare.
"There!" roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they will survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day will come when they cover the world, and they will slay all of your collective peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!

Apparently, the other gods are also *******s.


And LOTR evil wasn't a metaphysical taint that made the orcs brutish, violent, and expansionistic? :smallconfused:

Yep! It was an actual push from the deities of evil, Melkor/Morgoth and later, Sauron, to go forth and multiply. When Sauron was shattered in Barad-Dur, the Orcs lost their will to fight specifically because he was the one driving them. Even the "evil men" threw down their arms".

[TheCoelacanth]

That's one of the many creation myths included in various books. There's no official word on which if any of them are true.

[Coidzor]

Apparently, the other gods are also *******s.

Indeed, all gods in d&d are evil, conniving, and reprehensible. But they're also shaped as much by belief as they are by the original personality that was there. So part of the reason Gruumsh is evil is because Gruumsh is believed to be evil by his own worshippers.


Yep! It was an actual push from the deities of evil, Melkor/Morgoth and later, Sauron, to go forth and multiply. When Sauron was shattered in Barad-Dur, the Orcs lost their will to fight specifically because he was the one driving them. Even the "evil men" threw down their arms".

So why do you give a free moral pass to wantonly slaughtering them in LOTR but not to killing orcish warparties in D&D then if you view them as equal?

[Sarco_Phage]

So why do you give a free moral pass to wantonly slaughtering them in LOTR but not to killing orcish warparties in D&D then if you view them as equal?

Did I?:smallamused:

[Coidzor]

Did I?:smallamused:

That is what you essentially seem to have said, yes, by first saying it was something different and then saying they were the same later.

[Sarco_Phage]

That is what you essentially seem to have said, yes, by first saying it was something different and then saying they were the same later.

No, no, I still maintain that it is something different. When I said "yep", that was in assent to your statement that I was saying that LotR evil wasn't a metaphysical taint.

To summarize:

DnD Orc evil: Metaphysical taint acquired over time by evil actions

LotR Orc evil: result of impulsion from dark god that fades after god is defeated and cast down

[Talakeal]

I suppose subjective might not have been the right word, justifiable might have been better. The evil of killing is decided on a case by case basis.

According to the BoED or BoVD:

Torture = Always Evil (even if they are an evil person in a ticking bomb scenario)

Poison = Always Evil (even if you are only using it to ease someone's pain)

Evil Magic = Always Evil (even if you are using it to save innocent lives)

Creating Undead = Always Evil (even if said undead are good / neutral)

Dealing with an Evil Outsider = Always Evil (Even if you are working together for a good or neutral cause)

Rape = Always Evil (I actually agree with this one, but I have seen people argue on these very boards that it is sometimes necessary, so...)

Killing = Sometimes Evil. Not if they attacked you, or are guilty of a serious crime, or evil themselves, or indirectly threatening innocents, or are soldiers of an opposing nation, or if they are mind controlled by someone who is evil, or....

One of these things is not like they others. Doesn't that seem weird and inconsistent to anyone else?

I would also mention stealing, lying, cheating, act. but those seem to be matters of Law / Chaos in D&D and trying to get a solid consensus as to what Law and Chaos even mean would require a separate (and enormous) thread.

[navar100]

Part of the troubles lies in Good valuing life. What is forgotten is that Good can value things more than life. That is how Evil strives to triumph.

[Newt]

Replying with an image macro and nothing else isn't very polite, you know.

Also, Batman is a psychopathic manchild who never got over the death of his parents. I'd say he's incapable of being lawful good.

No, he's good.

Go look up "Punisher". Batman doesn't kill his worst enemy, he simply places them in jail. Punisher on the other hand.. Didn't he start a war and kill half the super heroes because they made a deal with a petty criminal? Who happened to be an informant for them.


Those were D&D examples I gave, roughly. "Crusade" is a loaded word.

{Scrubbed} Crusade isn't a loaded word. Jihad maybe, but the definition of a crusade does not equal the Crusades to liberate Jerusalem.

Which if you haven't read the history books, didn't start out as evil per se. They did end up killing innocents, but both sides did. Which is the funny thing. Crusaders liberate Jerusalem, leave the citizens alone. Saladin liberates Jerusalem from the Crusaders and kills every single citizen inside, Jew, Christian and Muslim. Then the Crusaders do the same thing, and it goes round and round. Goes back long before that anyway, every event is triggered by another. Fun times. ^ ^

{Scrubbed}

Now, as others have stated, the DnD world isn't grey, it's black and white. You're evil or you're good. Book of Vile Deeds and Book of Exalted Deeds made the black blacker and the white whiter, but there was still no grey. You can of course introduce grey, where evil isn't evil and good isn't good. Then you end up like our world and the Paladin may as well be removed from the game because smite is now useless.

However, looking at it in game terms, say Orcs and Goblins had been harassing townsfolks for years, killing, looting, raping. Now there's half-orcs too and orc-goblins and half-goblins and goblin-orc-human-centaur-gnomes running around the place. Things are getting out of hand, so the villagers start a crusade, a grand concerted effort, a campaign to free themselves from the thoroughly evil invaders.

How is that a bad thing? Again, if your game world has good tribes of orcs who rape and kill the townsfolk but really aren't evil, just misunderstood, then so be it. Not a normal game world though. Not even close. You should read Lovecraft too. Cthulhu isn't evil, just misunderstood.


And going to kill us all. But it's okay, because we shall die before the Great Old Ones return. Iä, Iä, Shub-Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!

[Coidzor]

No, no, I still maintain that it is something different. When I said "yep", that was in assent to your statement that I was saying that LotR evil wasn't a metaphysical taint.

To summarize:

DnD Orc evil: Metaphysical taint acquired over time by evil actions

LotR Orc evil: result of impulsion from dark god that fades after god is defeated and cast down

Ah, see, you seemed to be agreeing with it.

...And your restating your position here just muddles it further...:smallconfused:

[Marnath]

That reply seems needlessly hostile there, Newt.:smallconfused:

Also (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=59&a=1)

[Newt]

Yeah. My response to this is "Mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent."
Like the apprentice at the end of Force Unleashed. Letting a man like Palpatine live is the worst war crime you could commit, especially when it's set, after order 66. I remember screaming at my TV.

Well, technically, given the timeline after the movies, Luke was the bad guy since he killed off the one hope for the galaxy they had. :P

Morality is a funny thing. We have evolution, here by chance and meaningless. Thus, there is no God nor Devil. No extremes, simply chance and this one shot at life. So, if there's no extremes, there's no good or evil. Might makes right, survival of the fittest. So you can either be pushed over or push someone else over, no benefits for not reacting, but all the wealth and fame you desire if you do forge ahead.

So, end result is, murder isn't murder. Yes, you've killed someone, and you owe their employer restitution seeing as they now have to find someone else to work for them. Possibly payments to their family if they had one, say a widow and children so the government has to support them. But a homeless person on the street? Eh, doesn't matter, they weren't employed, they were a burden on the system. It's ok to kill them, just don't make a mess or we're sending you the bill.

XD

Fun times.

DnD is much kinder. The system isn't broken, it's perfect for gaming. If you want something more technical and realistic, well you eventually end up with a dystopian wild west society, lawless and thoroughly evil from the perspective of most people.

Would be fun to play there, min max till you were powerful enough to survive the night, then take over the world. No bad guy, simply someone more powerful than you. But enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now. Take one using another, take the other and the throne is yours.

[Talakeal]

Actually, I think I just figured out what bothers about the D&D alignment system most. It's that the game declares a lot of things which I consider merely tools to be evil.
In my mind poison is not more or less evil than fire, an unholy sword no more or less evil than a vorpal sword, a skeleton no more or less evil than an animated object, and a death watch spell no more or less evil than a locate spell, a summoned (and controlled) demon no different than a summoned angel. They are all tools, bereft of any alignment, and the only morality is in how you use them.
I am also not to keen on the fact that in most campaign worlds, forgotten realms especially, almost every way of becoming immortal is arbitrarily listed as evil, while if you die you will have your personality and free will stripped away so you can be a slave / snack for your deity or be tortured for all time as an atheist.

[Sacrieur]

Also, Newt, you might want to delete the mentions of real world religions in the previous post, I have had threads locked and received infractions for much less.

He's speaking of history, not religion. If we have a discussion about Nazi Germany's killing of jews, it's not religious, it's historical.

That said, his statements can be backed-up/proved wrong with evidence, which you're welcome to do.

[Eldariel]

Killing is part of what humans are. Killing happens every day as part of feeding and defending most communities. On a subconcsious level, most humans accept it, and by extension their religions do too.

While there's a grain of truth here, I'd just like to mention that when it actually comes to the act of killing, most people without training are utterly unable to act.

There are tons of war statistics on the matter and this particular issue has molded military training into trying to turn normal people into people capable of killing. Naturally, we are very much against killing humans since it goes against our instincts for survival of the species.

[Brendan]

{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.}
-

Now, as others have stated, the DnD world isn't grey, it's black and white. You're evil or you're good. Book of Vile Deeds and Book of Exalted Deeds made the black blacker and the white whiter, but there was still no grey. You can of course introduce grey, where evil isn't evil and good isn't good. Then you end up like our world and the Paladin may as well be removed from the game because smite is now useless.

-

How is that a bad thing? Again, if your game world has good tribes of orcs who rape and kill the townsfolk but really aren't evil, just misunderstood, then so be it. Not a normal game world though. Not even close. You should read Lovecraft too. Cthulhu isn't evil, just misunderstood.

A couple things. You say it's either evil or good. Black or white. But I seem to recall a certain middle section of "neutral" which is by definition, grey, and in between. I'll start with the oxford, if you like...
"having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features,
of or denoting a pale grey, cream, or beige colour"
so yeah. there is a gray area. Also, that grey area isn't really that uncommon in DnD, so it's not like some obscure addition. Just a base alignment.

Also, can we be a little civil?

And then... the last bit. I think that the non-evil ones wouldnt go around raping and torturing and pillaging. thats the idea of non-evil. They don't commit morally reprehensible/evil acts regularly because they are not, in fact, evil. This is how it works in DnD at least. If they committed rape or murder then they would probably turn evil, even if they weren't before. the neutral or good ones don't rape and pillage because they are not evil. The evil ones are the rapists and killers of the world. the neutral ones are the ones who stay home and get more ranks in craft (basketweaving) and the good ones are the guys who not only don't commit the crimes but make an effort to stop them.

[Talakeal]

I was just trying to give a subtle warning to save him some trouble, not worth arguing over.

[Hiro Protagonest]

My solution to morals about killing things like orcs and goblins, make a campaign setting like eberron, where they're not necessarily evil. Of course, if they're specifically, not generally, doing evil acts, then no moral quandries are required.

[Sarco_Phage]

No, he's good.

Go look up "Punisher". Batman doesn't kill his worst enemy, he simply places them in jail. Punisher on the other hand.. Didn't he start a war and kill half the super heroes because they made a deal with a petty criminal? Who happened to be an informant for them.

I wonder what Joker's body count is, after all the times he's broken out of the asylum? :smallamused:

In fact, by your logic, Batman would be far more evil than the Punisher, as the Punisher at least takes steps to make sure that the evil of his foes stops with them, while Batman can't even bring himself to neutralize a psychotic mass murderer.

Keep in mind the (unfortunate) defining aspects of Batman's current incarnation: he can't kill. Even when the universe was at stake, he couldn't kill, and went for a shoulder shot. This ties in to his crippled emotional state, which extends from his parents' murder. Now, I wish Batman was the old heroic goofy one too, but sadly, those times are gone. He's just another hero with issues.

EDIT: Wow, looking up, it appears this thread got quite virulent. I think I'll back away slowly for now.

[faceroll]

Killing and murder are different. Murder is in cold blood, killing is in the heat of combat.

Hahahaha, no.
Murder is unlawful killing of a sapient creature. It's a subset of killing.


"pictures hold 1000 words" (or something)

That was part of a marketing campaign during the early days of photography. Pretty successful campaign, eh? Better than im lovin it.

[Sarco_Phage]

Hahahaha, no.
Murder is unlawful killing of a sapient creature. It's a subset of killing.


Like I mentioned way earlier in the thread, Murder is clearly defined, legalistically. The only subjective part involved is what qualifies as murder or not.

[faceroll]

Like I mentioned way earlier in the thread, Murder is clearly defined, legalistically. The only subjective part involved is what qualifies as murder or not.

Murder isn't a good-evil thing, it's law-chaos, and subverted by tyrants to justify their tyranny to their subjects in moralistic terms.

[Sarco_Phage]

Murder isn't a good-evil thing, it's law-chaos, and subverted by tyrants to justify their tyranny to their subjects in moralistic terms.

Good point. Murder is definitely a chaotic act by definition, because it is extra-legal, extra-judicial killing.

But you can't take murder in a vacuum and say "murder is always [etc]". Each murder has its own circumstances. Context!

[Hiro Protagonest]

But you can't take murder in a vacuum and say "murder is always [etc]". Each murder has its own circumstances. Context!

Exactly, the morals of the act depend on who you're killing, on more than just a good-evil-law-chaos scale.

[Sarco_Phage]

Exactly, the morals of the act depend on who you're killing, on more than just a good-evil-law-chaos scale.

Technically, no. The act is good, neutral, or evil depending on who you're killing. It is chaotic by definition because it is extralegal.

The alignment chart is a (limited) ethical system, which means you can't extricate discussion of an act from law/chaos or good/evil, nor can you divorce the act from its context.

[faceroll]

Murder also falls under the purview of Nerull and his Neutral Evil cultists. I'm not sure how "chaotic" murder is; just that it's not lawful. Execution is lawful homocide, and listed as the most lawful action a character can commit in FCII (book about devils).

[Sarco_Phage]

Damn, I don't have most of my 3.5 sourcebooks on hand, so I can't do independent research.

Okay, so we've established that murder is, at least, inherently not lawful, but its morality depends on the context?

[faceroll]

Damn, I don't have most of my 3.5 sourcebooks on hand, so I can't do independent research.

Fiendish Codex II has a Lawfulness table where you accrue lawful points by performing certain acts. I think acts range from +1 to +7.


Okay, so we've established that murder is, at least, inherently not lawful, but its morality depends on the context?

I've always assumed most actions require context. Some are always evil, or always good, like [Evil] spells or [Good] spells, but theft requires context (though I would argue theft is always not-lawful). Even Dread Necros can be neutral, they just have to use their evil towards good ends.

[hamishspence]

Fiendish Codex II has a Lawfulness table where you accrue lawful points by performing certain acts. I think acts range from +1 to +7.

And it also has a Corruption table- which Murder is on.

It had 3 levels: Murder, Cold-Blooded Murder, and Murder For Pleasure (which was the worst of the three).

[Haarkla]

Originally Posted by hamishspence: "BoVD has a "not always evil" disclaimer for at least one of the acts- but it's lying rather than stealing.

It says "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong" but "wrong" might not mean "always Evil" in this context- with a rather generous reading."

And THAT is where the alignment system fails. There's "right and wrong" and then there's "good and evil", but the two are not always the same thing. In fact, we rarely have the luxury of equating them.
You are incorrect. What is good is right, and what is evil is wrong.

Stealing is normally an evil act, as if we all went around stealing from one another, instead of working for a living, nothing would ever get produced. A society where stealing is tolerated is less desirable than one where it is condemed. Stealing normally has malevalent consequences therefore it is an evil act. People have the right to enjoy the fruit of their honest labour.


Sarco Phage: Who do you study? I have a lot of love for Max Scheler, Roque Ferriols, and Amartya Sen, even though at times they're incompatible.
I prefer good old Bentham and Epicurius.

[Airanath]

As everyone said before, killing is open to debate because of the reasons that lead to it, the whole moral dilema in the first place.
Killing in self defense, is not considered evil. (unless you are a murderer killing your guards to avoid execution, and then, you were evil in the first place already)
Killing a inherently evil creature(Evil subtype creatures), is, usually not evil, that is, if your paladin is not a psycho looking for a way to vent his anger at not being able to kill any other creatures. The GOOD, and LAWFUL paladin will offer even a demon a chance to give up on its evil ways, unless said creature has already, to his knowledge, proved irredeemable. (As someone quoted before, we have at least one instance of a fallen GOOD subtype creature who is evil, and if you remember Eludecya, there is also a lawful good succubus paladin around, fighting to redeem those who she can).
When DMing, I tend to be less black, less white, more grey, my paladin is allowed to use poisons, so long as said poisons are made to just incapacitate his foes temporarily, without a risk of death (Drow knockout poison, any dex/str/wis/int/cha damage poison), so long as he makes sure the target is cleansed or cured of the ailments after. I don't see why poisons would be evil, when using one of the mentioned poisons, allow you to subdue a foe without causing a lot of hurt, at least, not much more than, say, hitting him with a sap untill he faints. He might get some cramps, or dizzy, or faint, but the alternative would leave him with a lot of sore places and hematomes.
Anyway, my two coppers on the subject: Not only killing, but every action, is open to debate, IF you have the skills to admnistrate it. Lying can be used for both good and ill, so can killing (sometimes, only the execution of a psychopat will keep him from murdering people), so can poisons (murder tools, tools to subdue a threat without hurting much), but, every such action is open to its moral implications, you just have to judge it on a case by case basis.
On the same note on poisons: Poisoning the countryside with a weakening poison to cut the supply lines of an enemy, IS inherently evil, using said poison just on the soldiers supplies, to cut their fighting force, can be evil, or good, on a case by case basis(massacring said soldiers? weakening the army fighting for a tyrant under a compulsion so you can, without killing them, end the war? I'll call the former evil, always, the second, I'll take with a grain of salt, it might not be honorable or lawful, but it could be good).

[hamishspence]

When DMing, I tend to be less black, less white, more grey, my paladin is allowed to use poisons, so long as said poisons are made to just incapacitate his foes temporarily, without a risk of death (Drow knockout poison, any dex/str/wis/int/cha damage poison), so long as he makes sure the target is cleansed or cured of the ailments after. I don't see why poisons would be evil, when using one of the mentioned poisons, allow you to subdue a foe without causing a lot of hurt, at least, not much more than, say, hitting him with a sap untill he faints. He might get some cramps, or dizzy, or faint, but the alternative would leave him with a lot of sore places and hematomes.

BoED already calls out Drow Knockout Poison as not an evil act to use.

The main argument in favour of the non-CON poisons being not evil to use, might be that "real-life poisons vary greatly- some are not very painful at all".

One argument for stealing being not always evil is "to remove the ill-gotten gains from a villain and return it to those the villain has defrauded or robbed".

But in this case- the villain doesn't really have a "moral right" to the goods anyway.

[Ozymandias]

The reason that killing is hazy and things that should theoretically be less bad (e.g. torture) aren't is pretty simple - almost all D&D games involve killing, usually very often, and most are played with Good parties.

Besides, it's part of the archetypes - you can have heroes who kill with relative impunity and remain heroic (say, John McClain) but if they do things like torture they're suddenly antiheroes, more or less. This is especially true in fantasy.

It's the same reason Necromancy is largely [Evil] - because heroes don't do that sort of thing.

[big teej]

there's a scene in a favorite movie of mine that somewhat addresses this.

The Big Red One (with Lee Marvin)

early on in the movie, a new trooper kills a french soldier (the opening beach scene for those of you who have seen it)

the boy freaks out over 'murdering' this soldier.

Lee marving calmly informed him "son, we do not murder the enemy, we kill him."


the scene shifts to a german unit out in the desert somewhere, where a trooper is expressing his dissasfaction of the war.

I cannot recall the exact dialogue, but a german officer also informs him "we do not murder the enemy, we kill him"


tl;dr
killing =/= murder
especially in combat.

[Chuckthedwarf]

The BoED and BoVD take very different tacks on things.

BoVD has a strong "killing Always Evil monsters is OK" approach- to the extent that it goes so far as to say "allowing a fiend to live, is an evil act".

BoED has a strong theme of "villains can be redeemed" though it does say that for chromatic dragons "there is only the barest glimmer of hope".



FC2 has "Intimidating torture" (torture that does no damage) as an Evil act- so, a case could be made that whatever you're using to do it, it still counts.

Yet one of the books, I'm pretty sure, describes Chaotic Good alignment as capable of "roughing some people up" as long as it doesn't become actual torture. It doesn't appear to be the PHP, but I could swear I read it somewhere.

And somewhat in response to OP, the whole thing with poison being evil is ridiculous. It's only in one book, (and that book is a horrible blight on already sick and blemished alignment/morality system in the game) and there are Lawful Good intelligent being that actually use nasty poison.

Couatl; Always Lawful Good, highly intelligent and capable of speech. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm)

[Chuckthedwarf]

And killing can't be an evil act just by the virtue of being killing.
That would make all carnivores irredeemably evil. And omnivores, too. Whether intelligent or not.

And considering that there are intelligent plants and that you can communicate with even regular plants with a few low level spells, I think vegetarians are screwed too...

Unless you go with the "circle of life" ideology, everyone is evil.

[hamishspence]

Yet one of the books, I'm pretty sure, describes Chaotic Good alignment as capable of "roughing some people up" as long as it doesn't become actual torture. It doesn't appear to be the PHP, but I could swear I read it somewhere.

It's the easydamus site, rather than the books- it draws heavily on D&D sources through several editions:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html


A chaotic good character will keep his word to those who are not evil and will lie only to evil-doers. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure, but he may "rough up" someone to get information.

but I don't know if any of the 3.0-3.5 WOTC splatbooks ever use the same wording.

BoED is the only 3.5 source to give a reason for poison use being evil (it causes undue suffering)- but previous editions have had it be evil as I recall. I think it goes right back to Gygax.

[Chuckthedwarf]

Stockpiling food and selling it for a profit is all well and good normally, but when there's a famine on? I say "steal away, Robin Hood". Alternatively, report him to the police and have him arrested as a profiteer. The government can confiscate the stockpile and redistribute it fairly.


Ahh, the joys of being Neutral Good.

But you are depraving him of his rightful possessions. Aka stealing. Which is, at least in BOED, is an evil deed.

Just putting up high prices doesn't make you evil. It might make you a bit of an *******, sure, but you're not breaking any kind of a law. Unless such a law exists in whatever place the famine is going on. Which isn't necessarily the case.

There will always be people who don't have the ability to buy something. Unless they live in an extremely liberal or communist society (and please, I am not trying to bring any kind of real life politics in here), I'd say they're screwed and not giving them something is a fundamentally neutral act. A merchant doesn't have a responsibility to always provide to people. He is not being evil by denying to do something he never had the responsibility to do. Yes, seeing people perish is by no means a good act. But it's as much an evil act as not giving money to the charity. Not at all. If it wasn't voluntary, it would be called "taxes".

Now a police officer/ any essential service or equivalent of such in a D&D world willingly denying to do something he's responsible to do for personal reasons would be evil.

[hamishspence]

But you are depraving him of his rightful possessions. Aka stealing. Which is, at least in BOED, is an evil deed.

Actually "stealing is wrong" is in BoVD.

BoED does mention a few acts as evil though.

[Sarco_Phage]

Just putting up high prices doesn't make you evil. It might make you a bit of an *******, sure, but you're not breaking any kind of a law. Unless such a law exists in whatever place the famine is going on. Which isn't necessarily the case.

:/

Law/Chaos and Good/Evil are on different axes, so I don't see how the legality of any given act has anything to do with its morality.

There are good and evil laws, you know.

On the other hand, I agree that, when it comes to, say people who are starving, it would be Good to help them and Neutral to simply go about your life. Evil would be taking action to harm them. Harm by omission probably won't count as much unless it's your particular job to do so.

[Gnaeus]

BoED is the only 3.5 source to give a reason for poison use being evil (it causes undue suffering)- but previous editions have had it be evil as I recall. I think it goes right back to Gygax.

And I think, ultimately, to the fact that early edition poisons tended to be SoD, and it seems pretty unheroic if all your enemies die by poison.

[Haarkla]

But you are depraving him of his rightful possessions. Aka stealing. Which is, at least in BOED, is an evil deed.

Just putting up high prices doesn't make you evil. It might make you a bit of an *******, sure, but you're not breaking any kind of a law. Unless such a law exists in whatever place the famine is going on. Which isn't necessarily the case.
Stockpiling food for profiteering during a famine is an evil act. Therefore the food stockpile is not his rightful possession, and taking it for redistribution is morally ok.

[TOZ]

While I don't agree with most things Paizo does, their Golarion setting does a decent job of fixing this with the monsters. Goblins and bugbears and the like are literally inhuman monsters, so killing them is like killing rabid dogs.

[Sarco_Phage]

While I don't agree with most things Paizo does, their Golarion setting does a decent job of fixing this with the monsters. Goblins and bugbears and the like are literally inhuman monsters, so killing them is like killing rabid dogs.

You don't fix morality issues by making it so that it's okay to kill things.:smallwink:

[Zaydos]

In AD&D poison was allowable at the referee's discretion (I can't find my older brother's old DMG which has guidelines on making the decision) except to paladins and non-evil clerics and to assassins who were automatically assumed to be able to use poison. Nothing actually about it being evil (this is the same edition where clerics can't use edged weapons due to religious vows).

[TOZ]

You don't fix morality issues by making it so that it's okay to kill things.:smallwink:

Depends on what morality you are using.

[faceroll]

And it also has a Corruption table- which Murder is on.

It had 3 levels: Murder, Cold-Blooded Murder, and Murder For Pleasure (which was the worst of the three).

Well bollocks.


Stealing is normally an evil act, as if we all went around stealing from one another, instead of working for a living, nothing would ever get produced.QUOTE]

Kant made the same argument, and it's still wrong. If we all used the giantitp forums, the site would crash. That would be bad. badwrong. Therefore using giantitp is evil.

[QUOTE=Chuckthedwarf;10708223]It's only in one book,/URL]

It's in the PHB, BoED, and Sandstorm, and likely in Complete Adventurer, Song & Silence, and BoVD.


Stockpiling food for profiteering during a famine is an evil act. Therefore the food stockpile is not his rightful possession, and taking it for redistribution is morally ok.

Distributors always get such a bad rap, but they're at least as important as the farmer. Supply chains are pretty marvelous things.

[Talakeal]

The argument over whether a profiteer stockpiling food is evil is an old debate with no clear answer. It is an argument I have had many times both online and in real life.

Personally I hate the movie Avatar because the message is that the way of life / religious beliefs of a few thousand aliens are more important than the lives of billions of humans. It is never explicitly stated in the movie, but from what I can tell from the supplementary material the unobtanium is required to solve an energy crisis on Earth which will mean either the total collapse of global industry (which will kill billions from starvation) or continuing to use current technology which will render the Earth uninhabitable from pollution in short order.

My brother and father take the argument further and say that in a survival situation all morality is off. You have every right to steal from other people, even if it means killing them and eating their body, or, on the other side, charging someone lost in the desert a million dollars for a glass of water. They tell me that anyone who believes "the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is a no good socialist, which leads into a patriotic rant I won't repeat here.

[Teln]

I'm guessing you're the only person in your family who had to read Lord of the Flies in high school, then.

Seriously, if you wind up in a crisis situation, that's a great way to get yourself shot.

[erikun]

Why is only murder subjective?
Because D&D is a game about good guys killing stuff. If killing things wasn't subjective, then you'd end up with a game of bad guys killing stuff (which generally doesn't work out well) or good guys avoiding killing stuff (which is... rather difficult, given the game's focus). Either direction would certainly change the way D&D feels, as games with a much tighter moral outlook on killing do not operate well with the idea of going into caves and killing dozens of vaguely humanoid creatures.

It's the focus of the game, as well. If we were playing Pharaohs & Pyramids, where you manage a kingdom and try to expand, then executing people would likely be evil, but slavery and the creation of undead (mummies) would not be.

[Coidzor]

But you are depraving him of his rightful possessions. Aka stealing. Which is, at least in BOED, is an evil deed.

Just putting up high prices doesn't make you evil. It might make you a bit of an *******, sure, but you're not breaking any kind of a law.

There is an argument that is commonly made in such situations, and I believe a couple of versions of Robin Hood, that having prices so high that one's food for sale is not getting sold during a famine because no one can afford it is basically the same as killing people while also rubbing it in that you have power over their lives.

And what does law have to do with what is good and what is evil anyway, Monsieur?

In any event, it's rather stupid anyway as food has a shelf life and it does the shopkeep no good if people that could pay starve to death because they're not part of the 1% that has nothing to worry about anyway and doesn't need his food.


BoED already calls out Drow Knockout Poison as not an evil act to use.

The main argument in favour of the non-CON poisons being not evil to use, might be that "real-life poisons vary greatly- some are not very painful at all".

One argument for stealing being not always evil is "to remove the ill-gotten gains from a villain and return it to those the villain has defrauded or robbed".

Indeed, makes their characterization of Robin Hood as a good archetype... problematic to say the least if they truly thought of things in absolutes.

I think alcohol not being classed as evil but causing wisdom damage also has something to do with it.