My gripe about shades of grey and subjective alignments

[Kenneth]

to start off, I just want everybody to know this is purely opinion based. after all everybody is entitled to their opinions.

I abhor the arguments that good and evil is a subjective term, and that there are shades of grey. especially when it applies to a game that is supposed to be about heroic fantasy ( at least the original Gary Gygax version was.. idk what its become now with random half vampire golems and what not...)


TO me in a game like this [D&D] as well as real life) you are either right Good or you are wrong Evil. there is no in between.

I was reading the home-brewed sub forum and say this littel quote "Morality is essentially subjective, so a "magic circle against Evil" should really only force people who consider themselves evil to be repulsed by being forced to see the actions of their crimes.....or something"

SO.. I can ( in character) go eat babies, rape women, murder any and everything in sight as as long as I think i am good, Im good?


Well hell i always thought Hitler was an evil human being.. I guess now I owe him, well teh whole entire world owes him an apology for showing him as THE example of a evil megalomanic dictator. Sorry Hitler, you thought you were doing the good thing.. so I guess you are good and we were wrong to stop it, and be horfirifed and the atrocit.. sorry Since they were the right thing to do.. i guess atrocitiy would be the wrong term.



If morality is subjective, then hwo cna anybody ever say anybody is wrong, or doing bad things? "Oh that peodphile over there.. yeah he is a great dude, lets have our children spend the night with him" TO me that just seems.. wrong. My quote would be liek " that peodphile over there... my kids are never EVER going withing 500 feet of him.. infact he is supposed to stay a certaind istance away at all times. and why is he even at the damn playground.. im callin the cops!"

Maybe I just grew up with teh wrong morals and ethics to think that indeed some actions are 'evil' and that some actions are 'good'. I apologize and will try to live int eh new {current} era.

AGAIN.. I want to emphasize that this is purpely my opinion. ANd you all may have all of your varied opinions as well.

[Shadowknight12]

I respect your opinion and I do not believe it's wrong. I believe that it's perfectly fine to run games like that.

I am in complete disagreement to you on the RL part of your post, but I don't think we're allowed to discuss such things here, so I won't.

I've played with subjective alignments in D&D and it's not really that awfully different from normal D&D. It merely removes some of the absolutes we've come to know and makes paladins and good-aligned clerics just as fallible as any other mortal, which works really well for some types of stories.

[Xanmyral]

There is nothing wrong with having a more concrete form of morality. Some people would even congratulate those with a strong sense of morality, as it could indicate strong tradition, discipline, and what not. That isn't to say that someone as shady as penumbra couldn't have the same level of tradition and discipline.

I'm personally more of the persuasion that calling something good or evil is a rather silly thing, as it's placing personal and often subjective metaphorical constructs on physical actions. I prefer the term harmful, and non-harmful honestly, as it's more precise and lines up better in my opinion.

A problem is though is that without grey, we have no neutral. Which if taken out of a game would cause my alignment to play limbo with the morality line on most of the characters I game with.

[Cerlis]

yes i could write a paragraph talking about this (note i dont say "refuting" or "aggreeing")

but my main thing to say is i hate how in games like fable everything either

a) doesnt matter
b) is good
c) is evil

oh and to answer your question, if its subjective then its based on the perception of the society in which actions take place.

For example,in Goblins, in lizardfolk society you often seduce, sexualize, greet and compliment people by ripping or biting off an extremity and eating it. in lizardfolk society this is a normal and significant part of their culture (the lizardfolk character refused to fight or eat robots cus he thought it was perverse), but humans and most humanoids would look at them and see them as an obviously evil race to reveal in such slaughter and masochism.

[Serpentine]

Well, that's it. Thread's already over. You invoked Godwin's Law in the very first post.

First of all, you're already delving into extremely complex philosophical thought. There are philosophies that maintain a concept of "all morality is purely subjective". I don't personally adhere to them, and I haven't done any philosophy study so I couldn't argue for them even if I did, but you are diving headlong into a very big, and very old, argument.

Secondly, there are some things that, generally speaking, you can expect most people to consider objectively wrong or right. Murder for no reason, most non-psychopaths will agree, is always wrong. Saving an innocent child from certain death, most people will agree, is (almost?) always right.

But 'most everything else? Purely comes down to opinion. Is genocide always wrong? I think so, but some people may disagree if it's, say, genocide against demons. Is self-sacrifice always noble? Some might think so, but there's plenty of situations where it could lead to horrible evils. Is revolution the noble quest for freedom, or destructive social destabilisation? Is the quest for personal power the search for perfection or selfishness? Are "deviant" sexualities natural and harmless or society-corrupting perversions? And so on.
There's too many mitigating circumstances and exceptions and differences in ideology for a truly black and white morality to ever be universally agreed upon, in any context. The blackest of black and the whitest of white might be easily identified, but there's an awful lot of wriggle-room in-between. In fact, yes, a truly terrible dictator who set out on a campaign of genocide and war could be considered greyish - if dark greyish - if he genuinely believed he was doing the right thing for his people.

Practically speaking, it pretty much just comes down to alignment being a lot easier to handle if everyone in your gaming group has very similar moral frameworks *shrug*

Oh, and by the way, I'm actually with you on this:
I was reading the home-brewed sub forum and say this littel quote "Morality is essentially subjective, so a "magic circle against Evil" should really only force people who consider themselves evil to be repulsed by being forced to see the actions of their crimes.....or something"
mostly because I believe that there are very, very few people - real or fictional - and fewer sane*, who really believe themselves to be Evil. I also prefer characters, PCs and NPCs, in my games to be ignorant of their own alignments. I have thus somewhat modified such spells in my games.


*and in a lot of cases, insanity is considered a reasonable excuse

[Kenneth]

I know I am diving headlong into a crazy very polrarized debate. IT tend to be very bullheaded at time.. (good thing i have a thick skull)

and.. what is godwins law? this si the first time ive ever heard of it. and try as I might.. i can;t think of any philosophical or psycholigcal 'law' that bears that name :( (its been a few.. well more than a few' since I was in school and took all of those classes, so i did forget some of what i learned)

that quote and a game I left once becuase of teh 'evil and good are subjective' thing was not my style. I do not want to come across as some sort of knight in shinning armor ( though that is prob closer to the truth LOL) Its just I think that there are indeed some things which are irrecovable 'evil' and 'good' Your example of murder and savign children was basically mine as well in that game. But just becuase My charater thought something was good, didn't mean it was.. apparenlty saving a child from drowning was an evil act and My character was ran out of town for being ' evil' I said. well since it is relative.. don't my charcters own blefs mandate that his actions are 'just and righteous' ? Oh well.


I have to say that I am very pleased with teh reponses thus far. I was actually epxeting mots people to just "lulz you bad' me. and proceed to tel me hwo I am doing it wrong.

Kudos to the community :)

[Alleran]

and.. what is godwins law? this si the first time ive ever heard of it. and try as I might.. i can;t think of any philosophical or psycholigcal 'law' that bears that name :( (its been a few.. well more than a few' since I was in school and took all of those classes, so i did forget some of what i learned)
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

[Ozymandias]

Essentially, you're confusing ethics ("I think or believe that murder is wrong") with metaphysics ("Murder is wrong). That's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's the core of it. The first position is trivially easy to defend, the latter very, very difficult.

Keep in mind that subjective things can be and are very important and valuable to people. Just because I don't think that murder is inherently, objectively wrong doesn't mean that I don't believe it's wrong; I make the subjective judgment that it (usually) is, and act accordingly. Subjective morality, moral behavior - no contradiction.

Also, this is only very tangentially related to roleplaying games; I don't think this forum is the right place for it.

[Kuma Kode]

I strongly suggest you remove the (and in real life) reference, as that's a lot like bait. We really can't discuss real-world philosophy here, and that's a big hook waiting for someone to respond to it. I strongly disagree with that, but we can't go into that. I'm not telling you to remove it because I disagree, but because it's a temptation to delve into an inappropriate topic.

On topic, I believe whether or not morality should be subjective or objective depends on whatever story you're trying to tell. For instance, I had a game set in a country dominated completely by a monotheistic religion built around a sun god (essentially Pelor). The plot involved a second, polytheistic religion that accused the sun god of being a trickster deity that deluded the people into believing it was the only true deity.

If morality had been black and white and an evil aura could be picked up by a cleric with a 1st level spell, this entire campaign would end fifteen minutes in. Subjectivity was key in making the players consider the possibility that they were actually on the wrong side.

[Draz74]

I actually believe in objective morality and absolute good and evil in Real Life (although obviously it can't be summarized accurately in a few brief, clear rules), but have no problem with fantasy worlds where gray and fuzzy morality dominates. Such settings make for some very interesting stories that couldn't be told otherwise.

And in many cases, I'm in favor of separating alignment from game mechanics even in a fantasy setting that does have objective morality.

[kardar233]

I grew up with WH40K, so subjective morality is old hat for me.

It still feels weird to go into a standard D&D setting like Greyhawk or FR and have to deal with absolute morality. The idea of an [Evil] spell feels off.

Or it might be my Utilitarian streak showing.

[Lord_Gareth]

Or it might be my ability to function and construct a reasonable societystreak showing.

Utilitarianism: it doesn't matter if we're wrong, because we're the only one that actually works when applied to a real environment ^_^

[Saintheart]

Only issue with most of this is that in most settings you have demonstrable if not present arbiters of What Is Good and What Is Evil hanging around adjudicating: the gods.

(Important note here for the Ur-Priests, er, Dawkins followers here :smallcool:) -- I said a demonstrable god, not a theoretical one who is variously behind the Gaps or waiting at the far end of The Singularity to reveal himself. :smallwink:

Morality being subjective is a stronger argument where there's no deities around not only providing tablets of stone commandments but backing it up with either cutting off access to the spiritual bank account or torments against the incorporeal soul if you decide to give 'em the finger. I would argue that it's terrifying when you think through to its logical endpoint the concept of a pantheon of stupendously powerful, direct, interventionist arbiters of one's moral centre -- as D&D gods are represented.

Even moreso that in some settings like FR some of the gods are ascended humans with all the emotional maturity of a two year old just handed the keys to a sweet shop. It's one step beyond the old Doctor Manhattan quote "God exists and he's American. If you are terrified by the implications of that statement, it only proves that you are still sane."

But it's also a bit of a false debate in any event. Morality in the real world carries no direct consequences to your health or capabilities; failing to stay within a given alignment range does significant harm to your notional character depending on your chosen profession in life. It's like comparing archery to a rock.

[Serpentine]

I know I am diving headlong into a crazy very polrarized debate.Not "polarising", very old and very complicated. As in, a whole lot of very famous philosophers have been discussing the objectivity or subjectivity of good and evil and right and wrong literally for... millennia, probably, without any definite conclusions.

and.. what is godwins law? this si the first time ive ever heard of it. and try as I might.. i can;t think of any philosophical or psycholigcal 'law' that bears that name :( (its been a few.. well more than a few' since I was in school and took all of those classes, so i did forget some of what i learned)
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
...
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

apparenlty saving a child from drowning was an evil act and My character was ran out of town for being ' evil' I said. well since it is relative.. don't my charcters own blefs mandate that his actions are 'just and righteous' ? Oh well.Was that the DM believing that act was Evil, or the townspeople? Did the townspeople have reason to think saving that child was an evil act? Was it evil - according local cultural beliefs - or Evil - according to that game's overarching alignment system?

[Username_too_lo]

People can, of course, homebrew whatever system they like; rip all four alignments out of the game, magic circles v, aligned weapons, gods, limitations on class requirements - heck, you could replace the word Chaotic with Flatulent, Lawful with Constipated, Good with Hamsters and Bad with Gerbils.

You just won't be playing the same game that was intended by the authors.

[Maralais]

Well, I just have one question: From what source will we know these supreme ethics? I mean, if somebody is either right or wrong, that means there's an ethical code that decides whether they're right or wrong, and I believe to say that, you would need to know those ethical codes.

So please, tell me, what are these ethical codes?

I hope I won't derail the thread to religion by saying this, but oh well...

The thing is, in real life(and as its reflections, on anything we create that simulates life, say, roleplaying games), it's not quite easy to find said codes. So, saving a drowning kid is good right? But what if that kid slaughters the whole village when he grows up? In this case, you would be responsible for what that kid did, thus your action could be counted as evil. But it was a right thing to do back then, was it not? I mean, it's just a poor kid, yelping and screaming HELP ME!.. And yet that village wouldn't be a ghost town if you didn't save him.

Aside from these moral dilemmas that are caused from lack of knowledge, there are also other moral dilemmas, caused by the simple difference of experience, which causes a difference of opinion.

Let's say we have another village, and there, they only make arranged marriages. So let's say your character sees a woman there and she falls in love with you, begging you to take her from the town, and you also find out that her husband treats her badly.

While sitting at a tavern, thinking about what to do with the girl, you overhear a conversation about the girl. "No matter how much we tell her that letting them choose their spouse only creates chaos, people were killed!" one of them says, the others agreeing.

So it seems these people adopted this rule, because the other way caused many problems, say, divorces, murders due to fights etc... And yet you also see that the girl was unhappy because of arranged marriages.

So, ethically, which way would be right? Arranged marriages or letting people choose their husband/wife? If something is either wrong or right, you gotta know the answer. But in shades of gray morality, you don't have to, because there can be exceptions where there is not a definitive answer.

Though as you said, everybody is entitled to their opinions.

[Shadowknight12]

You just won't be playing the same game that was intended by the authors.

Well, firstly, BoVD gives you some (rather vague) guidelines to implement subjective morality. It's not completely unprecedented.

Secondly, why is that a bad thing, again? I never met the late Mr. Gygax, so I don't really feel obliged to follow his intentions at all. I'm more than happy to take the systems he invented and use them for my own benefit.

[Serpentine]

He didn't say it was a bad thing. He just said it was different.

[hamishspence]

It would be fair to say that, even with "objective morality" as per the various D&D books, there will be a grey area in between. Motive and context can make a big difference to many acts.

And both BoVD and BoED mention motive and context as mattering.

"Forseeability" may play a big part- since characters don't know anything about a stranger (that's what makes them a stranger in the first place) making a personal sacrifice to help them is, by default, Good- since one cannot forsee that the stranger will turn out to be a villain several years in the future.

I would say that, even without importing subjective morality- D&D, under normal circumstances, will tend to have a certain amount of "shades of grey".

[Taelas]

In D&D, Good, Law, Chaos and Evil are tangible, physical forces -- like gravity. (Saintheart: the deities are not arbiters of alignment. In fact, they are subject to it every bit as much as the player characters.)

In real life, they are not.

What does this mean? Well, it means we cannot point to physical forces that determine what is right and what is wrong. Instead, we decide what that is, as a collective society.

Generally we choose out principles which we consider fair and try to adhere to them. Do not kill, do not steal, do not discriminate, and so on, and so forth.

As a side-note, a player can choose to ignore the alignment system on their own. If you are not dependent on alignment for class features, then your actual alignment doesn't matter. Let the GM worry about it and focus on playing the character.

[Maphreal]

Nature has no pity, nor has our vast, grandiose and highly incogitable universe taken the time to set aside an ethical code for those tiny carbon-based specks of flesh called humans.

Our societies define the overall moral code we go by, and that's okay. I'm not going to be giving a mass murderer the keys to my house because his actions didn't violate some cosmic code. In my eyes, he is both evil and poses a threat to myself and my family. That's all I need to worry about.

[Curious]

Nature has no pity, nor has our vast, grandiose and highly incogitable universe taken the time to set aside an ethical code for those tiny carbon-based specks of flesh called humans.

Our societies define the overall moral code we go by, and that's okay. I'm not going to be giving a mass murderer the keys to my house because his actions didn't violate some cosmic code. In my eyes, he is both evil and poses a threat to myself and my family. That's all I need to worry about.

This is basically all anyone needs to hear, and I support it wholeheartedly.

[Frozen_Feet]

After all everybody is entitled to their opinions.

Grrrr. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article467194.ece)

On the actual topic, one big thing that sticks to me is this:

Why get offended by in-game morality? Why fight against it based on your real-life beliefs, when it does not pertain to the real world?

Alignment is game rules. It does not bug me in the slightest if the in-game reality simulated by the rules does not fit my perception of this world. I can accept that actions of my character might be labeled Good or Evil even if I do not see them as either. In fact, this acceptance is one of the most natural ways to play and justify an evil character - the character duly notes the objective nature of "Good" and "Evil", and then disregards it because he doesn't think it actually mirrors true good and evil.

It doesn't matter to me if Alignment leads to silly labels for some fringe actions. Such hick-ups occur in any system of moral or ethics when rigidly adhered to. No matter how counter-intuitive, it's about as worrisome as the fact that high level people can fall from orbit and survive.

Most, if not all, alignment troubles would not exist if people could accept alignment as just another part of the rules and not get their own beliefs deeply involved. After all, the alignment rules aren't actually hugely complicated - in my view, people hate them less because they don't understand them, and more because they disagree with them.

Which is a bit silly.

[Ravens_cry]

Even though I like playing paladins and other "pure" characters a lot of the time, I like some shades in even the most high contrast game. After all, how is it really heroic for the hero to say no to temptation if the temptation is being offered by Baron Von Blackhaart the Evil, with 20 foot high letters of fire overhead saying, "THIS IS EVIL! ! !", if evil doesn't even remotely feel like a viable choice?
That's not heroism, that's melodrama.

[hamishspence]

pretty much. Objective alignment and shades of grey aren't incompatible- they simply mean that some of the characters tagged "evil" may be decidedly sympathetic.

And possibly vice versa.

[Cerlis]

Based on the fact that there are actual alignment planes, creatures that are made of alignment energies, and paladins get their power from goodness and seem to lose it if their soul gets "tainted" (thus not being a pure vessel of good) i'd like to point out that the Good and Evil of DnD is seperate from the good and evil of DnD. The first(set) is actual energy. pure force with properties of goodness. that is why a paladin can do something like sit and watch helpless while a child dies when there is nothing he can do and not fall, but a paladin who does something evil (like murder someone ) to save that child does fall. The intent is seperate from the act. it doesnt matter what he was thinking so much as the fact that the vessel of energy was tainted by other energy. and unlike other forms of paths to power, this one runs on pure goodness, so if its not pure, it doesnt run.

So like i said, Good and Evil are elemental forces of the universe, while good and evil are purely mental, they are ideas like the number 2. To better understand it, imagine a champion of the plane of air. Since air is chaotic he'd probably have to be so, and he couldnt ally with Airs enemies because Air would not give its power to a vessel tainted by the powers of earth. So a paladin commiting an evil act is no different than a Aeromancer commiting a Earthly act (such as an earth spell or becoming lawful)

[hamishspence]

Based on the fact that there are actual alignment planes, creatures that are made of alignment energies, and paladins get their power from goodness and seem to lose it if their soul gets "tainted" (thus not being a pure vessel of good) i'd like to point out that the Good and Evil of DnD is seperate from the good and evil of DnD. The first(set) is actual energy. pure force with properties of goodness. that is why a paladin can do something like sit and watch helpless while a child dies when there is nothing he can do and not fall, but a paladin who does something evil (like murder someone ) to save that child does fall. The intent is seperate from the act. it doesnt matter what he was thinking so much as the fact that the vessel of energy was tainted by other energy. and unlike other forms of paths to power, this one runs on pure goodness, so if its not pure, it doesnt run.

So like i said, Good and Evil are elemental forces of the universe, while good and evil are purely mental, they are ideas like the number 2.

Sounds pretty close. However, is one's actual alignment (as opposed from what one detects as) a mental feature?

Take the classic good-aligned demon paladin as an example. She detects as Evil- yet her alignment is Good, and she can draw on Goodness thanks to being a paladin.

[Gnorman]

Nature has no pity, nor has our vast, grandiose and highly incogitable universe taken the time to set aside an ethical code for those tiny carbon-based specks of flesh called humans.

Proof please.

[Cog]

Proof please.
The assertion that nature has provided such is the positive claim, and so is the one requiring proof. Maphreal's statement is merely the baseline negative assumption to build upon.

I suspect, however, that any non-hypothetical discussion of such potential proof in either direction would quickly run headfirst into the board rules.

[Serpentine]

Proof please.Well, there's evidence in the form of, for example, the various horrifying diseases and parasites that plague both humans and other animals that make sense for the evolutionary pathway of those organisms but are absolutely terrifying for their victims... But that's not really relevant to the thread at hand, is it?

hamishspence: I haven't properly articulated it for my gameworld yet, but I do view it along those lines. I think I distinguish between "physical" alignment - e.g. that demon Paladin is literally made of Evil - and "personality" or "mental" or maybe "actual" alignment, the sum of their actions, intentions and ideologies.

[hamishspence]

While "made of Evil" might overstate it slightly "has large amounts of Evil energy bound into them" may be closer.

"The sum of actions, intentions, and ideologies" as seperate from the "cosmic forces" does make sense though.

A fun question to ask may be "just how "evil" can a good character be and remain good" (or vice versa).

This tends to be when actions outweigh intentions and ideologies.

A character who does Good deeds, and refrains from Evil deeds, might be Good, even if they take a disturbing amount of delight in their "not technically evil" killings in self defense. Because, while enjoying the sufferings of others may be part of Evil ideology- it may not be enough, in the absence of actual Evil deeds.

Conversely, a character who has the Good ideology (making personal sacrifices to help strangers, not harming the innocent) might through sufficiently Evil deeds against the "not-innocent" gain an Evil alignment.

[Serpentine]

Don't have anything to add (mostly cuz I agree), just fixing the bug.

[hamishspence]

The alignment system- being based more on deeds (what one will do, and to an extent, what one won't do) than thoughts, allows for quite a degree of flexibility in personalities.

"Good" characters are pretty varied, and "Evil" ones are probably even more varied than that.

Similar with Neutral ones.

[Username_too_lo]

I get more problems from the Order/Chaos axis than the Good/Evil one.

I play a Warlock. They have to be Chaotic. I enter a library which says "Silence is mandatory." That's a rule; a Law, if you will. To play truly Chaotic, I would have to yell "SCREW YOU, FASCIST ARBITERS OF BEHAVIOUR! STOP OPRESSING MY CULTURE!" like a moody teenager (or Belkar) upon spotting that sign.

But alignment dictates what you're drawn to, not a slavish martyristic adherence to behaviour regardless. So, if a Paladin has to lie for the greater good on a rare occasion; he'll feel awful and sullied about it, but it doesn't bust him down unless he does it too often and starts to feel that it's a default solution to any problem.

[hamishspence]

I get more problems from the Order/Chaos axis than the Good/Evil one.

I play a Warlock. They have to be Chaotic. I enter a library which says "Silence is mandatory." That's a rule; a Law, if you will. To play truly Chaotic, I would have to yell "SCREW YOU, FASCIST ARBITERS OF BEHAVIOUR! STOP OPRESSING MY CULTURE!" like a moody teenager (or Belkar) upon spotting that sign.

That might be more for a Paladin of Freedom- who is required to disrespect authority whenever the opportunity arises. "Ordinary" Chaotic types may not be so tightly bound.


But alignment dictates what you're drawn to, not a slavish martyristic adherence to behaviour regardless. So, if a Paladin has to lie for the greater good on a rare occasion; he'll feel awful and sullied about it, but it doesn't bust him down unless he does it too often and starts to feel that it's a default solution to any problem.

Yup- "It's a violation, but not a gross violation" is what one paladin says to another about lying to Miko in War & XPs.

And BoVD helpfully points out Lying is not always an evil act.

Sometimes, a "for the greater good" character may finish up on the wrong side of the behaviour they're drawn to- despite having a natural affinity for compassion and personal sacrifices for strangers, their ruthlessness may take them across the line, so to speak.

[Taelas]

Grrrr. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article467194.ece)
Whoever wrote that needs to look up the word 'entitlement'. While he is correct in that holding an opinion does not automatically validate said opinion, having free speech does entitle him to hold any opinion he so chooses, regardless of whether that opinion is right or wrong.

This article (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=I_am_entitled_to_an_opinion.php) is far better on the subject.

[Yorae]

Just asking, about the good-aligned demon paladin example:

Shouldn't the paladin ping as both evil AND good (since detect evil picks up on their subtype and detect good can pick up on their alignment)?

[hamishspence]

"the creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment" could be read as allowing the creature to ping on both spells.

However- paladins don't get Detect Good- so without a cleric around, it can be hard to verify that the fiend is Good, without lie detecting magic.

In addition, fiends that are only partially redeemed (Neutral) have a problem- there is no "Detect Neutral" spell.

[Maphreal]

Proof please.

I don't need to prove it, as mentioned before, it's a baseline negative assumption. There has yet to be evidence for a cosmic moral code, so it is fair to assume there isn't one. This is the same reason why we expect UFO hunters, yeti fanatics and Nessie advocates to present proof for their arguments, rather than have the rest of the scientific world frantically wasting resources to prove them wrong.

If you've seen a cosmic tablet of ethical code and law, perhaps floating in a Lagrange point between Jupiter and Europa, I'm all ears.

[Shadowknight12]

Grrrr. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article467194.ece)

He's entitled to his opinion and to write about it and post it on the net. I am entitled to disagree. :smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

I believe you just handily missed the whole point of the article, but eh.

[Sylivin]

First, some clarifications:

1) D&D is not real life, it is not the real world, nor does it accurately mimic the real world. It is supposed to sorta mimic the real world and does contain most of its fundamental aspects, but then it adds more of its own.

And with regards to good and evil..

2) D&D cheats.

Most D&D settings have gods. We're not talking about god with a capital G, but rather gods as fundamental forces of nature. Within those fundamental forces of nature D&D adds "extra" forces of nature not found in the real world. Good and Evil are two of those new forces of nature. Goodness, in a similar fashion to positive energy, helps and heals what it comes across. Evilness, which is closely tied to negative energy, destroys and lessens what it comes across. Gods exist to promote these forces of nature and war against those that oppose them. Nothing like this exists in real life at all.

What I explained above is pretty much the "default" D&D world. You have clearly defined versions of good and evil. An evil person is one who is bathed in negative energy. His misdeeds have poisoned not his body, but his soul, and his soul is what Protection from Evil checks when it applies that +2. Once again, a clearly defined soul is another way D&D cheats. This is not a soul in a metaphysical sense, but in a clear - "Demons use souls as currency" sense.

Moving on, some of this varies setting by setting. In Eberron for example the world is supposed to be grey and that is reflected in the rules. Evil clerics worshiping a good god? Check. Gods coming down to dictate the order of nature? Nope - the gods stay in their little hideyholes and let mortals figure things out. Alignment still exists as a measure of one's soul, perhaps, but it stops after that. In Eberron good people do the wrong things for the right reasons, while evil warlords are only trying to build a better society for their people. It mimics real life a little more closely, but once again it still doesn't compare.

To get to some kind of point: Pick your setting wisely and run from there. You want clearly defined good and evil? Stick with the default setting, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, or any number of settings with clearly defined alignment restrictions. Make sure the party understands that this is "heroic fantasy" and the heros should be, in the end, heroic. Of course if you want a greyer game go with any number of settings which more closely approximate "real" life.

In the end though, worrying about shades of grey in a game doesn't really matter. D&D is not the real world and there are no arguments from an ethical or metaphysical standpoint. D&D has monsters that are, quite literally, born evil. Murdering them is more or less a good action for all of humanity. Genocide against goblins and orcs would usher in a golden age for the rest of the humanoids as they would no longer live in fear of massive, deadly raids.

No matter how strongly you feel on the subject, our world and the world of D&D can never compare together. Too much is far, far too different.

[Kenneth]

Grrrr. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article467194.ece)

On the actual topic, one big thing that sticks to me is this:

Why get offended by in-game morality? Why fight against it based on your real-life beliefs, when it does not pertain to the real world?

Alignment is game rules. It does not bug me in the slightest if the in-game reality simulated by the rules does not fit my perception of this world. I can accept that actions of my character might be labeled Good or Evil even if I do not see them as either. In fact, this acceptance is one of the most natural ways to play and justify an evil character - the character duly notes the objective nature of "Good" and "Evil", and then disregards it because he doesn't think it actually mirrors true good and evil.

It doesn't matter to me if Alignment leads to silly labels for some fringe actions. Such hick-ups occur in any system of moral or ethics when rigidly adhered to. No matter how counter-intuitive, it's about as worrisome as the fact that high level people can fall from orbit and survive.

Most, if not all, alignment troubles would not exist if people could accept alignment as just another part of the rules and not get their own beliefs deeply involved. After all, the alignment rules aren't actually hugely complicated - in my view, people hate them less because they don't understand them, and more because they disagree with them.

Which is a bit silly.

SO.. becuase I expressed an opinion, I am in validated? That grinds on my gears more than this whole good vs evil. Peopel are still of the mindset that 'you don't agree with me you are therefore wrong?" Liven up please.

Also I have to admit.. I was not 100% clear as to what I was trying to get across in terms of evil vs good, subjectitivty etc..

I whole heartedly agree that in terms of right vs wrong. It is completely subjective. Good bersus evil i will argue Is not so.. muteable.

FOr example. You character walks into the town wearing a red cloak, The loacl law is that only certain perople of a certain clas are allowed to wear red. Did he/she do somthing wrong. In that instance yes, in other most people would not care what color cloak a person is wearing.. Is that act evil.. hardly.

Now, there is a character who decides to Extend his own life by draining the souls of innocent children. In this partiucalr nation.. children have ZERO legal protection. so He is doing somerhign right.. is it good.. I would say No it is not a good act at all.

My argument herein becomes that right =/= good and wrong =/= evil. I could give a few more example but I am hungry and need to cook some italian wedding soup for dinner.

Again for just about everybody (there had to be that one exception ) I am astounded at the over-all maturaty, level headedness, and respect that the community has shown in this. Gives me hope for the future of humanity, It rare for poepl to be so. mm whats the word.. delicate..? On sucha topic, let alone in a forum (pardon teh pun) where you are all but unknown to your fellows.

again You have my commendations.

[Bovine Colonel]

SO.. becuase I expressed an opinion, I am in validated? That grinds on my gears more than this whole good vs evil. Peopel are still of the mindset that 'you don't agree with me you are therefore wrong?" Liven up please.

What? No one ever said that.

If it were like that, no one would be able to say anything more complex than "pass the salt."

No, the thing is, people who claim opinions also need to be capable of supporting them.

[Shadowknight12]

What? No one ever said that.

If it were like that, no one would be able to say anything more complex than "pass the salt."

No, the thing is, people who claim opinions also need to be capable of supporting them.

Nope. There's no actual need to support one's views. If you are willing to endure the consequences of such a decision (other people not being convinced to adopt those opinions), then you're golden.

The actual fallacy comes from expecting others to agree or adopt those views simply because you spouse them. That's different. Merely having opinions and expressing them has no requirements or restrictions.

[Kenneth]

what kind fo complete nonsense is this ' i need to put supporting facts behind my opinion"


it is an opinion.. " my favorite colors are red and black" that is an opinion.. I do not need facts to support this.

If i was trying to get an argument across, or prove a theory YES i would nbeed suppoting statemnt but an opinions is merely that an opinion.

and did you read what frozen_fet linked. Basically it was teh whole ' you are not agreeing with me so therefor you opinion is invlaid. when no bodies opinion is EVER valid NOR invlaid.. ones arguemnt and one's theory can be.. but opinoion.. there is no way .

[Frozen_Feet]

SO.. becuase I expressed an opinion, I am in validated?

No, not at all. Quite the opposite, even. The article is about how your entitlement to an opinion is entirely vacuous for assessing its worth, or validity. The assertion that someone's "entitled to their opinion" is entirely useless for discussion, unless the topic happens to be freedom of speech.

I don't have anything against you as far as it pertain to the actual topic, but the statement "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is something of a pet peeve of mine. :smallsmile:

[Volthawk]

I get more problems from the Order/Chaos axis than the Good/Evil one.

I play a Warlock. They have to be Chaotic. I enter a library which says "Silence is mandatory." That's a rule; a Law, if you will. To play truly Chaotic, I would have to yell "SCREW YOU, FASCIST ARBITERS OF BEHAVIOUR! STOP OPRESSING MY CULTURE!" like a moody teenager (or Belkar) upon spotting that sign.

But alignment dictates what you're drawn to, not a slavish martyristic adherence to behaviour regardless. So, if a Paladin has to lie for the greater good on a rare occasion; he'll feel awful and sullied about it, but it doesn't bust him down unless he does it too often and starts to feel that it's a default solution to any problem.

Law and Chaos doesn't mean blindly following or defying laws. It's more about the community vs. the individual, I think. Law is about being in an ordered, regulated community, and how it works as a whole while Chaos is more about thinking about what each individual wants and feels. Now, how people act on that preference varies, but that's where the moral axis comes in.

[thamolas]

The crossed out Hitler example is the best starting point for a reflection of reality.

Hitler was, by all accounts, a charitable man who loved animals, despised corruption, deplored violence (against what he believed people to be), and always did his best to do what he thought was the right thing.

He was also a megalomaniacal (and quite delusional) mass murderer who also happened to order bizarre breeding programs against his own people's will.

His friends probably thought he was a saintly human being. Most people felt/feel he was pure evil. In reality, he was crazy and managed to wield a ridiculous amount of power to use to his own twisted ends. Give any crazy person that much power and you can expect terrible things to happen.

I understand where the rant comes from, however. The "dark antihero" (or plain villain) has become startlingly popular while the traditional "hero" is less popular. I agree that we do need more cut-and-dry heroes. How many heroes have the cliche "tortured past"? Ugh. I think we need more "adventurers" with normal, stable families and deeper reasons to be adventurers.

[Shadowknight12]

The assertion that someone's "entitled to their opinion" is entirely useless for discussion, unless the topic happens to be freedom of speech.

You're assuming that there's only one reason for expressing one's opinion, that is, discussion. Some people have no interest in discussing their opinions because they don't feel the need to convince other to adopt them. Sometimes what a thread is about is an exchange of opinions. You tell me what you think about something, I tell you what I think and we both walk away after contemplating things from another point of view.

[Sucrose]

what kind fo complete nonsense is this ' i need to put supporting facts behind my opinion"


it is an opinion.. " my favorite colors are red and black" that is an opinion.. I do not need facts to support this.

If i was trying to get an argument across, or prove a theory YES i would nbeed suppoting statemnt but an opinions is merely that an opinion.

and did you read what frozen_fet linked. Basically it was teh whole ' you are not agreeing with me so therefor you opinion is invlaid. when no bodies opinion is EVER valid NOR invlaid.. ones arguemnt and one's theory can be.. but opinoion.. there is no way .

The article does not say that an opinion is invalid, merely that the fact you hold an opinion does not obligate others to respect that opinion. For others to treat your viewpoint with respect, you need to support your opinion, and prove it worthy of respect.

You are entitled to your opinion, but others are equally entitled to opinions like 'Kenneth's beliefs are bollocks.' Decisions thus need to be made based on logical merits of opinions, which you establish by giving supporting facts about them, convincing others to agree with you.

[Frozen_Feet]

You're assuming that there's only one reason for expressing one's opinion, that is, discussion. Some people have no interest in discussing their opinions because they don't feel the need to convince other to adopt them. Sometimes what a thread is about is an exchange of opinions. You tell me what you think about something, I tell you what I think and we both walk away after contemplating things from another point of view.

Exchanging opinions is one form of discussion. Mentioning any sort of "entitlement" is entirely meaningless in that context as well. If you're not debating or arguing over an opinion, then the only form of entitlement pertaining to the discussion is your right to express your opinion, and that is self-evident from the fact that you've expressed it and the moderators of the board have not censored your post.

[Shadowknight12]

Exchanging opinions is one form of discussion. Mentioning any sort of "entitlement" is entirely meaningless in that context as well. If you're not debating or arguing over an opinion, then the only form of entitlement pertaining to the discussion is your right to express your opinion, and that is self-evident from the fact that you've expressed it and the moderators of the board have not censored your post.

If that's true, then your previous statement is false, because having no support for your opinions does not actually impede that type of communication. If I say "Explosions are awesome!" I don't need to support my views for you to consider for yourself the awesomeness of explosions and whether what I said is true or not. I am entitled to think that explosions are awesome and I don't actually need proof to support this. If you don't agree, that's fine. My objective was to get you to consider whether explosions are awesome or not, and I have. My goals have been satisfied. If I wanted to convince you that explosions are awesome, I would indeed have to provide proof, and expecting you to agree with me simply because I say so would be quite silly.

As for whether I have a right to express opinions or not, that's actually not as self-evident as it seems. There's a difference between what's formally allowed and what's informally allowed. Just because something is formally allowed to be expressed doesn't mean that it's informally allowed too. For example, I have a right to talk about how my friend Alice punched my other friend Bob in the face. Formally, I am allowed to do this because formal authority (let's say, the police; or in your case, the moderators) will not censor me for talking about that. However, if I know that Bob and Alice do not want to talk about that episode, I am informally not allowed to talk about it. If I talk about it, I will face consequences for speaking my mind.

When one is said "I am entitled to speak my mind," they speak of all types of allowance. If this board was informally opposed to speaking of certain things, declaring such an entitlement can help change the prevalent tendencies and foster a more accepting and open-minded environment, and that's still without having to provide proof of my opinions.

[Kenneth]

The article does not say that an opinion is invalid, merely that the fact you hold an opinion does not obligate others to respect that opinion. For others to treat your viewpoint with respect, you need to support your opinion, and prove it worthy of respect.

You are entitled to your opinion, but others are equally entitled to opinions like 'Kenneth's beliefs are bollocks.' Decisions thus need to be made based on logical merits of opinions, which you establish by giving supporting facts about them, convincing others to agree with you.



Uh.. again. that is not what an opinion is in any sense of the word.

Needing supporting facts and trying to convince others is a theory. not an opinion. When you give an opinion. there is no need for you to expect other to be swayed to your side. becuase with an opinion, you are not. again i post my previois example of that " my faveorit colors are red and black" That is an opinion.. you and frost feet or whatever trying to tell me that I need supporting facts to have a favorite color, or a favorite band ( Journey by the way) it downright ludicrous. its a persoal opinion. I am just stating something and there is no sides to be taken in thatmatter. If there was a side I am trying to get you to take i.e saying ' red and blakc are the BEST colors.." then yes. I would need a trail of facts supporting my stance.


and opinion is completely neutral in that regard. You are not even trying to attempt to sway anybody to your side. just staing a person preference. Much love to shadowknight who seems ot be agreeing with me on the fact that opinions do not reqire you to have suport facts for them to be relvant.

Now I am trying to sway frozen, sucrose and the others (if any) that an opinion does not warrant any supporting facst becuase the intention of an opinion is just a statemnt fo preference. Not like a debate where you are trying to sway your opposite to your side.

Ii have no idea how one can say that in order for me to say " my faveorite colors are red and back" that I need actualy tangible FACTS to back that up..

[Kenneth]

.. I need to apologize to everyone..

I allowed myself to get caught up in this whole ' if you have an opinion, you ned supporting facst; thread derailment..


I humbly grovel at your feet and pray that you will forgive me.

[Daverin]

As likely as it may be that even being a part of this thread is a bad idea (I'm sorry, but this has trainwreck written all over it form beginning to end), I just want to point out that the article is failing to find a duty because it is only considering one form of rights, claim rights. As a matter of fact, there is a term in political/legal theory, called liberty rights, that simply deal with the 'liberty' to act a certain way or hold a certain permission. They are granted, in part, by the very fact that nobody truly has an explicit claim against them. In this case, the "entitlement" to an opinion would be a positive liberty right, which means it is a right that allows/ obliges an action, entitlement to an opinion, and one which arises due to the lack of any claim anyone has against it. In addition, if you really want to be creative, the individual has the duty to "defend" his right to that opinion, i.e. insist it is his choice, and if there were any duties imposed on the interlocutor, which do not, in fact, need to exist, then they could have the duty to not magically erase that opinion from the individual in question. Obviously, these were not mentioned by article because they seem all but impossible to see as issues; a person has no qualms at holding an opinion, and I do not know, at the moment, of a method of changing/removing an opinion with absolutely no "acquiescence" (admittedly, I'm sure some would question torture as a truly voluntary acceptance of the opinion change, but I'm talking literally no input from the individual in question.)

So... yeah! This does not, however, invalidate the fact that the right to an opinion has no real bearing on an argument and its course; it just establishes that the person, in a sense, has the right to argue at all, no matter how frivolously or foolishly it may seem. But I just wanted to clear that up.

[Frozen_Feet]

If that's true, then your previous statement is false, because having no support for your opinions does not actually impede that type of communication.

Which statement?

In any case, I direct you to this site (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=I_am_entitled_to_an_opinion.php) Szar Lakol linked to already. The article I linked to talked mainly of entitlement in its epistemic sense, in which case, yes, you do need justification to be entitled to an opinion.

In legal sense, you have the right to hold any opinion, wrong or not, but flaunting it is meaningless. It might not impede communication where opinions are only exchanged, but it isn't useful either. Stating you're "entitled to an opinion" is meaningless if your right to express the opinion wasn't in question in the first place.


If I say "Explosions are awesome!" I don't need to support my views for you to consider for yourself the awesomeness of explosions and whether what I said is true or not. I am entitled to think that explosions are awesome and I don't actually need proof to support this. If you don't agree, that's fine. My objective was to get you to consider whether explosions are awesome or not, and I have. My goals have been satisfied. If I wanted to convince you that explosions are awesome, I would indeed have to provide proof, and expecting you to agree with me simply because I say so would be quite silly.

Yes, you have right to spout whatever you think as long as it falls within the board rules. Stating that right is usually completely needless, as it'd be in the case you describe above.

Saying "Explosions are awesome!" is a-okay. "I have the right to say that explosion are awesome" is... silly.


If I talk about it, I will face consequences for speaking my mind.

You will face consequences for speaking your mind regardless of what you speak, provided someone hears/listens to you. Most of the time those consequences are just unnotable.


When one is said "I am entitled to speak my mind," they speak of all types of allowance. If this board was informally opposed to speaking of certain things, declaring such an entitlement can help change the prevalent tendencies and foster a more accepting and open-minded environment, and that's still without having to provide proof of my opinions.

Now you're talking about whether or not you have the right to express your opinion, ergo freedom of speech, which I specifically listed as an expection. I'd rather you not go off a tangent that was adressed already.


Uh.. again. that is not what an opinion is in any sense of the word.

I'm afraid you missed the point. Meaning of the word "opinion" is not the issue here - meaning of the word "entitlement" is. In the epistemic sense, you bluntly aren't entitled to unjustified opinions.


Ii have no idea how one can say that in order for me to say " my faveorite colors are red and back" that I need actualy tangible FACTS to back that up..

But you actually have a justification - word from the person that can be assumed to know best (i.e., yourself). If I was to dispute that, I'd be claiming you are lying, and would need to justify that opinion in turn (such as by pointing out all your clothes are white and your diary reads "I hate red and black").

Tangible facts are one form of justification, but not the only ones. Not all facts are tangible anyway.

[Shadowknight12]

Which statement?

This one:


The assertion that someone's "entitled to their opinion" is entirely useless for discussion, unless the topic happens to be freedom of speech.

If you include "exchange of opinions" as a form of discussion (which is debatable, since you're not actually discussing anything), then the statement I just quoted is false, since the aforementioned exchange is perfectly possible and completely unimpeded regardless of whether those opinions are backed up or not. I can say "I think explosions are awesome!" and you can disagree, and the exchange has taken place all the same, with neither part having to back anything up.


In any case, I direct you to this site (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=I_am_entitled_to_an_opinion.php) Szar Lakol linked to already. The article I linked to talked mainly of entitlement in its epistemic sense, in which case, yes, you do need justification to be entitled to an opinion.

That article is quite flawed, since epistemic refers exclusively to knowledge.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemic).


adjective
of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.

If you have epistemic opinions, it means you're talking about knowledge and/or the conditions for acquiring it. "I prefer winter to summer" is not something that pertains to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.

Normally, things that are epistemic in nature are exclusively the province of science, philosophy and (especially) epistemology. Trying to apply epistemic [anything] to a discussion that does not pertain to those topics is quite futile, since we're not actually adhering to the rules that govern those disciplines. In science, one must back up their (scientific) assertions and (scientific) beliefs with evidence, that's true. But those are rules that apply only to science (or philosophy/epistemology). We're not talking about scientific or philosophical matters, so we're not obliged to follow those rules.


In legal sense, you have the right to hold any opinion, wrong or not, but flaunting it is meaningless. It might not impede communication where opinions are only exchanged, but it isn't useful either. Stating you're "entitled to an opinion" is meaningless if your right to express the opinion wasn't in question in the first place.

Do try to avoid following that article too closely, as it vastly oversimplifies all the different qualifiers that can apply to entitlement of opinion. See my previous example about the distinction between formal (or legal) allowance to express an opinion and informal.

Actually, entitlement to an opinion is meaningless only if nobody is trying to tell you that the opinion is wrong, or that you should not express it, or that you should hold different opinions. If none of those conditions are true, then yes, you're right. Expressing entitlement makes no sense. However, a person may well believe that others are telling him or her that they are not entitled to have such an opinion, in which case such a declaration is warranted. Just because you don't imply that others are not entitled to their opinions doesn't mean that other people don't, either, and that expressing this entitlement is wholly unwarranted.


Yes, you have right to spout whatever you think as long as it falls within the board rules. Stating that right is usually completely needless, as it'd be in the case you describe above.

Saying "Explosions are awesome!" is a-okay. "I have the right to say that explosion are awesome" is... silly.

Only if nobody is actually implying that I should think differently. If someone is implying such, or trying to convince me to change my mind, or saying that my opinions are wrong, or that I don't have a right to say so, then yes, such a statement is warranted.


You will face consequences for speaking your mind regardless of what you speak, provided someone hears/listens to you. Most of the time those consequences are just unnotable.

My mistake. "Meaningful, notable and undesirable consequences that I would not face if I had chosen to spout a different opinion." Better?


Now you're talking about whether or not you have the right to express your opinion, ergo freedom of speech, which I specifically listed as an expection. I'd rather you not go off a tangent that was adressed already.

There's a difference between "discussing free speech" and "I want to talk about topic X but I get shouted down if I do, thereby I feel that my opinions are being informally disallowed." Freedom of speech refers to the formal or legal allowance to speak. I'm talking about the informal kind.

But if you believe that's a different tangent, we'll just stop there.

[Frozen_Feet]

If you include "exchange of opinions" as a form of discussion (which is debatable, since you're not actually discussing anything), then the statement I just quoted is false, since the aforementioned exchange is perfectly possible and completely unimpeded regardless of whether those opinions are backed up or not.

My claim wasn't "this statement actively impedes discussion". It was "this statement is useless". Something can be useless without being a hindrance.


But if you believe that's a different tangent, we'll just stop there.

No, I believe it's the same tangent. Of course talking about your right to express an opinion (i.e., freedom of speech) makes sense, when that right is in question. But it doesn't really pertain to this discussion, so.

[Shadowknight12]

My claim wasn't "this statement actively impedes discussion". It was "this statement is useless". Something can be useless without being a hindrance.

Ah, my bad, then.


No, I believe it's the same tangent. Of course talking about your right to express an opinion (i.e., freedom of speech) makes sense, when that right is in question. But it doesn't really pertain to this discussion, so.

As you wish.

[KingofMadCows]

You can't compare morality in D&D with morality in real life since D&D doesn't deal with the thorny issue of determinism.

We don't know if human or even animal behavior is deterministic or indeterministic. For all we know, we're no different than robots, just with more complex programming. A murderer may simply be a murderer because they were "programmed" by a combination of their genes and their environment. Morality would be pointless since good people are good because they're just "programmed" to be good and bad people are bad because they're "programmed" to be bad.

Things aren't easier in an indeterministic universe either since it would depend on the source of indeterminism. If a person goes down a path of crime because a couple of quarks or electrons in their brain happened to spin in a "bad" direction, then their behavior was simply a result of random chance. Morality would be pointless because it's all behavior is inherently random.

[Kalirren]

You can't compare morality in D&D with morality in real life since D&D doesn't deal with the thorny issue of determinism.

We don't know if human or even animal behavior is deterministic or indeterministic. For all we know, we're no different than robots, just with more complex programming. A murderer may simply be a murderer because they were "programmed" by a combination of their genes and their environment. Morality would be pointless since good people are good because they're just "programmed" to be good and bad people are bad because they're "programmed" to be bad.

Things aren't easier in an indeterministic universe either since it would depend on the source of indeterminism. If a person goes down a path of crime because a couple of quarks or electrons in their brain happened to spin in a "bad" direction, then their behavior was simply a result of random chance. Morality would be pointless because it's all behavior is inherently random.

All events are stochastic, and stochastic events can still have controllable bias. To disavow moral responsibility for anything because of the presence of a stochastic element in its making is a sophist cop-out.

If anything this is something that D&D and the real world -share-.

[KingofMadCows]

All events are stochastic, and stochastic events can still have controllable bias. To disavow moral responsibility for anything because of the presence of a stochastic element in its making is a sophist cop-out.

If anything this is something that D&D and the real world -share-.

And what is the random element in human behavior and what is the controlling element? How do those elements logically lead to moral responsibility in the individual?

[Maphreal]

You can't compare morality in D&D with morality in real life since D&D doesn't deal with the thorny issue of determinism.

We don't know if human or even animal behavior is deterministic or indeterministic. For all we know, we're no different than robots, just with more complex programming. A murderer may simply be a murderer because they were "programmed" by a combination of their genes and their environment. Morality would be pointless since good people are good because they're just "programmed" to be good and bad people are bad because they're "programmed" to be bad.

Things aren't easier in an indeterministic universe either since it would depend on the source of indeterminism. If a person goes down a path of crime because a couple of quarks or electrons in their brain happened to spin in a "bad" direction, then their behavior was simply a result of random chance. Morality would be pointless because it's all behavior is inherently random.

One internet cookie for you, sir.

I've always been interested in the subject of free will. For non-mystic solutions, it pretty much comes down to if thought processes in the brain are derived from quantum effects or not.

If it's not, then hypothetically if all variables in any given situation are the same, a person will make the same decision, no matter how many times the situation was "replayed". If it is, then there can be some variation in what decisions are made.

I'm of the opinion that either way, free will is an illusion. Even if you add random quantum effects, you're just throwing probability into the equation, nothing more.

In the real world it's irrelevant either way, I've discovered that my boss doesn't care whether or not skipping out on work was predetermined by the laws of physics. I still get fired if I don't go to work.

[Serpentine]

FOr example. You character walks into the town wearing a red cloak, The loacl law is that only certain perople of a certain clas are allowed to wear red. Did he/she do somthing wrong. In that instance yes, in other most people would not care what color cloak a person is wearing.. Is that act evil.. hardly.Yes, he broke a law of the area and therefore did something wrong, for a given value of wrong. But whether or not it was evil is entirely a matter of perspective. Do those people think wearing red is evil? If so - especially if they have good reason to (The Village comes to mind) then, yes, from their perspective it definitely is an evil thing to do. Is it, in terms of overall gameworld morality, an Evil act? Probably not, although it's entirely possible for a gameworld to have such a feature. If he flouted the law, without expecting that any significant harm would come of it, then that would be a Chaotic action. If he flouted the law knowing that significant harm would come of it, then I would probably consider that a Chaotic Evil action. It all depends, but there is the difference between percieved morality and objective, game terms morality. In this regard, I kinda think D&D has an advantage over reality...

Now, there is a character who decides to Extend his own life by draining the souls of innocent children. In this partiucalr nation.. children have ZERO legal protection. so He is doing somerhign right.. is it good.. I would say No it is not a good act at all.Here, you completely obscure the terms "right", "wrong", "good" and "evil". Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is right - this is something I suspect the best Paladin characters believe strongly in. He is doing something acceptable to his society, maybe, and he may even believe that it is right, but that doesn't make it so. The people in his society may not consider it an evil act (although I would point out that "zero legal protection" does not necessarily mean "who gives a crap? Do whatever the Hell you want to them), but I think you'd be hard pressed finding a gameworld in which that isn't an Evil act.

To reiterate: there is a difference between the individual, perceived moralities and the cosmic, "objective" morality of the game world. The latter, which I think is what you're most concerned about although you keep obscuring it with small stuff, is always determined by the Dungeon Master, who decides everything about the world. As, in reality, every single person on the planet has their own personal ethical framework, which is often hypocritical, inconsistent, poorly articulated, and full of exceptions and permeations, it is entirely reasonable to expect their game worlds to be the same. Thus, shades-of-grey.

[KingofMadCows]

In the real world it's irrelevant either way, I've discovered that my boss doesn't care whether or not skipping out on work was predetermined by the laws of physics. I still get fired if I don't go to work.

But if everything is predetermined by the laws of physics then it won't matter if your boss cares or not since the fact that they don't care is also predetermined by the laws of physics.

[Rogue Shadows]

But if everything is predetermined by the laws of physics then it won't matter if your boss cares or not since the fact that they don't care is also predetermined by the laws of physics.

I am either predetermined to find this a dull and uninteresting way to run the universe; or else I choose of my own free will to find this a dull and uninteresting way to run the universe.

Either way I prefer the concept of free will in D&D. Having said that I also tend to run a version of alignment in D&D that hews pretty close to Eberron's version.

Mostly, I'm of the opinion that alignment is the sum total of your actions and thoughts rather than any particular action or thought resulting in an alignment shift.

Basically I crib the morality system from Vampire: the Masquerade a little bit.

[ffone]

TO me in a game like this [D&D] as well as real life) you are either right Good or you are wrong Evil. there is no in between.


Actually there is by construction, the Neutral 'row' of the alignment grid.



I was reading the home-brewed sub forum and say this littel quote "Morality is essentially subjective, so a "magic circle against Evil" should really only force people who consider themselves evil to be repulsed by being forced to see the actions of their crimes.....or something"

So, I dislike subjective morality in D&D too, but it's worth pointing out that subjective is an overloaded term here, some people mean

"Each character gets to define themselves as good or evil"
vs
"How we define alignment is subjective - but for a given campaign, it's objective to the characters" (i.e. artistic subjectivity at the player/DM level)

[KingofMadCows]

I am either predetermined to find this a dull and uninteresting way to run the universe; or else I choose of my own free will to find this a dull and uninteresting way to run the universe.

Either way I prefer the concept of free will in D&D. Having said that I also tend to run a version of alignment in D&D that hews pretty close to Eberron's version.

Mostly, I'm of the opinion that alignment is the sum total of your actions and thoughts rather than any particular action or thought resulting in an alignment shift.

Basically I crib the morality system from Vampire: the Masquerade a little bit.

D&D allows for free will (for most PC's) because it's based on the philosophy of dualism. A creature's soul, assuming it has one, is free from the deterministic nature of the physical universe. The connection between a person and their soul allows them to break the laws of physics and bend reality to their will.

[Maphreal]

But if everything is predetermined by the laws of physics then it won't matter if your boss cares or not since the fact that they don't care is also predetermined by the laws of physics.

Of course, but applying this logic to real life situations is silly at best and hazardous at worst. But then again it's predetermined if I'm going to apply this logic to real life situations...

[The Random NPC]

My way of showing shades of grey is the following situation, the murder of an innocent child. Most people would agree that it is evil, but what if there were more affects from the murder? Say, for example, it ended all suffering for a year. Would that be worth it? What if it lasted longer? Would 20 years be worth a child's murder? What if the child's murder created a utopia that lasted until the end of time? I guess the question I ask is, do the ends justify the means, if the means are a comparatively small evil to the end good?

[Rogue Shadows]

My way of showing shades of grey is the following situation, the murder of an innocent child. Most people would agree that it is evil, but what if there were more affects from the murder? Say, for example, it ended all suffering for a year. Would that be worth it? What if it lasted longer? Would 20 years be worth a child's murder? What if the child's murder created a utopia that lasted until the end of time? I guess the question I ask is, do the ends justify the means, if the means are a comparatively small evil to the end good?

My view on the matter is that of Luke Skywalker's:

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."

Also, I believe that actions can rarely be retroactively justified. If murdering a child creates a utopia forever, that is a Good outcome, but the actual action itself was still Evil.

[Frozen_Feet]

In the real world it's irrelevant either way.

This is my opinion on mostm using on determinism and lack of free will. If you don't have free will, whatever you feel on the issue doesn't change anything; it's best to act if you did have a choice, and assume others do as well, because the alternative doesn't offer any practical application.

But it's clear that no freedom is absolute. Your choices are always influenced and constrained by who you are, what you are, where you are, what you've done, what you can do, and what the consequences will be - karma, in a single word. I could say that every living thing has free will in the sense they can choose, but there isn't always a choice.

[MeeposFire]

My way of showing shades of grey is the following situation, the murder of an innocent child. Most people would agree that it is evil, but what if there were more affects from the murder? Say, for example, it ended all suffering for a year. Would that be worth it? What if it lasted longer? Would 20 years be worth a child's murder? What if the child's murder created a utopia that lasted until the end of time? I guess the question I ask is, do the ends justify the means, if the means are a comparatively small evil to the end good?

Depends on how you determine what an ethical choice is. For a utilitarian it might be worth it, for somebody who uses Kant's maxims you would get a no, using the golden mean I would have to say no as it is too extreme, other systems are out there.

Oddly your choice in real life has little bearing on what is ethical in D&D which has its own ethical system.

[Cerlis]

Sounds pretty close. However, is one's actual alignment (as opposed from what one detects as) a mental feature?

Take the classic good-aligned demon paladin as an example. She detects as Evil- yet her alignment is Good, and she can draw on Goodness thanks to being a paladin.

thats just it, there should be an entry for actual alignment (as in your soul's polarity) and your intentful alignmnent. For instance, like your demon paladin, in Buffy Vampires are evil undead, because they are made of evil. It didnt matter that 2 characters got souls, where redeemed and became non evil, they where still burnt by holy aritfacts and subject to magics that bound evil creatures. They where physically evil, but not mentally evil.

One thing to remember is that paladins (clerics, and blackguards) all have an aura equal to their class level. Most other characters may have an evil or good aura, but it is much smaller, and based on HD. So whether or not a creature views themselves as an entity of good or evil, they are one, So someone can try to be as good as they want, but if they physically taint their soul with evil energy such as using Necromancy spells for good, they can be prevented from having a good aura, or even gain an evil aura

MOST of the time, your alignment id dictated by your actions and your decision to make those actions, but however there are times when there are other factors, like being forced into an action, or doing stuff like exposing oneself to evil energy. We might not think its an evil act to cast an evil spell, but it IS an Evil act (as in the energy type)

So the entire whole of decent people in the multiverse may decide that that hardy general is a good man and should go to the good plane in the afterlife. He is motivated by good, and he does everything for good reasons, he doesnt even usually have to do shady things to do good, but as a general there are times he DOES have to do the halmark of LE and perform "for the greater good" and as a general this involves the lives of hundreds or even thousands of people. So though everyone sees him as good. He may have to face the fact that the physical energy of his soul is tainted by Evil acts to much to the point of him being Neutral and doesnt even show on the Good Radar. Luckily as most people write good creatures, you might have his judges decide that he still deserves it and he gets a pardon......exactly like Roy!


So you see, the idea of there being two aligmnents. Actual physical alignment and subjective alignment isnt spelled out. But it is highly suggested in the various books that involves morality. Complete scoundrel, BoVD, BoED, Complete Champion, and other books. and class entries.

Its never outright said but its HIGHLY suggested and it works.

-------------------
to more directly address the demon paladin thing. by core that would be impossible, you'd use other supliment or homebrewing for that. it would be simular to the angel pardoning Roy, but a little before hand. Kinda like a Sheriff deputizing someone.


----------------------------
View Post
My way of showing shades of grey is the following situation, the murder of an innocent child. Most people would agree that it is evil, but what if there were more affects from the murder? Say, for example, it ended all suffering for a year. Would that be worth it? What if it lasted longer? Would 20 years be worth a child's murder? What if the child's murder created a utopia that lasted until the end of time? I guess the question I ask is, do the ends justify the means, if the means are a comparatively small evil to the end good?

this is a prime example. the actual act is Evil (capital E representing that its based off the actual physical energy of evil). Now this actual situation the Angel would question if the suffering where worth it, if it where true actual suffering (plague, famine, death) then she'd question if there where other ways. for instance there being a volenteer to be the sacrifice. Maaany would do it. Parents would do it to save their children.

If for some strange weird reason why the murder of that particular person was the only fathomable way to prevent that horrible suffering, then it MIGHT be seen as a redeemable Evil act. You wouldnt be sent to hell for it, but you'd have to do some serious repentance to avoid the Neutral afterlife.

[hamishspence]

to more directly address the demon paladin thing. by core that would be impossible, you'd use other supliment or homebrewing for that. it would be simular to the angel pardoning Roy, but a little before hand. Kinda like a Sheriff deputizing someone.

Given there's one statted out on the WOTC site- it seems that they think it's possible.


If for some strange weird reason why the murder of that particular person was the only fathomable way to prevent that horrible suffering, then it MIGHT be seen as a redeemable Evil act. You wouldnt be sent to hell for it, but you'd have to do some serious repentance to avoid the Neutral afterlife.

The "corruption" system in FC2 seems to work this way- though it's not clear what happens to a Good-aligned character with some corruption, but not enough to guarantee a Baator afterlife (or the Hellbred Transformation, if they are repentant). Maybe they get into the Good afterlives anyway, since their corruption level is intermediate?

One murder, in the absence of other Corrupt acts, is not enough to guarantee a Baator afterlife for Lawful nonevil people. Two is, though.

[Killer Angel]

I abhor the arguments that good and evil is a subjective term,

Good and Evil are subjective, even in D&D.
Even in the case of a cleric casting Detect Evil, when you should obtain an objective result, given by the Gods themselves or by a universal philosophy, guess who's the one that role-plays those forces and gives the Final Answer?
The DM, with its own subjective judgement.

[Luckmann]

[...]
*and in a lot of cases, insanity is considered a reasonable excuse

Isn't one of the defining traits of most forms of "insanity" traditionally the inability to tell the difference between right and wrong to begin with?

[Serpentine]

Isn't one of the defining traits of most forms of "insanity" traditionally the inability to tell the difference between right and wrong to begin with?That was pretty much my point, there. Insanity is often a Get Out Of Gaol/Hell/Blame card legally, religously and (iirc) in gaming alignment.

[Luckmann]

That was pretty much my point, there. Insanity is often a Get Out Of Gaol/Hell/Blame card legally, religously and (iirc) in gaming alignment.

Well, gaming alignments tend to be "objective" (objective as can be by interpretation by the subject, the "subject" being players or DMs) and religions have a tendency to also be "objective" (objective as written, through the interpretation of the subject, the "subject" in this case being the independent believer as part of the group). Neither really offers a "Get out of jail free" card based on insanity.

Insanity is only really a reasonable excuse if you already subscribe to a theory of subjective morality (not necessarily so, but more often than not).

True insanity has a tendency to be incurable, though, if not untreatable. I believe the rationale only really holds merit in the legal and medical communities, where it can be deemed that the Insanitee (yep, made that word up right here, right on the spot!) is suffering from a disease. Moral philosophy, religions, etc and so on doesn't tend to factor that in; nor really should them, since such "evil" (or lack of moral alignment) is so exceedingly rare (in context) that it's not something to base judgement on (in fact, it is the lack of a "base" entirely, when I think about it).

Uuh, yeah, so.. I suppose I do agree with you, it's just that I felt like pointing something out, even though I have no idea what I'm doing in this thread. I judged it "This is dumb" from the first post. Any profession of objective morality becomes inherently subjective on account of the proffessee, in the absence of an outside neutral and omniscient observer and judge (i.e. "God").

Threads like these are not good for my mental health. I should stay away.

[Gnorman]

Am still waiting for someone to prove definitively that Nature is an uncaring, unpitying entity and/or that the Universe has no defined moral code, since based on the voices in my head I am fairly convinced of the inverse of both hypotheses.

"Voices in my head" being a convenient/arguably accurate way to describe morality.

[Serpentine]

You have received several responses on that topic, which is not even relevant to this thread.

[Lord_Gareth]

Am still waiting for someone to prove definitively that Nature is an uncaring, unpitying entity and/or that the Universe has no defined moral code, since based on the voices in my head I am fairly convinced of the inverse of both hypotheses.

To sum this up as close as I can get without violating forum rules:

- There is no evidence that the universe has some manner of universal moral code. No, this doesn't mean there isn't one, but that's not how burden of proof works; it's up to the folks that say something is present to prove their argument, not the other way around.

- On the other hand, there's oodles of evidence for socialized morality; that is to say, morality as a societal construct, which changes depending on how one was raised, in what culture and region, and according to the events of one's life. This body of evidence has been submitted into many rather strong theories which you are free to research for yourself and attempt to either debunk or expand upon.

TL;DR - We don't have to prove anything. All you, buddy - go for it! *Encouraging thumbs up*

[noparlpf]

Yes, morality is often viewed as subjective. I even made that silly argument once, just to be "that guy". On the other hand, in the D&D world, there is an explicit, unambiguous, OBJECTIVE detirmination of good and evil. Hence spells like "Detect Evil". If the universe says you're evil, you will show up on "Detect Evil" as evil. Sure, you think you're doing the right thing as a Paladin of Slaughter when you kill the women and children because they're weak, but the universe says that that is Evil.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm talking about the game universe. Morality has some objective parameters in the game universe.

[The Random NPC]

this is a prime example. the actual act is Evil (capital E representing that its based off the actual physical energy of evil). Now this actual situation the Angel would question if the suffering where worth it, if it where true actual suffering (plague, famine, death) then she'd question if there where other ways. for instance there being a volenteer to be the sacrifice. Maaany would do it. Parents would do it to save their children.

If for some strange weird reason why the murder of that particular person was the only fathomable way to prevent that horrible suffering, then it MIGHT be seen as a redeemable Evil act. You wouldnt be sent to hell for it, but you'd have to do some serious repentance to avoid the Neutral afterlife.

That was what I was trying to say, there are different flavors of Evil. Some say this Evil tastes pretty good, others say that the side helping Good makes the Evil paletable, and still others say no amount of Good makes this Evil taste different. I have found that this argument makes people accept that there can be shades of grey to a lot situations.

[Rogue Shadows]

That was what I was trying to say, there are different flavors of Evil. Some say this Evil tastes pretty good, others say that the side helping Good makes the Evil paletable, and still others say no amount of Good makes this Evil taste different. I have found that this argument makes people accept that there can be shades of grey to a lot situations.

This works with law and chaos too. To crib Vampire: The Masquerade when definining a Humanity score of 7, which is what most humans are at:

"It's wrong to hurt or kill someone, it's wrong to take something that isn't yours, but sometimes the speed limit is just too God-damned slow."

[Gnaeus]

In my mind there are a lot of problems with objective morality in D&D alignment system.

Lets pretend I have a lawful good knight (not a paladin, not gonna debate paladin code). And he always acts according to what he thinks is lawful and good. But there is an imp sorcerer who hates him. Imp shadows him invisibly, and whenever he is about to encounter someone, imp casts an illusion spell on the stranger or a mind altering spell on Knight to make him think it is something always evil and dangerous, so Knight kills all the strangers he comes across, believing them to be mind-flayers or the like. Knight has never intentionally done an evil deed, but his actions are consistently evil, so he becomes neutral, then evil. Imp similarly tricks him into performing chaotic actions. So you eventually wind up with a Chaotic Evil knight. Who has never intentionally performed either a Chaotic or an Evil act. Who believes himself to be LG, and prays to LG gods. If he dies, he goes to the lower planes, paladins can smite him, etc.

Then someone gives him a Helm of Opposite Alignment, so the Knight turns back to LG, but his behavior does not change at all in any way, because he has ALWAYS performed only Lawful and Good acts as he sees them. This makes no sense at all.

[Serpentine]

I, at least, certainly wouldn't make that Knight fall. As far as he's aware, he's always been doing Good and Lawful things. It is the imp who's doing all the Evil, not him, not at all. The acts are Evil acts, but they are the imp's Evil acts, not the Knight's.
Now, when the Knight finds out about it, he may well go completely mental and then fall...

It's that false claim that various movie villains make. "If you don't stop me from killing her, then it's YOUR fault she's dead!" No wanker, you're the one who killed her. It's all and entirely your fault.

[Gnaeus]

I, at least, certainly wouldn't make that Knight fall. As far as he's aware, he's always been doing Good and Lawful things. It is the imp who's doing all the Evil, not him, not at all.
Now, when the Knight finds out about it, he may well go completely mental and then fall....

I agree, but that is subjective morality based on the ability of the knight to knowingly understand his actions and judge whether they are good or evil. Objectively, he has murdered a bunch of people and broken a lot of laws for no reason.

[Rogue Shadows]

so Knight kills all the strangers he comes across, believing them to be mind-flayers or the like.

If the paladin is tricked, then the paladin shouldn't suffer an alignment shift. It also doesn't violate their Code of Conduct: PHB specifically states willingly commits an evil act. I wouldn't call this a willing commital, personally.

On the other hand...

This is the Paladin's Code:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

At no point in the Paladin's Code is it required that she attack and kill evil on sight. There are degrees of evil. Ebenezer Scrooge was evil, and as the Ghost of Christmas Future showed us, the world was a much better place without him. Nevertheless, punish does not equal kill.

That is why a Paladin falls if they make a habit of doing this (provided there are no imp sorcerers or the like manipulating them).

[Gnaeus]

If the paladin is tricked, then the paladin shouldn't suffer an alignment shift. It also doesn't violate their Code of Conduct: PHB specifically states willingly commits an evil act. I wouldn't call this a willing commital, personally.

On the other hand...

This is the Paladin's Code:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

At no point in the Paladin's Code is it required that she attack and kill evil on sight. There are degrees of evil. Ebenezer Scrooge was evil, and as the Ghost of Christmas Future showed us, the world was a much better place without him. Nevertheless, punish does not equal kill.

That is why a Paladin falls if they make a habit of doing this (provided there are no imp sorcerers or the like manipulating them).

This response is why I specified that he was not a paladin.

[Rogue Shadows]

This response is why I specified that he was not a paladin.

Oh.

Well, Lawful Good has a similar thing going for it. So, yeah. That's why their alignment shifts, provided they aren't being manipulated.

[Gnaeus]

Oh.

Well, Lawful Good has a similar thing going for it. So, yeah. That's why their alignment shifts, provided they aren't being manipulated.

The fact that he was being manipulated only alters his perception of what is going on. It doesn't actually change any of his actions. Objectively, this fact does not matter. Subjectively, it is the most important factor. If there is a baby and an imp in a crib, with illusions over both to make them look like each other, and I kill the "imp" to save the "baby", subjectively, based on the best knowledge available to me at the time, I was taking the only good course of action. Objectively, I just murdered a defenseless baby.

If all alignment is objective, based on a universal standard of right and wrong, without including the subjective limitations of the actor to understand the nature of his actions, the alignment system is easily manipulated and perverse.

[Frozen_Feet]

If all alignment is objective, based on a universal standard of right and wrong, without including the subjective limitations of the actor to understand the nature of his actions, the alignment system is easily manipulated and perverse.

Yes. So?

Again: why get your panties in a twist about in-game morality? So what if it makes for a wacky setting? I could spend a day list listing works of fiction that run counter to my own assesments of morality, yet I still enjoy(ed) them.

[Ravens_cry]

Because it can be hard to role play a character feeling good about something if we do not feel good about it ourselves.
Or at least that's how I feel about it.

[hamishspence]

If there is a baby and an imp in a crib, with illusions over both to make them look like each other, and I kill the "imp" to save the "baby", subjectively, based on the best knowledge available to me at the time, I was taking the only good course of action. Objectively, I just murdered a defenseless baby.

BoVD does point out that "acting on the best knowledge available to you at the time" makes a difference. It gave as an example, a character destroying a village of "demons" (actually people) because they'd been lead to believe, by a skilled manipulator (an actual demon in disguise), that the people were in fact demons.

That said, it also pointed out that it was not an evil act to stop this person doing so, with lethal force if necessary.

A case could be made that BoVD is overridden by later sources, which say that Murder is always an evil act-

so this may trump "Killing a fiend is always a good act. Allowing one to live is clearly evil"

[Frozen_Feet]

Because it can be hard to role play a character feeling good about something if we do not feel good about it ourselves.
Or at least that's how I feel about it.

This handily solved: whether your character feels good or not is tangential to their alignment. I alreade noted this approach is one of the most natural reasons for a non-good character to exist - they disregard the objective morality and consider their own principles more important.

This leads to Good characters who do pretty awful things (by your real life standards) and feel guilty or evil for it, and Evil characters who consider themselves paragons of goody-two-shoeness. But that doesn't sound like a flaw to me.

[Gnaeus]

BoVD does point out that "acting on the best knowledge available to you at the time" makes a difference. It gave as an example, a character destroying a village of "demons" (actually people) because they'd been lead to believe, by a skilled manipulator (an actual demon in disguise), that the people were in fact demons.

Yes, but that entire passage is fracked up. It suggests that whether something is evil or not has less to do with whether you have means to understand whether an action is good or evil, and more to do with whether you were tricked. That is its own special kind of messed up that only appears there to my knowledge. It suggests that there is a different outcome in the same Objective AND Subjective set of facts based on the actions of a third party. (Example... I see what I think is a monster attacking someone in a dark alley, and I kill them, and it turns out that they were human, and it wasn't an attack at all. Objectively, Murder. Subjectively, justified (assuming I didn't have a good method to tell better). BOVD Logic, whether it was murder or not depends on whether I was confused by lighting and chaotic circumstances, or misled by a demon standing nearby.) It is more problematic than either objective or subjective morality.

[Ravens_cry]

This handily solved: whether your character feels good or not is tangential to their alignment. I alreade noted this approach is one of the most natural reasons for a non-good character to exist - they disregard the objective morality and consider their own principles more important.

This leads to Good characters who do pretty awful things (by your real life standards) and feel guilty or evil for it, and Evil characters who consider themselves paragons of goody-two-shoeness. But that doesn't sound like a flaw to me.
Well, it does to me. Without getting into to a huge discussion on subjective verses objective morality, basically that makes Good and Evil into 'teams', allegiance based morality (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8436-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment-Part-II). Which isn't a bad system for a game in itself, in fact I would welcome it in the right game, I wouldn't label the teams Good and Evil. Instead, I would create lines along national, cultural, even familial lines. This would create some interesting conflict, both intra- and interpersonal, without what makes me uncomfortable, having people who are said to be Good not act good.

[hamishspence]

In real life, the difference between "justified homicide" and "manslaughter" or "negligence" can be "were you acting according to the best of your knowledge".

So it's not like BoVD's idea of "if you were tricked, you are less liable" doesn't have precedence.

If the trickery is sufficiently well done, that a "normal person in your position would act that way" - then the act may not qualify as an evil act.


(Example... I see what I think is a monster attacking someone in a dark alley, and I kill them, and it turns out that they were human, and it wasn't an attack at all. Objectively, Murder.

Again- if one believes one is acting in direct defense of another's life- and a "normal person" in that position would be expected to believe the same thing- the fact that one is mistaken, doesn't necessarily make the killing murder.

Especially not if the whole thing had been set up with illusions.

[Gnaeus]

In real life, the difference between "justified homicide" and "manslaughter" or "negligence" can be "were you acting according to the best of your knowledge".

So it's not like BoVD's idea of "if you were tricked, you are less liable" doesn't have precedence.

If the trickery is sufficiently well done, that a "normal person in your position would act that way" - then the act may not qualify as an evil act.

But in real life, the exact same justification is also usable if you are not guilty by reason of insanity, or merely confused by the circumstances. The part about being tricked is just a red herring, which confuses the entire issue. The sum total of the question should be, as you say, "were you acting according to the best of your knowledge" or whether a "normal (Good) person in your position would act that way". There isn't a real life legal/moral defense to most criminal acts that just says "I was tricked" (unless you were tricked by a police officer, in which case the defense isn't about the morality of your action, but about keeping law enforcement within certain boundaries).



Again- if one believes one is acting in direct defense of another's life- and a "normal person" in that position would be expected to believe the same thing- the fact that one is mistaken, doesn't necessarily make the killing murder.

Correct. Because the objective reality of what actually happened (the unlawful killing of another person) is viewed as less important than the subjective component (I thought that I was behaving in a lawful manner, helping an innocent).

[hamishspence]

The circumstances may even turn it into "the lawful killing of another person"- "justifiable homicide"- because the amount of evidence available (even if it was misleading evidence) is enough.

Suppose a person were to be executed, and it later came out that they were framed.

The judge would still not be guilty of unlawful homicide by sentencing them- nor would the executioner, for carrying it out.

So because D&D uses "murder" as evil- factors like "would a normal person have acted this way" come into play.


Because the objective reality of what actually happened (the unlawful killing of another person) is viewed as less important than the subjective component (I thought that I was behaving in a lawful manner, helping an innocent).

Actually, it has to be less subjective than that. It has to be "Any normal person in this position would be expected to believe that it was necessary"- otherwise, it's likely to be manslaughter at least.

[Gnaeus]

The circumstances may even turn it into "the lawful killing of another person"- "justifiable homicide"- because the amount of evidence available (even if it was misleading evidence) is enough.

Suppose a person were to be executed, and it later came out that they were framed.

The judge would still not be guilty of unlawful homicide by sentencing them- nor would the executioner, for carrying it out.

So because D&D uses "murder" as evil- factors like "would a normal person have acted this way" come into play.

Well, the judge and executioner would be not guilty of unlawful homicide because they were acting in accordance with the law. And again, it doesn't matter if the person was framed, or merely if the person convicted was a victim of misidentification. It doesn't matter if the person was tricked, or merely wrong.

"would a normal person have acted this way" is not in any way an objective standard for good/evil.



Actually, it has to be less subjective than that. It has to be "Any normal person in this position would be expected to believe that it was necessary"- otherwise, it's likely to be manslaughter at least.

Actually, that is false. Laws vary by jurisdiction, but most places restrict the rule far beyond what you have listed. Someone whose mental state (Someone mentally ill, or suffering from PTSD or Battered Person Syndrome for example, assuming that those things can be proven) made them unable to frame the circumstances is NOT usually guilty of manslaughter. Similarly, a child is usually held to a standard of something like "Any normal person of his age and maturity". A person who failed to correctly figure out what was going on because their bad eyesight confused them would probably also not be found guilty. A police officer would probably be held to a higher standard, due to his training. A closer overall approximation would be "any normal person with similar capabilities would be expected to believe that it was necessary".

[hamishspence]

Hence the "in this position".

I was going with the person starting out claiming themselves to be normal- and not claiming to be of unsound might.

If a person's belief is "honest but unreasonable" then charges tend to be open again.

[Gnaeus]

Hence the "in this position".

I was going with the person starting out claiming themselves to be normal- and not claiming to be of unsound might.

If a person's belief is "honest but unreasonable" then charges tend to be open again.

So in conclusion, whether an action is good or evil is based on their subjective view of what is going on, so long as their view is reasonable given the totality of their individual circumstances? I will agree to that definition, although it sounds pretty much like the opposite of objective morality to me.

[hamishspence]

Some situations, such as killing, tend to involve context, motive, and subjective viewpoints.

Others don't.

Casting [Evil] spells, torture, destroying souls, rebuking undead, and so on.

If one can say "Doing this act is always an evil act, regardless of (various other factors)"- then, for those acts- it's objective.

[Serpentine]

To repeat my stance on the example situation: the Evil Act is all and entirely the illusion-casting imp's. It's no more the Knight's fault than it is his sword's, or than it would be a hobbit's fault a stained glass window got broken if a giant threw him at it. Yes, objectively, innocent people were murdered, but by the imp. The Knight was just its tool for doing so.

[Gnaeus]

To repeat my stance on the example situation: the Evil Act is all and entirely the illusion-casting imp's. It's no more the Knight's fault than it is his sword's, or than it would be a hobbit's fault a stained glass window got broken if a giant threw him at it. Yes, objectively, innocent people were murdered, but by the imp. The Knight was just its tool for doing so.

The Knight is still responsible for his own actions, just like the imp is. They were murdered by the imp, AND by the knight. If I hired you to murder Hamish, I would be guilty of murder, and so would you (Disclaimer, this sentence does not imply that I am planning to murder Hamish :smalltongue:). My guilt does not make you less guilty.

So, it comes back, AGAIN, to whether morality is subjective or objective. Do you dispute the definition that hamish and I reached? If so, why?

[Taelas]

Killing an innocent disguised as an evil person is Evil, but far less so than killing an innocent who isn't disguised.

[hamishspence]

That's the thing though- is it? BOVD suggests that killing an innocent through reckless negligence, even if it's not murder, is Evil.

But it seems to hint that if there's no negligence, and no evil intent, then it's not.

Similarly, there's nothing in the PHB to contradict this.