When Fluff Met Crunch

[Maglor_Grubb]

You make a good point and I understand it a lot better now, Ambrogino. I still don't agree, but I understand your point.


There is a difference about attacking a group that people are born in to, and one they choose to enter. Blanket condemnations of those who voluntarily put themselves in a group are legitimate (ussually dumb IMO, but legitimate).

You choose your religion. If one had said 'all muslims/pagans/catholics/pastafarians are evil', or most, or many, it would've been wrong by my moral compass.

I make another distinction: 'your actions in relation to others' and 'everything that doesn't realy harm anyone'. Religion, race, is something that harms no-one, so it's wrong to judge it. Actions that do harm someone (killing, joining a group of people dedicated to killing others) can be judged (not objectively, and without anything binding, but you can have and express an opinion on this, no matter what).

Censorship is evil.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1854915#post1854915)
There is a difference about attacking a group that people are born in to, and one they choose to enter. Blanket condemnations of those who voluntarily put themselves in a group are legitimate (ussually dumb IMO, but legitimate).




You choose your religion. If one had said 'all muslims/pagans/catholics/pastafarians are evil', or most, or many, it would've been wrong by my moral compass.

I make another distinction: 'your actions in relation to others' and 'everything that doesn't realy harm anyone'. Religion, race, is something that harms no-one, so it's wrong to judge it. Actions that do harm someone (killing, joining a group of people dedicated to killing others) can be judged (not objectively, and without anything binding, but you can have and express an opinion on this, no matter what).

Censorship is evil.

Actually a significant portion of people (probably the majority) don't choose their religion. They merely take the religion of their parents. Basically take any large group and you start getting people who didn't "choose" to be in it. Their parents/society choose for them.

That said I will add that when I say "Legitimate" I mean that it is internally logically consistent. That doesn't stop it be ethically wrong, or as I put it "Dumb". Also doesn't stop it been fun. Who hasn't lambasted Lawyers or Politicians as a group. It's not fair or reasonable, but we do it. :-)

Stephen

[Diggorian]

What is resonable is a mounted combat. The plains Ranger. A light armoured, light-med horse, mounted combat. Mongol style -
Mounted Combat (naturally)
Ride-by-Attack
and either Mounted Archery or Shot on the Run.
I think Shot on the Run is better because iwhile both fit the style, Mounted Combat is easy to pickup, but Shot-on-the-Run requires lots of prereqs which would be hard for the Ranger to get.

OK, we'll leave sword-n-board as a potential offshot of TWF style.

I'd skip both those archery deals for Spirited Charge. Shot on the Run isnt tied to being mounted and Mounted Archery is an easy pick up for the archer inclined. Spirited naturally builds off the first two.

So now we have a fourth Mounted style and can move on to other fluff ... if the discussion ever returns to topic :smallwink:

[Turcano]

Once again, you are free to have your opinion. If you think I should not be able to say something on these forums, report my post to one of the mods. If they feel it breaks one of the rules of posting, they will scrub it. If not, then you could crusade to have one of the rules of posting be "Not allowed to present an unpopular opinion." Good luck with that.

Your opinion is your own, but as far as this discussion goes, it doesn't make a lot of sense as far as I can see. If I have got this right, you are of the opinion that people who are willing to kill people for personal gain are evil. If that is the case, most (if not all) of the PCs in your games would be evil, and therefore qualify for the assassin prestige class anyway. Is this a valid interpretation of your views? If it is, your opposition to a non-evil assassin appears to lack a point to it.

[Maglor_Grubb]

...except if his players are not just looting dungeons and killing for profit. I am no seer, but that sounds a lot more probable.

[Gamebird]

Maybe a better way to look at it would be this:

You're in a kingdom that has a NN ruler. Nearby is another kingdom with an NE ruler. A band of renegade adventurers sneaks into your kingdom and destroys several important landmarks, killing thousands of people while they're at it (some Disintegrate scrolls and maybe a few Cloudkill spells). The NN ruler hires many heralds and bards to travel his kingdom and tell everyone about the evil of the NE ruler and how the NE ruler was responsible for these atrocities.

Although many are skeptical that the terrorists were from the NE ruler's lands, your king is determined that the NE ruler was behind it. Since few have as many divinatory resources as the king... and the NE ruler is widely known to be Evil... there is no rebellion or other uprising when your king declares war against the NE ruler's kingdom.

Now the question: Are soldiers who volunteer for this war automatically Evil? What if they participate in killing insurgents, rebels and the armed forces of the NE ruler's kingdom - people who could be of any alignment and are simply defending their nation?

[MrNexx]

Not gonna comment. Wouldn't be prudent.

[Stephen_E]

Maybe a better way to look at it would be this:

You're in a kingdom that has a NN ruler. Nearby is another kingdom with an NE ruler. A band of renegade adventurers sneaks into your kingdom and destroys several important landmarks, killing thousands of people while they're at it (some Disintegrate scrolls and maybe a few Cloudkill spells). The NN ruler hires many heralds and bards to travel his kingdom and tell everyone about the evil of the NE ruler and how the NE ruler was responsible for these atrocities.

Although many are skeptical that the terrorists were from the NE ruler's lands, your king is determined that the NE ruler was behind it. Since few have as many divinatory resources as the king... and the NE ruler is widely known to be Evil... there is no rebellion or other uprising when your king declares war against the NE ruler's kingdom.

Now the question: Are soldiers who volunteer for this war automatically Evil? What if they participate in killing insurgents, rebels and the armed forces of the NE ruler's kingdom - people who could be of any alignment and are simply defending their nation?

If you're workin from the premise that all killing is evil -

The volunteers are doing evil. Of course doing an evil act doesn't make one evil. But if you repeatedly commit evil it will eventually shift you over to Evil. Therefore the more the volunteers kill, the more likely thye are to be evil. Intending to do good is a very limited protection against doing or becoming evil.

Stephen

[TimeWizard]

I don't mean to wave the banner of patriotism, but I'd hardly call soldiers evil. You are free to disagree with them and the war all you want, but push come to shove sometimes what you really need as a country are people to stand on your walls with weapons. This is sort of a difficult idea for "free-thinking americans" because they haven't faced invasion in two hundred and some odd years, and the likelyhood of invasion is hovering around 0%, but for smaller countries on the fringe of other, bigger countries, voluntary enlistment can be seen as a noble goal. Try asking a citizen of country that used to be part of Soviet Russia if they approve of border defense. I also claim no originality of this idea, it being around since at least the time of ancient Greece, where it was said one could romantically tout the virtues of peace when the drums of war weren't thundering outside his house.

[Stephen_E]

I don't mean to wave the banner of patriotism, but I'd hardly call soldiers evil. You are free to disagree with them and the war all you want, but push come to shove sometimes what you really need as a country are people to stand on your walls with weapons. This is sort of a difficult idea for "free-thinking americans" because they haven't faced invasion in two hundred and some odd years, and the likelyhood of invasion is hovering around 0%, but for smaller countries on the fringe of other, bigger countries, voluntary enlistment can be seen as a noble goal. Try asking a citizen of country that used to be part of Soviet Russia if they approve of border defense. I also claim no originality of this idea, it being around since at least the time of ancient Greece, where it was said one could romantically tout the virtues of peace when the drums of war weren't thundering outside his house.

Timewizard - Debates like this rest heavily of your base premises.
The Premise put forward was "Killing is evil". Whether you personally beleive in that premise is irrelevant. My interpretation of Gamebirds question was that she was asking if you accepted that premise, how does it apply to this situation.

This is a relatively simple logical follow through.
In a binary system 1+1=10. You say "no, 1+1=2" but you're ignoring the basic premise, that we're using binary.

The premise put forward is "Killing is Evil" (a unworkable premise for DnD roleplaying purposes, but that's another issue, and is linked with DnD (Greyhawk and FR, not Ebberon) ethics/morality been, similiar to medieval society, almost completely subjective, to such a total degree that it looks objective at the glance). Now I don't personally agree with the premise but I like to beleive I can abstract think sufficiently well to work out simple follow throughs of the consequences of this premise been true.

My own personal philosophy is more along the lines - Killing is non-good and tends to corrupt. Unrestrained killing corrupts absolutely (although on rare occasions it can ethically pop people out the other side). When combined with the DnD approach that a single evil act doe not make one evil, this to me, more accurately predicts the behaviour of people who kill. It's also more workable as a DnD ethical system, if you want to shift to a more objective ethical/alignment system than standard DnD uses.

Stephen

[Gamebird]

In my opinion, killing is evil. However, saving life is good. So if you're killing someone to save a life, then you're doing an evil act and a good one - it's morally neutral. (though in the setting of a game world, I say that killing creatures of opposed, competing cultures is neutral, not evil - helps the paladins a lot)

But back to the matter at hand... If "killing is evil" is a true premise, then what about self defense or national defense (rather than aggression)? Does that sort of killing still lead to evil soldiers? In a world with intelligent, sapient creatures other than humans, is killing them evil? Like, say, a beholder. If someone kills it, is that an evil act? Is there any way to mitigate evil acts?

[Stephen_E]

But back to the matter at hand... If "killing is evil" is a true premise, then what about self defense or national defense (rather than aggression)? Does that sort of killing still lead to evil soldiers? In a world with intelligent, sapient creatures other than humans, is killing them evil? Like, say, a beholder. If someone kills it, is that an evil act? Is there any way to mitigate evil acts?

Under "Killing is Evil" premise.
Remember "evil act" doesn't equal "Evil".
So while killing in self defense is an "evil act" it doesn't make you "Evil".
Of course a repeated pattern of "evil acts" without atonement and attempts to avoid the situation will inevitably make one "Evil".
Any career soldier who sees regular combat will inevitably be "Evil".
Regular or frequent killing, be it self-defense or national defense will inevitably make one "Evil".

Personally I find this both unsuportable on a broad ethical analysis, and on a empiriacal analysis of actual "soldiers" (using the broadest definition of soldier).
I also have serious problems with the "most killing is evil, but there are exceptions" because humans, been the genarally nice, but often deceitful to both self and others, creatures they are, almost inevitably turn this into "My killing is OK/Good, your killing is Evil"

My interactions with soldiers have lead me to the conclusion that most of them do at heart feel killing is ethically dubious, with the result that many of them go to some lengths to justify their sides killing as "OK" or "Good" through a mixture of denial, and what I call "Orc ethics". "Orc Ethics" is where you label a group as "Orcs" and we all know Orcs are Evil, and can be killed with impunity. Basically subjective ethics passed off as objective.

Stephen

[TimeWizard]

Timewizard - Debates like this rest heavily of your base premises.
The Premise put forward was "Killing is evil". Whether you personally beleive in that premise is irrelevant. My interpretation of Gamebirds question was that she was asking if you accepted that premise, how does it apply to this situation.

This is a relatively simple logical follow through.
In a binary system 1+1=10. You say "no, 1+1=2" but you're ignoring the basic premise, that we're using binary.

The premise put forward is "Killing is Evil" (a unworkable premise for DnD roleplaying purposes, but that's another issue, and is linked with DnD (Greyhawk and FR, not Ebberon) ethics/morality been, similiar to medieval society, almost completely subjective, to such a total degree that it looks objective at the glance). Now I don't personally agree with the premise but I like to beleive I can abstract think sufficiently well to work out simple follow throughs of the consequences of this premise been true.

My own personal philosophy is more along the lines - Killing is non-good and tends to corrupt. Unrestrained killing corrupts absolutely (although on rare occasions it can ethically pop people out the other side). When combined with the DnD approach that a single evil act doe not make one evil, this to me, more accurately predicts the behaviour of people who kill. It's also more workable as a DnD ethical system, if you want to shift to a more objective ethical/alignment system than standard DnD uses.

Stephen

And see i thought here the premise was Is Killing Evil ?, and to that extent it was made en passe that soldiers, by trade of killing, are at the core evil. I apologise for misinterpretations.

And the only thing that corrupts absolutely is absolute power.

[Stephen_E]

But back to the matter at hand... If "killing is evil" is a true premise, then what about self defense or national defense (rather than aggression)? Does that sort of killing still lead to evil soldiers? In a world with intelligent, sapient creatures other than humans, is killing them evil? Like, say, a beholder. If someone kills it, is that an evil act? Is there any way to mitigate evil acts?

Realised I hadn't addressed the 2nd part re:other sapient creatures.
If they're equally sapient then killimg them is just as evil under objective ethics. A human has no more inherent value than a beholder. As for mitigating "evil acts" I think the answer is yes, they can be mitigated, both in real-life terms and in DnD terms (otherwise there would be no Atonement spell). Of course given that I've seen a numbver of posters who would ban the Atonement spell, this is clearly not a view held by all. The concept behind DnD ethics is that your alignment is made up from the total of your actions. Therefore if you do "evil acts" they may be balanced or even subsumed by "good acts". These would have more value if they're related to the "evil acts". Thus in the case of killing the beholder, did you directly save a life by killing it. Afterwards did you try and find why conflict between beholders and your people were occurring. Try and find a way to settle said conflicts without killing (in the case of beholders, who're supposed to be insane, learning to heal their insanity may be a good way to go).

Stephen

[Mewtarthio]

Um, it's a Beholder. If you don't kill it, then you'll end up as a statue in its lair. It's like seeing a giant Pit Fiend running around: Odds are you won't be able to resolve things peacefully.

[Stephen_E]

Um, it's a Beholder. If you don't kill it, then you'll end up as a statue in its lair. It's like seeing a giant Pit Fiend running around: Odds are you won't be able to resolve things peacefully.

Probably true, but as you yourself say "odds are", in other words this isn't a certainty. A "Good" person would try. I don't recall "Good" been defined as the "Taking the easy, safe, lazy and thoughtless approach".

While I don't personally buy the absoulute "Killing is Evil" approach myself, I have mentioned how I think it can be corrupting. It can easily become the automatic response to problems - "Kill it" and the problem appears to go away (this is ussually an illusion, but a very popular one, and sometimes you can at least shift the problem in time/space so that someone else has to try and fix it).

Stephen

[Diggorian]

Probably true, but as you yourself say "odds are", in other words this isn't a certainty. A "Good" person would try. I don't recall "Good" been defined as the "Taking the easy, safe, lazy and thoughtless approach".


Very true. I dont play alot of Good PC's because I feel the need to 'take the high road' for character. Luckily we usually have someone in the party that has the right Knowledge skill to be forewarned about creature X, which we all know about as players but our PCs likely have never seen.

I do think murder, the first word in most definaitions of assassinate, is evil. Not because it's illegal -- it's illegal because it's evil -- but because it denotes killing from malice as opposed to necessity.

Assassin PCs ofcourse have the freedom of developement as all PCs do. Once they stop murdering though, they're no longer truely assassins though.

[Stephen_E]

I do think murder, the first word in most definaitions of assassinate, is evil. Not because it's illegal -- it's illegal because it's evil -- but because it denotes killing from malice as opposed to necessity.

Assassin PCs ofcourse have the freedom of developement as all PCs do. Once they stop murdering though, they're no longer truely assassins though.

The standard definition of "Murder" is "Illegal killing". This covers many instances that involve no malice, and can even be said to involve necessity. The bulk of murders in NZ are one-off emotional situations. Arguments/situations that blewup out of control, ecetre. Often these don't involve malice as such, and can often be argued to include necessity. The conflating of Murder = Evil is largely a societal thing. You are taught to think that way because it's not in rulers interests to have killing occur that isn't approved by them (there is a strong argument that it isn't in societies interest, but IMHO that isn't where the objection comes from).

Keep in mind that the definition for Assassin is someone who assassinates.
Assassinate = Murder someone by sudden attack (ussually for political motive).

I'd maintain that depending on what political figure was getting assassinated (both in Real-life and DnD) many people (probably including you) would argue that it was a good thing to do. If you sneak into the Evil Tyrants castle and kill him to free the people you've just committed and assassination, and you a re now an assassin, even if you haven't taken the class. Does that make the deed wrong or evil. If you instead hire an Assassin to do the deed, does it make the deed any more evil?

Stephen

[Mewtarthio]

The bulk of murders in NZ are one-off emotional situations. Arguments/situations that blewup out of control, ecetre. Often these don't involve malice as such, and can often be argued to include necessity. The conflating of Murder = Evil is largely a societal thing.

Are you justifying so-called "crimes of passion"?


If you sneak into the Evil Tyrants castle and kill him to free the people you've just committed and assassination, and you a re now an assassin, even if you haven't taken the class. Does that make the deed wrong or evil.

You're certainly a really idealistic assassin. Killing the evil tyrant results in one of the following:

His son, who is usually just as evil but far less competent at keeping the country healthy, takes over. The country declines, and the oppression rises.
His general or some other militant cabinet member takes over. The new ruler declares martial law, ostensibly to prevent another assassination from occuring. The new ruler is also quite paranoid of being assassinated himself, and also recognizes his tenuous claim to the throne, and so attempts to pre-empt everyone else. The country declines, and oppression rises.
Nobody knows who should be next in line, and the country degenerates into a series of coups and civil wars. The country declines, oppression rises, infrastructure is destroyed, and everybody dies.
A political genius uses the assassination as a springboard, uniting everyone against a common foe. Nationalism sweeps the country. The country improves, oppression ostensibly decreases (though in actuality it merely seems that way as more people buy in to the nationalistic fervor), and the country's neighbors find themselves wishing they bordered someone more peaceful.Of course, in DnD, there's the possibility of an epic-level tyrant who really is the source of all the nation's troubles, and assassinating him really would make everything better, but do you really think that kind of guy can be assassinated?

[Diggorian]

Lemme clarify:

I'm not talking real life, I'm talking good'ol D&D -- where natural law exists in the PHB pgs. 103-106. If ya kill something sapient you dont have to, that's murder -- which is evil by those rules.

[Stephen_E]

Lemme clarify:

I'm not talking real life, I'm talking good'ol D&D -- where natural law exists in the PHB pgs. 103-106. If ya kill something sapient you dont have to, that's murder -- which is evil by those rules.

Can you point me to where it defines murder.

Also keep in mind that you're talking about the Alignment/ethics section, which, given that DnD ethics is based pretty much purely on subjective ethics, is of limited use.

Stephen

[Diggorian]

It doesnt define murder. I describes what is evil, according to D&D. Murder is an acceptible action for those whom fall under the descriptions of evil itself and those of evil alignments.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1885090#post1885090)
The bulk of murders in NZ are one-off emotional situations. Arguments/situations that blewup out of control, ecetre. Often these don't involve malice as such, and can often be argued to include necessity. The conflating of Murder = Evil is largely a societal thing.



Are you justifying so-called "crimes of passion"?



Depends on what your definition of "justify" is.

Are they a crime? yes (a crime is breaking the law).
Do they involve malice? Sometimes.
Are they evil? That depends on your definition of "Evil". Certainly "Breaking the law" doesn't equal "Evil"

Re: Killing the tyrant. Actually aside from been a fictional staple, thus completly valid is a DnD discussion, in real-life one could argue that removal of a leader has often caused improvements. It depends on the quality of the leader. The replacement is more likely to be towards the "norm" for the time/place. If the current leader is an extreme tyrant, his/her replacement is likely to be better. Note: We're talking probabilities here, not certainties, and "better" doesn't equal "good". I don't think I can go much beyond that in real-life terms without treading on Roland's toes.

Stephen