More alignment threads - is killing actually evil?

[ddude987]

So I have been reading several threads, including this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312514) as well as Maginomicon's the Real Alignments Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341) and it got me thinking. Is killing really evil? Why isn't it just chaotic. Generally killing without a reason is looked upon as evil, but the concept of evil is typically being self centered and doing things for personal gain. Chaotic, on the other hand, is typically ignoring laws or personal rights and even going out of your way to go against such laws or "rights". So why is killing an "evil" act, not a chaotic one?

[Sir Chuckles]

It goes into very complicated theoreticals (But he was about to stab me!) and it's generally better to say "No, killing is inherently not evil."

If it was, we'd all be evil. Period. Even my 6 year old nephew. He stepped on a spider.
Go case-by-case.

[erikun]

Killing in D&D does not inherently have any alignment attached to it, because there are different reasons why a person might kill something. Killing probably tends towards evil in general, but that's due to a lot of creatures killing others for evil reasons.

If you look at it from an overall worldwide view, killing is most likely more neutral overall. This is because most killing is done by animals against animals, or magical beasts against animals, for the purpose of food. That is a neutral act overall.

[Mando Knight]

Chaotic, on the other hand, is typically ignoring laws or personal rights and even going out of your way to go against such laws or "rights".
Ignoring others' rights is more Evil than Chaotic. (One of WotC's given CG archetypes is that of the champion of personal rights against the restrictions placed on them by the law)

Random killing is the hallmark of Chaotic Evil. Killing otherwise depends greatly on the reasons behind it... executing a legally condemned prisoner is primarily Lawful, for example.

[TuggyNE]

So why is killing an "evil" act, not a chaotic one?

It isn't, and as far as I know there's no serious alignment rule or guideline or advice that says it is. In fact, "killing" is neither evil nor chaotic inherently, since it includes execution for serious crimes (lawful) and destroying embodiments of evil (good).

If you mean "murder", well, that's a horse of a different color, but I'm pretty sure BoED/BoVD consider murder to be non-good and usually evil (because it's thoroughly disrespecting a sentient being's life).

[Zweisteine]

1. I agree with the above posters.

2. I also believe that killing is inherently considered evil because it is ending the life of a living creature, where protecting living creatures is one of the main tenets of Good.

To say any more would lead to an enormous morality/special case/law rant, which is not something I have a taste for.

[Zanos]

If you mean "murder", well, that's a horse of a different color, but I'm pretty sure BoED/BoVD consider murder to be non-good and usually evil (because it's thoroughly disrespecting a sentient being's life).
This.

Although, hilariously, murdering sentient non-evil undead usually isn't evil.

[ddude987]

I suppose I should have been specific and said murder. Then again, can't murder have a reason, and if this reason is a morally good reason then is the murder still an evil act, assuming murder is evil?


This.

Although, hilariously, murdering sentient non-evil undead usually isn't evil.

Why is this not considered evil? You are still murdering a sentient being and they don't have to be evil, even if you see them as evil because of how they were created.

[jedipotter]

I suppose I should have been specific and said murder. Then again, can't murder have a reason, and if this reason is a morally good reason then is the murder still an evil act, assuming murder is evil?


Murder is always evil. Murder, by definition, is unlawful(and we are talking man made laws). So you can only murder someone if it is against the law to kill someone in the first place. You can not commit a murder in drow society, for example.

[Tvtyrant]

I think killing means something different in D&D. With very wealthy individuals killing is more like assault, and assault is more like very painful insults (as magical healing/resurrection takes care of everything.)

The moral implications of a D&D world are probably best left alone, but suffice to say they would be different than our world.

[ddude987]

Murder is always evil. Murder, by definition, is unlawful(and we are talking man made laws). So you can only murder someone if it is against the law to kill someone in the first place. You can not commit a murder in drow society, for example.

if it is against the law why isn't it chaotic?

[Captnq]

Okay. It's simple.

If after you kill someone you start giggling, it was evil.
Otherwise, chances are you're fine.

Remember, in D&D, evil is usually color coordinated for your moral convenience. Stick to killing chromatic things and ugly things and you should be okay.

[Tengu_temp]

Killing in itself is an evil act, but case-by-case circumstances could bump it up to a neutral one, or even a good one. Murder is evil. Killing a drunkard who started punching you because he's drunk and stupid is evil. Killing a bandit in self-defense is neutral. Killing marauders who would otherwise ravage a village is good.



Remember, in D&D, evil is usually color coordinated for your moral convenience. Stick to killing chromatic things and ugly things and you should be okay.

A lot of DMs, myself included, don't believe in such simplifications. Especially since "he pinged on my evil-dar!" is not a non-evil reason to kill someone.

[Mando Knight]

if it is against the law why isn't it chaotic?

Because Chaotic is more than just "breaking the rules."

The definition of murder is generally that it's an unlawful killing (which would be chaotic), but the term could also be aptly applied to similar killings that are condoned or even supported by an Evil state. (Kill a man for insulting your choice of drink in a Good state? Definitely murder. Same thing, but in an Evil state that allows for such "honor" killings? Still murder.)

[Ravens_cry]

Killing is a last resort, but sometimes . . . it is the only option left.
Sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes, someone can best aid the world by leaving it. Sometimes a sick dog needs to die. It is a tragedy, and it should be recognised as such, but sometimes it is the only way.

[Zanos]

Why is this not considered evil? You are still murdering a sentient being and they don't have to be evil, even if you see them as evil because of how they were created.
Because undead are bad. They even get Evil auras from detect alignment spells. I could have sworn there was a rule somewhere that destroying undead was never an evil act due to negative energy, antithesis of life, etc, etc. but I can't find it.

EDIT: BOVD has this to say at least, I'll keep looking:

Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—
are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

[ArcturusV]

Hmm. There is a stronger case for Chaotic than Evil as I see it. Chaos is anarchy, and in the end, anarchy is very "dog eat dog". It's kind of reminding me of when I was reading Hobbes... ages ago. Unlimited freedom, a state of Chaos, is also one of unlimited brutality where you have no rights, no safety beyond what your own brute strength grants you.

But... I like to look at it in terms of something I saw mentioned in a M:tG article years ago, where they touched on what the various colors meant and embodied, and one they touched on was Good and Evil in White and Black respectively.

And where it came down on is "White isn't good, Black isn't Evil", because in order for some concept/act to really be "of" that color, it has to be absent from other colors.

I like that philosophy myself. So if you wanted to peg Killing as Evil, or Chaotic, you have to kind of prove that Killing is exclusive to them. Otherwise it's not really an act in and of itself.

Compare an [Evil] tagged spell... except for the dysfunctional seeming Death Watch, you generally make pretty feeble arguments that using something like Love's Pain on someone isn't Evil.

But killing? I mean there's obviously cases where it's not done with malice or intent. Or it's done for reasons like food, etc. So it can't really be considered "Evil" in that sense. Animals are True Neutral, explicitly, for good reason, and kill all the time over food, territory, mates, etc. This kind of argues that killing is an "evil" act. You can't even peg "Murder" as evil necessarily as most people would say something like "killed someone in a jealous rage over a woman they both were after" as a murder. But again, animals do it and they are the epitome of pure Neutrality by not having the capability of making moral choices.

[Tengu_temp]

"Dog eats dog" is a chaotic evil ideal. A chaotic good ideal is not anarchy, but a world of freedom where everyone respects and helps each other out of goodwill. You don't have to be an anarchist to be chaotic, and in fact most chaotic people aren't.

[Red Fel]

Think about it this way.

Killing is an act, like waking up in the afternoon, eating cheese, or breaking wind. It is an act which occurs in nature, and is not inherently good, evil, chaotic or lawful, although it tends towards evil when performed for some purpose other than defense or food.

Murder is a concept defined in law. It does not exist in a vacuum - it is a special category of killing defined by a legal system. So you have to look at murder through the lens of a definition. If we use a common definition, murder is the unlawful killing of a human without justification. (We could go into more detail on the degrees of murder, or the difference between murder and manslaughter, but let's not.)

So that means a murder must be (1) against the law, (2) a killing, (3) of a human, (4) without justification. Since this is a fantasy world, we can probably replace "human" with "humanoid." And justification here would mean things like self-defense. So where does that leave us?

1: Murder is, by definition, against the law. That would suggest it to be Chaotic rather than Lawful. However, devils murder people all the freaking time. So do lots of LE creatures. So, the fact that it violates the law, alone, does not make it a non-Lawful act. There are lots of times when a Lawful being does not adhere to the law; for example, a Paladin will not adhere to a law that requires him to beat an innocent slave.

2: Murder is pretty evil. Good characters kill a lot of things, sure, but usually (ideally) for good reason, such as protecting the innocent, or self-defense, or because the murderees live in a cave and have neat stuff. But the straight-up unjustified unlawful killing of a humanoid, by definition, lacks legal basis or justification. It is Evil.

Conclusion: Murder, textbook murder, is an Evil act. It is not non-Lawful.

[ArcturusV]

Heh. Shades of difference. To play Archdevil to it, you'd point out that it's still a state of anarchy even in the Chaotic Good realm. "Freedom" means nothing without Rules. Unlimited Freedom means that anyone can do anything. That your neighbor can steal your crops, that the barbarians from across the mountains will sweep down and steal your cattle, etc. There is nothing to protect you other than your own might. In a world of unlimited freedom, the weak are eternal victims, without champions and without hope, reduced to living off the scraps that powerful characters deem to drop in their lap. You are entirely dependent on either the strength that you yourself depends, or the mercies of everyone you run into not to use their strength against you. You live a slave or a tyrant.

With order comes freedom. When you have Law and Organization, suddenly you don't have to worry about your neighbor stealing your silverware, or the barbarians pillaging your home. You can go out and move, and work, and advance, you have freedom to develop frivolous activities like arts, music, etc, as your survival is guaranteed by another power, and you don't have to focus solely on the struggle to get, and keep, what you have.

[Red Fel]

Heh. Shades of difference. To play Archdevil to it, you'd point out that it's still a state of anarchy even in the Chaotic Good realm. "Freedom" means nothing without Rules. Unlimited Freedom means that anyone can do anything. That your neighbor can steal your crops, that the barbarians from across the mountains will sweep down and steal your cattle, etc. There is nothing to protect you other than your own might. In a world of unlimited freedom, the weak are eternal victims, without champions and without hope, reduced to living off the scraps that powerful characters deem to drop in their lap. You are entirely dependent on either the strength that you yourself depends, or the mercies of everyone you run into not to use their strength against you. You live a slave or a tyrant.

With order comes freedom. When you have Law and Organization, suddenly you don't have to worry about your neighbor stealing your silverware, or the barbarians pillaging your home. You can go out and move, and work, and advance, you have freedom to develop frivolous activities like arts, music, etc, as your survival is guaranteed by another power, and you don't have to focus solely on the struggle to get, and keep, what you have.

I see you've kept up with Leviathan, haven't you?

*reads post above* Yup, you have.

But Hobbesian thought is more than just "society's laws replace the anarchy of the State of Nature." It goes on to suggest that order is only maintained through the authority (and fear) of the monarch; that people will only continue to obey the laws while there is a force greater than they are compelling them to do so.

That's why LE loves it so much. Not only does this view of Law suggest that a rigid legal system is better for people, it suggests that a tyrannical and despotic master at the top is better for them. Only if the people fear the wrath of the King will they obey the King's Law, and only if they obey the King's Law will they be protected from anarchy.

Fear and abuse lead to happiness and security. LEs are seriously messed up. And awesome.

[Bovine Colonel]

With order comes freedom. When you have Law and Organization, suddenly you don't have to worry about your neighbor stealing your silverware, or the barbarians pillaging your home. You can go out and move, and work, and advance, you have freedom to develop frivolous activities like arts, music, etc, as your survival is guaranteed by another power, and you don't have to focus solely on the struggle to get, and keep, what you have.

Would it then be wrong, then, to say that according to a Chaotic Good ideal laws and regulations should exist for the sole purpose and with the sole result of promoting this kind of freedom?

[ArcturusV]

But it's why I like them for villains.

[Red Fel]

But it's why I like them for villains.


Kneel before me. I said... kneel! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

Some of them honestly believe they're doing people a favor.

It's delicious.