PDA

View Full Version : Killing isn't (necessarilly) evil



Nocturne
2007-01-17, 08:32 AM
Hi, All

I've seen numerous posts over the past few days (Weeks? Months?) that complain about why this and that is evil, but such and such is not. People seem to think it's a contradiction to say that killing is evil, but then the whole basis of D&D is about killing monsters, and fighting wars... How can WotC justify calling poison use evil, but a paladin can easily gut someone on the battlefield and get away with it?

I'd like to point out that in my mind, there has always been a very clear distinction between "killing" and "murder."

Let's define murder, in good ol' non-legalistic layman's terms: To me, murder is the premedidated killing of a specific individual or individuals. It must be planned, and said individual(s) must be named.

Saying "We're fighting a war here, this opposing army is the enemy, and we will need to kill some of them to win the war, and avoid being killed ourselves" is not murder.
Saying "The leader of the oppossing army, General Joseph Soap, must be eradicated from the world. Shall we send a small strike team into his camp, late at night, and slit his throat while he sleeps?" is murder in my opinion. It's a purposeful intent to kill a specific individual, and a plan that revolves around the killing of that specific individual.Now, in a war situation, one could question why the second example above could be construed as murder. If you did, I'd have a hard time justifying my position. After all, the killing of General Soap would avert a war and probably save countless lives. It's not all cut and dry. I'd still maintain that the second situation above would be dishonerable, because it (If all goes according to plan) does not give the good General a chance to defend himself. Whether it's really Evil... Depends on whether your army are the good guys or the bad guys, I guess. :smallyuk:

So let's use another situation:

"We need to get through this dungeon to recover <insert fabulous treasure here>. In order to do that, we will need to kill the kobolds who are defending it." This may or may not be Evil, depending on the nature of the treasure and what you plan to do with it, but it's not murder. The kobolds aren't named, and there is no specific plan to kill them. In all likelihood, though, various unnamed kobolds will have to die.
"We need to break into Mr Johnson's shop and steal the <insert fabulous treasure here>. Hopefully, Mr Johnson will not be there, but if he is, he will have to die." This is murder, in my mind. Even though the intention is not to kill Mr Johnson (per se), he is named, and there is a very strong possibility that he will die. If he is there, the characters are probably not going to go to any great lengths to stop him from dying (He can identify them, etc). If they were prepared to, it would be premeditated theft (Probably Evil, depending on the intentions), but not murder.
"Let's go kill Mr Johson and take his stuff!" This is murder, plain and simple. Mr Johnson must die - there are no two ways about it. Once he's dead, we'll take his stuff, not before.There is another aspect of murder that I alluded to above - that it generally does not give a person the opportunity to defend him/herself. Sometimes, murder can afford the person that opportunity and still be murder, but I do not think that any killing (Except possibly in a war time situation) that does not afford your opponent some semblence of a chance, can be called anything but murder.
And by the way, I think this is exactly what poison does. Poison is sneaky. If it's done right, poison cannot be anticipated and (therefore) nothing can be done to avoid being inflicted by the poison. There's no chance to defend against poison - one could work to neutralise it's effects, but that's after the fact, or take steps to prevent infection, but that's before the fact. In that moment, when the poison strikes, the victim is helpless.

I'd like to ask whether the people here agree with my interpretation of killing vs murder, and also in my belief that murder is always Evil, and killing doesn't have to be.

I will say right off the bat that this is purely a flavour thing. So, what's your flavour? Is the situation I've described above one that you take for granted when you play or run games? Would you prefer to play or run a game in a world where the above was taken for granted? Do you prefer some other system?

Cheers
Nocturne

Raum
2007-01-17, 08:59 AM
Just curious, but you seem to be defining killing as evil or not based on whether it's personal with the personal killings defined as evil. Why do you think a personal decision to kill an individual is more evil than impersonally killing a few hundred?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-01-17, 09:00 AM
Morally killing people is evil.

Paladins have always been a bunch of hypocrits.

The basic idea behind dnd is that you loot ancient ruins for money. Every dnd character is basically a back stabbing tomb robber with a nice clean heroic shirt +1.


Dungeons and Dragons is only a game. However if you start bringing morals into it the whole thing turns sadistic. The easy answer is to stop worrying.

Nocturne
2007-01-17, 09:06 AM
Raum: Sorry, re-reading my original post, I realise that that is the impression that is created. What I meant to say was that planning to kill people is murder. So going on a mission to slaughter a million people because you don't like their religious persuasion is evil. Fighting a war in which a hundred people happen to die is not (necessarilly). Besides, when you plan to kill a million people, you are specifically identifying (Or "naming") the people you plan to kill. My post just came accross a little wrong, is all.

Cloest_Skeleton: I try not to worry about it too much. It just annoys me so much seeing so many people here worry about it.

Ditto
2007-01-17, 09:11 AM
Killing soldiers in war is never murder. That's why you call it war. If they have a sword/gun/uniform, and they're going to fight you, have at them.

Murder is premeditated *unlawful* killing. And premeditated isn't even a strict requirement, that's why there are three degrees in the American justice system (and then you get into manslaughter and so on...), one for "Let's kill Johnson", another for "Let's steal his stuff... oops, I killed Johnson", and
third for anything else that happens where you deliberately kill Johnson.

Problem in D&D is not everyone follows the same law system. So mostly, you have war. You can declare war on one person, really, so the fact that you quibble about the neighboring nation or the neighboring tribe or the neighboring adventuring party can get sort of thin. They do it all the time in comic books... countries vs. supervillains is fun!

In D&D, evil is generally defined as 'destructive to life', and good is 'supportive of life' in the broadest of senses. The paladin's strictures are ridiculously draconian in a rather utilitarian world.

random11
2007-01-17, 09:14 AM
Partly because of that reason, I usually create campains where the only inteligent race is humans.

DeathQuaker
2007-01-17, 09:20 AM
Generally, without getting too overly deeply into things, I think mostly "Good" people try to do what is ultimately the least harm (and sometimes, killing the serial Axe-murderer will result in the least harm, but sometimes, and more often than people want to admit, arguing for a nonviolent solution will result in the least harm--even if it takes a long time). "Good" people will also make sacrifices to make sure that the innocent are protected.

"Evil" people either want the fastest way to their goals, and don't care how many people it hurts--and/or they may *enjoy* harming people.

Most people are neutral. They don't hurt innocents but don't go out of their way to help them either, and have no qualms about hurting certain people if it's a matter of survival or what they believe is justice. (I'd also argue most "neutral" people want to believe that they are "good" and try to rationalize why being harmful in certain situations or selfish is an okay thing to be.)

Good people can also do evil acts and vice versa, of course. The SRD makes it clear that alignment is a general overview of a person's behavior but does not dictate each and every single action, and a single non-aligned action does not cause an alignment shift.

Tormsskull
2007-01-17, 09:30 AM
I would agree with your distinctions between killing and murder, and I agree that murder is (almost) always evil. Of course, in the D&D sense, performing 1 evil act (say murdering Mr. Johnson) does not force your character to have an evil alignment, which is where I think a lot of people get confused.

When people suggest not worrying about alignment it worries me. I understand that many people don't want to get into a morality based game, and thats fine as long as the DM makes the bad guys truly bad guys. In this sort of a game the players should be the good guys and they should always be set upon the bad guys, there shouldn't be degrees of good or bad because then it just gets really confusing.

I like to run politically based, human-nature based games where people react to their surroundings. Some NPCs will be racist, some will be sexist, some will be altruistic, some will be charitable, basically represent a whole complete world. The players then make choices that will affect their relationships with the NPCs & the world as a whole.

In this type of a setting it is important to define evil, but also recognize that different grades of evil exist. The merchant who would swindle a family out of their last copper if he thought he could get away with it may be evil, but he isn't the bloodthirsty, opposed to humanity wants to bring destruction down upon the world kind of evil. It's also important to note that in these type of games, "Because he's evil" is not justifacation to take a certain action.

Either type of game can be very enjoyable to play, and each treat alignment very differently.

MrNexx
2007-01-17, 09:30 AM
Murder is premeditated *unlawful* killing. And premeditated isn't even a strict requirement, that's why there are three degrees in the American justice system (and then you get into manslaughter and so on...), one for "Let's kill Johnson", another for "Let's steal his stuff... oops, I killed Johnson", and third for anything else that happens where you deliberately kill Johnson.

Actually, "Let's steal his stuff... oops, I killed Johnson" is the same as "Let's kill Johnson", legally. A murder committed during the commission of a felony is considered premeditated in the US.

Ambrogino
2007-01-17, 09:36 AM
Actually, "Let's steal his stuff... oops, I killed Johnson" is the same as "Let's kill Johnson", legally. A murder committed during the commission of a felony is considered premeditated in the US.

It's the "in the US" bit that's the problem. These kind of areas are vastly different in their legal precedents depending on the different courts trying them, and, in some cases, the skills of the prosecution and defence.

Nocturne
2007-01-17, 09:47 AM
Murder is premeditated *unlawful* killing. And premeditated isn't even a strict requirement, that's why there are three degrees in the American justice system <snip>

Problem in D&D is not everyone follows the same law system.


See now, that's one of the main reasons why I wanted to define murder without legalistic language. Because not everybody follows the same law system (D&D or otherwise). I'm not an American, and I never really understood what the whole "murder in the nth degree thing" meant either. I didn't know how many degrees there were! (In South Africa, we have Murder, and Culpable Homicide (The latter is, I think, equivilant to your Manslaughter)).

If murder is *unlawful* killing, define *unlawful*. You can't, because not everybody has the same concept of laws (Absolutely positively no reference to the D&D Law vs Chaos alignment axis is intended here).

As a matter of interest, however, I'd love it if you would PM me and explain what the different degrees of murder are in American law. I love Courtroom dramas, but as I said, I never really understood how that worked. :smallredface:

Roderick_BR
2007-01-17, 09:53 AM
By what I understood, you mean that entering a confrontation with a person, is not murder, while planing a death is. That's fine by me. A lot of people whine complain that their character is not evil when killing people.
It's all about if it's "correct" to kill someone or not, if necessary, or if the kill is result of a fight or killing the victim without giving him the chance to defend himself. Myself, I like to play the typical 80's hero, that always give a chance to the enemy to surrender or even flee instead of pulling the sword and jumping at his throttle.
Can't forget the "legitimate defense" also. If you are the one being attacked by an assassin, you two fight, and you end up killing him. Actually, it falls under the "war" situation under a stricter scenario. You are defending yourself. If the attacker dies... well, too bad for him.

Nocturne
2007-01-17, 10:00 AM
Roderick_BR: That's exactly what I'm trying to say! Getting into a fight with (and killing) someone en route to completing some or other goal may well be evil (It depends...), but is not murder, as I like to think. Actively seeking out that fight and killing the person/people IS murder, and is almost always evil (Maybe not in war, depending on whose side you're on).

I, too, like to always give opponents chance to yield, but I don't think it's really relevant to whether doing so or not would constitute murder if you ending up killing the person anyway. That's a different scenario than deliberately stabbing someone in the back when he didn't even see you coming, or killing someone who is restrained and therefore physically unable to do anything to defend himself (Which would be murder, in my opinion).

Oh, and the "some or other goal" mentioned above might just be "getting through your own busy life", so if someone attacks you and you kill him, then no, it's not murder.

Ali
2007-01-17, 10:08 AM
What about a situation like this:

Two fighters, both Lawful Good, disagree on how their fighting guild should be run. They decide to fight to the death, both of them knowing they will have to kill the other to survive. They prepare for the fight, and once they are both ready they do fight. One kills the other, and the survivor makes the rules of the guild.

What is your opinion on that one?

Tormsskull
2007-01-17, 10:11 AM
What about a situation like this:

Two fighters, both Lawful Good, disagree on how their fighting guild should be run. They decide to fight to the death, both of them knowing they will have to kill the other to survive. They prepare for the fight, and once they are both ready they do fight. One kills the other, and the survivor makes the rules of the guild.

What is your opinion on that one?

Being that they are Good, and have respect for life, they wouldn't agree to fight to the death.

Ali
2007-01-17, 10:14 AM
But they do, because they both have ideas that they think will help the guild, but their ideas differ greatly. So, they decide it can only be decided by a fight to the death, which they are capable of, since they are both fighters.

Nocturne
2007-01-17, 10:15 AM
But if they did, I'd rule it a "war situation". Both fighters go into it knowing all the risks, and they're willing to take those risks. That's your typical soldier right there. Soldiers may be killers, but they're not (hopefully) murderers.

Same with "caged fighting" or "gladiatorial conflict" type things. As long as the people doing the fighting do it voluntarily, there's nothing murderous about it. (Although it might be distasteful)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-17, 10:18 AM
I tend to look at this sort of thing a bit differently to most D&D players, because I tend to think of D&D games in terms of fictional events, rather than real ones.

If a Paladin goes out and kills a group of orcs, then he is "fighting against evil." His actions embody a broad concept, it wouldn't matter whether he was hitting Orcs with a sword, or peacefully lobbying against human rights abuses in China, it's the fight that matters.

An Assassin cutting somebody's throat is not fighting against anything, they're just cutting somebody's throat. While the in character consequences (not to mention the game mechanical effects) may be the same, the narrative structure is completely different. A fictional fight represents a real world struggle, a fictional murder does not.

Tormsskull
2007-01-17, 10:20 AM
But they do, because they both have ideas that they think will help the guild, but their ideas differ greatly. So, they decide it can only be decided by a fight to the death, which they are capable of, since they are both fighters.

I would say if you feel that it is acceptable for a Lawful Good fighter to agree to a duel to the death involving another Lawful Good fighter, and follow through with killing the other person, because they have different ideas, then your interpretation of the alignment system is far different than mine. In fact, I would ask you to specify how you think the alignment system works, in detail, in order to give you an answer that might fall within your interpretation of the alignment system.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-01-17, 10:22 AM
I agree with the thread title, but not the first post. :\

Ali
2007-01-17, 10:23 AM
"Both fighters go into it knowing all the risks, and they're willing to take those risks."

Aye, that is why I don't consider that situation evil either.

"they are Good, and have respect for life" - of course they do, that is why they mutually agreed to fight to the death rather then just immediately charging each other on their first disagreement.

MrNexx
2007-01-17, 11:01 AM
Apropos of the whole "killing non-humans" thing, I remember reading an interesting article (I believe on RPG.net) about surrender in RPGs.

How frequently do the enemies your characters face surrender? How frequently do they try a "Diplomacy check" on the PCs... offering to leave the area and pay the PCs if the PCs will just stop killing all of them? Not just the mewling women and children, but the warriors who have to know they are beaten?

I miss my morale checks.

Telonius
2007-01-17, 11:24 AM
Killing someone is almost never a "good" thing. It is most often evil, but it could be justified (which probably translates to something like "neutral"). It might be justified if:
- the matter is important. ("He looked at me funny!" isn't acceptable; "He's an oppressive tyrant who plans to wipe out or enslave all the elves!" or "He's currently attacking me!" might be).
- it's done as a last resort. (Negotiated first, or determined with high certainty that negotiations would be fruitless. Attempting to disable rather than kill the enemy falls into this one as well).
- it isn't done cruelly. (Death should be quick and painless as possible).
- reasonable precautions are taken so that no one else not directly involved is killed. (If the guy is in a crowded tavern, use Scorching Ray instead of Fireball).

Munchy
2007-01-17, 11:29 AM
The boundary between killing and murder or what is an acceptable killing and what is a reproachable one is fuzzy. Even IRL phillosofers and others can't come to an agreement on this question so I very much doubt that a clear cut definition or separation of the concepts will be reached here.

What I do believe is possible is attaining various positions with a high degree of internal consistency that could then form the basis for different traditions or moralities. Each deity and nation would then adopt one of these positions. In that case, the decision of what killings were reproachable or not would for the most part be handed down to the PC based on their deity and upbringing. Furthermore this would help provide some variance between the different good religions/deities and could also introduce a legitimate source of tension between the different churches (Even if they share the same broad alignment). A knowledge religion/law?/tradition? check would allow a given PC to know where a particular action would fall according to its moral standards or those of the religion/society if belongs to.

NullAshton
2007-01-17, 11:44 AM
Wouldn't killing the kobolds to get the treasure be evil, because you are killing the kobolds just so you can steal their likely most prized possession?

Shisumo
2007-01-17, 11:50 AM
In reality, moral people shouldn't start fights, and ending them in a fatal fashion is questionable at best. Killing should be the court of last resort, the option taken if and only if the alternative is death.

In the game, something comes into play that I might call "heroic morality." The verifiable existence of Good and Evil places any conflict between individuals or groups who are associated with those verifiable metaphysical forces in a larger context, in which certain actions that would have different or less certain moral freighting - killing, for example, or raising the dead - in a morally neutral world (like ours) take on a specific moral weight within that Good vs. Evil dynamic. It is definitively Good to kill Evil, for example, in the default D&D morality. (It might not be the best choice - even D&D wants you to offer conversion before, rather than by, the sword - but it is a Good choice.) It is definitively Evil to kill Good, and persumably Neutral as well.

Note, however, that the orthogonal axis of Law/Chaos comes in here too. It may be definitively Good to kill Evil, but it isn't necessarily Lawful to do so - there are courts of jurisprudence, for example, that have the right of life or death over people who commit evil actions, and usurping their authority is Chaotic, and can get a Good character into trouble with their alignment if they also happen to be Lawful.

It's worth remembering here that the real-morld morality discussions that take place in ethics classrooms aren't strictly applicable to D&D, because of the verifiable existence of Good and Evil. If I can have you hold this holy longsword and find out whether you're a vicious psychopath or not, the context of the entire discussion changes significantly...

Piedmon_Sama
2007-01-17, 12:12 PM
Killing isn't always evil, no, but I would say it's never good. Even if you kill to defend your family from orcs or whatever, it's not that the act of killing was a good deed so much as the good of saving your family outweighed the evil of killing.

That's why it is, if you think about it realistically, difficult to be an adventurer with a good alignment. How many different times can you get called upon to protect your family, village, kingdom etc. before it gets old? Good-aligned people don't generally go looking for trouble, so it's hard to come up with varied hooks for them.

Nocturne
2007-01-17, 12:20 PM
Wouldn't killing the kobolds to get the treasure be evil, because you are killing the kobolds just so you can steal their likely most prized possession?

I never said I didn't consider it Evil. That would depend on too many variables that I didn't specify in my example. I just said it wouldn't be MURDER, by my definition.

Non-murderous killing can be evil, but doesn't have to be (Although I agree it's "Never good"). Murderous killing is always Evil, in my opinion.

Cheers
Nocturne

Lilivati
2007-01-17, 12:33 PM
This is the fundamental problem of DnD's alignment system (or, if you will, its interpretation of good and evil). I know real world stuff is a bit touchy on these forums, so if I'm out of line let me know and I'll delete the post.

In the real world, killing that serves the greater good (such as in a war, or capitol punishment) is generally regarded as "not evil". Problem is, the other side, or even factions within a side, defines greater good differently. In any given society, permissable killing is defined by what the majority (or those who hold a majority of the power) decides is the greater good.

Here's where DnD runs into a problem. Good and evil, in its system, are not supposed to depend on where you are standing. They are supposed to be absolute. So the deluded cleric that wages a war to purge the heretics from his land is committing evil, in DnD, even though he may honestly believe his actions are making the world a better place. (Now by my perception, he wouldn't be doing good in the real world either, and I would oppose his actions, but it is all perception and when you come down to it, no human being is more qualified than another to define good and evil. His followers would be supportive, and there may be large numbers of followers. Maybe as many as those who agree with me. All a person can do is decide in their own mind what is right and stand up for it. This is why war will never end, among other reasons, but now I'm really off-topic.)

Anyway, my basic point is DnD is not prepared to deal with shades of evil or relative evil, and hence some of its assertions may seem less than sensical.

Leush
2007-01-17, 01:32 PM
Alignment in d&d and in general, if taking it as absolute alignment, is the function of how a character influences th balance of sentient life in the world.

Murder is not per se good or evil (but no more evil than killing)... Okay I lie, it is per se evil since you're taking life and causing suffering, unless it is done for the 'greater good'- like your example of assassinating important enemy political figures and hence preserving the lives of soldiers both yours and theirs.

I is however chaotic. Just fighting a declared war rather than attacking first or using treachury and underhanded tactics is chaotic.

Look at good and evil as how it effects the f((quantity)(qualtity)) of life.

So if you randomly kill someone, you're decreasing quantity of life and hence commiting and evil act.

If you kill someone to take an ancient artefact which can be used to increase quality and quantity of life beyond that which you took to get it would also be good- but it would not immediately be good, it would only be good when the consequences showed up. Until then it would be evil.

Killing someone in self defense is neutral. If you didn't you'd be dead, since you did, you're alive. The balance of life is unaffected. There are special cases.

Now all this is modified by whether you killed someone good (for life) or evil (against life)- killing someone 'eeevil' makes it slightly less of an evil act, since their actions would influence the world to reduce the quantity and quality of life, while killing someone who'se good makes it slightly more evil, as you're killing one of life's supporters.

Note: There is a psychological aspect here: If someone considers their action evil, it becomes more evil. A good character commiting an evil act is slightly more evil than an evil character doing so, since a supporter of life turns away from it.

Ahhh!! explaining things is so hard!

On another note: There are a lot of very very badly played paladins out there. Detect evil is used by PLAYERS to justify killing things for exp, while it should rather be used to aid investigations and determine whether to use smite evil in the middle of a fight. having said that, there are some very well played paladins out there.

Penguinizer
2007-01-17, 01:36 PM
I think that somewhere it might have been stated but in a war it usually might be considered self defense.

JadedDM
2007-01-17, 01:54 PM
I think part of the problem lies in that too often, people mistakenly believe that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. The expression, "It's okay. He/She/It/They are evil," has been used by many PCs to justify horrible acts.

I once had this player who had a supposedly LG character. But throughout the course of the game, I had to eventually rule an alignment change because he stole from people and because he would kill enemies after they surrendered.

And when I would call him on these acts, he would say, "It's okay. They were evil." But it doesn't work that way. People seem to get it in their head that it's okay for a good aligned character to murder, steal, rape, pillage, and loot so long as their victims are of evil alignment.

I'm reminded of the Goblins comic. The PCs find a goblin stronghold, attack it, slaughter many goblins, and then try and take the few valuables they have. Why? Uh...because they were goblins. They're evil. But the truth was, the goblins weren't doing anything at the time. They were not raiding nearby villages, they weren't hurting anyone. One of the PCs even realizes that at the end and feels bad. In my own campaign, if the party attacked a goblin village without a good reason, I would rule it an evil act. Unless those goblins were doing something to justify it.

So I don't think the alignment system is too simplistic. I think people just try and simplify it too much on their own.

TSGames
2007-01-17, 03:15 PM
In my D&D games there exists a universal morality as per what the system generally implicates. The truth is that in a system of objective morality there must exist a system of laws that remain constant and determine the moral consequences of any action. It is from this that the major struggle to understand or utilize an objective system arises: the failure to understand or to set down definitive laws that govern the universe.

As such all murder is evil in my campaign. To give some relativity: All murder is killing but not all killing is murder; therefore it is possible for a killing to be justified (I will not say "good"), but not a murder. Murder does not have to be deliberate in my campaigns, the person doesn't have to be named, there doesn't have to be any specified circumstances for it. The fact is that Genocide is undoubtedly murder and it does not specify a set of circumstances, place, or name; in fact, only a specific trait or behavior of the victims is specified.

Now, as for why murder does not have to be deliberate it’s a bit more complicated. Non-deliberate murder is typically classified as manslaughter. In my games for the purpose of alignment manslaughter is murder. This doesn’t mean it’s as evil as killing a child or some other form of murder, but certainly is not a morally neutral or good action.

Now to answer the prompt. Killing monsters in D&D can become complicated, but it’s not inherently a contradiction for a good character to do so; such a specious viewpoint assumes that all killing is inherently evil which cannot be the case in a world of objective morality. As stated, there must be definite laws that govern morality in an objective universe. PC’s being the “back stabbing tomb robber(s) with a nice clean heroic shirt +1” that they are, often run into complex moral situations that involve the dispatching of enemies by either questionable ways or possibly immoral circumstances.

To account for this and determine if an action is justified, good, or evil I primarily use two real world principles. The first that I look to is the principle of double effect*(1). The second principle is the just war theory*(2). By applying these theories to actions of the PC’s there is no moral quandary that cannot solved. As such, each tomb robbing crusade and each kill made by the PC’s must be viewed on an individual basis using consistent and objective laws.

To address an example give: two good fighters agreeing to battle to death because they cannot agree on some issues. Is it honorable? Maybe, it depends on the campaign setting, but is it good or evil? The fact is that by application of the just war theory we say that is in fact evil because the fighters are unwilling to explore other possibilities, such as compromise, as come to blows instead. Does this mean that the victorious fighter is responsible for murder? No, not by any means, but his agreement to fight instead of pursuing alternate routes makes it a decision that is not amoral. The fact is that neither fighter had committed a lasting or grave offense against the other and therefore neither had just cause to fight the other to the death. As such it is evil, but the fact they agreed to do battle to death would make it less evil than murder. Such is my analysis.

*1 The double effect principle can be used to solve most moral quandaries, here is a website that contains a barely suitable definition of the principle:
http://www.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html (http://www.saintmarys.edu/%7Eincandel/doubleeffect.html)

*2 The just war theory. I am not entirely certain as to if this is an acceptable explanation, but it should provide for the general idea:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Matthew
2007-01-17, 04:11 PM
Killing and Murder are pretty much interchangable. Perspective and justification change from person to person with regard to individual acts where killing might not be associated with the pejorative murder; murder, though, always involves killing.

Saph
2007-01-17, 04:37 PM
Of course killing isn't necessarily evil. If it was, being good would be equivalent to committing suicide. "Hey, someone's trying to kill us!" "Well, you can't hurt him, that would be wrong. You have to ask him nicely to go away." If you run a world on this system, 'good' people won't exist, since they'll have been wiped out long ago through natural selection.

The D&D system takes this into account, so it's perfectly okay for good-aligned characters to kill, as long as they have a good reason for it, the main reasons being "they're trying to kill us" or "they're trying to kill other people".

Example in practice:

My enchanter is Neutral Good. The campaign just started, and she and the rest of the party were captured and woke up in chains about to be sacrificed. I asked the orc priestess nicely if she'd let us go, she explained that we were supposed to be sacrificed and killed, so, no. We broke free and I tried using Charm Person - didn't work. The priestess called in the guards and a full-scale fight broke out, which ended up with us killing her.

Now if that was evil, what on EARTH was I supposed to do in that situation that WASN'T evil? Saying that fighting to stay alive is evil seems completely insane to me.

- Saph

Zincorium
2007-01-17, 05:48 PM
My current DM is annoying in that the NPCs we capture are never willing to talk. Some random thug attacks us for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, we send him off to la-la land via nonlethal damage, and when he wakes up, bound with as much rope as we have on us, he refuses to talk, despite the imminent prospect of torture.

My DM defends himself with 'he knew he was going to die, regardless'. When he wasn't. And we didn't kill him the first time, so there's a precedent for not killing him. We've decided that just killing people is less troublesome, since even a craven kobold who surrendered in open combat will knife us rather than just run away when freed.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-17, 06:49 PM
I just make gut decisions based on what's happening. The real problem is that the alignment system is automatically skewed to the morality of the DM. Sometimes this isn't a problem, sometimes it is. For instance, in my campaign, one of my players really didn't understand why he couldn't threaten to murder an ally NPC for information that he neither needed nor had any proof the NPC might have without me lowering his alignment from good to neutral, and straight to evil if I see it happen once or twice more. I considered his actions to be appaling, so I decided that they were evil. The player, on the other hand, actually believed that was a morale choice and made a small scene out of me restricting his alignment on something like that.

Nearly everyone was mortified that he considered such an action good. This guy has always had loose and practically non-existant morales, but christ...

Raum
2007-01-17, 07:08 PM
The real problem is that the alignment system is automatically skewed to the morality of the DM.
Not sure I agree...from what I've seen, problems tend to crop up when players (DM or not) assign real world values to D&D alignments.

RAW, Chaos, Evil, Good, and Law are tangible forces. They have measurable affects on the world / multiverse. Even so, everything isn't (can't be) black and white. Borders between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos aren't clear cut lines.

The way I see it, actions are aligned with what they add (specifically add, not remove) to the world. So an action which creates or engenders anarchy, chaos, or entropy is Chaotic. One which furthers order is Lawful. Simply removing anarchy (or order) is neutral. Similar for the Good - Evil axis.

It has little to do with real world ethics or morality.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-17, 07:10 PM
But that would make someone that annihilates the entire world purely neutral.

Raum
2007-01-17, 07:16 PM
But that would make someone that annihilates the entire world purely neutral.Why? Hasn't that furthered entropy?

Destruction isn't simple removal. It's reducing an item to its component parts.

And yes, I'm concentrating on Chaos - Law rather than Good - Evil. It's easier to point out examples we can potentially agree on.

TheOOB
2007-01-17, 07:20 PM
Causing harm to someone for personal gain is always evil, no matter who you harm, even orcs/goblins/kobolds/ect.

The only "good" reason to kill someone is if killing them is the only way to save an innocents life.

For everything else it's a neutral action. Really simple.

Just a note, killing non-sepient animals for clothing and food if you need it is generally considered neutral, even if it's for personal gain. Killing animals for sport is in fact evil.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-17, 07:22 PM
Well, it could certainly go either way for law-chaos. Just about anything could, with the right roleplaying reasoning. For instance- a paladin kills an evil humanoid in cold blood within a city. His reasoning? Their laws are not his god's laws, thus it was perfectly okay to absolutely ignore them as an affront to his deity.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-17, 07:23 PM
But if they did, I'd rule it a "war situation". Both fighters go into it knowing all the risks, and they're willing to take those risks. That's your typical soldier right there. Soldiers may be killers, but they're not (hopefully) murderers.

Same with "caged fighting" or "gladiatorial conflict" type things. As long as the people doing the fighting do it voluntarily, there's nothing murderous about it. (Although it might be distasteful)

Isn't, then, being a General a "war situation"? Being a General, don't you know the risk that you could be murdered in your sleep? Going by the example you gave, I would agree that it's murder, and I might even agree to dishonorable. Evil? Perhaps, that's why I like Evil better...they're willing to do the thing that saves more lives, apparently.

Fhaolan
2007-01-17, 07:23 PM
The alignment system itself is Lawful, as it is a fixed system. Anyone that holds to one of the alignments is therefore Lawful.

True Chaos holds to no alignment system.

:smallbiggrin:

TheOOB
2007-01-17, 07:31 PM
Ahh but chaotic != chaos in the traditional sense.

Raum
2007-01-17, 07:31 PM
Well, it could certainly go either way for law-chaos. Just about anything could, with the right roleplaying reasoning. For instance- a paladin kills an evil humanoid in cold blood within a city. His reasoning? Their laws are not his god's laws, thus it was perfectly okay to absolutely ignore them as an affront to his deity.
Meh, that's a drawback of using the term "law". In RAW, Law isn't a code or set of decrees, it's reliability...stability...order.

So if the evil humanoid's death promoted order, it was a Lawful act.

TimeWizard
2007-01-17, 07:36 PM
I pray for a day when things like this will be unanimously agreed upon, but then what fun would a forum be if not to exchange ideas intellectual and have us a good, healthy argument. Go into DnD with the knowledge that it's a fairly black and white world. Some things are just blanket covered as evil, while others are good. For a better understanding of this, everyone should take ten minuets to read the alignment descriptions in the PHB, to see how things are dfined in DnD terms. For a more complete idea, spend some time with the Book of Vile Darkness, and the Book of Exalted Deeds. Killing may not be evil, but it falls within boundaries.

Stephen_E
2007-01-17, 11:37 PM
I never said I didn't consider it Evil. That would depend on too many variables that I didn't specify in my example. I just said it wouldn't be MURDER, by my definition.

Non-murderous killing can be evil, but doesn't have to be (Although I agree it's "Never good"). Murderous killing is always Evil, in my opinion.

Cheers
Nocturne

I have no problems with your seperation of Killing and Murder.

The Murder = Evil is a problem in my book.
A Traditional scenario - Battered wife/child poisons Spouse/Parent who's doing the battering. If they ren away the abuser hunted them down and forced them back. The authorities would do nothing because it was a domestic matter (common thinking until a couple of decades ago). Murder, Yes, Evil, not im my book.

Leader is rallying a mob to grab and execute the local herbalist as a witch, or maybe just throwout into the winter the locally unpopular race and take all their belongings. You aren't a target. You slip into his house while he's getting some stuff and kill him in a way tomake it look like natural causes (probably poison). The mob i slikely to now fall apart, or at least be less determined in its persecution. Murder, Yes, Evil, not in my book.

The example someone mentioned of the Paladin going off to fight and kill the local tribe of Orcs. Many of those Orcs are your friends, and you know damned well that the women and children will be killed as well. You sneak up on the Paladin while he's sleeping before going to the fight, and kill him. Murder, yes, Evil, not in my book.

Stephen

Fhaolan
2007-01-17, 11:49 PM
Ahh but chaotic != chaos in the traditional sense.

Tradition is also Lawful, by definition. And therefore irrelevant to Chaos!

This is today's moment of Zen, brought to you by the Abused Deceased Equine Society; Combining two disgusting fetishes so you don't have to.

:smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2007-01-18, 12:29 AM
the lesser of two evils is still evil..it's just less evil.

murder in stephen's examples might be justified... but that doesn't make it a non-evil act.

TheOOB
2007-01-18, 12:36 AM
Justification for your actions doesn't matter concerning alignment. Alignment is simply a measure of how magic based around ethics and morality affects you, it has nothing to do with philosophical debate.

Hears the best gauge of alignment as a DM. Think to yourself, if this character was hit with a Holy Smite spell, would the magic have full effect on them, partial effect or no effect.

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 12:58 AM
I never said I didn't consider it Evil. That would depend on too many variables that I didn't specify in my example. I just said it wouldn't be MURDER, by my definition.

Non-murderous killing can be evil, but doesn't have to be (Although I agree it's "Never good"). Murderous killing is always Evil, in my opinion.

Cheers
Nocturne

Ok, please explain the difference between "Let's take the treasure, and if the Kobolds get in the way, they'll have to die." and "Let's rob Mr Johnson's shop, and if he gets in the way, he'll have to die."

Other than racism, I don't see a difference.

I really think the distinction between killing and murder is semantics to salve a guilty conscience. Someone dies by your actions. If it's justified (to you) you call it killing, if it's not justified (to you, generally because somebody else did it) it becomes murder.

Sometimes, the world being the way it is, people come into conflict and somebody dies. Governments, churches, and organizations have always tried to regulate and dissuade their members from scragging one another, so they all ban "murder," but know that conflict with heathens, enemy nations, etc, will occur, so they allow for sanctioned "non-murder" killing of those outside the group.

The US Marine Corps trained me to kill my fellow man. And so long as I restrict my use of that training to targets the government designates, I'm not murdering, but if, instead of some 17 year old Iraqi I've never met, who joined up to defend his country, and who may be a great guy, I kill my (hypothetical) sister's rapist, then I'm a murderer. That's kinda messed up by any rational examination.

I think of killing like hunting. If you do it to eat, by extension to live, that's fine. Sure you could go vegan, but but I'm not prepared to make that sacrifice. If, on the other hand, you do it only for the visceral thrill of snuffing a critter, you're a damaged human being.

Your mileage may vary, but I know a number of military men who feel guilty or messed up from sanctioned, apporved "non-murder" killing, and plenty of murderers who feel justified. I find the simplistic distinction distasteful.

Nocturne
2007-01-18, 02:05 AM
Of course killing isn't necessarily evil. If it was, being good would be equivalent to committing suicide.

Just as a matter of interest, some real world legal systems (Including South Africa's) see suicide as "self-murder", and it is thus illegal. Meaning, if you try to commit suicide, and fail, you can conceivably be prosecuted when you've recovered from your ordeal. Not that this has ever resulted in jail time, to the best of my knowledge. But there have been cases where a magistrate has enforced psychological treatment and the like. Anyway, just an off-topic tangent I thought I'd throw in. If you choose to follow that belief (I don't), then attempting to commit suicide might be considered an Evil act.


Isn't, then, being a General a "war situation"? Being a General, don't you know the risk that you could be murdered in your sleep? Going by the example you gave, I would agree that its murder, and I might even agree to dishonorable. Evil? Perhaps, that's why I like Evil better...they're willing to do the thing that saves more lives, apparently.

True, and I said when I originally cited that example that I admitted it was not a very good argument. I'm not sure where I would put that on the D&D alignment scale. I guess I'd say that if the "murder" was committed in the context of the war, then it would be fine. If said General was assassinated at a pub somewhere while not actively engaging in the conflict, then it would be Evil[1]. *shrug* I'm still not sure. I guess I'd cross that bridge when I come to it.


A Traditional scenario - Battered wife/child poisons Spouse/Parent who's doing the battering. If they ren away the abuser hunted them down and forced them back. The authorities would do nothing because it was a domestic matter (common thinking until a couple of decades ago). Murder, Yes, Evil, not im my book.

WOW! These questions are hard! It's good, though. It challenges my brain.

OK, this first scenario. I guess that going strictly by the D&D alignment system, this would probably be an Evil act[1]. This is because, as many people have said before, the D&D alignment system is supposed to be completely and utterly subjective and black and white, with no room for extenuating circumstances at all.

Of course, the real world is not black and white. And, I probably don't have enough information from your hypothetical situation to make a proper decision in real world terms. These are the kind of things I would consider, though:

In my experience, most spouse-batterers suffer from an illness. If you're ill, you can be cured. Granted, this is an oversimplification, and you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, but I would really like to see someone exploring all possibilities of re-habilitation before considering such a drastic step.
In my experience, most battered spouses will maintain that they still love their abusers, which sometimes leads them to make all sorts of justifications which "prove" that it's their fault... it gets messy. Spousal abuse is never ever justified, but it's also never ever cut and dried. And then you have your kids to consider, if any. Still, loving someone often means putting their own needs ahead of yours. Obviously you can't live with someone who continuously abuses you, but killing your abuser strikes me as an easy way out, and does not demonstrate much love to the person.If I had to adjudicate your example of killing the abuser from a real world perspective, rather than a cut and dried D&D one, I would probably not consider it Evil (Although it wouldn't be very Good, either), unless the abused makes it a habit of getting involved with abusive partners and killing them.


Leader is rallying a mob to grab and execute the local herbalist as a witch, or maybe just throwout into the winter the locally unpopular race and take all their belongings. You aren't a target. You slip into his house while he's getting some stuff and kill him in a way tomake it look like natural causes (probably poison). The mob i slikely to now fall apart, or at least be less determined in its persecution. Murder, Yes, Evil, not in my book.

If you're a member of the authorities on a mission to eradicate this mob, then I would put it under a "war situation" as I described above. If you're just some random member of society who’s taken it upon himself to exact some form of vigilante justice, I would probably consider it Evil[1].


The example someone mentioned of the Paladin going off to fight and kill the local tribe of Orcs. Many of those Orcs are your friends, and you know damned well that the women and children will be killed as well. You sneak up on the Paladin while he's sleeping before going to the fight, and kill him. Murder, yes, Evil, not in my book.

I will give the exact answer as above. However, there are more things I would consider:

The deity of the Paladin in question probably already considers the Paladin's actions to be Evil, and missing the point of what the deity stands for and expects from his followers. Such a deity would probably be well on his way to revoking said Paladin's status for even considering such an act. However,
That deity would likewise consider your actions in killing his trusted follower and emissary on the Material Plane to be an Evil act as well. He would probably not have a problem with you subduing the Paladin and trying to teach him the error of his ways, but two wrongs don't make a right (In the first place), and the deity still has need for said follower, even if not as a Paladin, and even since the Paladin has faltered in some way (In the second place). Besides, the Paladin could still atone and end up being a very valuable asset to his deity once more.[1] Please note that in this post, and others where I give my opinion on what would be considered Evil: Just because I consider something an Evil act does not mean that I believe it warrants an alignment change, or even necessarily an alignment penalty. It's just something that needs to be noted: "Hey! I think that action was Evil. Watch it!" Of course, if the character in question is a member of an alignment restricted class, then it's a whole other ball game.

Cheers
Nocturne

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to deal with this one:


Your mileage may vary, but I know a number of military men who feel guilty or messed up from sanctioned, apporved "non-murder" killing, and plenty of murderers who feel justified. I find the simplistic distinction distasteful.

Yes, I do to, and it's very sad. I in fact share an office with someone who was a rekkie (Special forces who went accross the border into Africa and slaughtered black people covertly, simply for being black. This was government sanctioned, don't forget.) during the apartheid years. After the "war", he spent literally thousands on psychological treatment to get his head straight, and to this day, thinking about those times brings him close to tears. I gather that some who fought in the Vietnam war have similar experiences.

But with all due respect, if you find a simplification of killing vs murder, and Good vs Evil so distasteful, you probably should never be involved in any D&D game in which that part of the alignment scale becomes an issue.

Stephen_E
2007-01-18, 05:09 AM
WOW! These questions are hard! It's good, though. It challenges my brain.

OK, this first scenario. I guess that going strictly by the D&D alignment system, this would probably be an Evil act[1]. This is because, as many people have said before, the D&D alignment system is supposed to be completely and utterly subjective and black and white, with no room for extenuating circumstances at all.

Of course, the real world is not black and white. And, I probably don't have enough information from your hypothetical situation to make a proper decision in real world terms. These are the kind of things I would consider, though:

In my experience, most spouse-batterers suffer from an illness. If you're ill, you can be cured. Granted, this is an oversimplification, and you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, but I would really like to see someone exploring all possibilities of re-habilitation before considering such a drastic step.
In my experience, most battered spouses will maintain that they still love their abusers, which sometimes leads them to make all sorts of justifications which "prove" that it's their fault... it gets messy. Spousal abuse is never ever justified, but it's also never ever cut and dried. And then you have your kids to consider, if any. Still, loving someone often means putting their own needs ahead of yours. Obviously you can't live with someone who continuously abuses you, but killing your abuser strikes me as an easy way out, and does not demonstrate much love to the person.If I had to adjudicate your example of killing the abuser from a real world perspective, rather than a cut and dried D&D one, I would probably not consider it Evil (Although it wouldn't be very Good, either), unless the abused makes it a habit of getting involved with abusive partners and killing them. .

Having grown up with a moderately abusive father (no one ever got hospitalised) and retained an interest in what people studying the variety of situations have found -
a) Abusers are often quite talented at making those who get abused feel guilty. Thus they weaken the victims ability to defend themselves or flee since they're guilty and deserve the punishment.
b) Abuse over a period of time makes it extremely hard for the victim to actively oppose the abuser unless on a adrenalin high. This means they're restricted to acting by stealth or in a berserk rage. There have often been cases of where victims were talked into handing over a weapon they were trying to defend themselves with, and which the abuser used against them, sometimes fatally so. Any reasoned discourse is an automatic defeat (ussually with a beating to follow).
c) Stockholm Syndrome - If you're unaware, it is where a kidnap victim develops an attraction towards their kidnapper as a subconcious effort to convince the Kidnapper to recipricate and protect them. Applys equally to abuse victims, but tends to be less successful. :-(
d) Re: Abusers been ill. It very much depends on your definition of "illness". My experiance and observation would be that if they're "ill" it's not generally recognised as a illness, unless you automatically define the act of abuse as an "illness" which may indeed be a resonable approach, but generally not helpful, because many illnesses, in particular mental illnesses, can't be cured.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1848626#post1848626)
Leader is rallying a mob to grab and execute the local herbalist as a witch, or maybe just throwout into the winter the locally unpopular race and take all their belongings. You aren't a target. You slip into his house while he's getting some stuff and kill him in a way tomake it look like natural causes (probably poison). The mob i slikely to now fall apart, or at least be less determined in its persecution. Murder, Yes, Evil, not in my book.





If you're a member of the authorities on a mission to eradicate this mob, then I would put it under a "war situation" as I described above. If you're just some random member of society who’s taken it upon himself to exact some form of vigilante justice, I would probably consider it Evil[1].


I was thinking of an individual acting to save the relatively innocent Herbalist or victimised race. He's murdering a non-innocent (the person inciting the murders) to try and save those who're relatively innocent.

I find it interesting that you feel acting as a part of the authorities
makes the action acceptable over an individual doing it. IMO the only reason the authorities doing some has more validity over the actions of an individual is because the authorities are often more capable of acting objectively without personal prejudices interfering in their judgement. It's also worth noting that the Geneva Convention specifically allows for people to fight as a matter of conscience. Effectively the GC doesn't differentiate between someone acting from conscience and someone acting for a state.

Stephen

Nocturne
2007-01-18, 07:05 AM
Having grown up with a moderately abusive father (no one ever got hospitalised) and retained an interest in what people studying the variety of situations have found -


I think replying in detail to this will be hideously off topic, so I'm just going to say a few words.

I have had quite a bit of experience councelling abused women and children, and I agree with all your points. I just need to clarify what I meant by "illness", or maybe rephrase my statement somehow. This is how I see it:

Some abusers (Particularly men who abuse women) are the way they are because they've been brought up to believe that women (In this example) are inferior to men, fit only for being barefoot and pregnant, need to be beaten into submission, or some other such nonsense. Maybe they've been quite literally taught this by their fathers (In this example), or maybe they picked it up from growing up in an abusive household themselves. This is not "illness" in the medical sense. <sarcasm>It may not even be wrong</sarcasm>. In many cases, though, it can be unlearnt - with varying degrees of difficulty and success depending on the individual.
Others, though, do actually suffer from a serious medical condition. As you say, some of these cannot be cured, and this unfortunately makes me start thinking of all sorts of arguments for capitol punishment. :smallfrown:Wow! So much for "only a few words!!!" :smallbiggrin:


I was thinking of an individual acting to save the relatively innocent Herbalist or victimised race. He's murdering a non-innocent (the person inciting the murders) to try and save those who're relatively innocent.

Fair enough. But again, two wrongs don't make a right. The person inciting the murders may be perpetrating a very Evil act, but so is the person murdering that person. As I pointed out before, that doesn't mean the DM should suddenly zing his alignment to Evil (Or even change it away from Good, or do anything at all to it), it's just something to bear in mind.

I only brought up the thing about being in a "war situation" because on the ground, the people actually fighting the war often (Most often?) have no vested interest whatsoever in what it is they are fighting for. They're just "following orders" - and I'm sorry, but to me, that has always been a valid excuse.

Raum
2007-01-18, 08:31 AM
This is because, as many people have said before, the D&D alignment system is supposed to be completely and utterly subjective and black and white, with no room for extenuating circumstances at all.
But D&D alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) is specifically not black and white. It states "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.


If you're a member of the authorities on a mission to eradicate this mob, then I would put it under a "war situation" as I described above. If you're just some random member of society who’s taken it upon himself to exact some form of vigilante justice, I would probably consider it Evil[1].
Obeying authority is a sign of being Lawful, it has little or nothing to do with beeing Good or Evil. The description of Good states "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." So the vigilante helping another and knowing he may pay the price for disturbing order and stability of society is likely to be good...but probably not lawful.


I only brought up the thing about being in a "war situation" because on the ground, the people actually fighting the war often (Most often?) have no vested interest whatsoever in what it is they are fighting for. They're just "following orders" - and I'm sorry, but to me, that has always been a valid excuse.
According to the US Code of Military Justice, following orders is not an excuse. Military personnel are supposed to differentiate between legal and illegal orders. However, whether or not it's a valid excuse is probably best left to debate in another forum. In D&D terms following orders is lawful. It is not necessarily good and may even be evil.

-----
Just a comment, the definitions I'm using are those provided by the game. They have nothing to do with real life ethics or morality. Trying to fit real situations into game alignment terms will seldom be satisfying and will often result with the action being defined in different alignment terms than people would use in real life.

Falkus
2007-01-18, 08:44 AM
The basic idea behind dnd is that you loot ancient ruins for money. Every dnd character is basically a back stabbing tomb robber with a nice clean heroic shirt +1.

I don't know about you, but the campaigns that I both play in and run have a lot more substance to them than that.

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 12:15 PM
Yes, I do to, and it's very sad. I in fact share an office with someone who was a rekkie (Special forces who went accross the border into Africa and slaughtered black people covertly, simply for being black. This was government sanctioned, don't forget.) during the apartheid years. After the "war", he spent literally thousands on psychological treatment to get his head straight, and to this day, thinking about those times brings him close to tears. I gather that some who fought in the Vietnam war have similar experiences.

But with all due respect, if you find a simplification of killing vs murder, and Good vs Evil so distasteful, you probably should never be involved in any D&D game in which that part of the alignment scale becomes an issue.

There's not much respect advising me not to game since I don't share your views. Plenty of people who don't see nice clear distinction between these actions can enjoy D&D. That's why we had ten pages worth of "are Assassins necessarily evil?" and multiple Alignment threads. There are plenty of interpretations, and I'll thank you not to advise me to give up my hobby since mine isn't quite yours.

I don't have a problem with killing per se. It all depends on context, which is what I think you're saying. I just heartily object to the sanctimonious renaming of a thing generaly considered bad to make people feel beter. Like when we don't "invade" a country, we "Liberate" it.

If you make somebody dead, that's murder. It's killing as well. Those are pretty much synonyms. Soemtimes you may have had to, either to protect yourself, your family, unknown inocents, or because you government told you to. You may also do it out of anger or personal gain. There is justified and unjustified kiling, and sometimes there isn't a good, viable alternative. I think killing can be good or evil, depending on whom and why you kill.

But calling "official" making people dead "killing" which isn't necessarily evil, and unnofficial making people dead "murder" which is always evil, is cheating, in my opinion, and is a concept invented by organizations who had preached against murder, but needed somebody outside the group whacked, so they invented a distinction. As others have posted, "lawful" killing varies from society to society, based on the laws.

And I really am interested in how you differentiate between killing Kobolds for treasure and killing shopkeepers for treasure.

Tormsskull
2007-01-18, 12:29 PM
There's not much respect advising me not to game since I don't share your views. Plenty of people who don't see nice clear distinction between these actions can enjoy D&D. That's why we had ten pages worth of "are Assassins necessarily evil?" and multiple Alignment threads. There are plenty of interpretations, and I'll thank you not to advise me to give up my hobby since mine isn't quite yours.


I don't think he was telling you to give up your hobby. It looked to me like he was saying if you have a problem differentiating between killing and murder then you should not play in a campaign where alignment is going to be treated in that way.

~~~~

IMO, I think that in order to make a good roleplaying campaign you have to invest a lot of thought into it. Instead of running "go in there, kill those guys and take their stuff" type adventures, you'll be running adventures that have a more specific purpose. With that purpose you'll have a goal, and then you will have to decide what measures your character is willing to take to achieve those goals.

Remember, we are all playing characters in a fictional world. Everyone is naturally going to bring their own world views into the game, but this fictional world will often not work like the real world, and thus your outlook may not be appropriate for it.

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 01:32 PM
I don't think he was telling you to give up your hobby. It looked to me like he was saying if you have a problem differentiating between killing and murder then you should not play in a campaign where alignment is going to be treated in that way.

~~~~

IMO, I think that in order to make a good roleplaying campaign you have to invest a lot of thought into it. Instead of running "go in there, kill those guys and take their stuff" type adventures, you'll be running adventures that have a more specific purpose. With that purpose you'll have a goal, and then you will have to decide what measures your character is willing to take to achieve those goals.

Remember, we are all playing characters in a fictional world. Everyone is naturally going to bring their own world views into the game, but this fictional world will often not work like the real world, and thus your outlook may not be appropriate for it.

I'm just having troubel with all the recent advice that my outlook isn't appropriate for D&D. I've been a player and DM for 25 years now, and never has another member of my group told me my views on violence were inappropriate to the game.

D&D involves a lot of combat. chances are, your character will kill some sentient creatures. I'm cool with that. I just find the "killing can be ok, but murder is icky" argument to smug and sanctimonious.

If I play a LG fighter, who only will kill as a last resort, or to protect the innocent, and will offer surrender to any foes who will acept it, that's fine within my view on killing, and works for the game. If I play a Rogue and don't ask the guy to surrender before I sneak up and shove a knife in his kidney, that's a very different approach, but I can still fit that into my world view, and it works with the game. If I want to lead an army and hononably slaughter my way through dozens of minions to get to the BBEG, that's one aproach, but if I sneak into the BBEG's castle late at night and poison just him, sparing hundreds who'll die in an open attack, that's another. To call the first 'killing' and the second 'murder' is wildly misapplied semantics. The first in honorable, and probably Lawful;, while the second is dishonorable, and probably Chaotic, but which is more Good is open to debate.

But the whole "Killing kobolds to get the ancient artifact is only 'killing' and may not be evil, but shanking Mr Johnson, the greedy merchant if he discovers us taking the artifact is clearly 'murder" and thus evil" is just deluding yourself.

Kill whomever you wnat in D&D, and justify it according to your character's values. Just don't lie to yourself that there are two distinct verbs meaning "to end a life," and one of those is just peachy while the other is not.

Scalenex
2007-01-18, 02:06 PM
Many of these arguments about justification go into the two basic moral codes.

Utilitarianism: Outcome is the ethical gage you measure all acts as being good or evil.

Ethical Imperative: Intent is the ethical gage you measure all acts as being good or evil.

(Gross oversimplification I know)

In both cases these are only theories because it is impossible to measure all consequences of an action and it is impossible to be perfectly assure of your intent.

Frequently it goes like this for my groups:

"These goblins are raiding the village. Lets go find their camp and kill them! Then take their treasure."

The exception is evil clerics. If an evil cleric is IDed as such, the PCs will usually smite them at the first oppurtunity (if they can avoid retribution). This stems from (a fairly safe assumption in my games) that evil clerics will frequently do evil things a lot, striking from the shadows and then hiding waiting to strike again.

They wouldn't take the treasure from a bunch of monstrous humanoids or other common antagonists unless they were a threat to innocent people on some level, but they have no compunctions about taking their stuff. Ideally, to be truly good you'd want to give the bulk of the treasure you "liberate" to the survivors of their monster's attacks. Unfortunately a traditional D&D game would collapse if you gave away most of your treasure because the CR assumes you have appropriate treasure, particular fighters since an unarmored 20th level fighter is an easy to hit as an unarmored first level fighter.

I like to have D&D be black and white most of the time but throw in twists once in a while.

In a personal one-on-one game I ran a long time ago (it was 2nd ed!). My PC was playing a paladin leading an underground resistance movement in a world fallen to evil clerics. She once spotted an evil cleric alone and isolated...because he was fishing with his son. She didn't even come out of hiding and let him go.

In the current game I'm running, the Neutral Good leaning PCs must work with a band of Lawful Evil adventurers to protect a village from vampires. the LE team is protecting their nation's citizenry under orders from above. The PCs are protecting the villagers because that's the right thing to do (and they want exp and treasure). Alone, either party of adventurers would get their asses handed to them by the undead hordes. As a tangent, I ended up with a really weird situation where the PC/NPC team fought several Shadows. Some of them were turned by a friendly evil cleric and were sent to fight hostile shadows. Shadows techically have no means with which they can hurt each other. They only have a strength draining attack and yet possess no strength score. I just winged it and have them grapple. If an allied Shadow and enemy Shadow engaged I just said they were both taken out of the fight until the victorious side set things right (either the vampire would regain control over the Shadow or the PCs whacked the immobilized shadow with a magic weapon.

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 02:26 PM
Many of these arguments about justification go into the two basic moral codes.

Utilitarianism: Outcome is the ethical gage you measure all acts as being good or evil.

Ethical Imperative: Intent is the ethical gage you measure all acts as being good or evil.



But niether of these are addressed by the killing/murder debate.

Assassiniating the evil overlord by stealthy, dishonorable means is Good by both the Utilitarian code, since the result is that much evil is prevented, and by the Ethical code, since the intent is to remove evil and save innocents from eventual attrocities he will commit. That killing, however, seems to be "murder" in the eys of the posters with whom I disagree.

Likelwise, the frontal assault on the BBEG's fortress is Good by both codes, since it results in less evil, and the intent is to remove evil. The sneaky solution may be better from a Utilitarian viewpoint, since fewer people on both sides die, but neither act is evil by these criteria.

I generally agree with everything you say, and like the examples you provide. That's more or less how I run games. I just object, not to the situational morality of killing, but to the somewhat "spin doctorish" way of naming the thing one supports with a term with less evil connotations.

Maybe we can have inappropriate views on killing togther.

Tormsskull
2007-01-18, 02:45 PM
Assassiniating the evil overlord by stealthy, dishonorable means is Good by both the Utilitarian code, since the result is that much evil is prevented, and by the Ethical code, since the intent is to remove evil and save innocents from eventual attrocities he will commit. That killing, however, seems to be "murder" in the eys of the posters with whom I disagree.


Murder generally means to kill someone unlawfully. If I sneak into someone's house and kill them in their sleep, I murdered them. Now, if I'm walking down the street and someone attacks me with a knife, and during the wrestling I stab them and they die, that is not murder. I have the right to defend myself. That is what I would call a generally acceptable definition on murder versus killing.

Now, as it applies directly to the D&D game, let's take a look at a situation. Let's assume a group of PCs living in kingdom A stumble upon a cave within Kingdom A's territory. They venture inside and are attacked by the goblins that live there. The PCs kill the goblins and take their stuff. Did the PCs murder the goblins? That's debateable. You could says that they did because they entered the goblins home and killed them. You could also say that they didn't because in Kingdom A it is not unlawful (against the law) to kill a goblin.

If I walk into greedy Mr. Johnson's store and he is trying to charge me $8 for a bottle of water and so I kill him, that's murder because it is against the law to kill someone. If I sneak into the evil tyrant king of the land's chamber and kill him that is murder because I'm sure regicide will be illegal in that land. Since he was evil and he was committing all sorts of evil deeds himself many people may not care, or may even celebrate me as a hero, but it doesn't change the fact that I murdered him.

So, depending on how you look at alignment, you can say that murder isn't always evil. However, I personally think that killing OR murder are USUALLY evil actions in heavy RP games. If you want to play kick-in-the-door style of gaming, it is best to make all the 'bad' guys super evil baby-eating puppy-kicking show no remorse to anyone type of enemies.

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 03:09 PM
Murder generally means to kill someone unlawfully. If I sneak into someone's house and kill them in their sleep, I murdered them. Now, if I'm walking down the street and someone attacks me with a knife, and during the wrestling I stab them and they die, that is not murder. I have the right to defend myself. That is what I would call a generally acceptable definition on murder versus killing.


Well, since laws vary from place to place, and time to time, Nocturne was trying to make the distinction outside of law, which I think is impossible.

I can accept that legal killing is distinct from illegal killing, but that is a legal, not a moral or ethical distinction.



Now, as it applies directly to the D&D game, let's take a look at a situation. Let's assume a group of PCs living in kingdom A stumble upon a cave within Kingdom A's territory. They venture inside and are attacked by the goblins that live there. The PCs kill the goblins and take their stuff. Did the PCs murder the goblins? That's debateable. You could says that they did because they entered the goblins home and killed them. You could also say that they didn't because in Kingdom A it is not unlawful (against the law) to kill a goblin.


Thus admitting that the killing/murder line is a blurry one, and reaffirming that it is a legal, not moral distinction



If I walk into greedy Mr. Johnson's store and he is trying to charge me $8 for a bottle of water and so I kill him, that's murder because it is against the law to kill someone. If I sneak into the evil tyrant king of the land's chamber and kill him that is murder because I'm sure regicide will be illegal in that land. Since he was evil and he was committing all sorts of evil deeds himself many people may not care, or may even celebrate me as a hero, but it doesn't change the fact that I murdered him.

So, depending on how you look at alignment, you can say that murder isn't always evil.


Which contradicts Nocturne, and supports my view. I completely agree that killing, regardless of what term you use, can be evil or not, depending on circumstances.



However, I personally think that killing OR murder are USUALLY evil actions in heavy RP games. If you want to play kick-in-the-door style of gaming, it is best to make all the 'bad' guys super evil baby-eating puppy-kicking show no remorse to anyone type of enemies.

Perhaps. I often play heavy RP games, and the Good/Evil axis is a million shades of grey, not a clear black and white. Killing is something I judge, as Scalenex indicated, by the intent and result of the action. There is no need to make evey foe a viscious baby eating, demon-summoning beast. A nemesis can be overzealous, cruel, or a tyrant, but love his family, give to charities, and have sterling qualities outside of politics. Likewise, a soldier can serve an Evil master without knowing the master's nature, and be doing it for what he thinks is a noble reason, and still fight the PC's in a kill or be killed situation, despite both sides having Good alignments.

D&D doesn't need to be black and white. The best campaigns I've played in weren't. But we always wind up killing somebody.

Saph
2007-01-18, 03:27 PM
I can accept that legal killing is distinct from illegal killing, but that is a legal, not a moral or ethical distinction.

. . .

Which contradicts Nocturne, and supports my view. I completely agree that killing, regardless of what term you use, can be evil or not, depending on circumstances.

I think you're getting hung up on semantics here.

Killing is sometimes okay, sometimes not. 'Murder' is generally used to refer to evil and/or illegal killing. If you have a problem with the word 'murder' you can just replace it with 'killing someone for evil reasons' or 'killing someone unlawfully', but all you're really doing is using different words for the same thing.

So I don't really think there's anything to argue about. Is there?

- Saph

Hallavast
2007-01-18, 03:45 PM
Raum: What I meant to say was that planning to kill people is murder. So going on a mission to slaughter a million people because you don't like their religious persuasion is evil. Fighting a war in which a hundred people happen to die is not (necessarilly). Besides, when you plan to kill a million people, you are specifically identifying (Or "naming") the people you plan to kill. My post just came accross a little wrong, is all.

Curious. If your definition of murder is "planning to kill a specific person", then do you believe execution is muder? How about euthanasia? They seem to fit the context. Or perhaps is a question of why people do it in order?

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 04:54 PM
I think you're getting hung up on semantics here.

Killing is sometimes okay, sometimes not. 'Murder' is generally used to refer to evil and/or illegal killing. If you have a problem with the word 'murder' you can just replace it with 'killing someone for evil reasons' or 'killing someone unlawfully', but all you're really doing is using different words for the same thing.

So I don't really think there's anything to argue about. Is there?

- Saph

The semantics are the point. Or, rather, the point Nocturne was making.

I object to the use of semantics in this way. Like the Mujahedin were "freedom fighters" when they battled the Soviet backed Afghan government, but some of those same men are now "terrorists" or "insurgents" when they fight the US backed Afghan government. Now we can support one group and oppose another, but their means of making war, and their reasons for doing so are the same. Changing the names for spin purposes is disingenuous.

Fighting the enemy is fine, just don't call our killing "liberating them from a life of evil" and their killing "murder." Stand up and admit that these distinctions are artifical and made by organizations, not a natural moral state existing outside of the law.

The original argument wasn't that "murder" was unlawful killing, since he explicitly stated that laws are variable, and his definition was extralegal, nor is it killing "for an evil purpose" since it dealt not so much with intent as with means.

Stephen_E
2007-01-18, 05:07 PM
I have no particular problem with defining "Murder" as a subset of killing.
My only problem is when people try and mark it as "more evil" than killing.

The 3 different subsets definitions I've seen so far are basically
1) Murder is targeted killing - you are choosing a particular person.
2) Murder is unlawful killing (and then we drop into the "which laws" argument).
3) Murder is evil killing.

Then you have people who say Murder is evil.
Under 3 this is quite clearly correct because it's a circular definition. But... this is the most uncommon definition, and simple circular definitions generally suck.

Under 1 there is clearly no connection with evil. This doesn't mean such a killing can't be evil, but that judgement has to be made on other merits beyond those that define it as "Murder".

Under 2 such a killing would probably tend away from the lawful side of the Chaos/Law axis (but this wouldn't be a certainty) but the evilness of the act would depend heavily on the posistion of the involved laws on the Good/Evil axis.

In short Murder can be a useful term, especially in the = Unlawful Killing, for RPGing games ("If you murder him the authorities might come looking for you") but it isn't useful or effective for defining Good/Evil.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-01-18, 05:23 PM
I think you're getting hung up on semantics here.

Killing is sometimes okay, sometimes not. 'Murder' is generally used to refer to evil and/or illegal killing. If you have a problem with the word 'murder' you can just replace it with 'killing someone for evil reasons' or 'killing someone unlawfully', but all you're really doing is using different words for the same thing.

So I don't really think there's anything to argue about. Is there?

- Saph

Actually when "Murder" is used outside a strict legal sense it's usually been done so for the purpose of propaganda. As far as I can see the logic path people are intended to follow is -
Murder is illegal. Illegal is Wrong. Wrong is Evil. None of these connections are universally agreed on, but the 1st one gets the most support, and once you get someone to agree with your 1st step, it's always easier to get them to agree to the 2nd.
Thus people and organisations use the term "Murder" outside of strict legality to kick in this equivalence chain for the purpose of defaming others as evil.

I tend to think that anytime people use murder and evil as connected terms they're either the victims of propaganda, or they trying to sucker people.

Stephen

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 05:28 PM
Actually when "Murder" is used outside a strict legal sense it's usually been done so for the purpose of propaganda. As far as I can see the logic path people are intended to follow is -
Murder is illegal. Illegal is Wrong. Wrong is Evil. None of these connections are universally agreed on, but the 1st one gets the most support, and once you get someone to agree with your 1st step, it's always easier to get them to agree to the 2nd.
Thus people and organisations use the term "Murder" outside of strict legality to kick in this equivalence chain for the purpose of defaming others as evil.

I tend to think that anytime people use murder and evil as connected terms they're either the victims of propaganda, or they trying to sucker people.

Stephen

Wow.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, only shorter, clearer and better.

You rock, dude.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-18, 06:31 PM
So, I'm the only one that penalizes the players for wanting to kill everything in sight when they enter a cave/get ambushed randomly? Unless I give them reason to believe that what they encounter in an area deserves death, I consider attacking them without verifying this to be an affront to keeping a "good" alignment. I also consider not weighing other options first to be neutral no matter what. Mercy, in particular, is a tenant of being a good character to me. If you're truly good, you won't finish off that BBEG just because he deserves it. Same thing for every monster there is. You need a definitive and altruistic reasoning first, or else your neutral at best, evil at worst.

Stephen_E
2007-01-18, 06:34 PM
Thanks Mike. :-)
It's always easier to distill your thoughts after seeing someone elses post on the same lines.

I think a much better approach to deciding whether a killing is evil or not is looking at the innocence of the victim.

Basically the idea been - killing an innocent is evil.

Innocent is of course relative in any sentient creature and involves in part the relationship between people. In this case we look at the relationship between the victim and the killer.

Two Duelists fighting. Assuming both entered the combat willingly neither is "innocent".

A warrior by default is less likely to be "innocent" because they've chosen to enter a career of violence. For example if an Assassin kills a famed warrior because it was reasonably suspected that he was going to join up in a conflict, the warrior wasn't innocent. He chose to become a feared killer and available for service, which has certain personal consequences (note the word "Reasonably" is crucial in this example). On the otherhand his wife and children (unless warriors themselves) are innocents and killing them would be defined as evil.

Orc Warriors guarding their village would not normally be innocents, but if you were a band of adventurers merely passing by who saw a Orc village and attacked it with no siuational knowledge, they would be innocent.

Basically an implicit or explicit statement "I intend to do you harm" moves you from the "innocent" status to "valid target" status. Depending on the level of "intent" and the level of "harm" would decide how far their status changed.

A 4y old child throwing her stuffed toy at you and saying she'll kill you is a very minor shift.

A experianced and trained warrior glaring at you and putting his hand on his sword, is a major shift.

This approach still won't give you universal agreement on what is or isn't an evil killing, but it would put everyone on the same page.

Note - This process for determining whether a killing is evil or non-evil. "Good" killing is much trickier IMHO, and really requires a thread of its own, with an agreed definition of Evil/Non- Evil Killing before you start.

Stephen

Gryndle
2007-01-18, 10:15 PM
From my point of view, in game and in real life, there is a significant difference between killing and murder.

Killing is when you take a life under certain circumstances that would be reasonably seen as socially acceptable. Self-defense/defense of others, war time, some vehicle accidents, things along those lines.

Murder is taking life under circumstances NOT socially acceptable. Killing for personal gain, malice, or even by extremely reckless or negligent actions.

Either way, the result is the same, something or someone is dead.

In an area that has been plagued by kobolds for generations, I would not call it murder if adventureres routinely went hunting them to keep the numbers down. Even if the adventurers profitted by it. I'd call it killign for the greater good.

However, if the kobolds in question were a very rare and gentle breed that had never done harm to anyone, and the adventurers just went and killed them, well, that's murder in my game.

In one of the campaigns I play in, an NPC has been hired to destabilize the region our PC's loosely rule. In the process, this villain has directly and indirectly caused the deaths of one member of the party, and several innocents, among other things. My character is the High Constable of the region. He has already decided that the bad guy has to die for what he's done. The way our rule is set up, the other PC's make the rules, but mine enforces them, and administers punishment for those that break the rules.

So if we catch this guy and my character kills him, I'd call it killing, not murder. Its for the greater good, and it has been lawfully decided. However, in this case, it is also personal and premeditated.

Raum
2007-01-18, 10:48 PM
Hmm, it seems like you're still associating murder with Evil and killing with non-Evil, is that intentional?

In an area that has been plagued by kobolds for generations, I would not call it murder if adventureres routinely went hunting them to keep the numbers down. Even if the adventurers profitted by it. I'd call it killign for the greater good.Fore the "greater good"?! I'm sure the kobolds feel that way. Not. It's a very egocentric point of view at best.


However, if the kobolds in question were a very rare and gentle breed that had never done harm to anyone, and the adventurers just went and killed them, well, that's murder in my game.Neither of these two situations have really given enough information to make an informed ethical judgement. This is part of why drawing a line between "good" and "bad" killing / murder is, well, difficult.

Gryndle
2007-01-18, 11:00 PM
Well, first of all. EVERY culture is egocentric. So, yes, you're absolutely right.

However, I was just pulling two very generic scenarios off the top of my head with the kobolds.

Though, with an a kobold infestation near your village, your local ecology is gonna suffer. Livestock, and game are going to eventually get scarce. Within a few generations it will come down to us-or-them, even if no raiding goes on by the kobolds. So when it comes time to thin the kobold herd, yeah, I call that for the greater good. <since I'm not a kobold>

And yes, my intent is to associate murder as an evil act, and killing as not necessarily evil. In fact, I would argue that evil is the deciding factor between the two terms.

Raum
2007-01-18, 11:14 PM
Well, first of all. EVERY culture is egocentric. So, yes, you're absolutely right.But the D&D definition of of Good is the antithesis of egocentric. Specifically, it states " "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Not a concern for your own kind, a concern for all sentient beings.


Though, with an a kobold infestation near your village, your local ecology is gonna suffer. Livestock, and game are going to eventually get scarce. Within a few generations it will come down to us-or-them, even if no raiding goes on by the kobolds. So when it comes time to thin the kobold herd, yeah, I call that for the greater good. <since I'm not a kobold>Even granting theft and predation by said kobolds, agressively ending it is, at best, neutral on the Good / Evil scale. Truely Good beings would find another way...teaching said kobolds to farm maybe. I will grant that it's probably a Lawful act since you're restoring order to the area, but not good.


And yes, my intent is to associate murder as an evil act, and killing as not necessarily evil. In fact, I would argue that evil is the deciding factor between the two terms.As others have pointed out in previous posts, illegal killings are not necessarily equal to evil killings. Nor are legal killings equal to good killings.

Gryndle
2007-01-18, 11:24 PM
Yeah, I didn't say anythign about legal or illegal. As legal and illegal will vary according to each different culture.

Nor did I mean to imply that killing is ever good, even when done "for the greater good", just not necessarily evil.

I guess its the terminology I protest.

A person that takes a life, and is totally justified in doign so, has killed. It would offend me for that person to be called a murderer.

A person that takes a life out of greed or avarice, hasn't just killed, they have murdered.

The end result is the same, someone or something doesn't wake up tomorrow (at least, not without a rez). The difference is in what society does with the person that took the life.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-01-18, 11:41 PM
D&D usually presents a rather different morale situation then reality. As a result, things are a little different. Killing in self defense is fine, and thats when most players kill.

Also, the circumstances are different. A serial killer in our world, as dangerous as he or she might be, is nothing compared to the damage a Illithid, Lich or Dragon could do to innocent people. As a result, D&D characters can kill these things and still be heroes.

Aimbot
2007-01-19, 12:19 AM
Hi, All

And by the way, I think this is exactly what poison does. Poison is sneaky. If it's done right, poison cannot be anticipated and (therefore) nothing can be done to avoid being inflicted by the poison. There's no chance to defend against poison - one could work to neutralise it's effects, but that's after the fact, or take steps to prevent infection, but that's before the fact. In that moment, when the poison strikes, the victim is helpless.

Actually if you want to use that line of thinking poison is the most honorable means of death dealing out there. You can always defend yourself against poison, whether you're awake, unconscious, incapacitated or near death.


It's called a saving throw, and everyone gets one. Failing one is no different than failing to parry a sword.

TimeWizard
2007-01-19, 12:54 AM
touche, aimbot, but from the BoED
using poison that deal ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent

Edit: then again I fail to see how poison and hamstringing people are different in any way short of connotation.

Saph
2007-01-19, 04:36 AM
Fighting the enemy is fine, just don't call our killing "liberating them from a life of evil" and their killing "murder." Stand up and admit that these distinctions are artifical and made by organizations, not a natural moral state existing outside of the law.

But the whole point of the D&D cosmology is that morality IS a natural state existing outside of the law. Good and evil in D&D are objective, not a point of view.

I do understand what you're getting at here, and I'd probably use the words in the same way you do. But I wouldn't get worked up if someone else didn't. And spin's going to be around forever - you can't refuse to use words just because they get exploited, or soon you won't have any language left! :)

- Saph

Nocturne
2007-01-19, 05:28 AM
There's not much respect advising me not to game since I don't share your views.

I said no such thing!

In fact, that is the beauty of the game! You can play it any way you want. It can be as simple and cut-and-dried, or as deep or philosophical as you like, and are comfortable with.
All I said was that if you're not comfortable with a cut-and-dried distinction between Good and Evil, then you probably shouldn't be a part of a game/campaign/adventure where Good and Evil are assumed to be cut and dried.

Please accept my deepest, most humblest apologies if what I said was in any way whatsoever interpreted to mean that I think anyone should not do anything that they enjoy doing. I would never ever presume to do that at all! In fact, if I did, it would violdate the entire purpose of this thread in the first place.

Cheers
Nocturne

Nocturne
2007-01-19, 06:07 AM
But D&D alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) is specifically not black and white. It states "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

No, your alignment is not a straightjacket, but what is defined as Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos, are supposed to be set in stone. At least that's how I understand it.


According to the US Code of Military Justice, following orders is not an excuse. Military personnel are supposed to differentiate between legal and illegal orders.

You see, I know what the law says. I just have a problem with it. Our soldiers were brainwashed into believing that black people are hideously disgusting sub-humans bent on destroying the civilised world as we know it, and they therefore should be killed. They then went out and killed every black person they could find, because that's what they were trained to do, what they were conditioned to do, and what they were ordered to do. (A few didn't go to the army, but these were usually imprisoned for breaking the law since every able-bodied male was forced into 2 years military service at the age of 18) After the "war", and now there's a new regime in place, you want to presecute those people for the Evil they perpetrated at the time?

What they did was always Evil, but in the minds of those soldiers, it was a very Good thing to do. Therefore, in D&D terms, I feel comfortable with not even calling such an act Evil, if I have proof that the characters involved didn't know any better (In the real world, the act is still Evil, of course!) - and even if it is, I most certainly wouldn't consider penalising those characters in any way in that case.


Curious. If your definition of murder is "planning to kill a specific person", then do you believe execution is muder? How about euthanasia? They seem to fit the context. Or perhaps is a question of why people do it in order?

Personally, I in fact do not believe execution or euthanasia is murder.
Euthanasia, because it's similar to the "Two Good fighters dualling to the death" - the person dying knew of the very strong probability of him dying. That's what he wanted in the first place!
Execution, because (Assuming the Execution is also Lawful and Just), the person being executed is Evil.

Which brings me to a confession I need to make...

I have come to the realisation in this thread that it was folly of me to seperate a debate about Murder from a debate about the Law. For this I apologise. I also fell into the common trap of blurring the line between Good & Law, in that there was a subconcious assumption on my part that what is Lawful is also what is Good. In most real world societies, this is the assumption you are supposed to make. In D&D, it's clearly the assumption you're not supposed to make! If you assume that all Law is Good, you're no longer viewing Good & Evil as objective entities, which I still maintain is how they're supposed to be tret in D&D.
In D&D Evil characters should know they're Evil, Good characters should know they're Good, and Neutral characters should know they're Neutral. In real life, everyone tends to believe that they're more Good than Evil.

So, apologise profusely for my blunder, and I hope it didn't offend anyone too much. :smallfrown:

Matthew
2007-01-19, 07:26 AM
I wouldn't agree with the last part. There is no real reason for a Character to know his Alignment in Dungeons & Dragons unless his Class or Template requires him to be of a specific Alignment.

Nocturne
2007-01-19, 07:35 AM
That's not really what I meant... An Evil character might not necessarilly categorise his actions/outlook as "Evil" per se, but understands that these actions are in fact, the opposite of "Good". As in, the concepts of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos are in fact absolute, and each character would intuitively know what these concepts are (They are part of the fabric of the game world), even if he/she doesn't consciously... know.

OK, that sounded better in my head. :p I hope you guys know what I'm trying to get at.

Raum
2007-01-19, 07:48 AM
No, your alignment is not a straightjacket, but what is defined as Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos, are supposed to be set in stone. At least that's how I understand it.I agree that the forces of Chaos, Evil, Good, and Law as they affect the D&D multiverse are finite, discrete, and separate. But alignment is how characters relate to those forces outside of spells or other powers.


You see, I know what the law says. I just have a problem with it. <snip>I'd be happy to debate real world ethics on some other forum, but I'll try and stick to game ethics here. I do think they are different. Ascribing real world ethics to game mechanics is part of what causes so much angst.

Stephen_E
2007-01-19, 08:22 AM
Which brings me to a confession I need to make...

I have come to the realisation in this thread that it was folly of me to seperate a debate about Murder from a debate about the Law. For this I apologise. I also fell into the common trap of blurring the line between Good & Law, in that there was a subconcious assumption on my part that what is Lawful is also what is Good. In most real world societies, this is the assumption you are supposed to make. In D&D, it's clearly the assumption you're not supposed to make! If you assume that all Law is Good, you're no longer viewing Good & Evil as objective entities, which I still maintain is how they're supposed to be tret in D&D.
In D&D Evil characters should know they're Evil, Good characters should know they're Good, and Neutral characters should know they're Neutral. In real life, everyone tends to believe that they're more Good than Evil.

So, apologise profusely for my blunder, and I hope it didn't offend anyone too much. :smallfrown:

Apolgies accepted. :-)

It's quite understandable that people tend to conflate "Good" and "Law". Most major organisations encourage such confusion for rather obvious reasons (they are "Law"). The DnD alignment system started out strongly leaning that way but has drifted over the decades, probably because the entire concept of adventurers is a non-Lawful.

It's something that is obvious whenever alignment discussions come up that a lot of people attach "Law" to "Good" and "Chaos" to "Evil". Fortunately that's not one of my vices, thanks primarily to a lifelong dislike for "Authority". :-) Thus I've never had much problem with recognising that "Law" and "Good" are very different things that only occasionally go together.

Stephen

The_Shaman
2007-01-19, 01:28 PM
If I can give my two cents here:

Killing, per se, is evil. Attenuating circumstances might change the overall balance (defending yourself or a close person/group, for example), killing is at the core an evil act. When you kill a - human, elf, goblin, you name it - with, as we say, no strings attached, it is an evil act. You've taken a life you have no right over, you've deprived their family and society of a member, and you have - if momentarily - caused great pain to another sentient creature.

From then on, it's circumstances. In wars, at least in "just" wars, you have to defeat an enemy to further a good cause, and killing is often a necessary part of your duty to your society. However, that does not make killing preferable to any other method of solving the conflict. Buying off an enemy army instead of routing it may be dishonorable, but it may be, strangely enough, better in terms of ethics. Sure, the money could be used for your people. However, the lives you saved are something that, at least in the real world, money can't buy.

Perhaps you needed what was in that elven tomb, and could not evade the guardian. Perhaps you needed what was in that shop, and it was just bad luck Keyman Bimbledor was awake. Perhaps, when all's said and done, more good comes out of it. However, in and of itself, you've killed someone, and that is not good.

Back to D&D, however: it's set in a turbulent world, where life is often cheap - and even death itself could be bought off. In such a world, killing would not be "as evil" as, say, torture or demon summoning, but I think a good character would try to avoid it whenever possible.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-19, 09:40 PM
It could be funny playing a high level cleric bounty hunter that murders criminals and then ressurects them in jail a few days later to await trial.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-19, 09:48 PM
It could be funny playing a high level cleric bounty hunter that murders criminals and then ressurects them in jail a few days later to await trial.

Only if you made ridiculous amounts of money on said bounties. Also, the criminals would know that it's you resurrecting them, and they wouldn't be too keen on coming back just to be executed again.

Jorkens
2007-01-19, 10:53 PM
If I can give my two cents here:

Killing, per se, is evil. Attenuating circumstances might change the overall balance (defending yourself or a close person/group, for example), killing is at the core an evil act. When you kill a - human, elf, goblin, you name it - with, as we say, no strings attached, it is an evil act. You've taken a life you have no right over, you've deprived their family and society of a member, and you have - if momentarily - caused great pain to another sentient creature.

From then on, it's circumstances. In wars, at least in "just" wars, you have to defeat an enemy to further a good cause, and killing is often a necessary part of your duty to your society. However, that does not make killing preferable to any other method of solving the conflict. Buying off an enemy army instead of routing it may be dishonorable, but it may be, strangely enough, better in terms of ethics. Sure, the money could be used for your people. However, the lives you saved are something that, at least in the real world, money can't buy.

Perhaps you needed what was in that elven tomb, and could not evade the guardian. Perhaps you needed what was in that shop, and it was just bad luck Keyman Bimbledor was awake. Perhaps, when all's said and done, more good comes out of it. However, in and of itself, you've killed someone, and that is not good.

Back to D&D, however: it's set in a turbulent world, where life is often cheap - and even death itself could be bought off. In such a world, killing would not be "as evil" as, say, torture or demon summoning, but I think a good character would try to avoid it whenever possible.
Ha ha. I'd been reading through this thread and formulating a response in my mind that was basically that post but less well phrased. The precise nature of what constitutes an attenuating circumstance seems to be best left to the players to assess in terms of their characters' moral systems, and potentially milk for roleplaying XP according to taste. And I guess it's up to the DM can choose whether to only put them in situations where it's fairly obvious what needs killing and what doesn't or whether to present them with complex moral dilemmas every step of the way.

And all of the above applies to killing in general. I have to admit I found the OP's definition of "murder" to be rather bizarre - "murder is the premedidated killing of a specific individual or individuals. It must be planned, and said individual(s) must be named. " I know murder is a legally defined term rather than a morally defined one, but I think most legal systems would consider, for instance, smiting a commoner with your greataxe because they spilt your pint - or come to that, because you're bored and want to know what their brain lloks like - to be murder. But yes, murder seems to be more to do with law - chaos than good - evil.

Oh, one other thing is that some people seem to be arguing that D&D has absolute morals rather than relative morals therefore whether something is evil or not is always well defined and (with appropriate magic) testable, and that therefore it is Good to kill evil creatures at will. But (aside from issues about how evil you have to be before you're Evil and how evil you have to be before you're fair game to exterminate) this kind of misses the point that absolute morals aren't the same as immutable alignments. Just because someone is definitely Evil today doesn't mean that they aren't going to revert to neutrality if (for instance) you take them away from their robber friends and send them back to their family, or generally seperate them from whatever it was that they were doing that was evil. So slaughtering every henchman and low rent thief you meet isn't neccessarily the only way to rid the world of their evil...

Jayabalard
2007-01-19, 10:55 PM
So slaughtering every henchman and low rent thief you meet isn't neccessarily the only way to rid the world of their evil...very true. In fact, it's probably the least good way to rid the world of thier evil.

TSGames
2007-01-20, 12:13 AM
I'd be happy to debate real world ethics on some other forum, but I'll try and stick to game ethics here. I do think they are different. Ascribing real world ethics to game mechanics is part of what causes so much angst.
Personally, I have never experienced a problem using real world ethics in D&D, though admittedly some situations can be difficult to solve. I suspect this is more because my players and I share similar philosophical and ethical education background. Thusly, they are able to intelligently question and discuss any alignment decision that I should make. I suppose though, for those who don't like the complex moral situations that arise in D&D, which often have the dark undertones that only older comic books could match, there's always the simpler, specious excuse that D&D is not like the real world and therefore its morality must be different. To each his own I suppose.

Raum
2007-01-20, 01:50 AM
Personally, I have never experienced a problem using real world ethics in D&D, though admittedly some situations can be difficult to solve. I suspect this is more because my players and I share similar philosophical and ethical education background. Thusly, they are able to intelligently question and discuss any alignment decision that I should make. The angst I referred to is seen on online forums more often than in individual groups. And yes, it's probably because most forums with a decent sized user population have diverse views and don't make the same ethical assumptions.

In any case, using real world ethics in D&D is a house rule. Unless you can refer me to a real world philosopher who postulates a four alignment system of paired opposites?


I suppose though, for those who don't like the complex moral situations that arise in D&D, which often have the dark undertones that only older comic books could match, there's always the simpler, specious excuse that D&D is not like the real world and therefore its morality must be different. To each his own I suppose.Sigh. Complex moral issues? Yet you stated your group shares similar views.

Besides, there's enough complexity in D&D "ethics" to spawn at least two source books as well as inumerable conversations on the subject.

-----
Read some Kant, or Rand, even Russell if you're looking for a variety of different, and well thought out, views on ethics. Even Nietzche and Machiavelli make points. There are more, but my point is simple; D&D source books, particularly alignment, are generally not a good source of real life ethics.

Sam K
2007-01-20, 07:25 AM
DnD morality is actually extremely simple:

Whatever the good gods say is good is.

Poison can be evil while genocide on an intelligent race that was really not doing anything much to anyone can be ok, because the guys that judge your eternal soul after death dont like poisons, but no kobolds worship them so who cares about kobolds anyway and please leave a donation to the church on your way out.

High magic and active gods make for very simple moral systems: you can ASK. Pay some cleric to cast a suitable divination spell and find out if the course of action you're planning will be approved by the 'upper management'. HEll, if you dont like the answer, you can get a second opinion! Pelor doesn't approve of you beating up the guy that owes you money? The temple of Kord is just a block away!

Actually, one of the more interesting epic campaigns you could run would be one where the super powerful characters start questioning (or even investigating) the workings of the moral system. Is it really ok to act in a certain way just because you go to paradise if you do? Imagine the legendary lvl 30 paladin that walks up to mount celestia and demands to see his lord to discuss the moral implications of the churc-sanctioned crusade he fought in at the beginning of his career.

On a vaugely related note, what I'd really like to see is one of the evil intelligent races (lets say kobolds, since they're so physically weak) figure out that for the last thousand years their career prospects have been as cannon fodder for more powerful evils or bringing lvl 1 adventurers up to lvl 2, and deciding to switch morality. Imagine your average dungeon raiding, hack'n'slash paladin being orderd to assist the defence of a large enclave of kobolds who converted to a lawful good diety.
Hmm... I wonder why no good dietys have come up with the idea of helping the lesser evil races (goblins and kobolds). Those races represent a HUGE pool of worshipers (they gotta breed pretty fast, considering how many of them get killed in your average adventure setting), and they dont really have alot of other career options, since they tend to be bullied by stronger evil races anyway. Atleast orcs or bugbears have the hope of becoming warlords and terrorizing the civilized lands. The weaker races can hope to become cannon fodder in their armies.

Sorry for the rant, but I really like the ideas, and I have to write them down SOMEWHERE!