What alignment are you?

[GPuzzle]

Fun fact: the highest survival ratings with this kind of accident comes from kids from 1 year to 6 years.

[Aedilred]

The problem is that the scenario creates a situation where those who are weaker are going to be less likely to make it to the boats expediently, or defend their own interests. It is very likely that those who are weaker would be oppressed in such a scenario, which would require a good individual to act on their behalf since they (particularly children) are not able to.
This is true, although I don't know if "oppression" is the right term. It's really more a matter of natural selection: it's not a Good outcome by any means, but nor is it Evil, any more than it is Evil (in D&D terms) that some characters have more hit points or a higher Reflex save than others and thus are more likely to survive a given situation.

Further, just because the "weak" are likely to struggle more to survive does not mean that reversing the polarity and prioritising their survival is necessarily Good. It's just creating a different set of criteria that make it easier for a given group to survive, assuming you're in a position to control access to the boats.

Really, the only way to be properly fair - assuming all human life is equally valuable - is to randomise the process and draw straws. That way everyone has an equal chance of survival regardless of their existing abilities. Otherwise you're always prioritising the survival of one arbitrarily-defined group over another, even in trying to correct an existing imbalance, and that doesn't look that Good to me.

[The Fury]

According to just about every online quiz that I've taken, (hey, it's the closest thing to an objective analysis for something like this!) I'm apparently Lawful Neutral.

I guess I can live with that.

[RedMage125]

I agree with the majority of this. Although I still dispute that boarding the boat yourself if there is a limited number of spots is fundamentally neutral rather than evil. And allowing those who would be otherwise unable to board the boat to board it, is fundamentally good. Since you are defending the weak, which is generally a good thing as far as the alignment system goes.
Allowing others to board-if it's not at the cost of the lives of other innocents-WOULD be good, but the people you're forcing off the boat based on your criteria are ALSO innocent.
From the Book of Exalted Deeds, regarding Ends and Means:
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.
Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.
You "saving/protecting the weak" may be a Good goal, but you are still ending the lives of other innocent people. That remains an Evil act.



Edit: However reexamining your argument, you're not taking intent into account which is an important part of the alignment system, actually I think that that may clear up a lot of this. If you are boarding the lifeboat because you feel that your life is important than others it'd be evil, if you are boarding a lifeboat so that you can protect your children who are on the boat, it'd be (ostensibly) good. If you are boarding the boat because you're following directions and are in shock, it'd be neutral since you don't have the agency to make moral decisions at this point (although I'd argue for closer to evil than center neutral, since lacking agency does not to my mind equate to lacking responsibility [although by the rules I think it does]).
So, if you're boarding the boat because it's a life-and-death situation and you're panicking (which is what I've been talking about the entire time), then you acknowledge that it's Neutral? Failing to overcome the survival instinct is not Evil. Is it failing to override basic animal instinct and act on the conviction of moral/ethical byes that make us, as human beings, better than animals? Yes, which is why it is not Good.

It boils down to what Aelidered said: If boarding a life boat to save one's own life is Evil, then so is acting as some kind of judge to prevent others from getting on.
If forcing your convictions on others to be the deciding factor is not Evil, then neither is boarding a lifeboat to save oneself.

[Rion]

And an alignment has turned into "any man not willing to jump a grenade for the nearest damsel is literally hitler". Who would have guessed.

(BTW, the only proper alignments are Blue/Red, Blue/Red/White, Blue and Blue/Black/White. With White being amongst the worst when its "Self sacrificing", "Stick up your ass" and "Duty demands [something]!" aspects are dialed up to 11.)

[Lord Raziere]

(BTW, the only proper alignments are Blue/Red, Blue/Red/White, Blue and Blue/Black/White. With White being amongst the worst when its "Self sacrificing", "Stick up your ass" and "Duty demands [something]!" aspects are dialed up to 11.)

???

what do you mean by this?

Blue/Red is about a balance of rationality and emotion, Blue/Red/White is about believing that a good heart, and a rational mind you can make civilization better, and Blue/Black/White is about being rational and balancing the needs of the many and the few. they are beliefs of the Magic The Gathering Color wheel, not alignments. all that informs us is what they believe, not how morally upright they are.

there is a difference after all, as you yourself point out when White decides to be extreme about its self-sacrificing aspects.

[Reprimand]

Neutral Good.

I work as a social worker surrounded by bureaucracy doing the best I can to help people within the system in place, but I'm not above "misplacing" a form or three or giving the right words to use if it will help out a person in need, nobody will come looking anyway.

I aspire to be like Mr. Incredible in the insurance company job.

[veti]

AMFV had said he was going to make sure women and children got on the lifeboats, so when the sentiment was expressed that "it is important to have strong people on the boats too" I assumed the issue was that women weren't seen as strong enough in this scenario.

That's understandable. The exact goalposts in this debate seem to be moving faster than Riverdance on cocaine. Sometimes it seems that a poster's position is shifting even within a single post.

That's why I was trying to pin down "protecting the weak" as a detail to argue about. I certainly wouldn't bunch "women", as a group, into that category, although I can't speak for everyone else in the thread.

[AMFV]

Allowing others to board-if it's not at the cost of the lives of other innocents-WOULD be good, but the people you're forcing off the boat based on your criteria are ALSO innocent.
From the Book of Exalted Deeds, regarding Ends and Means:
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.
Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.
You "saving/protecting the weak" may be a Good goal, but you are still ending the lives of other innocent people. That remains an Evil act.


So, if you're boarding the boat because it's a life-and-death situation and you're panicking (which is what I've been talking about the entire time), then you acknowledge that it's Neutral? Failing to overcome the survival instinct is not Evil. Is it failing to override basic animal instinct and act on the conviction of moral/ethical byes that make us, as human beings, better than animals? Yes, which is why it is not Good.

It boils down to what Aelidered said: If boarding a life boat to save one's own life is Evil, then so is acting as some kind of judge to prevent others from getting on.
If forcing your convictions on others to be the deciding factor is not Evil, then neither is boarding a lifeboat to save oneself.

Forcing your convictions on others is not a matter of good or evil at all. Period. It's a matter of law.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Forcing your convictions on others is not a matter of good or evil at all. Period. It's a matter of law.

If it results in the death of innocent people, it actually does. There's a reason Lawful Neutral people turn Lawful Evil, and it's not just a result of power going to their heads, hint hint.

[TuggyNE]

If it results in the death of innocent people, it actually does. There's a reason Lawful Neutral people turn Lawful Evil, and it's not just a result of power going to their heads, hint hint.

But is that because they were forcing their code … or because the code they were forcing was wrong? So far, no one has provided good reason to believe the former, only implicit assumptions.

[RedMage125]

Forcing your convictions on others is not a matter of good or evil at all. Period. It's a matter of law.

Then boarding a lifeboat to save oneself is neither as well. See how easy that is?

If 80 of the 100 people on the sinking ship are going to die, then being one of the first 20 to reach that boat and staying in to is not Evil. It's simple survival.

It is the sinking ship that will cause the deaths of the people who can't make it to the lifeboat. If you insist that boarding a lifeboat is an Evil act, then every one of the "weak" individuals you would prefer to get on the boat has committed one. I will grant you this: If you have some means of survival outside of getting on the lifeboat (such as you are a druid capable of wildshaping into a form that could survive the water), and you STILL take up a spot on the lifeboat, then yes, that is an Evil act. But if boarding a lifeboat is the only way to survive, and 80 people are going to die, regardless of whether or not they are strong swimmers, or physical fitness, then it is not an Evil act to try and survive.

[The Fury]

If it results in the death of innocent people, it actually does. There's a reason Lawful Neutral people turn Lawful Evil, and it's not just a result of power going to their heads, hint hint.

Hm. Well, since I've been "objectively" determined to be Lawful Neutral we all know which way I'm headin'! Too bad but I saw it coming-- "The Fury" just isn't the sort of name that nice people have.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Hm. Well, since I've been "objectively" determined to be Lawful Neutral we all know which way I'm headin'! Too bad but I saw it coming-- "The Fury" just isn't the sort of name that nice people have.

Hey, I didn't say all Lawful Neutrals turn to Lawful Evil. Just that it happens. You don't have to be nice to be LN. In fact, I don't think any of the alignments actually require being "nice."

[The Fury]

Hey, I didn't say all Lawful Neutrals turn to Lawful Evil. Just that it happens. You don't have to be nice to be LN. In fact, I don't think any of the alignments actually require being "nice."

Nope. I'm called "The Fury" and that's totally a bad guy name. Sorry, all you good-aligned folks. I'm gonna have to fight you later on. Moral Event Horizon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) here I come!

By the way, just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I'm not really being serious here.

[AMFV]

Then boarding a lifeboat to save oneself is neither as well. See how easy that is?

Boarding a life boat to save yourself is a matter of selfishness, that'd be putting your own interests over those of others that's evil if it results in harm to others. The other option, saving women, is putting the interests of the law over those of others, that's LN. The saving children is putting the interests of those who are unable to speak for themselves over others, that's good.

Edit: Also by your logic, ALL punishment of any kind is evil, imprisonment (evil it puts the interests of society over the interest of the individual), execution (clearly evil by your logic), fines (also evil, since they put the interest of society over the interest of an individual).

The defining factor in something being evil is that it YOUR interests that are being put above others, and that it is damaging to their interest.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Assuming that as someone said this is a binary "boat = live, not boat = die" then putting your code above the lives of the innocent can't be any better than putting your life above the lives of the innocent. The duty to protect the weak here applies ONLY to situations such as strong people throwing the weak overboard and such, which you should by all means prevent. Remember the circumstances, here. This isn't just "strong people vs. weak people". This is "weak people and slightly less weak people vs. all-powerful nature". A Good person's "duty" is not just to protect people from each other, but to protect the whole people, who in this light are ALL "the weak", in the fairest and most life-and-dignity-respecting way possible (since, as I recall, those are generally the things all Good people, regardless of Law/Chaos flavor, are supposed to be protecting).

As such, the only truly Good things to do are make more makeshift life-savers for as many people as possible and deciding who gets to go on a lifeboat completely randomly, through say, drawing straws.

EDIT: In other news, I would label myself as Neutral Idiotic with Good tendencies and a streak of pathetic attempts to be seen as "bad" and "edgy".

[SiuiS]

Depending on your predilections;
True Neutral
Or
Lawful Good

[TuggyNE]

I am generally somewhat hesitant to note what alignment I consider myself, but I suppose I might as well; I share strong characteristics of LG (believing that there is a best way to do things, and one that is good for everyone) and CG (believing that creativity, freedom, and self-organization are extremely important and that centralization beyond the bare minimum is usually bad). I suppose that makes me NG, but that never quite seems to fit.



Assuming that as someone said this is a binary "boat = live, not boat = die" then putting your code above the lives of the innocent can't be any better than putting your life above the lives of the innocent. The duty to protect the weak here applies ONLY to situations such as strong people throwing the weak overboard and such, which you should by all means prevent. Remember the circumstances, here. This isn't just "strong people vs. weak people". This is "weak people and slightly less weak people vs. all-powerful nature". A Good person's "duty" is not just to protect people from each other, but to protect the whole people, who in this light are ALL "the weak", in the fairest and most life-and-dignity-respecting way possible (since, as I recall, those are generally the things all Good people, regardless of Law/Chaos flavor, are supposed to be protecting).

As such, the only truly Good things to do are make more makeshift life-savers for as many people as possible and deciding who gets to go on a lifeboat completely randomly, through say, drawing straws.

Once again, false dichotomy between "not perfectly Good" and "heinously Evil" … as well as equivocating the prioritization of which 20 get to live with actively killing people.

I think I'm done with this particular example, since no new arguments are coming up and they've all been pretty badly flawed so far.

[SiuiS]

Lawful Good doesn't believe in a centralized authority, so much as an external authority. Usually spiritual, but to make an allegorical comparison, a paladin of pelor will obey Pelor's edicts. If the grand pubah of Pelor's mortal church tells him something that's against pelor, it's perfectly fine to have the pubah go suck a lemon. People want Good alignments to make sense without a spiritual component, but that's nigh impossible; even philosophy starts to acknowledge at the higher end that there's no actual reason to do good except its good, so you do it.

E: I have an article on this on my computer but I ca t get the right search terms on my phone :(

I've always found it interesting that a paragon of CG and of LG (if you avoid hyperbolic extremes and lawyer language requirements for your own morality) are externally identical. An ordinary man can be either, and not change much as far as his neighbors know.

[AMFV]

Assuming that as someone said this is a binary "boat = live, not boat = die" then putting your code above the lives of the innocent can't be any better than putting your life above the lives of the innocent. The duty to protect the weak here applies ONLY to situations such as strong people throwing the weak overboard and such, which you should by all means prevent. Remember the circumstances, here. This isn't just "strong people vs. weak people". This is "weak people and slightly less weak people vs. all-powerful nature". A Good person's "duty" is not just to protect people from each other, but to protect the whole people, who in this light are ALL "the weak", in the fairest and most life-and-dignity-respecting way possible (since, as I recall, those are generally the things all Good people, regardless of Law/Chaos flavor, are supposed to be protecting).

As such, the only truly Good things to do are make more makeshift life-savers for as many people as possible and deciding who gets to go on a lifeboat completely randomly, through say, drawing straws.

EDIT: In other news, I would label myself as Neutral Idiotic with Good tendencies and a streak of pathetic attempts to be seen as "bad" and "edgy".

Putting a code over the lives of others is NOT evil. Not per the definition of the alignment. Now you may argue that it is philosophically wrong. But it isn't evil in the framework of the philosophy that we are discussing. It is lawful, that's pretty much the definition of lawful, is that the rules are above the values of any individual.

Edit: The problem with your scenario is that the strong have an advantage in terms of their ability to get onto the lifeboat, there's a reason, and a very historical precedent for the development of the "women and children" first rule, and it wasn't exclusively that of genealogy but a much more complex rule set.

[Lord Raziere]

Putting a code over the lives of others is NOT evil. Not per the definition of the alignment. Now you may argue that it is philosophically wrong. But it isn't evil in the framework of the philosophy that we are discussing. It is lawful, that's pretty much the definition of lawful, is that the rules are above the values of any individual.

Edit: The problem with your scenario is that the strong have an advantage in terms of their ability to get onto the lifeboat, there's a reason, and a very historical precedent for the development of the "women and children" first rule, and it wasn't exclusively that of genealogy but a much more complex rule set.

Uh....no? I don't think even a paladin would put their code before the lives of others. When it comes down to it, a paladin would lie to protect other people than keep telling the truth. A paladin not knowing when to be flexible within their code quickly goes down the path of the Miko.

ah but you say its not comparable, when in fact it is! Miko was in a similar "sinking ship" scenario with Azure City being overrun and people evacuating from the battle as it could not be won. Even all the other paladins of this battle fled, even Hinjo had to acknowledge that it was time to pull out rather than die needlessly fighting what cannot be fought.

Miko on the other hand looked at the situation in the throne room and concluded that all hope was already lost and did not listen to Soon, when if she listened for one moment she could've broken the phylactery and there would be no need for her sacrifice or to destroy the Gate. this is not the actions of a real paladin, but a code-bound fallen one, one too focused on what the laws demanded and not what good she could do.

so no, I do not believe that the actions you recommend to take in a sinking ship scenario is good. its lawful, but I wouldn't call them good. Even paladins run when the forces arrayed against them cannot be fought, and a sinking ship is even less fightable than an army of hobgoblins.

[AMFV]

Uh....no? I don't think even a paladin would put their code before the lives of others. When it comes down to it, a paladin would lie to protect other people than keep telling the truth. A paladin not knowing when to be flexible within their code quickly goes down the path of the Miko.

Miko's problem was that she acted on bad information and acted without clarity of vision or wisdom. Her problem was that she interpreted her code in an idiotic way. A paladin, does not need to compromise her moral code. Also they're not forbidden from lying that I'm aware of.



ah but you say its not comparable, when in fact it is! Miko was in a similar "sinking ship" scenario with Azure City being overrun and people evacuating from the battle as it could not be won. Even all the other paladins of this battle fled, even Hinjo had to acknowledge that it was time to pull out rather than die needlessly fighting what cannot be fought.

Yes, but if they would have bought one more life, just one then that would have been their responsibility. Needless sacrifice is not what is being discussed here. Rather, we have a sacrifice to save another which is just about as meaningful as a sacrifice could possibly get.



Miko on the other hand looked at the situation in the throne room and concluded that all hope was already lost and did not listen to Soon, when if she listened for one moment she could've broken the phylactery and there would be no need for her sacrifice or to destroy the Gate. this is not the actions of a real paladin, but a code-bound fallen one, one too focused on what the laws demanded and not what good she could do.

So she disobeyed a leader of her order, on bad intelligence, refused to listen to those who were more senior, took the law into her own hands rather than using due process. That doesn't sound very code based to me. That's the exact opposite in fact. Miko broke her code as surely as if she had been an anti-paladin, hence the fact that SHE FELL. She broke her code, repeatedly, just for different reasons. Her arrogance and pride were her undoing, fundamentally selfish and evil emotions.




so no, I do not believe that the actions you recommend to take in a sinking ship scenario is good. its lawful, but I wouldn't call them good. Even paladins run when the forces arrayed against them cannot be fought, and a sinking ship is even less fightable than an army of hobgoblins.

We're not suggesting that the Paladin fight the sinking ship. But that she sacrifice herself that others may live. That's the highest code of warrior and the greatest good to my thinking that can be done. This isn't a needless or wasteful sacrifice as you're insinuating but a purposeful one. As far as Paladins go... any soldier who is not willing to die for his fellows, doesn't deserve to be a soldier, and that applies doubly to Paladins who have a much higher responsibility.

Edit: Just to reiterate, the scenarios are not comparable because fighting for the city and dying has no good outcome, it's pointless, but letting yourself die on the sinking ship so that others can live. That has a good outcome, so no the scenarios are not the same, or even really in the same ballpark.

[Lord Raziere]

Her arrogance and pride were her undoing, fundamentally selfish and evil emotions.


The Irony Is Lost On You, Isn't It? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolierThanThou)

what makes you so worthy of self-sacrifice above everyone else? What gives you the right to declare that people are being evil by not doing what you do? Pride is one of the most insidious of fatal flaws. It starts by thinking that you know better than everyone else about something, then telling everyone else that they are wrong about it and refusing to admit that they themselves might be wrong, that the people around them might have a point, even if they don't want to hear it.

just something to think about.

[AMFV]

The Irony Is Lost On You, Isn't It? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolierThanThou)

what makes you so worthy of self-sacrifice above everyone else? What gives you the right to declare that people are being evil by not doing what you do? Pride is one of the most insidious of fatal flaws. It starts by thinking that you know better than everyone else about something, then telling everyone else that they are wrong about it and refusing to admit that they themselves might be wrong, that the people around them might have a point, even if they don't want to hear it.

just something to think about.

What makes somebody jump on a grenade to save somebody else? What makes somebody jump in front of a car? What makes somebody fight to hold off a rabid bear so that another human being can escape? Do you judge their motivations also?

What gives me the right to declare that a certain action is evil. Is... that we're not dealing with real world philosophy. There are criteria for what constitutes evil in D&D, and they aren't the same as necessarily may be true in the real world. In D&D, if you are selfish and others are hurt because of it, it's evil. Surviving at somebody else's expense is exactly that. Whether or not you agree with that morality has no bearing at all on how the rules present the scenario. Since our philosophical framework is one that's stated, that means that the action is evil. Since it involves placing your interests over others in such a way that brings direct harm to them.

Again, to reiterate... In the rules of D&D if you value yourself over others in such a way that it causes harm to them, it's evil, and this is beyond that, since it is fatal.

Edit: To clarify and rephrase, in a scenario where you or somebody else has to die. If you say "screw that guy, I'm living" provided that the other person is not at fault in the scenario, or is not directly threatening you. Then per D&D that's evil. Whereas "I'm going out for a walk, I may be some time" is good at least in the philosophy as defined in D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

grenades can be thrown back, cars and bears can be avoided. there is always an action you can take instead that will save both your lives and theirs instead of self-sacrifice, even if some of them are more about preparation.

yes and if the paragons of morality, the paladins aren't the highest exemplars of those rules in action, what is?

its why Miko fell that I doubt her action of self-sacrifice was good, its why other paladins fled that I doubt sacrificing oneself against something you cannot beat is moral. the paladins live out the DnD alignment system in all its successes and failures. if the real paladins flee from a threat they cannot defeat, then its morally good to do so. its not outside their code to survive such a situation, no reason why they would go down with the ship.

so if a paladin would save their own life to get away from something they cannot stop-leaving tons of people to become enslaved behind- well...looks like your wrong, because according to you, they would've stayed behind and not one paladin would've made it out of Azure City, allowing the refugees to go before them.

sure, its by the DnD rules of morality, but it seems to agree with me on this, as nothing they did was outside the acceptable boundaries of the paladin code- they fall if they commit an evil act. by your definition, leaving those people behind is evil, yet they did not, they put their own lives ahead of others, and I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same for a sinking ship- there is a much more important duty to help people continuing to survive each day than to help them survive once, and I respect a paladin more who lives everyday for others than the one who dies once for others. O-Chul did not stay behind to die- he stayed behind to live, just as Hinjo escaped to the boats for the refugees of the Azure city. and if I expect a person to be moral for anyone- I expect them to be moral for the people who get on the boats. not for a situation beyond their control.

[AMFV]

grenades can be thrown back, cars and bears can be avoided. there is always an action you can take instead that will save both your lives and theirs instead of self-sacrifice, even if some of them are more about preparation.

No there isn't. Once you hit a certain point, a certain result is unavoidable. Grenades can be milked, a bear could have a cub, a car's brakes could be out. Are you saying that there is literally no scenario where you could that the only outcome is death for one person? Because that's actually really offensive to somebody that's known folks that were in scenarios where they were killed saving others. I'm really to avoid the real-world parallels here, but suffice that this offends me a great deal. Have you ever had a grenade thrown at you?



yes and if the paragons of morality, the paladins aren't the highest exemplars of those rules in action, what is?

And you misinterpreted the code, and the scenarios aren't equal. A paladin would certainly sacrifice themselves to save another life. Probably without a second though.



its why Miko fell that I doubt her action of self-sacrifice was good, its why other paladins fled that I doubt sacrificing oneself against something you cannot beat is moral. the paladins live out the DnD alignment system in all its successes and failures. if the real paladins flee from a threat they cannot defeat, then its morally good to do so. its not outside their code to survive such a situation, no reason why they would go down with the ship.


Because the only option. THE ONLY OPTION THE ONLY OPTION is that they die, or somebody else does.



so if a paladin would save their own life to get away from something they cannot stop-leaving tons of people to become enslaved behind- well...looks like your wrong, because according to you, they would've stayed behind and not one paladin would've made it out of Azure City, allowing the refugees to go before them.

There were no refugees at the boat, and staying would have endangered everybody, not equivalent scenarios. Not even close, also the Paladins have a responsibility to those on the boat, and they need to weigh that against the odds that the would actually save somebody, which in that scenario was rapidly approaching zero.



sure, its by the DnD rules of morality, but it seems to agree with me on this, as nothing they did was outside the acceptable boundaries of the paladin code- they fall if they commit an evil act. by your definition, leaving those people behind is evil, yet they did not, they put their own lives ahead of others, and I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same for a sinking ship- there is a much more important duty to help people continuing to survive each day than to help them survive once, and I respect a paladin more who lives everyday for others than the one who dies once for others. O-Chul did not stay behind to die- he stayed behind to live, just as Hinjo escaped to the boats for the refugees of the Azure city. and if I expect a person to be moral for anyone- I expect them to be moral for the people who get on the boats. not for a situation beyond their control.

There weren't only a limited number of spots on those boats. It's not a Titanic lifeboat situation, it's a situation where leaving is the only way to save anybody, so that's was to happen, I don't know what I could say if you can't see the clear differences between those scenarios. You don't have to waste your life, or die needlessly, stupidly, and pointlessly for no gain, but in the lifeboat scenario none of those things are true, you are dying so that somebody else can live.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Sadly, this thread seems to have turned into just a few members defending their interpretation of one part of the alignment chart.

To answer the OP's question:
Today, I think I'm still LG - but that NG life is looking happier over there.

(I've got a load of pointless paperwork to do, and it's only my lawful conscience that's stopping me from goofing off more than just popping by here to post...)

[Rion]

Sadly, this thread seems to have turned into just a few members defending their interpretation of one part of the alignment chart.
Definitely seems that way. This thread has reached a standstill where no one budges from their position.
The only thing I have to say* is that words in and of themselves are merely an unimportant arrangement of letters, it's the ideas they represent that has value. It doesn't matter if D&D describes a certain action with a combination of the letters G, 2xO and D, if that action is not morally and ethically superior, then a "G O O D" action can be less right, and carrying it out can make you a worse person than the one doing what is described with the letters E, V, I and L.

I can describe myself with the letters F, A, S and T, and someone else with S, L, O and W, and it's completely and utterly worthless and meaningless if they can run 100 meters at 7 m/s and I only can at 6 m/s.

*Though I can't guarantee that without being able to predict the future.

[AMFV]

Definitely seems that way. This thread has reached a standstill where no one budges from their position.
The only thing I have to say* is that words in and of themselves are merely an unimportant arrangement of letters, it's the ideas they represent that has value. It doesn't matter if D&D describes a certain action with a combination of the letters G, 2xO and D, if that action is not morally and ethically superior, then a "G O O D" action can be less right, and carrying it out can make you a worse person than the one doing what is described with the letters E, V, I and L.

I can describe myself with the letters F, A, S and T, and someone else with S, L, O and W, and it's completely and utterly worthless and meaningless if they can run 100 meters at 7 m/s and I only can at 6 m/s.

*Though I can't guarantee that without being able to predict the future.

I agree, however it's worth noting that we can't really discuss the real world implications in any detail, so we're stuck with only the alignment interpretations.

[hamishspence]

Sacrificing others to save yourself is Evil and sacrificing yourself to save others is Good, by BoVD.

However - a case can be made that there's an intermediate zone between the two - where "choosing not to sacrifice yourself" is the best description of the act - with it being Neutral.

[AMFV]

Sacrificing others to save yourself is Evil and sacrificing yourself to save others is Good, by BoVD.

However - a case can be made that there's an intermediate zone between the two - where "choosing not to sacrifice yourself" is the best description of the act - with it being Neutral.

I think in the lifeboat scenario, I don't think that there is an option that would work for that. We'd have to move some of the variables about or account for intent we haven't before. We'd need to alter the scenario some for there to really be a neutral option.

[hamishspence]

The people have been queuing up - Our Hero has gotten on the boat as requested - then he or she looks back to see the people that are still there.

Is the Hero obliged to jump out in order to "avoid committing an Evil act"?

Or is it enough that they were lucky enough to be in the queue at the right time?

[SiuiS]

Miko's problem was that she acted on bad information and acted without clarity of vision or wisdom. Her problem was that she interpreted her code in an idiotic way. A paladin, does not need to compromise her moral code. Also they're not forbidden from lying that I'm aware of.

I do believe paladins are forbidden from lying. It's part of their code.


*


You're both right and missing technical points.
Yes; there is always a better way, usually by way of prior wisdom/preparation.
No; once that opportunity is past and you're left with the Bad Choice, it's hard to make it right and it's often binary.
This just means you need the wisdom and discernment to see when these situations are coming up on you. Sometimes the limits of human knowledge and reaction speed that prevent you from both grabbing someone, and then moving the both of you. Sacrificing yourself is good. Watching traffic so you can move faster and save you both is also good. These are not conflicting viewpoints. They are different reaction points – functionally whether or not you have a surprise round or not. quit quibbling over a matter of initiative, unless you're both going to admit it's a matter of initiative.



*



You are a human, sovereign and sacrosanct. You are not limited to binary choices. If you're a paladin in a life boat as people sink, you don't sit in the boat and you don't jump out of the boat; you use your gods-damned high charisma to rally the heartbroken passengers and appeal to their better natures, the most fit and hardy taking rotation hanging in a human support network off the edge of boat, supporting your fellow man, and keeping everyone alive. Someone gets too cold or passes out? Pass them to the boat. Take an able bodied passenger out if need be. Humanity has highs and lows. A huddled mass of humanity stoically hanging off the boat to allow te fairer members to survive to honor their actions and possibly their sacrifice? Many a gentleman and even a good number of ladies would be down with that.


There is a difference between Lawful Good and Paladin. The one should not be judged by the other, just as a law abiding citizen is not measured by police behavior, and a spiritual man is not measured by his military service.

[RedMage125]

Boarding a life boat to save yourself is a matter of selfishness, that'd be putting your own interests over those of others that's evil if it results in harm to others. The other option, saving women, is putting the interests of the law over those of others, that's LN. The saving children is putting the interests of those who are unable to speak for themselves over others, that's good.
Through that lens, any survival instinct is selfishness. And animals, creatures to whom that instinct overrides all others, are then evil.

I agree with your statements regarding LN and Good, as far as intentions go. When you cause the death of innocents using them as justification, it is an Evil act to achieve Good ends. If you can argue to persuade any men on the lifeboat (who may be simply scared and trying to survive) to voluntarily give up their spot to such a person, that would not be Evil.


Edit: Also by your logic, ALL punishment of any kind is evil, imprisonment (evil it puts the interests of society over the interest of the individual), execution (clearly evil by your logic), fines (also evil, since they put the interest of society over the interest of an individual).
This is a strawman and not true at all. Because those people have clearly broken laws and warrant punishment, as opposed to the lifeboat scenario, where their only "crime" is failing to "rise above the survival instinct" and act upon the tenets of Good. But failure to do Good does not equate to Evil.


The defining factor in something being evil is that it YOUR interests that are being put above others, and that it is damaging to their interest.
Correct. YOUR interest, being the serving of YOUR preference on who lives, over THEIR interest, which is simply to survive.

Assuming that as someone said this is a binary "boat = live, not boat = die" then putting your code above the lives of the innocent can't be any better than putting your life above the lives of the innocent. The duty to protect the weak here applies ONLY to situations such as strong people throwing the weak overboard and such, which you should by all means prevent. Remember the circumstances, here. This isn't just "strong people vs. weak people". This is "weak people and slightly less weak people vs. all-powerful nature". A Good person's "duty" is not just to protect people from each other, but to protect the whole people, who in this light are ALL "the weak", in the fairest and most life-and-dignity-respecting way possible (since, as I recall, those are generally the things all Good people, regardless of Law/Chaos flavor, are supposed to be protecting).

As such, the only truly Good things to do are make more makeshift life-savers for as many people as possible and deciding who gets to go on a lifeboat completely randomly, through say, drawing straws.
I agree. I even mentioned the "spend your time making some makeshift rafts" as another option of Good in my first post responding to this scenario.



Once again, false dichotomy between "not perfectly Good" and "heinously Evil" … as well as equivocating the prioritization of which 20 get to live with actively killing people.
Of course I agree with the former, it's part of what I've been saying this whole time.
As for your second point...believe it or not, I agree. But I am trying to play within the altered goalposts that AMFV keeps playing within, in order to make him see my point. If "boarding a lifeboat" = "killing someone", as he postulates, then "forcing someone off because I decide they don't deserve a spot" also equals "killing someone".

[RedMage125]

Putting a code over the lives of others is NOT evil. Not per the definition of the alignment. Now you may argue that it is philosophically wrong. But it isn't evil in the framework of the philosophy that we are discussing. It is lawful, that's pretty much the definition of lawful, is that the rules are above the values of any individual.
And if my code is "I arrived at the lifeboat when there were still open spots, and by the fair and neutral arbitrary nature of luck and chance, I deserve my spot", and I am unswayed by the moral debate regarding those who think I should vacate my spot, I have only committed a LN act, by virtue of what you have just admitted here.

Your own arguments cut both ways.


Edit: The problem with your scenario is that the strong have an advantage in terms of their ability to get onto the lifeboat, there's a reason, and a very historical precedent for the development of the "women and children" first rule, and it wasn't exclusively that of genealogy but a much more complex rule set.
If "the strong" are forcing their way onto the boat and forcing others off, then yes, it is a Good act to stop them from doing so. If they wee just lucky enough to get there first, then you have NO RIGHT to judge them as "unworthy" of being on it.


Sacrificing others to save yourself is Evil and sacrificing yourself to save others is Good, by BoVD.

However - a case can be made that there's an intermediate zone between the two - where "choosing not to sacrifice yourself" is the best description of the act - with it being Neutral.
Exactly. Failing to rise above the survival instinct isn't Evil. Even look at the way those words are coached "rise above" denotes a positive outlook on the ability to act above what is instinctually ingrained in us to survive, and would be Good. But failing to rise above towards Good does not equate to falling to Evil, and only a myopic view of Good & Evil would equate the two.

I think in the lifeboat scenario, I don't think that there is an option that would work for that. We'd have to move some of the variables about or account for intent we haven't before. We'd need to alter the scenario some for there to really be a neutral option.
I think YOU have moved some variables. Nothing in the original scenario explictly stated that the lifeboat was already full by the time you arrived. If I arrive and there are 10 spots open, and more people coming up behind me, it is not Evil for me to board. 80 people are going to die when that ship sinks. I got lucky and got a spot on the lifeboat.

The people have been queuing up - Our Hero has gotten on the boat as requested - then he or she looks back to see the people that are still there.

Is the Hero obliged to jump out in order to "avoid committing an Evil act"?

Or is it enough that they were lucky enough to be in the queue at the right time?The latter, hands down. Jumping out would be a Good act, certainly. But getting a spot by virtue of luck and circumstance is VERY DIFFERENT from arriving at a full lifeboat and throwing someone out, which is what AMFV equates it to. To him "getting on a lifeboat when there was a spot open but not giving your spot up when more people show up" is exactly the same as "throwing out someone who already had a spot on the boat".

[Aedilred]

I'm not sure anyone's done this yet (except with regard to Lawful Neutral specifically), so I'm just going to quote the RAW here:


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the compunction to make sacrifices to protect or help others... A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

[AMFV]

The people have been queuing up - Our Hero has gotten on the boat as requested - then he or she looks back to see the people that are still there.

Is the Hero obliged to jump out in order to "avoid committing an Evil act"?

Or is it enough that they were lucky enough to be in the queue at the right time?

That's again CHANGING THE SCENARIO. Yes, that would be non-evil, but our hero really shouldn't be in the queue... he should be organizing the departure and making sure everybody gets off the boat


I do believe paladins are forbidden from lying. It's part of their code.

Depending on which edition Paladins and which code variant you're going off of. But that's tangential.





You're both right and missing technical points.
Yes; there is always a better way, usually by way of prior wisdom/preparation.
No; once that opportunity is past and you're left with the Bad Choice, it's hard to make it right and it's often binary.
This just means you need the wisdom and discernment to see when these situations are coming up on you. Sometimes the limits of human knowledge and reaction speed that prevent you from both grabbing someone, and then moving the both of you. Sacrificing yourself is good. Watching traffic so you can move faster and save you both is also good. These are not conflicting viewpoints. They are different reaction points – functionally whether or not you have a surprise round or not. quit quibbling over a matter of initiative, unless you're both going to admit it's a matter of initiative.



NO THERE ISN'T ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY... Without literal infinite foresight there is no way to prevent things like that from happening. In any case I'm quibbling over an option that CAUSES others to die. That's not a better planned alternative, that's tantamount to murder if it's done to protect your interests.



You are a human, sovereign and sacrosanct. You are not limited to binary choices. If you're a paladin in a life boat as people sink, you don't sit in the boat and you don't jump out of the boat; you use your gods-damned high charisma to rally the heartbroken passengers and appeal to their better natures, the most fit and hardy taking rotation hanging in a human support network off the edge of boat, supporting your fellow man, and keeping everyone alive. Someone gets too cold or passes out? Pass them to the boat. Take an able bodied passenger out if need be. Humanity has highs and lows. A huddled mass of humanity stoically hanging off the boat to allow te fairer members to survive to honor their actions and possibly their sacrifice? Many a gentleman and even a good number of ladies would be down with that.

This time, there is a binary option, get on the boat or don't. Yes, if we change the scenario then the fundamental alignment operators change. I've agreed with that, and yet everybody continues to insist that I haven't. I'm not quite sure why that is. If the water is warm enough that such a rotation can occur and THERE ARE ENOUGH SPACES on the boats so as to allow people to get off the ship in the first place, then getting on the boat is non-evil. I'm not saying that all survival is evil, only survival at the expense of somebody else.



There is a difference between Lawful Good and Paladin. The one should not be judged by the other, just as a law abiding citizen is not measured by police behavior, and a spiritual man is not measured by his military service.

Actually I didn't really bring Paladins up. I still hold that the absolute good in this case would be the same, if I was making a Paladin related argument I'd have directly addressed their code rather than the general rules on evil and good.


Through that lens, any survival instinct is selfishness. And animals, creatures to whom that instinct overrides all others, are then evil.

False, animals lack agency, they don't have the moral operators to be evil. Humans have agency and can know better. Also not all survival instinct causes the death or harm of sapient creatures. Ergo not evil in the D&D sense.



I agree with your statements regarding LN and Good, as far as intentions go. When you cause the death of innocents using them as justification, it is an Evil act to achieve Good ends. If you can argue to persuade any men on the lifeboat (who may be simply scared and trying to survive) to voluntarily give up their spot to such a person, that would not be Evil.


"Evil act to achieve good ends" is not something that's really covered in the rules. If stopping an Orc from murdering a child is good, then stopping a full grown man from pushing past one to get on the lifeboat is equally good.



This is a strawman and not true at all. Because those people have clearly broken laws and warrant punishment, as opposed to the lifeboat scenario, where their only "crime" is failing to "rise above the survival instinct" and act upon the tenets of Good. But failure to do Good does not equate to Evil.

Correct. YOUR interest, being the serving of YOUR preference on who lives, over THEIR interest, which is simply to survive.

NO... that's not self-interest. It's still in the interest of society. Or a set of laws or codes. In the same that a judge can be impartial (lacking interest) and send people to death, so could anybody lie. \

Yes, failure to do good isn't necessarily evil, but this case, we're directly doing evil.



I agree. I even mentioned the "spend your time making some makeshift rafts" as another option of Good in my first post responding to this scenario.


Of course I agree with the former, it's part of what I've been saying this whole time.
As for your second point...believe it or not, I agree. But I am trying to play within the altered goalposts that AMFV keeps playing within, in order to make him see my point. If "boarding a lifeboat" = "killing someone", as he postulates, then "forcing someone off because I decide they don't deserve a spot" also equals "killing someone".

They're not equivalent, because in the one scenario, you're causing somebody to die for your OWN interests, to encourage YOUR OWN survival. My goalposts haven't moved. If you are causing harm to others to further your own personal interests that's evil. If you are causing harm to others to further societal rules, it's lawful not evil. Else, all society would be evil. If my argument produces a consistent spread with what's expected in the rules, and your argument reduces ALL of society that is not a utopian commune to evil, who do you think is more likely correct.

Yes, stopping somebody from boarding the lifeboat is killing somebody, but because it is not self-interested, it is non-evil. If you are saving a child (who cannot save themselves), it's good. If you are obeying any set of rules, it'd be lawful, but still non-evil.


I'm not sure anyone's done this yet (except with regard to Lawful Neutral specifically), so I'm just going to quote the RAW here:

Which is the crux of the argument. Boarding the lifeboat is causing somebody to die, ergo... y'know... killing them in essence.

Edit: which is why there is NO neutral option in the scenario as presented there is no way to look out for your own interests without killing somebody. So there is no neutral option.

[Aedilred]

Which is the crux of the argument. Boarding the lifeboat is causing somebody to die, ergo... y'know... killing them in essence.
Ignoring the parameters of this situation for a moment, refusing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of another is effectively causing somebody to die (or, rather, a cause of someone's death, but I'll leave those aside). Refusing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of another is also an explicitly neutral act.

I think there are a couple of problems with your reasoning here. Firstly, your chain of causation is messed up. In the event as presented, the cause of death for the victims is the ship sinking. Your decision whether or not to board the lifeboat may be a contributory factor, but it is not the originating or direct cause of death. (In fact, it is less so than in a situation where you're stopping people from boarding the boats while there is still space). You're also treating Good and Evil as effectively binary, with all self-interest, including the survival instinct, being ultimately evil. This is what leads to your idea that "there is no Neutral option".

But I don't expect you to be convinced, because you haven't been so far. The scenario was deliberately constructed to demonstrate the point raised in the PHB text I quoted: that a Neutral person prefers not to harm innocents all things being equal, but will prioritise their own survival over strangers in a life-or-death scenario. This is that scenario. If peacefully boarding the boat here isn't Neutral, then Neutral doesn't exist, or at least it doesn't exist as described in the PHB.

[AMFV]

Ignoring the parameters of this situation for a moment, refusing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of another is effectively causing somebody to die (or, rather, a cause of someone's death, but I'll leave those aside). Refusing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of another is also an explicitly neutral act.

I think there are a couple of problems with your reasoning here. Firstly, your chain of causation is messed up. In the event as presented, the cause of death for the victims is the ship sinking. Your decision whether or not to board the lifeboat may be a contributory factor, but it is not the originating or direct cause of death. (In fact, it is less so than in a situation where you're stopping people from boarding the boats while there is still space). You're also treating Good and Evil as effectively binary, with all self-interest, including the survival instinct, being ultimately evil. This is what leads to your idea that "there is no Neutral option".

But I don't expect you to be convinced, because you haven't been so far. The scenario was deliberately constructed to demonstrate the point raised in the PHB text I quoted: that a Neutral person prefers not to harm innocents all things being equal, but will prioritise their own survival over strangers in a life-or-death scenario. This is that scenario. If peacefully boarding the boat here isn't Neutral, then Neutral doesn't exist, or at least it doesn't exist as described in the PHB.

In the scenario as presented there is no neutral option. There are many other scenarios where you can support your own interests without killing or harming someone, this isn't one of them.

Also, as was pointed out, per the BOVD, sacrificing others for yourself is explicitly evil.

[Aedilred]

In the scenario as presented there is no neutral option. There are many other scenarios where you can support your own interests without killing or harming someone, this isn't one of them.
Surely a life-or-death scenario is the acid test of an alignment? You seem to be interpreting Neutral as a sort of half-hearted Good.


Also, as was pointed out, per the BOVD, sacrificing others for yourself is explicitly evil.
What exactly do you consider to be the difference between "sacrificing others for yourself", and "not sacrificing yourself for others"? And can you contrive a scenario that demonstrates it more clearly than the sinking ship?

[AMFV]

Surely a life-or-death scenario is the acid test of an alignment? You seem to be interpreting Neutral as a sort of half-hearted Good.

The problem is that neutral is both a diluted good and evil. It's diluted evil in that you take your own interests to be paramount. But it's diluted good, in that you don't harm others in the pursuit of said interests. Surviving at the expense of the well-being of others is therefore evil, if only barely.



What exactly do you consider to be the difference between "sacrificing others for yourself", and "not sacrificing yourself for others"? And can you contrive a scenario that demonstrates it more clearly than the sinking ship?

I'm trying to think of another scenario that has such a binary outcome, since most of the scenarios that are available have a neutral component. Perhaps it's better if we outline a scenario with said neutral component, then maybe that will explain my viewpoint.

If a car is barreling towards somebody, and you can push them out of the way but you'd be hit and possibly killed. That would have a more clear neutral component, although it would still be on the face, since you are not taking a direct action which endangers another person.

Yes, the sinking ship is not your fault, the fact that there aren't sufficient lifeboats is (probably) not your fault. But the point is that by sitting down in the lifeboat you are actively causing another human being to die. The circumstances leading up to it are less relevant than the outcome and your intention, if your intention is "I'm surviving, screw that guy" it's evil. This is in large part because of the limitations on the D&D alignment system. Many real world philosophies would be evil by it's standard, such as Objectivism, would be completely evil in D&D, because D&D morality espouses a particular standard of good, which is derived largely from the perception of what was considered good or heroic in a knightly sense. It's why there's so much import placed on protecting the weak, and also why sexuality tends to be evil. Because while it isn't a real-world morality it's very closely tied to a specific set of real world morals (or at least real world morals in how they are fictionally perceived).

The end point is that an act that might or might not be morally questionable in real life, has a greater possibility of being evil in D&D because of the strict rules of the alignment system, if you harm others for your benefit it's evil. If you allow yourself to be harmed for the benefit of others, it's good. Anything that doesn't fit into the above categories is neutral, which does exist, although it tends to be more complex.

[Lord Raziere]

NO THERE ISN'T ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY... Without literal infinite foresight there is no way to prevent things like that from happening. In any case I'm quibbling over an option that CAUSES others to die. That's not a better planned alternative, that's tantamount to murder if it's done to protect your interests.

This time, there is a binary option, get on the boat or don't. Yes, if we change the scenario then the fundamental alignment operators change. I've agreed with that, and yet everybody continues to insist that I haven't. I'm not quite sure why that is. If the water is warm enough that such a rotation can occur and THERE ARE ENOUGH SPACES on the boats so as to allow people to get off the ship in the first place, then getting on the boat is non-evil. I'm not saying that all survival is evil, only survival at the expense of somebody else.

"Evil act to achieve good ends" is not something that's really covered in the rules. If stopping an Orc from murdering a child is good, then stopping a full grown man from pushing past one to get on the lifeboat is equally good.

Yes, failure to do good isn't necessarily evil, but this case, we're directly doing evil.


Yes, stopping somebody from boarding the lifeboat is killing somebody, but because it is not self-interested, it is non-evil. If you are saving a child (who cannot save themselves), it's good. If you are obeying any set of rules, it'd be lawful, but still non-evil.

Which is the crux of the argument. Boarding the lifeboat is causing somebody to die, ergo... y'know... killing them in essence.


Ok, what if people disagree whether your the "strong" person in the scenario, and try to force YOU into one of the lifeboats so another will die instead of you?

or what if one of the people your trying to save tries to save YOUR life by forcing YOU into one of the lifeboats?

What if they try to fight you over whether you should die or not? or what if they decide to be stubborn and try to stay just to spite you, or to try to stay to convince you to not give up your life? I doubt they will be rational in that kind of situation and I doubt they will think the same way as you.

What then?

[RedMage125]

Aedilred, +2 to everything you have said. Bravo, sir (or ma'am).

That's again CHANGING THE SCENARIO. Yes, that would be non-evil, but our hero really shouldn't be in the queue... he should be organizing the departure and making sure everybody gets off the boat
Actually, it's NOT changing the scenario, YOU have been changing the scenario, hence my point qabout you shifting the goalposts. The original scenario was this, from post #96:

You're on a sinking ship, and there aren't enough lifeboats for everyone. Is it evil to do your utmost to get on a boat? To get on a boat at all? To prevent people from getting on the boat after it's full because they'd put your life at risk?

If putting your own interests above others is evil, then the above is all evil. Barring a miracle, there's no non-evil way to survive that scenario. But if that's the case, there's no neutral either.
So nothing about the scenario specified that the boats were already full when "our hero" arrived. Since that's the case, and the scenario was open-ended enough to suggest that "our hero" may have arrived on a boat that had empty spaces when he arrived at it in a fair "first-come, first-in the boat" fashion. Which is what Aedilred and I have been talking about, and hamishspence, too, apparently. By your own admission, getting on the boat when there was a spot available to him at the time, even if he does NOT get off when more people arrive at said boat, is non-evil, then, yes?
For you to contradict that, would be incorrect, as Aedilred has quoted to you that doing so is explicitly a Neutral act, by RAW.
For you to insist that the only scenario is "boats are already full when 'our hero' arrived" is moving the goalposts, because EVERY TIME, I have been explictly stating that is not the case for what I am talking about, and you have continued to tell me I am wrong.


NO THERE ISN'T ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY... Without literal infinite foresight there is no way to prevent things like that from happening. In any case I'm quibbling over an option that CAUSES others to die. That's not a better planned alternative, that's tantamount to murder if it's done to protect your interests.It is "tantamount" to murder only in a circumspecial way. Does one person on that boat die because a spot on that boat was taken by you? In a roundabout way, yes, but by that logic, EVERY PERSON who bordered the boat has the death of at least one person who died on the sinking ship on their heads. Even if only ONE person is left to die aboard the sinking ship, each and every person on a lifeboat that survived has "murdered" him, according to your logic.

Bottom line, if "your interests" is simply "I want to live", that is not a parallel to the same kind of "self-interest" of "I get my jollies by killing people".

This time, there is a binary option, get on the boat or don't. Yes, if we change the scenario then the fundamental alignment operators change. I've agreed with that, and yet everybody continues to insist that I haven't. I'm not quite sure why that is. If the water is warm enough that such a rotation can occur and THERE ARE ENOUGH SPACES on the boats so as to allow people to get off the ship in the first place, then getting on the boat is non-evil.
I think that given that the scenario was presented as a scenario worthy of having moral weight, than it's safe to assume that survival out of the boat is not an option. If this boat is sinking in non-shark-infested, tropically-warm water, then there's no dire consequence of not being in a boat. For the scenario to have the dire moral/ethical weight, we must assume that not getting in a lifeboat is tantamount to a death sentence.


I'm not saying that all survival is evil, only survival at the expense of somebody else.
This has been explictly disproven with quotes from RAW, try again.

False, animals lack agency, they don't have the moral operators to be evil. Humans have agency and can know better. Also not all survival instinct causes the death or harm of sapient creatures. Ergo not evil in the D&D sense.
But even if it DOES cause the death of a sapient creature, if it is an act truly necessary to survive, meaning that there really were ZERO alternatives, it is not Evil. Furthermore, causing the death of a sapient creature is not necessarily Evil, because goblins, orcs, demons, and dragons are all "sapient". And again, getting in the boat is not "causing" their death, the sinking ship is causing it.


"Evil act to achieve good ends" is not something that's really covered in the rules. If stopping an Orc from murdering a child is good, then stopping a full grown man from pushing past one to get on the lifeboat is equally good.
First off, yes, "Evil acts to achieve Good ends" IS covered by the rules, I even quoted it in this thread. Post #254, repeated here for your convienience.
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.
Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.
Second, you have not been discussing "stopping a man from pushing past a child", which would be Lawful, as it is simply promoting an orderly approach to the boat. You were advocating removing a man who had already obtained a spot on the boat for the sake of the child/woman/"weak person". THAT is what I have been decrying as Evil.


NO... that's not self-interest. It's still in the interest of society. Or a set of laws or codes. In the same that a judge can be impartial (lacking interest) and send people to death, so could anybody lie. \
Which society? The "society" of people who boarded the boat? Because the "crime & punishment" analogy you mentioned, criminals are acting against a set of laws in which they are either aware of, or are assumed to be aware of (such as the laws of a city, town, or nation). Which "societal laws" apply to this boat? Unless the boat itself is explictly the property of a governing nation (like a US Navy Ship, in which case, the boat itself is considered "territory" of that nation, and all laws apply), you're under Maritime Law, and no clause of that-not even in the real world-specifies any kind of "women and children first" clause.

And if you only "permit" those you consider "weak" to board said boats, while everyone "strong" in damned to die by your code, then what of the survivors on those lifeboats? They wander for days, maybe land on an island somewhere, and none among them can hunt, gather, or build shelter because you deprived them of anyone with the strength and fitness to do so? That's not even practical.


Yes, failure to do good isn't necessarily evil, but this case, we're directly doing evil.
You know what? RAW has been proven to you that this staement is false. Since you insist that you are still correct, I call.

PROVE, with RAW, that "refusing to sacrifice your life for another" is an Evil act. Or even that "refusing to sacrifice your life for the life another" morally equates to "killing that person".


They're not equivalent, because in the one scenario, you're causing somebody to die for your OWN interests, to encourage YOUR OWN survival. My goalposts haven't moved. If you are causing harm to others to further your own personal interests that's evil. If you are causing harm to others to further societal rules, it's lawful not evil. Else, all society would be evil. If my argument produces a consistent spread with what's expected in the rules, and your argument reduces ALL of society that is not a utopian commune to evil, who do you think is more likely correct.
The bolded part, here? Is where you fail. Your argumentdoes NOT produce a consistent spread with what's expected in the rules. In fact, the rules, as Aedilred and I have quoted, explicitly contradict what you are claiming.

And again, I am only saying that your proposed "lawful" solution equates to murder if "boarding the lifeboat" does as well. It's all or nothing. I maintain that boarding a lifeboat that you reached in a fair fashion (first come, first serve), and staying on it, in order to survive, is Neutral (which, by the way, you have seemingly conceded is true, so which is it?), and not Evil. So, by that same logic, your solution would also not be murder. HOWEVER, you insist that "boarding a lifeboat that you reached in a fair fashion and staying on it" equates to murder (despite all the RAw evidence that has been shown to the contrary). What I am saying is that you don't get to call one "murder" and not the other. They are either both murder, or neither of them is. You don't get your way just because you want to be right. The RAW are clear, and you are wrong.


Yes, stopping somebody from boarding the lifeboat is killing somebody, but because it is not self-interested, it is non-evil. If you are saving a child (who cannot save themselves), it's good. If you are obeying any set of rules, it'd be lawful, but still non-evil.See the above Spolier-blocked quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds on "Evil Means to Achieve Good Ends".


Which is the crux of the argument. Boarding the lifeboat is causing somebody to die, ergo... y'know... killing them in essence.
There is no crux, there is simply your refusal to acknowledge that RAW explicitly state that you're wrong. "Killing someone in essence" becaue you refused to sacrifice your life so they could live is not "killing them". Let's say I put Regdar and a Mialee (in this instance, complete starngers) in a room, and tell them both that I am going to kill one of them, the other one gets to walk away scot-free. I point a gun at Regdar and tell Mialee that I am going to shoot him, unless she volunteers to sacrifice herself for him. If she does not, because she wants to live, and I shoot Regdar dead, has Mialee killed him, or have I killed him?

Answer: By your logic, Mialee has killed Regdar, because she acted in her self-interest and saved her life at the expense of his.

The REAL Answer: Mialee has not killed Regdar, because the individual with the agency to kill him or not is me. The Evil act of murder would be on me, the shooter. Mialee may feel guilt for a long time. It may weigh on her conscience, but-objectively, by D&D RAW standards-she has not committed an Evil act.

The corollary? The sinking ship is the gunman, Regdar is the next guy in line hoping to get on a boat, and you are Mialee, who has boarded a lifeboat, having reached it in a fair and objective manner.


Edit: which is why there is NO neutral option in the scenario as presented there is no way to look out for your own interests without killing somebody. So there is no neutral option.
Aedilred just showed that the RAW says that it is Neutral to "not sacrfice yourself for a stranger". How do you get "that's still killing somebody" from that? You have LITERALLY recieved the exact opposite of what was posted.

I will repeat Aedilred's question, because you have avoided it at least twice now:
What, EXACTLY, do you consider the difference between "sacrificing others for yourself" and "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save others"?

Because, by RAW, there IS a difference. Sayign there is not a difference between the two, is directly contradicting RAW, and is, therefore, wrong. Not like a "we'll have to agree to disagree" kind of way, because that deals with opinions. When discussing alignment, one must assume D&D RAW moral/ethical standards (that is, objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as defined by D&D), or else the discussion is moot, because no fair and objective way exists to define those things in the real world. Ergo, any statement of "fact" that stands in direct opposition to Facts of RAW (that can be cited and proven to be explicitly true), is flat-out FALSE (i.e. "wrong").

So, once more to drive it home, what do you consider to be the difference between "sacrficing others for oneself" and "refusing to sacrifice oneself to save others"?

[SowZ]

My philosophy is very chaotic, I value freedom above any other virtue in a political system, and I basically hate all governments all the time. I'm fairly eccentric, often compared to Kramer. And yet, people always say I am clearly lawful. Maybe they do it to get my goat? I don't know. I do respect authority in practice, follow rules and laws, and have a very systematic way of looking at things. I have a procedure I consider logical to make decisions and formulate opinions which I rarely deviate from unless I have no time to analyze and have to make a gut choice. So maybe I am lawful.

As for Good Evil? I don't know what it takes to be Good. I'll like to stop and talk to people who look like they want to, like a lonely street person or something. I'll stop to check on someone on the side of the road or push their car out of the street or give some water to someone stuck on the mountains waiting for a tow. But that all seems just like sociable behavior, stuff people should do who live in a society. I don't really make big sacrifices or dedicate my life/career to helping people as would seem fitting of Good with a capital G. So not sure. Of course, I'd like to think Good. But I may very well fit in with the Neutral masses.

[AMFV]

Aedilred, +2 to everything you have said. Bravo, sir (or ma'am).

Actually, it's NOT changing the scenario, YOU have been changing the scenario, hence my point qabout you shifting the goalposts. The original scenario was this, from post #96:

So nothing about the scenario specified that the boats were already full when "our hero" arrived. Since that's the case, and the scenario was open-ended enough to suggest that "our hero" may have arrived on a boat that had empty spaces when he arrived at it in a fair "first-come, first-in the boat" fashion. Which is what Aedilred and I have been talking about, and hamishspence, too, apparently. By your own admission, getting on the boat when there was a spot available to him at the time, even if he does NOT get off when more people arrive at said boat, is non-evil, then, yes?
For you to contradict that, would be incorrect, as Aedilred has quoted to you that doing so is explicitly a Neutral act, by RAW.
For you to insist that the only scenario is "boats are already full when 'our hero' arrived" is moving the goalposts, because EVERY TIME, I have been explictly stating that is not the case for what I am talking about, and you have continued to tell me I am wrong.
It is "tantamount" to murder only in a circumspecial way. Does one person on that boat die because a spot on that boat was taken by you? In a roundabout way, yes, but by that logic, EVERY PERSON who bordered the boat has the death of at least one person who died on the sinking ship on their heads. Even if only ONE person is left to die aboard the sinking ship, each and every person on a lifeboat that survived has "murdered" him, according to your logic.

Bottom line, if "your interests" is simply "I want to live", that is not a parallel to the same kind of "self-interest" of "I get my jollies by killing people".

I think that given that the scenario was presented as a scenario worthy of having moral weight, than it's safe to assume that survival out of the boat is not an option. If this boat is sinking in non-shark-infested, tropically-warm water, then there's no dire consequence of not being in a boat. For the scenario to have the dire moral/ethical weight, we must assume that not getting in a lifeboat is tantamount to a death sentence.

This has been explictly disproven with quotes from RAW, try again.

But even if it DOES cause the death of a sapient creature, if it is an act truly necessary to survive, meaning that there really were ZERO alternatives, it is not Evil. Furthermore, causing the death of a sapient creature is not necessarily Evil, because goblins, orcs, demons, and dragons are all "sapient". And again, getting in the boat is not "causing" their death, the sinking ship is causing it.
First off, yes, "Evil acts to achieve Good ends" IS covered by the rules, I even quoted it in this thread. Post #254, repeated here for your convienience.
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.
Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.
Second, you have not been discussing "stopping a man from pushing past a child", which would be Lawful, as it is simply promoting an orderly approach to the boat. You were advocating removing a man who had already obtained a spot on the boat for the sake of the child/woman/"weak person". THAT is what I have been decrying as Evil.

Which society? The "society" of people who boarded the boat? Because the "crime & punishment" analogy you mentioned, criminals are acting against a set of laws in which they are either aware of, or are assumed to be aware of (such as the laws of a city, town, or nation). Which "societal laws" apply to this boat? Unless the boat itself is explictly the property of a governing nation (like a US Navy Ship, in which case, the boat itself is considered "territory" of that nation, and all laws apply), you're under Maritime Law, and no clause of that-not even in the real world-specifies any kind of "women and children first" clause.

And if you only "permit" those you consider "weak" to board said boats, while everyone "strong" in damned to die by your code, then what of the survivors on those lifeboats? They wander for days, maybe land on an island somewhere, and none among them can hunt, gather, or build shelter because you deprived them of anyone with the strength and fitness to do so? That's not even practical.

You know what? RAW has been proven to you that this staement is false. Since you insist that you are still correct, I call.

PROVE, with RAW, that "refusing to sacrifice your life for another" is an Evil act. Or even that "refusing to sacrifice your life for the life another" morally equates to "killing that person".

The bolded part, here? Is where you fail. Your argumentdoes NOT produce a consistent spread with what's expected in the rules. In fact, the rules, as Aedilred and I have quoted, explicitly contradict what you are claiming.

And again, I am only saying that your proposed "lawful" solution equates to murder if "boarding the lifeboat" does as well. It's all or nothing. I maintain that boarding a lifeboat that you reached in a fair fashion (first come, first serve), and staying on it, in order to survive, is Neutral (which, by the way, you have seemingly conceded is true, so which is it?), and not Evil. So, by that same logic, your solution would also not be murder. HOWEVER, you insist that "boarding a lifeboat that you reached in a fair fashion and staying on it" equates to murder (despite all the RAw evidence that has been shown to the contrary). What I am saying is that you don't get to call one "murder" and not the other. They are either both murder, or neither of them is. You don't get your way just because you want to be right. The RAW are clear, and you are wrong.
See the above Spolier-blocked quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds on "Evil Means to Achieve Good Ends".

There is no crux, there is simply your refusal to acknowledge that RAW explicitly state that you're wrong. "Killing someone in essence" becaue you refused to sacrifice your life so they could live is not "killing them". Let's say I put Regdar and a Mialee (in this instance, complete starngers) in a room, and tell them both that I am going to kill one of them, the other one gets to walk away scot-free. I point a gun at Regdar and tell Mialee that I am going to shoot him, unless she volunteers to sacrifice herself for him. If she does not, because she wants to live, and I shoot Regdar dead, has Mialee killed him, or have I killed him?

Answer: By your logic, Mialee has killed Regdar, because she acted in her self-interest and saved her life at the expense of his.

The REAL Answer: Mialee has not killed Regdar, because the individual with the agency to kill him or not is me. The Evil act of murder would be on me, the shooter. Mialee may feel guilt for a long time. It may weigh on her conscience, but-objectively, by D&D RAW standards-she has not committed an Evil act.

The corollary? The sinking ship is the gunman, Regdar is the next guy in line hoping to get on a boat, and you are Mialee, who has boarded a lifeboat, having reached it in a fair and objective manner.

Aedilred just showed that the RAW says that it is Neutral to "not sacrfice yourself for a stranger". How do you get "that's still killing somebody" from that? You have LITERALLY recieved the exact opposite of what was posted.

I will repeat Aedilred's question, because you have avoided it at least twice now:
What, EXACTLY, do you consider the difference between "sacrificing others for yourself" and "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save others"?

Because, by RAW, there IS a difference. Sayign there is not a difference between the two, is directly contradicting RAW, and is, therefore, wrong. Not like a "we'll have to agree to disagree" kind of way, because that deals with opinions. When discussing alignment, one must assume D&D RAW moral/ethical standards (that is, objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as defined by D&D), or else the discussion is moot, because no fair and objective way exists to define those things in the real world. Ergo, any statement of "fact" that stands in direct opposition to Facts of RAW (that can be cited and proven to be explicitly true), is flat-out FALSE (i.e. "wrong").

So, once more to drive it home, what do you consider to be the difference between "sacrficing others for oneself" and "refusing to sacrifice oneself to save others"?


The BOVD section supports my RAW interpretation, the other section is less explicit and also could my interpretation depending on how one defines "killing".

[AMFV]

Ok, what if people disagree whether your the "strong" person in the scenario, and try to force YOU into one of the lifeboats so another will die instead of you?

or what if one of the people your trying to save tries to save YOUR life by forcing YOU into one of the lifeboats?

What if they try to fight you over whether you should die or not? or what if they decide to be stubborn and try to stay just to spite you, or to try to stay to convince you to not give up your life? I doubt they will be rational in that kind of situation and I doubt they will think the same way as you.

What then?

Yes, if you are really good then you should try to be the one that sacrifices yourself. And another good person should object to this. Also who would stay on a boat to spite somebody, if you're willing to die, to spite somebody that's pretty ridiculous.

At this point I think that this discussion has pretty much run it's course particularly since we've now hit contradictory RAW and basically it comes down to "is allowing somebody to die so that you can live" tantamount to "killing somebody" for me it is clearly equivalent, but if we can't agree on that then we're not ever going to come to a point of agreement.

[SowZ]

Yes, if you are really good then you should try to be the one that sacrifices yourself. And another good person should object to this. Also who would stay on a boat to spite somebody, if you're willing to die, to spite somebody that's pretty ridiculous.

At this point I think that this discussion has pretty much run it's course particularly since we've now hit contradictory RAW and basically it comes down to "is allowing somebody to die so that you can live" tantamount to "killing somebody" for me it is clearly equivalent, but if we can't agree on that then we're not ever going to come to a point of agreement.


The problem is that neutral is both a diluted good and evil. It's diluted evil in that you take your own interests to be paramount. But it's diluted good, in that you don't harm others in the pursuit of said interests. Surviving at the expense of the well-being of others is therefore evil, if only barely.



I'm trying to think of another scenario that has such a binary outcome, since most of the scenarios that are available have a neutral component. Perhaps it's better if we outline a scenario with said neutral component, then maybe that will explain my viewpoint.

If a car is barreling towards somebody, and you can push them out of the way but you'd be hit and possibly killed. That would have a more clear neutral component, although it would still be on the face, since you are not taking a direct action which endangers another person.

Yes, the sinking ship is not your fault, the fact that there aren't sufficient lifeboats is (probably) not your fault. But the point is that by sitting down in the lifeboat you are actively causing another human being to die. The circumstances leading up to it are less relevant than the outcome and your intention, if your intention is "I'm surviving, screw that guy" it's evil. This is in large part because of the limitations on the D&D alignment system. Many real world philosophies would be evil by it's standard, such as Objectivism, would be completely evil in D&D, because D&D morality espouses a particular standard of good, which is derived largely from the perception of what was considered good or heroic in a knightly sense. It's why there's so much import placed on protecting the weak, and also why sexuality tends to be evil. Because while it isn't a real-world morality it's very closely tied to a specific set of real world morals (or at least real world morals in how they are fictionally perceived).

The end point is that an act that might or might not be morally questionable in real life, has a greater possibility of being evil in D&D because of the strict rules of the alignment system, if you harm others for your benefit it's evil. If you allow yourself to be harmed for the benefit of others, it's good. Anything that doesn't fit into the above categories is neutral, which does exist, although it tends to be more complex.

By that logic, if I own a house and don't give it to a homeless person, I am denying that person a house and may as well be evicting them from a home. Refusing someone charity is similar to stealing from them if you take this thought process to its logical conclusion. In the same way, eating a meal you could give to someone hungrier than yourself is the same as stealing that food from them.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, if you are really good then you should try to be the one that sacrifices yourself. And another good person should object to this. Also who would stay on a boat to spite somebody, if you're willing to die, to spite somebody that's pretty ridiculous.


.....

so what your saying is that everyone should object to everyone else sacrificing themselves for everyone else, then fighting over who gets to stay on the boat.

real productive.

[AMFV]

By that logic, if I own a house and don't give it to a homeless person, I am denying that person a house and may as well be evicting them from a home. Refusing someone charity is similar to stealing from them if you take this thought process to its logical conclusion. In the same way, eating a meal you could give to someone hungrier than yourself is the same as stealing that food from them.

Well that is one of the fundamental problems with any sort of system as simplistic as the D&D alignment system, if you read through the BOVD and BoED you'll see that the alignment system fundamentally doesn't work as a philosophy for many of the reasons that are presented here. Which is also why I chose not to define my own alignment, because it doesn't work in the real world, and barely works in the context of the game.

[hamishspence]

By that logic, if I own a house and don't give it to a homeless person, I am denying that person a house and may as well be evicting them from a home. Refusing someone charity is similar to stealing from them if you take this thought process to its logical conclusion. In the same way, eating a meal you could give to someone hungrier than yourself is the same as stealing that food from them.

That's why I prefer the notion that "strongly Neutral" is about not making sacrifices - but not violating other people's rights, either.

[RedMage125]

The problem is that neutral is both a diluted good and evil. It's diluted evil in that you take your own interests to be paramount. But it's diluted good, in that you don't harm others in the pursuit of said interests. Surviving at the expense of the well-being of others is therefore evil, if only barely.
This is complete bullhonkey. It could only ever BE true, if those people would have otherwise been fine without you "surviving at their expense".

Example: You are cursed by an evil wizard and must kill one innocent person per week, or you will die a horrible and painful death, even though you were previously a Good person. In this instance, killing others to survive is Evil because those people would have been okay until you came along and needed to survive by killing them.

But this isn't like that scenario. In this scenario, EVERYONE'S lives are in immediate mortal peril. So it's no longer "you survive because you killed someone who would have otherwise lived". It is now "one of you IS GOING TO DIE, no matter what". Anyone who doesn't get on a lifeboat DIES. This is an objective, bodiless force of environment/Nature that is doing the killing. All individuals are thus relieved of the moral weight of the death of anyone who dies from drowning, assuming they are not drowned early by being pushed into the water prematurely.

So it's not "at the expense of the lives of others" because those people are going to die anyway. The scenario specified that there was not enough lifeboats for eveyone. It's not like they were going to live, and YOU cost them their life. Because, yes, that would be Evil. Either they are going to die, you are going to die, or you are ALL going to die. Now, you have an opportunity to live, in that you reached a lifeboat that had a spot open. It is, therefore, NOT "murdering someone" to get aboard.

Yes, the sinking ship is not your fault, the fact that there aren't sufficient lifeboats is (probably) not your fault. But the point is that by sitting down in the lifeboat you are actively causing another human being to die.
Incorrect. Facts Not In Evidence.
You are actively causing yourself to live.
By extention, the diminished space on the lifeboats, reduces the options others have to save themselves. But EVERYONE who got on a lifeboat is guilty of that. After all, what of people who couldn't get to alifeboat in time at all? Are you responsible for their death? Of course not, if they never reached a lifeboat, they never had the opportunity to be saved.

You use "acticely causing" and "directly causing" a lot, and you are wrong.

"Direct Cause" is "A then B". Such as "I shoot you in the chest, then you die of a gunshot wound". Indiect Causality is "A then X then Y then B". Such as "I board a lifeboat (A), there is one less spot available (X), the ship sinks with people still aboard (Y), those people die (B)". So, by boarding a lifeboat, you DO NOT directly cause anyone to die. This is logic. This point is not up for debate. If you continue to contest it, you are WRONG.

By boarding a lifeboat are you indirectly causing others to die? Sure, but so is everyone else who boarded a lifeboat. Indirect =/= direct. That's simple logic. Indirectly causing the death of another through action or inaction is NOT murder, if their deaths would have happened anyway (because of the sinking ship). Furthermore "failing to save their lives" is not equal to "killing them yourself". "Failing" in this case, meaning not doing something, as opposed to trying to do something and not suceeding.

The circumstances leading up to it are less relevant than the outcome and your intention, if your intention is "I'm surviving, screw that guy" it's evil. This is in large part because of the limitations on the D&D alignment system. Many real world philosophies would be evil by it's standard, such as Objectivism, would be completely evil in D&D, because D&D morality espouses a particular standard of good, which is derived largely from the perception of what was considered good or heroic in a knightly sense. It's why there's so much import placed on protecting the weak, and also why sexuality tends to be evil. Because while it isn't a real-world morality it's very closely tied to a specific set of real world morals (or at least real world morals in how they are fictionally perceived).
Except that D&D morality explicitly states that "not sacrificing your own life to save another" is not Evil, but Neutral. Try again, slick.


The end point is that an act that might or might not be morally questionable in real life, has a greater possibility of being evil in D&D because of the strict rules of the alignment system, if you harm others for your benefit it's evil. If you allow yourself to be harmed for the benefit of others, it's good. Anything that doesn't fit into the above categories is neutral, which does exist, although it tends to be more complex.
Anything that doesn't fit? You mean such as "allowing others to be harmed for your benefit"? Which is, by the way, different than "harming others for your benefit". See my point on "direct" and "indirect" causality, above.

Or, better yet, "Failing to save someone else in order for you to survive"? That's not the same as "harming them for your benefit", either.

That's the REAL crux here. You equate "failing to save someone" as "killing them". This is a fallacy. It's only "killing them" if they would have lived without your interference. Since everyone who stays on that ship is going to die, unless they either save themselves or are saved by someone else, you are relieved of the moral weight of their lives. Should a Good person save as many people as he can? Yes, of course. But is it Evil to be saved by another? If being saved by another is not Evil, then how can saving oneself be Evil? Either way, anyone who is saved is taking up a spot on a lifeboat that someone who died could have had instead. Are ALL of them guilty of murder? If your answer is no, then getting on a lifeboat is not Evil, because your life is in just as much peril as everyone else's on the boat.

[RedMage125]

The BOVD section supports my RAW interpretation, the other section is less explicit and also could my interpretation depending on how one defines "killing".

Two things:
First...QUOTES. Quote the EXACT WORDING of the BoVD that you claim supports your case. Or at least cite page numbers. You have not done so. Until you do, I say "shenanigans" to your claim that what you say is supported by RAW.

Second...you are STILL avoiding the question that Aedilred and I have poised to you no less than 4 times now.

That being:
What, EXACTLY, do you consider the difference between "sacrificing others for yourself" and "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save others"?


By the way, nice dodge of everything else, too. Like how I referenced the original scenario and which you have been deviating from in order to make your points (which is called moving the goalposts, btw). And how RAW has been quoted to explicitly say that "not sacrficing your own life to save a stranger is Neutral". Or the "I shoot either Miale or Regdar" scenario parallel.

All you responded to was me saying that your point is NOT consistent with the RAW. And you said it is, providing no page numbers, citations nor quotes.

[RedMage125]

Well that is one of the fundamental problems with any sort of system as simplistic as the D&D alignment system, if you read through the BOVD and BoED you'll see that the alignment system fundamentally doesn't work as a philosophy for many of the reasons that are presented here. Which is also why I chose not to define my own alignment, because it doesn't work in the real world, and barely works in the context of the game.

SoWz was intentionally using argumentum ad ridiculum to highlight YOUR failure to understand the fundamental difference between "Direct Cause" and "Indirect Cause"

Which you still fail to grasp.

And so-I hate to do this to a fellwo veteran, and apologize in advance for the brusqueness of this, but-I clearly need to make an example that hits closer to home.

An insurgent throws a grenade at the feet of your and your squad. You dive for cover, but the guy next to you freezes in panic and is killed by the grenade. Have you killed him because you did not throw yourself on it?

Answer: No, the insurgent killed him. You simply failed to save him because you saved yourself. Which is morally Neutral, using D&D moraility. You acted to save yourself in a life or death scenario, but did not actively cause his death.

Applying the analogy of Direct and Indirect in a more positive note: Do you know what an EA-6B Prowler is? They're those planes that flew overhead when you were in-country and sent out a jamming signal that prevented a lot of IEDs from blowing up. I maintain the electrical systems on Prowlers (this is not a theoretical, this is my job). Assuming that you have been in the vicinity of an IED that did not blow up due to a Prolwer's jamming signal, have I ever "directly" saved your life?

Answer: No. The Naval Flight Officer who was acting as the Electronics Countermeasure Officer (ECMO) operating the jamming system "directly" saved your life. I fixed the altimeter that returned that plane to a flight status, and because me, and all the other maintainers returned that plane to a flight status, that Prowler was able to fly, and jam the IED detonation signal, which prevented the IED from blowing up, which saved your life. At best, I have "indirectly" saved your life, or at least indirectly contributed to the effort.

[BrokenChord]

Neutral Evil.

Won't be violent towards other without the necessary upper body strength or adhere to lawful things that won't benefit me. I do however value the ability to be random as all heck without any reason but it doesn't always involve laws being broken.

I have used people to get free things, robbed people of things to get money and pretended to be something and lie to folks to protect myself and stay in my comfy area.

Also "no one is taking my room in my house away from me, i will find a way to keep my house which contains my room and will do what pleases/benefits me" :smallbiggrin:

PS: I love attention despite seeming like i don't outside of here.

:belkar: Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool, buddy.

[SiuiS]

Depending on which edition Paladins and which code variant you're going off of. But that's tangential.


It's tangential to your conversation about something arbitrary that I'm not talking about, but it is directly germane to your question about paladins beig able to lie, which I was responding to.



NO THERE ISN'T ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY... Without literal infinite foresight

You are wrong. You even say so yourself, right there. There was another way, and you missed it, so now there is no other way. which is exactly what I said.

You're not having a debate anymore. You're shouting "nuh-uh! I can't hear you lala lala" and failing basic reading comprehension. For a mind forever voyaging, you're definitely going internal and missing the journey. If there is any reason to continue this argument other than your emotional attachment to your position, name them. If not, then please; This fight does nothing but give everyone a bad reputation. Be the bigger man.

[AMFV]

SoWz was intentionally using argumentum ad ridiculum to highlight YOUR failure to understand the fundamental difference between "Direct Cause" and "Indirect Cause"

Which you still fail to grasp.

And so-I hate to do this to a fellwo veteran, and apologize in advance for the brusqueness of this, but-I clearly need to make an example that hits closer to home.

An insurgent throws a grenade at the feet of your and your squad. You dive for cover, but the guy next to you freezes in panic and is killed by the grenade. Have you killed him because you did not throw yourself on it?


Yes, you have.



Answer: No, the insurgent killed him. You simply failed to save him because you saved yourself. Which is morally Neutral, using D&D moraility. You acted to save yourself in a life or death scenario, but did not actively cause his death.

You caused by inaction his death, provided that there is something you could have done to prevent it. Refusing to act when you otherwise could is an action. Just as refusing to intercede if I saw somebody being beaten death is reprehensible, refusing to jump on the grenade is likewise reprehensible, at least as far as the D&D alignment system goes.



Applying the analogy of Direct and Indirect in a more positive note: Do you know what an EA-6B Prowler is? They're those planes that flew overhead when you were in-country and sent out a jamming signal that prevented a lot of IEDs from blowing up. I maintain the electrical systems on Prowlers (this is not a theoretical, this is my job). Assuming that you have been in the vicinity of an IED that did not blow up due to a Prolwer's jamming signal, have I ever "directly" saved your life?

Answer: No. The Naval Flight Officer who was acting as the Electronics Countermeasure Officer (ECMO) operating the jamming system "directly" saved your life. I fixed the altimeter that returned that plane to a flight status, and because me, and all the other maintainers returned that plane to a flight status, that Prowler was able to fly, and jam the IED detonation signal, which prevented the IED from blowing up, which saved your life. At best, I have "indirectly" saved your life, or at least indirectly contributed to the effort.

Well if you had not acted, then what would have happened. Say you refused to go into to work that day? Or you were slovenly and didn't perform the duties as you were supposed to.

That's two separate cases, in the first, either no maintenance would be performed and so an alternative would be used or somebody would have to fill in for you, so by inaction you would not likely have caused any harm.

In the second, you have directly caused potential harm to another person. BY NOT DOING something. If you can directly cause harm to another person by not doing something, or increase that likelihood than that's as bad as acting in a way that causes harm, refusing to act and people dying because of that is as reprehensible to my mind as acting directly and causing people to die.


It's tangential to your conversation about something arbitrary that I'm not talking about, but it is directly germane to your question about paladins beig able to lie, which I was responding to.



You are wrong. You even say so yourself, right there. There was another way, and you missed it, so now there is no other way. which is exactly what I said.

There isn't always another way, simply there isn't. And while there could be a number of arbitrary scenarios with varying moral options, for example there could be enough lifeboats for everybody (which is literally almost always the case in real life), for example you could have prepared teleport that morning. Or any number of other options. In the scenario presented, there are only two, adding an infinite number of options makes analysis impossible.



You're not having a debate anymore. You're shouting "nuh-uh! I can't hear you lala lala" and failing basic reading comprehension. For a mind forever voyaging, you're definitely going internal and missing the journey. If there is any reason to continue this argument other than your emotional attachment to your position, name them. If not, then please; This fight does nothing but give everyone a bad reputation. Be the bigger man.

I don't think I'm failing basic reading comprehension, and that's quite a bit nasty to accuse me of. The thing that I've been doing, is not accepting a changed scenario. I'm willing to accept that there are scenarios with different moral options. I'd even be willing to discuss them, but you can't change the scenario and then point at it and then say "Look I told you so..." because my argumentation and options were created with an alternative scenario in minid.

And no, I don't think I have a responsibility to stop debating. As long as new points are being presented, I will answer them.

Edit: Note in the grenade scenario I'm not abdicating the insurgent of responsibility just noting that if you could have by action prevented a death it is not moral to act in such a way that would not do so. Additionally there are slightly different moral operators on soldiers (since they are aware of risks and the like) than on cruise ship passengers. However to get too much into those would get into real-world stuff.

[hamishspence]

Neutral philosophies tend not to make altruism compulsory "in order to avoid slipping to evil" though.

A summary of the philosophies of the planes:

http://mimir.net/essays/morals.html

[RedMage125]

{{scrubbed}}

[AMFV]

So...going to continue to ignore the question that's been put to you 5 times now?

And...is that a refusal to provide citation for you claim that "the BoVD supports your claim"?


I can't because it's copyrighted material... And you aren't allowed to post that, it explicitly says however that sacrificing others to save yourself is evil. I'm sure you can find it.



No, you have not, and here you highlight the basic failure of your thought process, and why you are wrong in the boat scenario.

Going by objective D&D standards, you have not "killed him". Might you carry survivor's guilt? Yes. You may feel guilt, but you have not committed the act of murder, which D&D defines as "the killing of an intelligent creature for nefarious purpose" (BoVD, page 7). What you did was act to preserve your own life, you did not kill him.
Failure to do Good is not Evil.

You equate Failing to to Good as Evil, which can be logical in the real world, where we have such sayings as: "The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for Good Men to do nothing"-Winston Churchill. Good and Evil are subjective in the real world, and many view Evil as the absence of Good.

But in D&D, Evil is an actual, cosmic force that opposes Good, with a gulf of Neutral between them. "Failing to do Good" =/= "Doing Evil". Not by D&D morality.

Apples and Oranges. Refusing to intercede when someone is beaten to death is not a situation where your life is in immediate danger, and "not interceding" is an act of saving your own life.

By D&D moral standards of Good and Evil, refusing to jump on the grenade is not Evil. It's not Good, either. Acting to save your own life when it is in mortal danger is not Evil.

I'm arguing that it is evil... You can restate your argument as many times as you like, but that still isn't providing anything that either haven't heard before.



"Causing something by inaction" is not "direct cause". By literal definition, inaction is not action, and cannot be direct cause. "Failing to stop" does not equate to "initiate".

And my child didn't starve because I did anything directly... they starved because of nature. My inaction to provide for them didn't kill them... Do you see the problem with this. Direct cause, indirect cause, is irrelevant, even in real world morality it's irrelevant or you wouldn't be able to discuss negligence.



And...you've entirely missed the point of the exercise, which was to highlight the difference between "direct cause" and "indirect cause". Which has been eluding you thus far.

Actually...YOU changed the scenario.

We pointed out that the scenario spoke of simply "boarding a lifeboat" and did not specify that you MUST remove someone from a full lifeboat to do so. YOU assumed (incorrectly) that such was the case. I re-posted Aedilred's initial scenario from the original post.

You don't need to remove somebody if there is not sufficient room in the lifeboats to carry everybody you are doing the same thing by boarding it, you're preventing somebody else from boarding, you're just doing it preemptively. If you are aware of this fact, and you preempt somebody else from boarding that is the same as killing them. The same way as if I were to cut somebody's break lines. I wouldn't directly be killing them, just putting them in a scenario where they would die. Or if I were inspecting their car and I noticed the break lines were cut, I would be again putting them in a scenario where they would likely die.

Just because you don't directly cause something does not mean you can avoid responsibility, RAW or otherwise.



And as far as failing reading comprehension, you really have.

Aedilred posted the EXACT WORDS from the RAW that explicitly said that it was Neutral, and not Evil, to refuse to sacrifice your life for a stranger. You literally responded to that quote with "There is no Neutral option here". Even though boarding a lifeboat with an open spot is "refusing to sacrifice oneself for a stranger".

And I addressed, maybe you should re-read my response to the RAW post. Where I stated that to my thinking murdering somebody through negligence or inaction is the same as murdering somebody through action.



It would be like if I posted the words "the iconic wizard Mialee is an elf" and you responded with "there are no elven iconic D&D characters in the 3.5e PHB"

You just won't respond to the direct questions that strike to the heart of the matter, right?

Nor will you provide citation to back up your claims when asked for, either.


You still failed to acknowledge the difference between "direct cause" and "indirect cause". In the grenade scenario, you did not directly cause your fellow soldier to die, the insurgent did. The moral weight of his death-the one who killed him-was the insurgent. Might you feel guilty because there is something you could have done to stop it? Sure, a Good-or even Neutral-person who was there may very well feel that they could have done more to save him. But that's not "direct cause". It is NOT murder. "Failing to stop someone else" is not "doing it yourself". For all you can try to claim "you might as well have if you didn't stop it" does not change the objective FACT that you did NOT do it yourself. And in D&D morality, that's a HUGE distinction. One you completely fail to percieve.

Also, you meant "absolving" not "abdicating".

Abdicating works in that case. I can't absolve the insurgent of responsibility (being not a moral authority or a priest). But I can prevent him from abdicating a moral responsibility. And furthermore even if it didn't is there any reason to bring that up.

Oh and as to the "direct cause, indirect cause" that isn't RAW. RAW you can cause something indirectly and be responsible for it. Just like in the real world. Starving somebody in your care is an example. In fact you can be charged with murder for putting somebody in a situation where you knew they were going to die, and not doing anything about it, at least in some states.

Edit: Also survivor guilt is not caused by a scenario where you could have saved somebody, but rather the mistaken belief that you could have saved somebody, if you could have saved them and didn't, that's not survivor guilt that's justified guilt.

Edit 2: In regards to the "changed scenario" statement, I also addressed that earlier, when I said that if there were enough spots on the lifeboats then survival is clearly a neutral option, since it causes harm to nobody and protects your own interests.

[Aedilred]

Yes, you have.

You caused by inaction his death, provided that there is something you could have done to prevent it. Refusing to act when you otherwise could is an action. Just as refusing to intercede if I saw somebody being beaten death is reprehensible, refusing to jump on the grenade is likewise reprehensible, at least as far as the D&D alignment system goes.
I think we can all agree it's not a Good act. But, taking into account the description of Neutral I posted earlier, specifically the "will not sacrifice self for strangers" part, can we agree it's not Evil?


I don't think I'm failing basic reading comprehension, and that's quite a bit nasty to accuse me of.
I would say, though, to reiterate Redmage's point, that you're being very imprecise with your use of "direct", and using it to mean "in any way contributory"; i.e. the way most people use "indirect".

Your reasoning then seems to go:
1. Anything that causes or contributes to the death of another, no matter how indirect, is equivalent to killing them.
2. Killing another human is Evil under any circumstances.
3. Therefore doing anything in (1) is Evil.

(Unfortunately, taken to its logical conclusion, this means that any consumption of resources known to be limited (including fuel, food, water, etc.) is directly depriving another of them and therefore contributing to their death. Which means that doing pretty much anything to promote one's own survival on the planet is Evil by default. But that's slightly beside the point and I don't want to get sidetracked.)


The thing that I've been doing, is not accepting a changed scenario. I'm willing to accept that there are scenarios with different moral options. I'd even be willing to discuss them, but you can't change the scenario and then point at it and then say "Look I told you so..." because my argumentation and options were created with an alternative scenario in minid.
In what way has the scenario been changed since it started? It has been clarified and looked at from different perspectives, but it remains fundamentally the same.


And no, I don't think I have a responsibility to stop debating. As long as new points are being presented, I will answer them.
In that case, can you please answer two of the point that have been put to you (repeatedly) already?

Firstly, what, precisely, do you consider to be the difference between sacrificing others for yourself, and refusing to sacrifice yourself to save others?

Secondly, since you don't think there's a Neutral option in the sinking ship scenario, can you provide a scenario in which there is a Neutral option? (in addition to Good/Evil; and preferably not overly complex, but at this point I'll take anything)

However, I think the fundamental problem here, based on your previous responses, is that you don't think Neutral actually exists as a discrete alignment:

The problem is that neutral is both a diluted good and evil. It's diluted evil in that you take your own interests to be paramount. But it's diluted good, in that you don't harm others in the pursuit of said interests. Surviving at the expense of the well-being of others is therefore evil, if only barely.
Not only that, but you're taking the view that it's "diluted", but not actually diluting any of the principles and still looking at it in absolutes. Therefore you're looking at the scenario, determining what the Good thing to do is, and ruling that everything else is Evil (except, you suggested, complete abdication of agency, which is telling in itself). This isn't how the alignment system works. Moreover, the RAW explicitly indicate that's not how the alignment system works, and the quote I provided also makes it clear that not sacrificing yourself for another is Neutral, rather than Evil. (That's one of the reasons I'm quite keen to hear your response to one of the above questions). You've been ducking this issue, though, so I'm not sure what's causing the problem is here.

[Somensjev]

i'm just gonna ignore the however many pages, and just say this "read my name"

[AMFV]

I think we can all agree it's not a Good act. But, taking into account the description of Neutral I posted earlier, specifically the "will not sacrifice self for strangers" part, can we agree it's not Evil?


I would say, though, to reiterate Redmage's point, that you're being very imprecise with your use of "direct", and using it to mean "in any way contributory"; i.e. the way most people use "indirect".

Your reasoning then seems to go:
1. Anything that causes or contributes to the death of another, no matter how indirect, is equivalent to killing them.
2. Killing another human is Evil under any circumstances.
3. Therefore doing anything in (1) is Evil.

(Unfortunately, taken to its logical conclusion, this means that any consumption of resources known to be limited (including fuel, food, water, etc.) is directly depriving another of them and therefore contributing to their death. Which means that doing pretty much anything to promote one's own survival on the planet is Evil by default. But that's slightly beside the point and I don't want to get sidetracked.)


In what way has the scenario been changed since it started? It has been clarified and looked at from different perspectives, but it remains fundamentally the same.


In that case, can you please answer two of the point that have been put to you (repeatedly) already?

Firstly, what, precisely, do you consider to be the difference between sacrificing others for yourself, and refusing to sacrifice yourself to save others?

Secondly, since you don't think there's a Neutral option in the sinking ship scenario, can you provide a scenario in which there is a Neutral option? (in addition to Good/Evil; and preferably not overly complex, but at this point I'll take anything)

However, I think the fundamental problem here, based on your previous responses, is that you don't think Neutral actually exists as a discrete alignment:

Not only that, but you're taking the view that it's "diluted", but not actually diluting any of the principles and still looking at it in absolutes. Therefore you're looking at the scenario, determining what the Good thing to do is, and ruling that everything else is Evil (except, you suggested, complete abdication of agency, which is telling in itself). This isn't how the alignment system works. Moreover, the RAW explicitly indicate that's not how the alignment system works, and the quote I provided also makes it clear that not sacrificing yourself for another is Neutral, rather than Evil. (That's one of the reasons I'm quite keen to hear your response to one of the above questions). You've been ducking this issue, though, so I'm not sure what's causing the problem is here.

I've answered it repeatedly, I don't consider there to be a difference. If somebody dies because of something I didn't do, I am as responsible as if they die because of something I did do. If I let my child starve to death then I am as responsible as if I had murdered them. If I let my friend drive off after noticing their brake lines are cut, I'm responsible, as if I had cut them, because I could have stopped their death. Refusal to act is not an abdication of responsibility. You can kill somebody by not helping them, flat-out you can, and as I've pointed out there are places where that can get you charged with murder, if you deliberately left somebody in a situation where they were likely to die, and you were aware of that.

Neutral does exist as a discrete alignment, but not all moral dilemma have neutral answers, just as not all moral dilemma have good answers, sometimes you get the split where you have only good-evil, when for example you can either harm or help and there's no in-between. If you can avoid doing either, that's neutral. And it is a discrete alignment, it's not harming or helping others preferentially.

Edit: To provide an example of that sort of scenario, supposing that there are enough spots on the lifeboats. Then just getting on would be neutral, helping others to board would be good, and working against other people boarding for whatever reason, would be evil.

[Aedilred]

I've answered it repeatedly, I don't consider there to be a difference. If somebody dies because of something I didn't do, I am as responsible as if they die because of something I did do. If I let my child starve to death then I am as responsible as if I had murdered them. If I let my friend drive off after noticing their brake lines are cut, I'm responsible, as if I had cut them, because I could have stopped their death. Refusal to act is not an abdication of responsibility. You can kill somebody by not helping them, flat-out you can, and as I've pointed out there are places where that can get you charged with murder, if you deliberately left somebody in a situation where they were likely to die, and you were aware of that.
The thing is, none of those situations cover the question of sacrifice, which is the key here. Yes, if I knowingly send my friend to his death, that's pretty evil, but as presented, it's not going to cost me my life to stop him.

As the Neutral alignment description indicates, most of the time you will do what you can to help others. You'll stop that guy before he gets into his car. You won't starve people to death assuming there's enough food to go around. But when the chips are down you won't sacrifice your own life to save that of a stranger. Redmage gave an illustration of such a scenario earlier, and how a situation where someone will die without your intercession differs from a situation where you will die unless you kill someone else.

Which makes sense. Sacrificing your own life for that of a stranger is pretty much the epitome of Good. If not doing so is Evil, then in a life-or-death scenario there basically is no Neutral. Which renders it useless as an alignment in a game system where life-or-death scenarios form a significant, if not the defining, element.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Please remember to be polite in your arguments. And, while you cannot provide substantial text quotes, it is perfectly acceptable to provide a page number citation.

Right now, I'm willing to accept Chicago Manual of Style, because I like you. Push me too hard, and I'll make y'all do APA.

[SiuiS]

There isn't always another way, simply there isn't.

You're defining missed opportunities as having never happened.



I don't think I'm failing basic reading comprehension, and that's quite a bit nasty to accuse me of.

You're insisting that not only is a multifaceted problem a simple binary, but that someone else saying a different point on the timeline had options I Flat wrong, The End, because you've already decided on the correct answer and you've already decided it was a simple binary without nuance.

You tell me friend. Am I simply being mean, or am I trying to point out you're too deep on tunnel vision and trying – like others – to shock you out of it? You decide. :)


E: honest to goddess long-form citations? :smalleek:
I'll be good.

[RedMage125]

I can't because it's copyrighted material... And you aren't allowed to post that, it explicitly says however that sacrificing others to save yourself is evil. I'm sure you can find it.
And...you CONTINUE to ignore the question. Aedilred asked it again, above.

I absolutely am allowed to post that. I'm posting a quote from the books for content and citing it. Saying "I'm not allowed to post that" is like saying a college student is "not allowed" to quote references for a History paper. I'm not claiming it's my work, nor am I posting the entirety of the book to freely distribute and bypass WotC's profits. Furthermore, I own the book (paper and pdf), so I bought the rights to use it. This is a public forum, and I can quote from it however I bloody well please.

And "sacrificing others" to save yourself is Evil if those others would have lived otherwise without your action. You refer to the section on page 6 of the BoVD, under the Action vs Intent column in the section on Definign Evil. I know exactly what you mean, because I am very familiar with it, because I quote from that paes all the time in alignment threads. I also know factually that what you are claiming is not the case.

The people that were "sacrficed to save someone", was a group of innocent commoners in a hut that died because of a rockslide that the paladin Zophas triggered. If you will re-read the section, it says that in the first example-when it was an accident-it is explicitly NOT an Evil act. So context and intent matter. It only becomes Evil if Zophas' friend says "don't climb that ciff, you could cause a rockslide and crush that hut!" and he does it anyway. That is intentionally endangering BYSTANDERS to save one's own life.

Which is not-AT ALL-the same thing as the lifeboat scenario, where the lives of the people on the boat-including yours-are already in mortal danger. This is the crux of the issue. This is why Aedilred and I have asked you-about 6 or 7 times now-the important question:
What, EXACTLY, do you consider the difference between "sacrificing others for yourself" and "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save others"?
There, I bolded it for you so you don't miss it.

Because there IS a difference.

If you ignore the question from both of us again, I'll have no recourse but to reason that you are intentionally avoiding answering the question. And the only reason that makes sense to me why you would do that is that you see how deftly the answer to that question strikes at the heart of your points. That you know that acknowledging that there is a difference between "sacrifing others" and "not sacrificing yourself to save them", means that your claims in the lifeboat scenario fall apart because the lifeboat scenario is about "refusing to sacrifice oneself" and not directly "sacrificing others". In which case, you are wrong about your claims. But if you ignore the question and don't answer it, (hence the other poster's accusation of you going "la, la, la, I can't hear you") you can keep pretending you haven't had your arguments neatly dissected and try to act like you're still right. That's the only logical reason I can come to as to why you would intentionally refuse to answer the question. By all means, please prove me wrong and address the issue.

The part in the BoVD is like the other example I gave earlier: You are cursed by an evil wizard and must kill one innocent person per week, or you will die a horrible and painful death, even though you were previously a Good person. This wizard is a sadist who wants to make you betray your ideals. In this instance, killing others to survive is Evil because those people would have been okay until you came along and needed to survive by killing them.

THAT is "sacrificing someone else so you can live". As opposed to the lifeboat scenario, which is "not sacrificng yourself for others".

And by the way, the BoVD section you were talking about does NOT support your claim, because all it says is that if Zophas is aware of the dangers of climbing the cliff, he should either choose another way, or continue to fight the owlbears, even if it means his life. Because paladins are held to such a high standard of Good. The exact words are "it's a high standard, but that's the way it is", in reference to GOOD. GOOD is a high standard. Not neutral. If Zophas was unaware of the dangers of climbing the cliff and climbed it to get away (to save his own life in a dangerous situation), and accidentaly caused the rockslide that crushed the hut (which is "direct cause", by the way), the BoVD explicitly states that it is NOT an Evil act. Zophas, as a Good person, may feel guilty, he is responsible for their deaths, but he did not "willingly commit an Evil act" which, under the paladin code in the PHB, would cause him to lose his powers. The BoVD EXPRESSLY says he does not los his powers, which means the act was not Evil. So being responsible for the death of an innocent does NOT always equate to murder, by the very page of the very book that YOU claimed supported your argument. Zophas did NOT commit an Evil act. He caused an accident that claimed the lives of the innocent while trying to save his own skin.

Now, in the lifeboat scenario, you know that whoever doesn't get on a lifeboat will die, right? So ignorance is a luxury you do not have. HOWEVER, unlike Zophas, you (presumably) did not cause the ship to sink, which is the actual direct cause of death. You are now in a situation in which, barring lifeboats, everyone aboard is going to die. Now we have lifeboats, chance to survive. You find a lifeboat, and there is a spot available, so you get in. Not Evil. Now, other start to get in. Now the lifeboat is full. But there's one more person (a stranger to you) who wants to get in.
Your two choices here are 1) give up your spot and sacrifice your life so that this other person may live, or 2) do not give up your spot and do not sacrifice youself so taht this other person may live.
This is different that saying your two choices are 1)sacrifice yourself for this guy and 2)sacrifice this guy for you. Because his life was already in mortal peril. YOU didn't put him in harm's way, he was already there.

Hence me and Aedilred repeatedly asking you what YOU consider the difference between "sacrifice someone else" and "do not sacrifice yourself to save them". Sacrificing someone else to save yourself is a concious choice to kill someone else. The other is just a refusal to lay down your own life.

Put in terms of simple logic, the choices are "A" and "not A". At no point does "not A" equal "B". Because "not A" is simply a refusal to do direct action "A", and "B" is a seperate direct action.
Wherin:
"A" is "sacrifice yourself to save someone else"
"B" is "sacrifice someone else to save yourself"

I'm arguing that it is evil... You can restate your argument as many times as you like, but that still isn't providing anything that either haven't heard before.
And I'm arguing that you are wrong. It has been explicitly shown where the RAW disagrees with you. You have not shown. NOT EVEN ONCE, that the RAW support your claim. In fact, I've actually used the source of RAW you claimed DID support you, to show that it does not.


And my child didn't starve because I did anything directly... they starved because of nature. My inaction to provide for them didn't kill them... Do you see the problem with this. Direct cause, indirect cause, is irrelevant, even in real world morality it's irrelevant or you wouldn't be able to discuss negligence.
This is a strawman. Your child is a creature whose very existence is dependent on YOU on a day-to-day basis. By having the child, you accepted a moral obligation to nurture it. Not even closely related to any of the other presented scenarios.

So you strawman to try to undermine my point, and then basically say "it doesn't matter that I can't distinguish between direct and indirect because I can create a situation where direct and indirect action are irrelevant, and therefore they are always irrelevant". That is what you are saying, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong on that, because that's what it sounds like you said.

You don't need to remove somebody if there is not sufficient room in the lifeboats to carry everybody you are doing the same thing by boarding it, you're preventing somebody else from boarding, you're just doing it preemptively. If you are aware of this fact, and you preempt somebody else from boarding that is the same as killing them. The same way as if I were to cut somebody's break lines. I wouldn't directly be killing them, just putting them in a scenario where they would die. Or if I were inspecting their car and I noticed the break lines were cut, I would be again putting them in a scenario where they would likely die.
First off, you are avoiding the fact that YOU changed the scenario. So despite your constant claims of "people are changing the scenario on me to make Neutral options so my claim of 'no neutral option' was still right when I made it", the fact remains that we are simply clarifying it. As has been supported by the ORIGINAL poster of the scenario, Aedilred. No one has changed the scenario on you. If you feel it has been changed, it's because YOU were trying to change it, and we're not going to discuss it in terms of your moving goalposts.

Furthermore, your claim about "preemptively preventing them from boarding equals murder" means that EVERYONE who gets on a lifeboat, including all the weak people you wanted to save, are now murderers.

And as for your brake line scenario...well, at least it looks like it has finally dawned on you what the words "direct" and "indirect" mean, at least. I hope you'll stop saying "by getting on a lifeboat, you are DIRECTLY and ACTIVELY murdering someone". More on that below...

Just because you don't directly cause something does not mean you can avoid responsibility, RAW or otherwise.
Side note, but an important distinction...for purposes of this discussion, any "otherwise" as far as RAW is a tangent useful only for highlighting an example. Only something that would be true in accordance with RAW is true for an alignment discussion.

Back to the point...you are correct in what you say about "direct cause" and "responsibility" in this sentence, as it is here, taken out of context.

That said, your scenario is contrived to show THAT point, but does not parallel to the boat scenario. Here's why, and it directly relates to the pages of the BoVD you seem to know:
Intent. Intent matters. Intent is not the be-all-end-all of determining if an act is Evil or not, but neither is action. They both must be weighed in. If you and a friend were dricing off-road, and went over some really rocky terrain that punctured your brake lines, and shortly thereafter, the loss of brakes led to you getting in a car crash, and your pasenger died. Are you responsible for his death? Yes, because you indirectly caused it by driving over the terrain that you did. But have you committed an Evil act, by D&D RAW? No. This is identical to the first situation with the paladin Zophas wherin he accidentaly causes a rockslide that kills a hut full of innocent commoners, and the BoVD explicitly states that it is NOT an Evil act. He is responsible, yes, and feels guilty, but he did not commit an act of Evil.
But cutting the brake lines intentionally on someone's car? That different. It was still indirect action that caused their deaths (i.e. the car crash), but you acted intentionally to cause the death, with the intent of killing or at least maiming them. You INTENTIONALLY put them in harm's way, where they would not have died if you had not done so. This is an Evil act. This is closest to (but not exactly like) the third scenario with Zophas, where he sees the danger of the unstable cliff face, and climbs it anyway, thus intentionally endangering the commoners in the hut, so when they die, it is an Evil act on his part. Your brake line scenario is actually worse than that, because the intent of cutting a rake line is not "save myself at their expense", but rather "I want them to get in a dangerous car crash". Intent matters.


And I addressed, maybe you should re-read my response to the RAW post. Where I stated that to my thinking murdering somebody through negligence or inaction is the same as murdering somebody through action.
Which is your opinion. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it does not constitute actual fact regarding the RAW. The RAW expressly says that "refusing to sacrfice your life for the life os a stranger" is Neutral. Which, by the way, is also not the same as "murdering someone through inaction". And we come back, once again, to the difference between "sacrifice another for yourself" and "refuse to sacrifice yourself for another", and why it is such a key distinction.


Abdicating works in that case. I can't absolve the insurgent of responsibility (being not a moral authority or a priest). But I can prevent him from abdicating a moral responsibility. And furthermore even if it didn't is there any reason to bring that up.
ab·di·cate verb \ˈab-di-ˌkāt\ : to leave the position of being a king or queen

: to fail to do what is required by (a duty or responsibility)
ab·di·cat·edab·di·cat·ing
CloseStyle: MLA APA ChicagoFull Definition of ABDICATE
transitive verb
1: to cast off : discard
2: to relinquish (as sovereign power) formally
intransitive verb
: to renounce a throne, high office, dignity, or function
— ab·di·ca·ble \-kə-bəl\ adjective
— ab·di·ca·tion \ˌab-di-ˈkā-shən\ noun
— ab·di·ca·tor \ˈab-di-ˌkā-tər\ noun

No, abdicate is not proper grammar in this case. "Abdicate the insurgent of responsibility" is not right, because "abdicate" only means "relenquish" in terms of sovereign power.

I'm a grammar nazi, sorry. I only meant it as an aside.

Moving on...


Oh and as to the "direct cause, indirect cause" that isn't RAW. RAW you can cause something indirectly and be responsible for it. Just like in the real world. Starving somebody in your care is an example. In fact you can be charged with murder for putting somebody in a situation where you knew they were going to die, and not doing anything about it, at least in some states.
And I agree with the bolded part. And I have shown as much through the Zophas example in the BoVD. However, "responsible for someone's death" and "committed the evil act of murder" are not mandatorily linked, as was ALSO shown in the Zophas example. In the first example, he is responsible, but not guilty of an Evil act, as per the RAW. Only if he was aware of the danger is negligence then an Evil act. Totally different from neglecting someone in your care, of which you are aware.


Edit: Also survivor guilt is not caused by a scenario where you could have saved somebody, but rather the mistaken belief that you could have saved somebody, if you could have saved them and didn't, that's not survivor guilt that's justified guilt.
But not the same as having thrown the grenade yourself. Which is what RAW cares about.


Edit 2: In regards to the "changed scenario" statement, I also addressed that earlier, when I said that if there were enough spots on the lifeboats then survival is clearly a neutral option, since it causes harm to nobody and protects your own interests.
THAT IS CHANGING THE SCENARIO.

The scenario explicitly stated that there were not enough spots for everyone.

How about this, then? If there are 5 lifeboats, and you reach the first one and get in, when there are still other lifeboats available for some others, but not all of them, so some will still die...do you acknowledge that it is Neutral to get in and survive? Even though you can obviously see that there are more passengers on the ship than spots on the lifeboat? After all, you arrived early in a fair manner, like everyone else, and by first-come, first-serve justification, you earned a spot on the lifeboat. As per the definition of Lawful Neutral, if you are "unswayed by the moral debate regarding those in need or by the temptations of Evil", you are acting only in a Lawful and Neutral fashion. I'm not swayed by people who want my spot on the boat, nor am I tempted to throw anyone else in the water.

[hamishspence]

I think the bit in "Intent and Context" which was being cited as evidence that Inaction can qualify as an Evil Act, was the village-poisoning bit.

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning".

I don't think that can really be applied to the lifeboat scenario, especially when "preventing someone else from dying" absolutely requires that one sacrifice one's own life.

[RedMage125]

I've answered it repeatedly, I don't consider there to be a difference. If somebody dies because of something I didn't do, I am as responsible as if they die because of something I did do. If I let my child starve to death then I am as responsible as if I had murdered them. If I let my friend drive off after noticing their brake lines are cut, I'm responsible, as if I had cut them, because I could have stopped their death. Refusal to act is not an abdication of responsibility. You can kill somebody by not helping them, flat-out you can, and as I've pointed out there are places where that can get you charged with murder, if you deliberately left somebody in a situation where they were likely to die, and you were aware of that.
Aedilred covered my main point here, in that you still refuse to acknoledge in importance of "sacrificing oneself" to accomplish those things. In the negligence of a child and brake line examples here, it does not cost you your life to save those people. That is a BIG difference.

And so no, you have not answered the question.


Neutral does exist as a discrete alignment, but not all moral dilemma have neutral answers, just as not all moral dilemma have good answers, sometimes you get the split where you have only good-evil, when for example you can either harm or help and there's no in-between. If you can avoid doing either, that's neutral. And it is a discrete alignment, it's not harming or helping others preferentially.
Saving your own life when it is one of many lives in danger is not "harming someone preferentially". If I can help some other people get to a lifeboat too, I will. If me getting on a lifeboat means the life of my wife, I will give it up for her. But I want to live, too. And a bunch of people on that boat are going to die. If I CAN make it to a lifeboat with my wife, I will. That's not Evil.
This isn't one of those scenarios where there is only good-evil. Evil, in D&D is not merely the absence of Good, which is what you are attributing it as. There is Objective Good and Objective Evil in D&D morality, and a wide gulf of Neutral between them.
You even admitted that you think Neutral is a "lesser Evil", which directly contradicts the RAW. And if making your point requires one to reject the RAW premise of Good/Neutral/Evil, then your point will not be correct in accordance with RAW.


Edit: To provide an example of that sort of scenario, supposing that there are enough spots on the lifeboats. Then just getting on would be neutral, helping others to board would be good, and working against other people boarding for whatever reason, would be evil.
No, getting on a lifeboat-as long as you're not throwing someone out to do it-is acting on pure survival instinct, with the same moral agency as an animal trying to survive.
Just because you think someone SHOULD "rise above" the survival instinct (because doing so would be Good, objectively), does not change the moral weight of their actions, which was to act with only animal instinct.

As Aedilred said, acting when one's life is in danger alters the moral parameters of the options, does it not?

Killing a paladin would be Evil, right? Normally, yes.

Well, if a paladin attacked you-with lethal means, such as a sword-and you defended yourself, and got a crit in combat and killed her, have you committed an Evil act? No, you killed in self-defense. Killing in self-defense is not Evil. It's not even a crime in the real world, if it truly is in self-defense.

And before you try and claim "finding another option such as talking to her in combat and convincing her you are not evil", let's just say for the purposes of the example, the paladin was identical to Miko Miyazaki. And Miko only stopped because she successfully struck Roy with a Smite Evil attack, and it did no extra damage. So in this example, the paladin has missed you with any Smite attempts, and does not believe your protests of not being evil. And she WILL kill you if you attempt to prove your non-evilness by laying down your weapon and surrendering.

[RedMage125]

I think the bit in "Intent and Context" which was being cited as evidence that Inaction can qualify as an Evil Act, was the village-poisoning bit.

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning".

I don't think that can really be applied to the lifeboat scenario, especially when "preventing someone else from dying" absolutely requires that one sacrifice one's own life.
He was citing the BoVD under the premise of "sacrificing another to save yourself is Evil". Which is regards to the paladin Zophas attempting to escape some owlbears.

And yes, the well-poisoning doesn't apply here, because stopping him from poisoning does not mandate sacrificing one's own life. To the contary, that scenario is used to show how it can be non-evil to stop the poisoner, even if it means killing him. Intent can make an otherwise Evil action (killing someone who is deluded and not in their right mind) non-Evil, because it means saving so many others.

[AMFV]

Aedilred covered my main point here, in that you still refuse to acknoledge in importance of "sacrificing oneself" to accomplish those things. In the negligence of a child and brake line examples here, it does not cost you your life to save those people. That is a BIG difference.

And so no, you have not answered the question.

I do believe that there is a fundamental moral requirement to sacrifice for others, particularly those who are weaker, I think this is generally agreed on in D&D, or at least is presented as something that is good.

Even if it doesn't cost me my life, it costs me in time, or in embarrassment which are both costs on my interests. Just because the cost for one event is higher, does not mean that one does not have a responsibility to the same thing.

Furthermore the end result is "I die or they do" and that's a different moral dilemma leaving only, murder as an option or suicide, it's a ****ty spot to be in morally. But it doesn't change the fact that somebody else is dying as a result of something you did or didn't do.



Saving your own life when it is one of many lives in danger is not "harming someone preferentially". If I can help some other people get to a lifeboat too, I will. If me getting on a lifeboat means the life of my wife, I will give it up for her. But I want to live, too. And a bunch of people on that boat are going to die. If I CAN make it to a lifeboat with my wife, I will. That's not Evil.
This isn't one of those scenarios where there is only good-evil. Evil, in D&D is not merely the absence of Good, which is what you are attributing it as. There is Objective Good and Objective Evil in D&D morality, and a wide gulf of Neutral between them.
You even admitted that you think Neutral is a "lesser Evil", which directly contradicts the RAW. And if making your point requires one to reject the RAW premise of Good/Neutral/Evil, then your point will not be correct in accordance with RAW.

Evil is the placing of your interests over those of others in a way that causes harm. I haven't ever implied that could be achieved by the absence of good or wasn't a concrete thing of it's own.

Not all scenarios have all alignment actions for example many of the Paladin, you fall or you fall dilemmas have no good action that can be taken since they all have evil involved in them. So if you can have a scenario with no good action, you can have one with no neutral action.

The alignments are not prescriptive, sometimes a neutral person will have to do evil or good things, and sometimes a good person will have to do neutral or evil things.



No, getting on a lifeboat-as long as you're not throwing someone out to do it-is acting on pure survival instinct, with the same moral agency as an animal trying to survive.

Just because you think someone SHOULD "rise above" the survival instinct (because doing so would be Good, objectively), does not change the moral weight of their actions, which was to act with only animal instinct.


And if we follow the logical conclusion this idea it means that as long as something is instinctual it cannot be evil which is absurd. If I kill a man or beat him up for entering my marked territory, that's instinctive, that's doing as animals do. If I eat my step-children so that my genetic material will have more weight, again that's me replicating animal behavior, but is still evil.

Humans have moral agency which inspires a higher degree of responsibility for their actions.



As Aedilred said, acting when one's life is in danger alters the moral parameters of the options, does it not?

Killing a paladin would be Evil, right? Normally, yes.

Well, if a paladin attacked you-with lethal means, such as a sword-and you defended yourself, and got a crit in combat and killed her, have you committed an Evil act? No, you killed in self-defense. Killing in self-defense is not Evil. It's not even a crime in the real world, if it truly is in self-defense.


That's a different scenario, first, a person that is acting violently towards you will act violently towards others, meaning that killing them may constitute of others in the future, a moral responsibility. Attempting to murder is evil, so killing them is preventing an evil act from occurring, attempted murder is a lot less evil than actual murder. Also they and you have a fair chance to walk away from that alive, which is different than the lifeboat scenario where for example children don't have that same chance. So there are different factors in that scenario.

For example, we'll say you boarded a lifeboat to protect your children who are on the boat. Which I've already indicated was a different scenario, and somebody attempts to throw you off the boat, throwing them off is directly causing their death any way you slice it. But you have a higher responsibility to others in that scenario, which produces a different moral axis between law (your responsibility to a specific set of others) and chaos (your responsibility to the rights of every individual.



And before you try and claim "finding another option such as talking to her in combat and convincing her you are not evil", let's just say for the purposes of the example, the paladin was identical to Miko Miyazaki. And Miko only stopped because she successfully struck Roy with a Smite Evil attack, and it did no extra damage. So in this example, the paladin has missed you with any Smite attempts, and does not believe your protests of not being evil. And she WILL kill you if you attempt to prove your non-evilness by laying down your weapon and surrendering.

Miko is a fallen Paladin, personally I think she should have been fallen long before Rich made her fall. For me, personally, I disagree very strongly with Rich's treatment of Lawful characters. Killing somebody that has surrendered is beyond the pale for me, and a Paladin even considering that should have problems, and be on the brink of falling, or already fallen in my opinion.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, at this point I think the discussion has shifted to at what cost does your moral responsibility to others disappear, you folks clearly believe that your own life is that point (or someplace earlier) I don't. And that's a bridge I don't think anybody's going to be able to cross.

PS - Your quibbling over abidcation would not be a "grammar nazi" but a "definition nazi" and you should check the definition 2 rather than the one which I obviously not using.

[GPuzzle]

I love how he completely ignored the question in bold.

[Aedilred]

I don't think we're going to agree on this, at this point I think the discussion has shifted to at what cost does your moral responsibility to others disappear, you folks clearly believe that your own life is that point (or someplace earlier) I don't. And that's a bridge I don't think anybody's going to be able to cross.

Apart from the PHB, which is pretty clear on the matter.



Even if it doesn't cost me my life, it costs me in time, or in embarrassment which are both costs on my interests. Just because the cost for one event is higher, does not mean that one does not have a responsibility to the same thing.
They're costs, but time and pride are not (usually) resources in short supply; pride is in fact completely renewable, as is money. But you only have one life, and it's the most important thing you have. That places it, as a sacrificial object, on a completely different level to almost anything else. (Even loved ones are - while individually unique - not collectively irreplaceable, but that's a sticky area).

You have indicated that you consider ending a human life to be Evil under any circumstances. However, would you consider asking somebody for directions to be Evil? That's taking up their time, which is a cost to them. If that's not evil, then you're drawing a distinction in value between an individual's time and an individual's life. Which is perfectly sensible.

That's basically the same as what we're doing, and ending of life is one of the points at which I think it's ok to say "this is a different thing, and the morality of the situation changes when it's reached".

If the minimum standard required for Good is to be prepared to sacrifice anything up to and including one's own life for the most trivial purposes, and anything short of that is Evil - which is the ultimate logical conclusion of the arguments you've made so far - that's unattainable, and Neutral doesn't exist. (You still haven't provided a life-or-death scenario with a Neutral option).

So it becomes a question of defining limits and lines, and that's where the distinction between Good and Neutral, and for that matter between Neutral and Evil, becomes visible. As per RAW, one of those lines is that a Neutral character won't sacrifice their life for that of a stranger. That doesn't mean they like doing it. It doesn't mean they won't sacrifice other things for a stranger. It doesn't mean they won't make every reasonable effort to save a stranger. It's just that they're not prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice - and fundamentally isn't that the difference between Good and Neutral?

On a semantic note, going back to the lifeboat scenario, you keep referring to it as murder if you board a boat (peacefully) and leave others to die It's not murder, because it lacks the necessary motive (malice aforethought). Even the person who designed the ship knowing there weren't enough lifeboats isn't a murderer, unless he did so deliberately so that people would die, nor is the captain who steered the ship into the iceberg, unless he did it on purpose. At best, that's manslaughter through negligence. Moreover, each of those causative factors chips away at your responsibility. People are going to die whatever you do; you're not killing any of them. If you describe situations like this as murder, it trivialises actual murder. And I'm talking morally here, not just legally.

Edit:

I love how he completely ignored the question in bold.
I think he's previously said he doesn't consider there to be a difference, although he hasn't usefully elaborated on that to explain why. Which I consider to be fundamentally wrong in at least one way, but it does explain the twisted perspective.

[AMFV]

Not going to quote, because these are getting fairly long. Malice aforethought is not always a requirement for murder, even legally. Disregard for human life is sufficient in many places. Now you could argue that this is a lesser evil (closer to manslaughter) given that it's made in the heat of passion. But it still is an evil. Now I'm not saying that a neutral action should or does involve sacrificing oneself. I'm saying it doesn't involve harming another to preserve your interests. Meaning that if there is a moral dilemma that requires one or the other, it cannot be resolved in a way that is consistent with a neutral alignment, and would require an out of alignment action for a neutral person.

Do you believe that all alignment options must be present in all scenarios? Because that would be impossible in a binary scenario such as this there have to be certain options that would not fulfill your alignment, you don't need to always act in concert with it, and a neutral person will do some evil things and some good things, a good person will do some good things and some neutral things.

Edit: In regards to the malice aforethought murder issue, you can starve somebody to death without malice, with only indifference, and that is still considering murder in most places. You could be incapable of malice psychologically and would still be capable of murder. Malice is not the defining trait in what is considered murder in most places, at least not to my knowledge.

Edit 2: I have provided a life or death scenario with a neutral option, if there are enough spaces on the lifeboat. That has a neutral option. The Paladin killing scenario from earlier takes place exclusively on the law-chaos axis, and has neutral options. The scenario with the mother on the lifeboat has a neutral option as presented. That's three I've given where I've presented neutral options.

Do you want a fourth?

If you are stranded on a desert island after your lifeboat crashes, and somebody dies, of exposure, you eat their body to survive, without killing them, if you kill them, evil. If you allow yourself to be eaten or verbally permit it, good.

A fifth?

In war you shoot at somebody because you are ordered to. Not in any support of your own interests, but because you value your orders, this is not self-interested and therefore can be neither good nor evil, you aren't taking pleasure in killing somebody, it's just happening.

A sixth?

Your wife is in labor, you are told that you can either save her or the child. The decision has equal self-interest in either option and equal harm. Your decision would thus be based on your values (law) or on your instincts (chaos) and would be neutral in the good-evil axis.

I could go on...

[SowZ]

Just putting this out there, that while I fundamentally disagree with AMFVs position, y'all are being a little hostile towards him. I'm not trying to back seat mod, my purpose isn't to warn anybody. Instead I'm using my debate background to point out that it weakens your position when your opponent is calmer than you, even if you find his position ridiculous or immoral. Now, I wouldn't use the word ridiculous to describe AMFVs position. A little inconsistent, from my point of view, but most all philosophies are if applied broadly enough.

But I do agree with him that for the purpose of discussing philosophy, A or B hypotheticals are valid regardless of if they exist in real life or not.

[Aedilred]

Not going to quote, because these are getting fairly long. Malice aforethought is not always a requirement for murder, even legally.

Edit: In regards to the malice aforethought murder issue, you can starve somebody to death without malice, with only indifference, and that is still considering murder in most places. You could be incapable of malice psychologically and would still be capable of murder. Malice is not the defining trait in what is considered murder in most places, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, legally and linguistically, malice aforethought was precisely the feature which distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Some relatively recent legislation has further defined it, with the basic effect that reckless indifference is now sufficient (which covers starving someone to death). That's the case in every English-speaking jurisdiction I'm aware of, and thus covers relevant use of "murder". But in the scenario as presented I would argue - quite strongly - that the simple action of getting on the boat is neither reckless nor malicious. If any jury convicted for murder in that scenario... well, I couldn't imagine it surviving an appeal, anyway.


Do you believe that all alignment options must be present in all scenarios?
Theoretically, yes; it might be possible to contrive a scenario where this is not the case, but I can't think of one. I suppose it might be quite difficult to distinguish between Good and Neutral in some situations - if you go to the supermarket for a bag of potatoes, for instance, it's quite difficult to acquire them in a particularly Good way. But those aren't the sort of actions that determine alignment - the important ones where alignment comes to the fore; the life-or-death scenarios; yes, I think your three options are usually there.


Because that would be impossible in a binary scenario such as this there have to be certain options that would not fulfill your alignment, you don't need to always act in concert with it, and a neutral person will do some evil things and some good things, a good person will do some good things and some neutral things.
The thing is that this scenario isn't binary except in outcome. There are at least three options:

1. Don't get on the boat.
2. Get on the boat provided there is space when you reach it.
3. Get on the boat no matter what it takes.

There are probably additional options, but they will generally form a subset of one of those three. The first is broadly Good (unless you take further action to, e.g. stop anyone else from getting on the boat), the second, broadly Neutral, the third, probably Evil.

Even if you can't accept neutrality, can you at least accept that (2) is less evil than (3) in this scenario?

Edit:

Edit 2: I have provided a life or death scenario with a neutral option, if there are enough spaces on the lifeboat. That has a neutral option.
There's no moral dilemma present in that scenario. It's only a life-or-death scenario in the sense that everything is, because I could choose to kill myself pointlessly right now. Choosing to die in that scenario isn't Good either, unless you do so rescuing another passenger trapped in some wreckage or the like.



If you are stranded on a desert island after your lifeboat crashes, and somebody dies, of exposure, you eat their body to survive, without killing them, if you kill them, evil. If you allow yourself to be eaten or verbally permit it, good.
The scenario as stated doesn't quite work, because if someone's already dead there's no need to kill them. Are you suggesting that the options are:

1) Kill yourself (or allow yourself to be killed) and be eaten
2) Wait for someone else to die before you, then eat them
3) Kill someone else and eat them

In this case, where is the substantive moral difference between waiting for someone else to die here, and leaving someone to die on the ship? In either case, whichever of you survives is fundamentally decided by natural selection (fitness/luck): in the case of the ship, whichever of you makes it to the boat first; in this case, which of you falls over dead first. You might say that the factor is that (2) here requires no action on your part, but in that case we're again retreating to the territory of neutrality equalling abrogation of agency, which largely invalidates it as an alignment.

But even abrogation of agency isn't acceptable going by your previous statements, because you're still refusing to intervene to stop someone else's death. In this scenario should you not be doing everything in your power to stop your fellow from dying in order for your action not to be Evil? Up to and including sacrificing yourself? In which case we're back to Good/Evil again with no Neutral.


In war you shoot at somebody because you are ordered to. Not in any support of your own interests, but because you value your orders, this is not self-interested and therefore can be neither good nor evil, you aren't taking pleasure in killing somebody, it's just happening.
Is that not self-interested because you don't want to lose your job? You get paid for it so you shoot at people. That sounds self-interested to me.

(Note that I'm not having a go at soldiers in general; I'm just extrapolating from your earlier premise. If ending a life is Evil, then I don't understand how doing so because you're just following orders and it's your job to do so is any less evil. In fact, the "I was just following orders to do this evil thing" defence has been pretty thoroughly debunked. But we're straying dangerously close to political territory, so that example is probably out of bounds for detailed examination.)


Your wife is in labor, you are told that you can either save her or the child. The decision has equal self-interest in either option and equal harm. Your decision would thus be based on your values (law) or on your instincts (chaos) and would be neutral in the good-evil axis.
OK, this is probably a scenario where there is only one alignment option. But you're still missing the point overall, which is that you're not providing a scenario with a meaningful delineation between alignment options. I guess there is an evil option here, which is to say "let them both die" but, again, that's Stupid Evil and doesn't really make sense. You haven't provided a scenario where there is a distinction between a Good and a Neutral option, or indeed between a Neutral and an Evil option, where at least one of the options is not completely unnecessary and unrealistic.

[AMFV]

Well, legally and linguistically, malice aforethought was precisely the feature which distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Some relatively recent legislation has further defined it, with the basic effect that reckless indifference is now sufficient (which covers starving someone to death). That's the case in every English-speaking jurisdiction I'm aware of, and thus covers relevant use of "murder". But in the scenario as presented I would argue - quite strongly - that the simple action of getting on the boat is neither reckless nor malicious. If any jury convicted for murder in that scenario... well, I couldn't imagine it surviving an appeal, anyway.

Not in all cases and all legals systems. Many jurisdictions only require depraved indifference and not malice aforethought. Which is why I added the qualifier, "in some places" because it is not true in all places.


2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby causes the death of another person

That would agree with my definition, not a malice aforethought definition. Again not true in all places but in many of them.




Theoretically, yes; it might be possible to contrive a scenario where this is not the case, but I can't think of one. I suppose it might be quite difficult to distinguish between Good and Neutral in some situations - if you go to the supermarket for a bag of potatoes, for instance, it's quite difficult to acquire them in a particularly Good way. But those aren't the sort of actions that determine alignment - the important ones where alignment comes to the fore; the life-or-death scenarios; yes, I think your three options are usually there.

And I've added many more options.



The thing is that this scenario isn't binary except in outcome. There are at least three options:

1. Don't get on the boat.
2. Get on the boat provided there is space when you reach it.
3. Get on the boat no matter what it takes.

There are probably additional options, but they will generally form a subset of one of those three. The first is broadly Good (unless you take further action to, e.g. stop anyone else from getting on the boat), the second, broadly Neutral, the third, probably Evil.

Even if you can't accept neutrality, can you at least accept that (2) is less evil than (3) in this scenario?

Yes, I've agreed to that, and stated as such. I even stated that (2) is less evil than many other options, probably not even enough to seriously ding a person's alignment particularly given the mitigating factors. But it should be enough to cause a Paladin problems, or cause a really staunch cleric to consider an atonement. It's not a big evil, because there is a question of survival but it is a little evil.

[Aedilred]

Not in all cases and all legals systems. Many jurisdictions only require depraved indifference and not malice aforethought. Which is why I added the qualifier, "in some places" because it is not true in all places.

That would agree with my definition, not a malice aforethought definition. Again not true in all places but in many of them.
Well, as I said, that's reckless indifference, which I did discuss. You're right that reckless indifference has supplemented malice aforethought as a condition and to my shame I forgot that in my original post (although in the US the two are separate categories of murder), but as I say one or the other is the key feature in murder all English-speaking jurisdictions that I know of.

And as I further say, I don't think the simple action of getting on a lifeboat in the ship scenario is sufficiently reckless or malicious, or even necessarily indifferent, to qualify as murder in the ship scenario. In fact I'm all but sure of it, given that your action is perfectly lawful and murder must be unlawful (although juries do have the capability to surprise!). Frankly I'd be amazed if the state even followed through with a prosecution.


And I've added many more options.
I've discussed them in my edit to the above post.

[AMFV]

Edit:

There's no moral dilemma present in that scenario. It's only a life-or-death scenario in the sense that everything is, because I could choose to kill myself pointlessly right now. Choosing to die in that scenario isn't Good either, unless you do so rescuing another passenger trapped in some wreckage or the like.


The scenario as stated doesn't quite work, because if someone's already dead there's no need to kill them. Are you suggesting that the options are:

1) Kill yourself (or allow yourself to be killed) and be eaten
2) Wait for someone else to die before you, then eat them
3) Kill someone else and eat them

In this case, where is the substantive moral difference between waiting for someone else to die here, and leaving someone to die on the ship? In either case, whichever of you survives is fundamentally decided by natural selection (fitness/luck): in the case of the ship, whichever of you makes it to the boat first; in this case, which of you falls over dead first. You might say that the factor is that (2) here requires no action on your part, but in that case we're again retreating to the territory of neutrality equalling abrogation of agency, which largely invalidates it as an alignment.

There is a substantive moral difference. Since you are not causing them to die... either by inaction or by action.



But even abrogation of agency isn't acceptable going by your previous statements, because you're still refusing to intervene to stop someone else's death. In this scenario should you not be doing everything in your power to stop your fellow from dying in order for your action not to be Evil? Up to and including sacrificing yourself? In which case we're back to Good/Evil again with no Neutral.


Is that not self-interested because you don't want to lose your job? You get paid for it so you shoot at people. That sounds self-interested to me.

(Note that I'm not having a go at soldiers in general; I'm just extrapolating from your earlier premise. If ending a life is Evil, then I don't understand how doing so because you're just following orders and it's your job to do so is any less evil. In fact, the "I was just following orders to do this evil thing" defence has been pretty thoroughly debunked. But we're straying dangerously close to political territory, so that example is probably out of bounds for detailed examination.)

Well it depends on your motivation. If you believe that you are protecting others, then it's definitely not evil, again motivation becomes important here. I will actually adjust my scenario as follows. If you believe that killing that person will protect others from harm, then it's justified.




OK, this is probably a scenario where there is only one alignment option. But you're still missing the point overall, which is that you're not providing a scenario with a meaningful delineation between alignment options. I guess there is an evil option here, which is to say "let them both die" but, again, that's Stupid Evil and doesn't really make sense. You haven't provided a scenario where there is a distinction between a Good and a Neutral option, or indeed between a Neutral and an Evil option, where at least one of the options is not completely unnecessary and unrealistic.

Alright, we'll do that then...

A child has a terminal disease, it's highly contagious. They love playing soccer, and want to die doing that. Now you can act to protect the other children, a safe option, or cause the child to lose out on his dying wish. Neither of those options is particularly savory and both involve extreme possibility of harm to others. So both neutral.

It is difficult to have a truly neutral response to a life or death scenario. Since evil is defined as harming others, and good is defined by putting their interests over your own. It's part of the reason why True Neutral tends to be such a flaky and weird alignment, because if you have law or chaos, you can use your gut or use the law to decide between evil or good options in that scenario.

[AMFV]

Well, as I said, that's reckless indifference, which I did discuss. You're right that reckless indifference has supplemented malice aforethought as a condition and to my shame I forgot that in my original post (although in the US the two are separate categories of murder), but as I say one or the other is the key feature in murder all English-speaking jurisdictions that I know of.



That is not "reckless indifference" but depraved indifference, the two are very different, and have entirely different legal implications. I think you'll find that there is a breadth of difference in what constitutes murder legally.

If anything that speaks to the alignment debate, it becomes a question of At what little evil, do we consider something actually evil? And that's going to vary quite a bit. I have very high standards, but not all good individuals would. And that degree of difference could add some serious breadth to the alignment system, particularly for those bound by it, like Paladins.

Edit: That'd be a really interesting type of game, where all of the players were Paladin variants and you could explore the breadth of a single alignment, since there is going to be debate and deviation. I mean in D&D even the Gods don't always agree on alignment issues like this, so we could have some really interesting stuff happen.

[Aedilred]

That is not "reckless indifference" but depraved indifference, the two are very different, and have entirely different legal implications. I think you'll find that there is a breadth of difference in what constitutes murder legally.
There is a slight difference, but not one not covered by recklessness or malice. If "depraved indifference" doesn't result in death, it's classified as "reckless endangerment" which suggests a large if not whole overlap. While there is some divergence in application of the theory, anywhere where "murder" is an identifiable crime under that name (that I know of), any two of recklessness, malice and indifference is the defining element of the mens rea. Even if slightly different terminology is used, the core principle remains the same.

And even if "depraved indifference" were a completely different ballpark, I still don't think the lifeboat scenario qualifies, unless you're setting off with the boat still half-empty or the like.

[AMFV]

There is a slight difference, but not one not covered by recklessness or malice. If "depraved indifference" doesn't result in death, it's classified as "reckless endangerment" which suggests a large if not whole overlap. While there is some divergence in application of the theory, anywhere where "murder" is an identifiable crime under that name (that I know of), any two of recklessness, malice and indifference is the defining element of the mens rea. Even if slightly different terminology is used, the core principle remains the same.

And even if "depraved indifference" were a completely different ballpark, I still don't think the lifeboat scenario qualifies, unless you're setting off with the boat still half-empty or the like.

I would argue that it does, although as pointed out my requirements for what is good tend to exceed those for what is legal. Legally there can be no requirement where self-sacrifice to that degree is required, morally that requirement can exist.

It's why I continue to think that the Paladn's game would be fascinating. Because you could explore the breadth of a single alignment, and that would be really interesting. Since no one alignment is simple, and there are likely to be differences of observation and interpretation, particularly with regards to acts that are only evil in a small degree (since those don't change alignment and aren't strong enough to register on detection type things)

Edit: For example the Paladins in the Triadic order would probably interpret this very differently. (And yes I know Paladins aren't the alignment end all be all but this is an interesting case).

The Paladins of Ilmater, would likely object strenuously to not sacrificing yourself to save others, this would probably be a violation of their tenants, and they would likely adopt a position similar to mine.

The Paladins of Torm, would discuss legal responsibility, and would likely sway their opinions based on the precedents and legal matters, if one was honor bound to protect the civilians you could justify either boarding the lifeboats to help, or staying on the ship to save one more.

The Paladins of Tyr, would likely be more forgiving of those who got on the boats, but would be less likely to do so themselves.

So that's three interpretations from three very very similar deities, and I'd love to become more involved with that sort of thing.

Edit: Important to note that my recollection of Faerun Dogma may be off and that was mostly just extrapolation. So I'd have to do research to see their exact positions. But I imagine they would be different.

Also I think that a Paladin of Pelor might be likely to be on your side or closer to it. Since they are more inclined to forgive things even things that other people might view as evil. Also some neutral Gods. Paladins of the Red Knight would almost definitely hold a position close to yours.

Edit 2: Oh, and Jasian Paladins would be very interesting, since Wee Jas stands for the ideal of vanity, so acting in the protection of the self would be viewed as more important particularly compared to such as Ilmater who views that sort of thing as appalling.

[Reathin]

Somewhere between Lawful and Neutral Good, leaning toward the latter.

I like making people's day better, and generally hold that helping others is a worthwhile effort. I actively fight my desire to place retribution over redemption (or, as they're more likely to be called in this day and age, revenge over mercy). Basically, I hope to leave the world a better place as I go, however slightly (I make no admission to always being successful in that regard, but as Deva says, it's important to try and keep trying, even when it isn't always successful).

I used to think of myself as solidly lawful, and I do definitely have something of a "stick to the rules" streak. However, I lack the self disipline that usually (albeit not always) follows a Lawful nature. Beyond that, I've become a bit...disillusioned by the nature of law in this day and age. True, it's those who abuse the laws who are to blame, rather than the idea of an orderly society, but such setups inherently favor those willing to twist legalities and I hate it. Too often law ignores context. So I'm in between on my lawful nature. In the end, I care more about doing good, I suppose, but don't have the rules rejecting nature to be chaotic (even if my sense of humor often is :smallbiggrin: )

[Aedilred]

I would argue that it does, although as pointed out my requirements for what is good tend to exceed those for what is legal. Legally there can be no requirement where self-sacrifice to that degree is required, morally that requirement can exist.
Morally it can be required for an action to be Good, but I don't think any self-sacrifice to that degree is required to be non-Evil, which has been my point throughout.

In any case my issue specifically with that was with the gratuitous use of "murder" to cover the deaths of the people left on the ship, which is a charged term and not in this instance a justified one I think. Given that it can reasonably be supposed murder is always evil, referring to it as murder is thus pre-judging the case.


It's why I continue to think that the Paladn's game would be fascinating. Because you could explore the breadth of a single alignment, and that would be really interesting. Since no one alignment is simple, and there are likely to be differences of observation and interpretation, particularly with regards to acts that are only evil in a small degree (since those don't change alignment and aren't strong enough to register on detection type things)

It would be interesting, although I'd also point out that the D&D alignments are meant to be objective, and thus interpretation, observation and subjective opinion (as with the gods you later go on to describe) don't affect the morality of an action except insofar as they inform the decision to perform it. It would also require everyone to be on the same page as to what constituted Evil actions before starting the campaign; I'd be quite annoyed as a player to be told that an action I and the other players believed to be Neutral (as the general perception of boarding the boat the ship scenario) was in fact Evil and would destroy my character, especially since the RAW specifically gives refusal to self-sacrifice as an example of what a neutral character would do. Of course, the ship scenario wouldn't work in a paladin campaign anyway, since in the absence of a magical solution the party would all stay on the ship and it'd be a TPK... but I hope you see my point.

[AMFV]

Morally it can be required for an action to be Good, but I don't think any self-sacrifice to that degree is required to be non-Evil, which has been my point throughout.

In any case my issue specifically with that was with the gratuitous use of "murder" to cover the deaths of the people left on the ship, which is a charged term and not in this instance a justified one I think. Given that it can reasonably be supposed murder is always evil, referring to it as murder is thus pre-judging the case.[/Quote[

I still hold that is equivalent to murdering somebody. If you are causing the death of an innocent person, to protect your own life. If you were protecting others it'd be different. For example, say you knew that somebody was a cannibal, and a murderer, preventing him from boarding the lifeboat would not be evil, since you're protecting the interests of others. Boarding the lifeboat because you are the doctor and therefore are more useful alive for everybody than somebody else might be, is at least a moral wash (although you might have some guilt over it).

But it in any case the point is that even the term murder is not well enough defined even in our pretty rigid legal systems to be beyond debate. I imagine that a D&D character might say the same thing "murder is wrong" but characters might define murder very differently, and since there is no way to measure the objective evil of an act (and no rules provided for doing so, with the exception of extreme heinous acts) we have no way of determining whether something actually is evil.

For example, torture is explicitly evil, but different people have different definitions of what constitutes torture. Does psychological manipulation count, does sleep deprivation count, do threats of imminent harm count? And there is no easy answer to that. So even in D&D you'd have arguments over morality.

A more interesting example, poison use, is explicitly evil. What does that cover? Is giving somebody alcohol evil, some priests of some religions might argue that, but there wouldn't be a general consensus on the matter. D&D despite having an objective alignment has as much room for debate as the real world does.

Not to get too far into real world things, but there are many ethical philosophies that believe in objective good in the real world (I subscribe to one actually) and philosophers and ethicists from those philosophies don't inherently agree with one another either, which I suspect would be the case in D&D. So even among those that believe in objective morality there is an universally agreed on set of principles, and even among those that have the same fundamental principles and beliefs there isn't agreement and there is dissension.

[QUOTE=Aedilred;17161608]
It would be interesting, although I'd also point out that the D&D alignments are meant to be objective, and thus interpretation, observation and subjective opinion (as with the gods you later go on to describe) don't affect the morality of an action except insofar as they inform the decision to perform it. It would also require everyone to be on the same page as to what constituted Evil actions before starting the campaign; I'd be quite annoyed as a player to be told that an action I and the other players believed to be Neutral (as the general perception of boarding the boat the ship scenario) was in fact Evil and would destroy my character, especially since the RAW specifically gives refusal to self-sacrifice as an example of what a neutral character would do. Of course, the ship scenario wouldn't work in a paladin campaign anyway, since in the absence of a magical solution the party would all stay on the ship and it'd be a TPK... but I hope you see my point.

Yes, that is the intention, for objective alignments, but as you can see from the devolution into a dozen page discussion over what exactly directly causing harm involves, and what intentions mitigate said harm, and if that would qualify as evil or good. It's not really that objective. It may have an objective value, but that's not clearly known by anybody, you can assess when something is very powerfully evil, but matters of small degree are difficult to assess.

I wasn't suggesting the Paladins on the sinking ship scenario, just that that sort of moral examination would be interesting. You can have two LG characters interpret different actions as different degrees of evil, because they are limited in their knowledge. Even deities are not omniscient, the only type of characters that could know for certain what objective good is, are overdeities and they tend to be far and few between. So again just because something is true, doesn't mean that is lacking the possibility for different viewpoints unless it is known and true.

[LogosDragon]

My alignment? Ah, uh... Would you believe it's melted gumdrops? Strawberry milkshake? Boat nectar? Some of god's tears?

Oh alright, you win. Lawful Random. I tend to make strange and arbitrary rules and restrictions on myself and others, but in regards to those rules and restrictions as well as any code I follow (be it societal or personal, depending on where I am at the time) I am the most Lawful person you could meet. I admit, perhaps I might be more Neutral than Lawful sheerly because I care more about the spirit of the law than the letter; but if the law and order is there, it MUST be adhered to whether you personally agree with it or not.

... I consider myself Lawful Neutral with very strong Good leanings. I'd normally think I'm Lawful Good as I make personal sacrifices to help the less fortune at as many opportunities as I can feasibly make without putting myself into poverty, whether or not it's convenient or easy, and although I haven't had the chance to test myself I'm pretty sure I'd die to save a stranger. But I'm gonna go with LN, because the Lawful is so overbearingly strong compared to the Good.

[Aedilred]

I still hold that is equivalent to murdering somebody.
Here's my issue with the term "murder" in this context: it has a specific meaning over and above a "normal" killing. Given its nature - as a crime - it's defined legally, and this is the meaning it carries in any nation where English is a first language (of which I'm aware; hence my issue with jurisdiction). It's not just a killing, it's the worst form of killing. Use of it therefore charges the debate: Is it wrong to kill someone? Maybe not. Is it wrong to murder someone? Yes, always. That is the precise conotation that murder carries. Using it uncritically and casually makes it impossible to debate morality.

Is this situation murder? No. Firstly there is the logical problem I raised all that time ago; that it's logically impossible to identify your victim. Any culpability is completely abstracted. (This also gives us problems with causation, but that's not really the issue). Anyway, let's leave that to one side and press on.

Next is the issue of intent. Intent is the core constituent that differentiates murder from other forms of killing. The state of mind that causes murder must be malicious, depraved or recklessly indifferent. The state of mind that causes an individual to board a lifeboat is not required to be any of these and is likely to be none of them; if not conducted in a complete panic incapable of forming any of these mental states, it is likely to be regretful, compassionate or considered. An individual who stops and thinks the situation through and decides not to sacrifice his own life is not being malicious, depraved or reckless. He's just being sensible.

(And this is really the core part of the argument: that it's entirely possible to kill another person directly, let alone indirectly as here, without its being murder.)

Finally, even if the above did apply, the final defining feature of murder is that it results from an unlawful act. Boarding a lifeboat is not an unlawful act (unless there are parameters at play outside the ambit of the scenario). So it can't be murder.

In fact, even boiled down to its most ruthless essence, the him-or-me dilemma and assuming that, yes, you killed them and you were wholly responsible - then it's as if you acted in self-defence. Which is still not murder.

To conclude, even following from the conclusion that you have directly killed someone by boarding a lifeboat peacefully (something which I believe I and others have refuted on both grounds already), it's still not murder. And using "murder" in this context both unfairly weights the moral argument and trivialises actual murder as a crime.


If you were protecting others it'd be different. For example, say you knew that somebody was a cannibal, and a murderer, preventing him from boarding the lifeboat would not be evil, since you're protecting the interests of others.
Surely this is more directly killing another person than boarding the lifeboat ever was? Regardless of what that person has done.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Murder is almost always wrong, but the killing itself is the evil part, not the definition as murder part. Murder is killing that is against the law, so murder's minimum Evil level is about equivalent to the minimum Good level of the government implementing the laws and defining murder. An Neutral government that labels killing in self-defense illegal will have cases of nonevil murder, and in an Evil society that outlaws killing Evil extraplanars who are coming for a visit regardless of what they do to you or anyone near you, murder can be Good, regardless of other fancy words that are attached.

Murder in a place like the U.S. or Britain is going to be Evil 99 times out of 100, because those legal systems' G/E morality is similar in the majority of ways to the D&D morality's depiction.

But something being defined as murder outside of a specific instance is no different in Good or Evil terms than if the word used was killing.

Anyway, my banter aside, I still think prioritizing your life over the life of others is pretty solidly Neutral. In the grenade example; the grenade is still flying and is going to land closer to you and your friends already have partial cover, lessening their chances of getting hit by shrapnel. Evil is kicking the grenade to the other side so the cover works for you, Neutral is trying to get to cover yourself, Good is jumping on the grenade to make the chance of shrapnel hitting the others zero.

Lifeboat: Evil is shoving a person overboard or refusing to budge if someone decides on something fair like drawing straws. Neutral is getting there and planting your behind firmly in an open seat without the above stipulation. Good is volunteering to stay on board so one more person escapes and, preferably, trying to convince everyone to draw straws so the decision of who gets to board is completely fair.

[AMFV]

Here's my issue with the term "murder" in this context: it has a specific meaning over and above a "normal" killing. Given its nature - as a crime - it's defined legally, and this is the meaning it carries in any nation where English is a first language (of which I'm aware; hence my issue with jurisdiction). It's not just a killing, it's the worst form of killing. Use of it therefore charges the debate: Is it wrong to kill someone? Maybe not. Is it wrong to murder someone? Yes, always. That is the precise conotation that murder carries. Using it uncritically and casually makes it impossible to debate morality.

There isn't a precise connotation as I've pointed out it varies drastically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, something which I was very careful to point out. Generally the one equivalency between all of the terms, is the fact that you did something that you knew would cause death, and did so rationally. As I've pointed out, state of mind does matter in this scenario.



Is this situation murder? No. Firstly there is the logical problem I raised all that time ago; that it's logically impossible to identify your victim. Any culpability is completely abstracted. (This also gives us problems with causation, but that's not really the issue). Anyway, let's leave that to one side and press on.

If I blow up a random building then I haven't actually killed anybody because it would be impossible for me to have identified my victim, what if I poison a bunch of foodstuff, that also would lead to a situation where the victim can't be identified, at least not by me, and possibly not ever. It's still wrong to cause a death, even if you don't know whose death you're causing. I would actually think that this was potentially more wrong, since otherwise there could be justification for killing a person.



Next is the issue of intent. Intent is the core constituent that differentiates murder from other forms of killing. The state of mind that causes murder must be malicious, depraved or recklessly indifferent. The state of mind that causes an individual to board a lifeboat is not required to be any of these and is likely to be none of them; if not conducted in a complete panic incapable of forming any of these mental states, it is likely to be regretful, compassionate or considered. An individual who stops and thinks the situation through and decides not to sacrifice his own life is not being malicious, depraved or reckless. He's just being sensible.

(And this is really the core part of the argument: that it's entirely possible to kill another person directly, let alone indirectly as here, without its being murder.)

He is causing the death of another person to preserve his own life, what's worse, it's the death of a random person, who has no intention of harming him (probably), is not a danger to others, and may be a child. If somebody put a gun to my head and told me to kill a random person, I wouldn't do it, and I would consider it evil, and my moral responsibility if I did.



Finally, even if the above did apply, the final defining feature of murder is that it results from an unlawful act. Boarding a lifeboat is not an unlawful act (unless there are parameters at play outside the ambit of the scenario). So it can't be murder.

Also not strictly true.



In fact, even boiled down to its most ruthless essence, the him-or-me dilemma and assuming that, yes, you killed them and you were wholly responsible - then it's as if you acted in self-defence. Which is still not murder.

Ah, but here is where your "can't identify the victim", comes into play. You can't defend yourself against those you don't know, and you can't know their intentions or why they're getting on the lifeboat, as I pointed out there is a justification for a doctor to board the lifeboat to protect others, rather than in his own interests. Let's say you took his spot, because you were selfish and short-sighted, that's pretty rough, because you don't know other people's intentions you can't act against them, that's an important part of establishing self-defense, is that you aware that their intent is to unjustly harm you or others.



To conclude, even following from the conclusion that you have directly killed someone by boarding a lifeboat peacefully (something which I believe I and others have refuted on both grounds already), it's still not murder. And using "murder" in this context both unfairly weights the moral argument and trivialises actual murder as a crime.

I don't think it does, because I think that your actions on the lifeboat are of equal severity. To me it is murder, it's fairly simple, if you stop and you think and then you still decide to kill somebody, to protect yourself.



Surely this is more directly killing another person than boarding the lifeboat ever was? Regardless of what that person has done.

Yes, you are directly killing somebody, but not in your own interests. That's what makes something evil in this context, it's harm in your own interests. Not just killing somebody, but killing somebody to further your own interests. Killing somebody to protect others isn't evil.


Murder is almost always wrong, but the killing itself is the evil part, not the definition as murder part. Murder is killing that is against the law, so murder's minimum Evil level is about equivalent to the minimum Good level of the government implementing the laws and defining murder. An Neutral government that labels killing in self-defense illegal will have cases of nonevil murder, and in an Evil society that outlaws killing Evil extraplanars who are coming for a visit regardless of what they do to you or anyone near you, murder can be Good, regardless of other fancy words that are attached.

Murder in a place like the U.S. or Britain is going to be Evil 99 times out of 100, because those legal systems' G/E morality is similar in the majority of ways to the D&D morality's depiction.

But something being defined as murder outside of a specific instance is no different in Good or Evil terms than if the word used was killing.


It's different because using killing doesn't weigh intent, or rationality of the incident.



Anyway, my banter aside, I still think prioritizing your life over the life of others is pretty solidly Neutral. In the grenade example; the grenade is still flying and is going to land closer to you and your friends already have partial cover, lessening their chances of getting hit by shrapnel. Evil is kicking the grenade to the other side so the cover works for you, Neutral is trying to get to cover yourself, Good is jumping on the grenade to make the chance of shrapnel hitting the others zero.

Lifeboat: Evil is shoving a person overboard or refusing to budge if someone decides on something fair like drawing straws. Neutral is getting there and planting your behind firmly in an open seat without the above stipulation. Good is volunteering to stay on board so one more person escapes and, preferably, trying to convince everyone to draw straws so the decision of who gets to board is completely fair.

I would still argue that the evil is not jumping on the grenade, for several reasons, first and foremost you would expect others to do the same for you, that's a part of that situation. Secondly, you have a moral responsibility to protect others. Thirdly, there isn't a strong moral imperative in D&D morality to protect oneself.



****

As I've said this is clearly up to interpretation and I think I've pointed out that even D&D religions might not view it the same way. While morality in D&D is in fact objective, that does not mean that there cannot be dissension in interpretation depending on the degree of knowledge possessed.

Edit - Re: "Murder" if our legal systems aren't able to agree on a concise and uniform definition for it how are we supposed to.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, you are directly killing somebody, but not in your own interests. That's what makes something evil in this context, it's harm in your own interests. Not just killing somebody, but killing somebody to further your own interests. Killing somebody to protect others isn't evil.


So wait, if all the people who are going to the lifeboats are evil, and if killing evil people to protect people from being killed by evil people is good, then does that mean its good to kill people going for the lifeboats to protect the people going for the lifeboats to prevent them from murdering the other people going for the lifeboats by getting there first?

If so, does that mean killing everyone who gets there before the last person to get on a boat, meaning you, since you’ll be the last person to get on since you decided to stay behind and protect people from getting murdered by people trying to get on first? I mean, if its murder then clearly I'm acting in self-defense.

[AMFV]

So wait, if all the people who are going to the lifeboats are evil, and if killing evil people to protect people from being killed by evil people is good, then does that mean its good to kill people going for the lifeboats to protect the people going for the lifeboats to prevent them from murdering the other people going for the lifeboats by getting there first?

I didn't say anybody going on the lifeboat was evil. I said that getting on the lifeboat TO PROTECT YOURSELF is an evil act, albeit a minor evil act. There are other reasons to get on the lifeboat. And to be honest a minor moral failing when your life is at stake is likely more forgivable. One minor evil act does not an evil person make.

Also you run into the problem of intent which was addressed to the more succinct presentation of the issue as self-defense. You can't know the intent of the people getting onto the lifeboat, and that matters. As I've said there are reasons that are morally acceptable to board the lifeboat (to protect others, the majority in this case, to protect children was another example, to care for your children, even that would be appropriate). Since you don't know another person's intentions in this case it would not be moral to simply kill them, because awareness of intent is an important part of self-defense or defense of others.



If so, does that mean killing everyone who gets there before the last person to get on a boat, meaning you, since you’ll be the last person to get on since you decided to stay behind and protect people from getting murdered by people trying to get on first?

No, that would be an argument for absurdity, since killing random people getting onto the lifeboats is not good, for the reasons I outlined above, and many more as well, for example ideally the people that are being saved are those who are most vulnerable and least likely to survive otherwise.

[Lord Raziere]

I’m just using your logic:

1. People getting on the lifeboats are murdering everyone who gets on last.

2. Therefore going for the lifeboats are an evil act

3. Therefore the only moral act is to volunteer to tay behind to die so that everyone else can go on ahead

4. Therefore since I volunteered to stay behind, I’m the last one on the lifeboats.

5. Killing evil people to protect other people from them, is a good act

6. Therefore since I volunteered to stay behind, everyone else is murdering me.

7. Therefore I am justified in using self-defense to kill all the evil people trying to murder me.

8. Therefore I should kill everyone else and get on a lifeboat, since I’m the last one on, and everyone else is evil for trying to be first.

going for the lifeboats at all basically is self-defense, and according to you its evil in this situation and people trying to murder me, therefore I'm perfectly justified in such self-defense according to your logic.

[RedMage125]

I do believe that there is a fundamental moral requirement to sacrifice for others, particularly those who are weaker, I think this is generally agreed on in D&D, or at least is presented as something that is good.
That is Good.
Absence of Good =/= Evil. Not in D&D. Not when Evil is a separate and equal cosmic force from Good.


Even if it doesn't cost me my life, it costs me in time, or in embarrassment which are both costs on my interests. Just because the cost for one event is higher, does not mean that one does not have a responsibility to the same thing.
And my responsibility is only to myself and to my family, NOT to strangers. By seeing my wife aboard, I am then free to board a lifeboat. I do not have ANY responsibility to any stranger.
If you even try and tell me that such is somehow "wrong", that would be saying that anything that is not Good is "wrong".
Which is, by far, one of the most myopic, shortsighted and selfish things one could possibly espouse.

Since I have no responsibility to strangers, it is not a forfeit of my responsibility to abandon them to their fate on the sinking ship.


Furthermore the end result is "I die or they do" and that's a different moral dilemma leaving only, murder as an option or suicide, it's a ****ty spot to be in morally. But it doesn't change the fact that somebody else is dying as a result of something you did or didn't do.
You know what? Aedilred gave a stunning and well-reasoned response regarding your continuous use of the word "murder". Refer to that.

Also, the RAW explictly states that this view of yours? Is wrong. 'I refuse to sacrifice my own life for a stranger" is explicitly Neutral.

Sorry, but you are explicitly disproven, in precise and exact terms, by the RAW.


Evil is the placing of your interests over those of others in a way that causes harm.
Taking that to its logical conclusion means that EVER doing ANYTHING in your own self-interest, to include eating (because you COULD give that food to someone else), and sleeping (because you COULD spend those hours helping the less fortunate).


I haven't ever implied that could be achieved by the absence of good or wasn't a concrete thing of it's own.
Implied nothing, you flat-out said that Neutrality was "lesser evil"


Not all scenarios have all alignment actions for example many of the Paladin, you fall or you fall dilemmas have no good action that can be taken since they all have evil involved in them. So if you can have a scenario with no good action, you can have one with no neutral action.I have yet to see a "you fall or you fall" scenario that didn't involve a deviation from RAW. And either way, the real cause of scenarios like that is jerkbag DMs.

"Failing to do Good" is not "willingly committing an Evil act", which is what makes a paladin fall.


The alignments are not prescriptive, sometimes a neutral person will have to do evil or good things, and sometimes a good person will have to do neutral or evil things.
What does that have to do with anything?

I mean, you're right, but it's beside the point. The act itself is not an Evil Act just because it isn't a Good one. Some acts are neither Good nor Evil.

And if we follow the logical conclusion this idea it means that as long as something is instinctual it cannot be evil which is absurd. If I kill a man or beat him up for entering my marked territory, that's instinctive, that's doing as animals do. If I eat my step-children so that my genetic material will have more weight, again that's me replicating animal behavior, but is still evil.
That is no way the "logical conclusion" of my point. Humans do not have such instincts as you are postulating, ergo it is a strawman of the point I was making. All living things possess the instinct to try and survive in a situation when they are in mortal peril.


Humans have moral agency which inspires a higher degree of responsibility for their actions.
Which is very high-thinking of you. But part of respecting the "dignity of sentient beings" (a trait of Good in D&D), is respecting and acknowledging that not everyone holds the same level of high ideals as you do. That's what makes Good special. I consider my responsibility in a life and death situation to be to my loved ones, then myself, THEN others, once the first are taken care of, as they are my highest priority. If I can only save my loved ones and myself, I'm fine with that.

That's a different scenario, first, a person that is acting violently towards you will act violently towards others, meaning that killing them may constitute of others in the future, a moral responsibility. Attempting to murder is evil, so killing them is preventing an evil act from occurring, attempted murder is a lot less evil than actual murder. Also they and you have a fair chance to walk away from that alive, which is different than the lifeboat scenario where for example children don't have that same chance. So there are different factors in that scenario.

For example, we'll say you boarded a lifeboat to protect your children who are on the boat. Which I've already indicated was a different scenario, and somebody attempts to throw you off the boat, throwing them off is directly causing their death any way you slice it. But you have a higher responsibility to others in that scenario, which produces a different moral axis between law (your responsibility to a specific set of others) and chaos (your responsibility to the rights of every individual.

Miko is a fallen Paladin, personally I think she should have been fallen long before Rich made her fall. For me, personally, I disagree very strongly with Rich's treatment of Lawful characters. Killing somebody that has surrendered is beyond the pale for me, and a Paladin even considering that should have problems, and be on the brink of falling, or already fallen in my opinion.
You dodged the question.

IF you killed such a Paladin in self-defense, would that be an Evil act?

That's it, that's the question, and you avoided it with semantics. Please answer just that in a simple yes/no format.


I don't think we're going to agree on this, at this point I think the discussion has shifted to at what cost does your moral responsibility to others disappear, you folks clearly believe that your own life is that point (or someplace earlier) I don't. And that's a bridge I don't think anybody's going to be able to cross.
This much is true.

The main difference? Is that the RAW agree with us, and not with you.

Killing in self-defense is explicitly not Evil. Refusing to give up your life to save another's life is explicitly not Evil.

You have much higher ideals, and probably would be Good aligned in a D&D world. However, your myopic view of Neutrality is not supported by the rules.

I'm not asking you to change your opinions, and I apologize if that has been the impression. Please, keep your opinions as they are.

I am trying to make you realize that by a strict-RAW, "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save another" in not Evil.

You believe that "opportunity to save their life" equates to "responsibility for their death", and that being "responsible for someone's death" equates to "killing them yourself". I get that. I do. I understand your position, you have very high ideals, and expect high standards of behavior in others. But the RAW say otherwise.

I'm sorry if this comes as a shock, but it is objectively true.


PS - Your quibbling over abidcation would not be a "grammar nazi" but a "definition nazi" and you should check the definition 2 rather than the one which I obviously not using.
Definition 2 says
2: to relinquish (as sovereign power) formally
intransitive verb
: to renounce a throne, high office, dignity, or function

As you are discussing relinquishing responsibility for murder, and not relinquishing as a sovereign power, it is not correct.

[AMFV]

I’m just using your logic:

No, you're ignoring things that I've pointed out.



1. People getting on the lifeboats are murdering everyone who gets on last.

True, if there are insufficient seats then getting on the lifeboat is tantamount to killing somebody.



2. Therefore going for the lifeboats are an evil act

Now here's where you've started to lose my logic. It's only an evil act if it is done out of self-interest. I just pointed two exceptions and that's not the first time I've pointed out those very same exceptions. If you are causing harm to others out of self interest, evil. If you are causing harm to others for other reasons, it may not be evil.



3. Therefore the only moral act is to volunteer to tay behind to die so that everyone else can go on ahead

The only good act is to allow others to go first yes.



4. Therefore since I volunteered to stay behind, I’m the last one on the lifeboats.

You won't be getting on them at all generally.



5. Killing evil people to protect other people from them, is a good act


But killing children? Since the scenario started with the lifeboats being used primarily for children. So you are advocating killing children to protect adults. I don't think you'll find much traction for that idea.



6. Therefore since I volunteered to stay behind, everyone else is murdering me.

Negative, again you're misinterpreting my logic. Nobody is murdering you once you are no longer actively trying to board the lifeboat. In fact that's part of what makes this such a good act, because it removes a great deal of the responsibility for others, if enough people volunteer to stay behind, then there is no murder at all.



7. Therefore I am justified in using self-defense to kill all the evil people trying to murder me.

Not so, for the reasons I presented, self-defense requires a knowledge of intention, as I said, you should reread that section of my response, I'm very tired of having to repost the same exact responses, three or four times, I've addressed if that's self-defense or not, twice now.



8. Therefore I should kill everyone else and get on a lifeboat, since I’m the last one on, and everyone else is evil for trying to be first.


You aren't the last one on, a minor evil act doesn't make you evil, it's not self-defense without knowledge of intent, furthermore YOU are not being murdered you're committing suicide, which is a different act entirely.



going for the lifeboats at all basically is self-defense, and according to you its evil in this situation and people trying to murder me, therefore I'm perfectly justified in such self-defense according to your logic.

Again, I've addressed the self-defense argument twice. In both of my previous posts.

[AMFV]

That is Good.
Absence of Good =/= Evil. Not in D&D. Not when Evil is a separate and equal cosmic force from Good.

And my responsibility is only to myself and to my family, NOT to strangers. By seeing my wife aboard, I am then free to board a lifeboat. I do not have ANY responsibility to any stranger.
If you even try and tell me that such is somehow "wrong", that would be saying that anything that is not Good is "wrong".
Which is, by far, one of the most myopic, shortsighted and selfish things one could possibly espouse.

Your responsibility is to everybody, not just your family. You've just said that good was a cosmic force, and then you've addressed a selfish viewpoint of only having a responsibility to be good to certain individuals, in D&D terms that washes out to neutral, at best, and I would say evil.



Since I have no responsibility to strangers, it is not a forfeit of my responsibility to abandon them to their fate on the sinking ship.

Yes it is. Sorry, it is. If you are putting your own interests over those of another that is equivalent to evil in D&D.



You know what? Aedilred gave a stunning and well-reasoned response regarding your continuous use of the word "murder". Refer to that.

And I responded to his viewpoint with the penal code, it turns murder is not defined the same place everywhere. Furthermore I said "equivalent to murder" not "murder", and I said "in some places". There were qualifiers to my statement that are now being ignored.



Also, the RAW explictly states that this view of yours? Is wrong. 'I refuse to sacrifice my own life for a stranger" is explicitly Neutral.

But I'm not arguing that sacrificing ones life for a stranger is necessary, I'm arguing that failing to act is an action (legally definitely true in most places), and that failing to act to prevent a death can be equivalent to murder.



Sorry, but you are explicitly disproven, in precise and exact terms, by the RAW.

Did you read my response to the RAW when it was presented? I addressed it specifically, and stated the reason why I felt that my INTERPRETATION was valid.



Taking that to its logical conclusion means that EVER doing ANYTHING in your own self-interest, to include eating (because you COULD give that food to someone else), and sleeping (because you COULD spend those hours helping the less fortunate).

I've addressed this already. Twice I think, I'm done reposting the same arguments in response to people stating things that I've already responded to. But for good measure one last time.

If you don't eat, that doesn't not give food to somebody else, or result in any help to anybody at all, if you give all of your food to somebody then they become dependent on you and when you starve it's bad (probably killing them), ergo that's a moral wash at best.



Implied nothing, you flat-out said that Neutrality was "lesser evil"
I have yet to see a "you fall or you fall" scenario that didn't involve a deviation from RAW. And either way, the real cause of scenarios like that is jerkbag DMs.

I also said it was "lesser good" it's both.



"Failing to do Good" is not "willingly committing an Evil act", which is what makes a paladin fall.

What does that have to do with anything?

I mean, you're right, but it's beside the point. The act itself is not an Evil Act just because it isn't a Good one. Some acts are neither Good nor Evil.

That is no way the "logical conclusion" of my point. Humans do not have such instincts as you are postulating, ergo it is a strawman of the point I was making. All living things possess the instinct to try and survive in a situation when they are in mortal peril.

Which is very high-thinking of you. But part of respecting the "dignity of sentient beings" (a trait of Good in D&D), is respecting and acknowledging that not everyone holds the same level of high ideals as you do. That's what makes Good special. I consider my responsibility in a life and death situation to be to my loved ones, then myself, THEN others, once the first are taken care of, as they are my highest priority. If I can only save my loved ones and myself, I'm fine with that.


As I've pointed out, intent matters in the lifeboat scenario. For example a mother with children getting on the lifeboat to protect her children is not evil, I would call that neutral. A doctor getting on the lifeboat because he might be needed, is not evil. Intention is important.



You dodged the question.

IF you killed such a Paladin in self-defense, would that be an Evil act?

That's it, that's the question, and you avoided it with semantics. Please answer just that in a simple yes/no format.

I did answer it, you can't remove the variables from the equation and then expect my answer to remain the same. If the Paladin is attempting to murder me, then one of two things is true, either they believe that I am going to cause harm to others, that I am a direct threat to others, or that I have committed a legal action worthy of murder, or they are fallen and are not a paladin.

If the former then I question their judgement, if they are attempting to kill me (and I don't deserve it) then it is reasonable to expect they are going to try to kill others with similar bad judgement, meaning that I am protecting others by defending themselves.

If they have fallen and are murderous then it is reasonable to suppose that they would murder others, meaning that killing them is acceptable, under those circumstances.

If I deserve to be killed, then I'm evil, and it shouldn't matter.

So the answer is yes. But it's not a simple answer. No morality question is ever simple to answer.



This much is true.

The main difference? Is that the RAW agree with us, and not with you.

Killing in self-defense is explicitly not Evil. Refusing to give up your life to save another's life is explicitly not Evil.

Where is the RAW for that? We've seen that not being willing to murder somebody but acting selfishly is explicitly neutral. We just differ as to what murder would constitute, and I've addressed the self-defense thing, now three times.

Self-defense requires a knowledge of intent, and you can't have that in the lifeboat scenario.



You have much higher ideals, and probably would be Good aligned in a D&D world. However, your myopic view of Neutrality is not supported by the rules.

I'm not asking you to change your opinions, and I apologize if that has been the impression. Please, keep your opinions as they are.

I am trying to make you realize that by a strict-RAW, "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save another" in not Evil.

I've also responded to this, it's a matter of interpretation of the RAW, and you could easily have two interpretations, just like with real world sects that have believe in absolute morality (if you want examples PM me, and I will present those) in fact there are arguments in sects that believe in the same exact absolute morality, because interpretation is most of moral thinking.



You believe that "opportunity to save their life" equates to "responsibility for their death", and that being "responsible for someone's death" equates to "killing them yourself". I get that. I do. I understand your position, you have very high ideals, and expect high standards of behavior in others. But the RAW say otherwise.

I'm sorry if this comes as a shock, but it is objectively true.

Your interpretation of the RAW says otherwise. It's certainly to interpret the same line of text differently, and I do. I will admit that you could be right, and that getting on the life boat is not a seriously evil act, but I would still say it is an evil act.



Definition 2 says
2: to relinquish (as sovereign power) formally
intransitive verb
: to renounce a throne, high office, dignity, or function

As you are discussing relinquishing responsibility for murder, and not relinquishing as a sovereign power, it is not correct.





: to leave the position of being a king or queen

: to fail to do what is required by (a duty or responsibility)


There you go.

Edit: Can you at least concede that somebody could read the RAW differently than you do? Or interpret the matter differently? I've conceded that people could interpret it differently, because that's the case, we are reading the same text, with the same information and developing wildly different interpretations.

[Lord Raziere]

So, what I can't defend myself from people trying to murder me now?

[AMFV]

So, what I can't defend myself from people trying to murder me now?

Self-Defense requires a knowledge of intent, which you don't have in the lifeboat scenario. As I've pointed out not everybody getting on the lifeboats are committing an evil act. And you can't know their intentions. If somebody points a gun at me, it is reasonable to assume that he or she is attempting to injure me. If somebody steals food from my house, it may not be reasonable to assume that they are trying to starve me, therefore killing them may or may not be a morally justified response.

[Lord Raziere]

Self-Defense requires a knowledge of intent, which you don't have in the lifeboat scenario. As I've pointed out not everybody getting on the lifeboats are committing an evil act. And you can't know their intentions. If somebody points a gun at me, it is reasonable to assume that he or she is attempting to injure me. If somebody steals food from my house, it may not be reasonable to assume that they are trying to starve me, therefore killing them may or may not be a morally justified response.

But you said that by trying to survive is murdering me by trying to get in first. therefore if its murder, its the same as pointing a gun at me. therefore I'm justified in killing them. and regardless of intent of the person pointing a gun at me, I need to defend myself.

[AMFV]

But you said that by trying to survive is murdering me by trying to get in first. therefore if its murder, its the same as pointing a gun at me. therefore I'm justified in killing them. and regardless of intent of the person pointing a gun at me, I need to defend myself.

And I presented a variety of scenarios where it would not be self-interested killing. If I am on perimeter security and I see you in the dark, I'm going to point my weapon at you, and you would not be justified in shooting me. There are many other factors that matter here. Maybe the person has a job that requires them to be on the life boats for the common interest (such as the doctor example) maybe the person is a mother and is needed to keep her children alive.

You can't know these things. So you don't know if the threat they present is merely self-interest or something else, since you don't know that you wouldn't be reasonably justified in killing them.

[Max™]

Hmmm, chaotic neutral for the most part.

I'm obligated to protect innocents, children, animals, the infirm or sick, and so forth.

On the other hand, if I were confronted with a dog and a man scrabbling at the edge of a cliff, I'd help the dog first unless he were very old or something, he's more capable of helping himself than the animal, I've gotta help it first.

For the most part I don't like to see people get hurt, but there are some people who really need it, and some people who everyone will just be better off without. I prefer if those people stay away from me, but if the situation demands it, you do what you gotta do.

I love to help others learn and understand things, but I would prefer to help someone learn how to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes.

I have a violent allergy to anyone who claims they have the right to exert power or authority over me, my response all my life to hearing someone say "hey, stop right there" is to run up a fence and disappear into the woods.

I've shoplifted for various reasons, mostly a combination of not wanting to ask my mom to spend money on something, sometimes when I actually needed something, and on a few occasions upon learning one of my sisters was out of some make-up or whatnot I'd return with the same thing she just ran out of in my pocket.

So yeah, pretty solidly in the neutral realm, as good and evil are just words, and my moral code is as much a statement of how I want to be treated by others as an actual set of guidelines I follow.

Though my woman has been rubbing off on me, as she is very clearly Lawful Good, the sort of person you would be comfortable knowing had just been granted the same powers as Superman, as they would only use them to help others... and perhaps vaporize creepy-crawlies from a distance when necessary.

So some of my tendencies are leaning more towards trying to be a better person because she deserves one.

Course, if she got superpowers, I would obviously be her arch-nemesis, if just to keep the laws of narrative causality from sending her a more ruthless villain with less fondness for her that might actually discover and make use of whatever weaknesses she had.

[RedMage125]

Your responsibility is to everybody, not just your family. You've just said that good was a cosmic force, and then you've addressed a selfish viewpoint of only having a responsibility to be good to certain individuals, in D&D terms that washes out to neutral, at best, and I would say evil.
In your own words, we have it.

D&D RAW says one thing, and you disagree. We are discussing what is and is not true regarding how D&D morality affects the situation, not your opinions.

*drops microphone*

[hamishspence]

I didn't say anybody going on the lifeboat was evil. I said that getting on the lifeboat TO PROTECT YOURSELF is an evil act, albeit a minor evil act.

I think that's stretching the BoVD situations way beyond what they were written to cover.

When the lifeboat gets back to civilization, and everyone testifies (lets say under Zone of Truth or some similar truth-reading magic) - is everyone on the boat who "got on for selfish reasons" going to be charged with Murder? Voluntary Manslaughter? Causing Death Through Depraved Indifference?

I don't think they will.

And when they get to their Outer Planes to be judged, a la Roy in OoTS - will their judge call it "a very minor Evil Act"?

Again - doesn't make sense to do so. Mild selfishness is Neutral, not Evil. It's extreme selfishness that produces Evil acts.

[AMFV]

In your own words, we have it.

D&D RAW says one thing, and you disagree. We are discussing what is and is not true regarding how D&D morality affects the situation, not your opinions.

*drops microphone*

And we read the same text and have different opinions about what exactly it says. The text is not unambiguous, hardly, or else there wouldn't be pages of argument over it, repeatedly on this forum.

Killing for your own interests is evil, correct? That's pretty unambiguous, and that is what the RAW states. That to kill others so you can survive, or to kill others so you can prosper is evil, we both agree on that.

The point we are arguing about is not touched in RAW, even a little, we are arguing what constitutes killing somebody else, which to be honest in the real world in courts of law there isn't a consensus on. So if my opinions regarding responsibility and that you can kill somebody through neglect and that that is just as much murder as a deliberate action (provided that knowledge was present). Then it is evil, that seems to be the crux of the matter.

So do you agree, that it is possible to interpret the same jumble of RAW two different ways and be still correct to the text? Because it certainly is.

RAW neutral people neither risk their lives for others or murder others, but it's not clear what happens when the only options are those two. RAW is silent on that issue as far as neutrality goes, meaning that neutral text is worthless here. Again provided that my definition of murder in this case is correct, and I obviously think it is.

Then we must turn to the Good and Evil texts, which pretty efficiently encompass the whole scenario. The problem is that we have different definitions of what degree of action constitutes murder, and what degree of responsibility to act a person has, which is again NOT TOUCHED on in RAW. And leads to two disparate but equally textually correct interpretations (of course they aren't both simultaneously correct, however they are equally correct by RAW)


I think that's stretching the BoVD situations way beyond what they were written to cover.

When the lifeboat gets back to civilization, and everyone testifies (lets say under Zone of Truth or some similar truth-reading magic) - is everyone on the boat who "got on for selfish reasons" going to be charged with Murder? Voluntary Manslaughter? Causing Death Through Depraved Indifference?

I don't think they will.

And when they get to their Outer Planes to be judged, a la Roy in OoTS - will their judge call it "a very minor Evil Act"?

Again - doesn't make sense to do so. Mild selfishness is Neutral, not Evil. It's extreme selfishness that produces Evil acts.

Why doesn't it make sense to do so. How can one be less selfish than one is protecting one's person? That's extreme selfishness in and of itself, since the self is the only thing you are concerned with. And it results in death. Now it's possible to argue that a lesser degree of responsibility is there. But putting yourself on the lifeboat is fundamentally a selfish act, whether or not we agree about the responsibility to the lives of others.

Edit: One other sidenote, the zone of truth isn't going to determine if they are guilty, just if they believe they are guilty, which people might if they were not responsible, and might not if they were, making it less than appropriate as a legal tool.

[SiuiS]

Self-Defense requires a knowledge of intent, which you don't have in the lifeboat scenario. As I've pointed out not everybody getting on the lifeboats are committing an evil act. And you can't know their intentions. If somebody points a gun at me, it is reasonable to assume that he or she is attempting to injure me. If somebody steals food from my house, it may not be reasonable to assume that they are trying to starve me, therefore killing them may or may not be a morally justified response.

Self defense requires reasonable belief, no avenue of escape, and reasonable force. That's it.

[AMFV]

Self defense requires reasonable belief, no avenue of escape, and reasonable force. That's it.

And reasonable belief requires a knowledge of intent to my mind. For example if I see somebody with a gun, I might have a reasonable belief that they're going to use deadly force on somebody, but if they are a police officer then acting in self-defense is wrong, unless they are directly threatening me. Reasonable belief requires an understanding of intent. At least morally if not legally.

Edit: Also for you to be acting in self-defense you must be trying to board the lifeboat, which means that you can't be sure that any one individual is going to be the reason you don't. So while it doesn't reduce responsibility not knowing who you're killing, not knowing who is killing you makes acting in self-defense impossible on several levels.

[SiuiS]

And reasonable belief requires a knowledge of intent to my mind. For example if I see somebody with a gun, I might have a reasonable belief that they're going to use deadly force on somebody, but if they are a police officer then acting in self-defense is wrong, unless they are directly threatening me. Reasonable belief requires an understanding of intent. At least morally if not legally.

Possession of a weapon isn't intention, though. By belief, specifically reasonable belief, you have to pass a sort of LD 50; about half of regular folks would say "yeah, that's reasonable". "Has a gun", "is mean", "fought against me for a bit", "is a wicked person", "threatened me verbally in an argument that got heated", and "keeps looking at me like he wants to do something" alone, or even in pairs, are not enough. Three or more sounds reasonable.

As always it is a matter of judgement; no rules can ever replace the ability of a person to have to consider what's going on. Ever.

I would also like to point out that "has a gun" and "has a gun and is an officer whose job involves having a gun" are noncomparable. They are qualitatively different; one is a statement, the other is a qualified statement. That's generally considered a shifting goalpost, not because it is inherently, but because it is easy to use the written medium against a person by keeping otherwise plain details hidden, and then casting aspersions on their judgement. Careful with that. :)


Edit: Also for you to be acting in self-defense you must be trying to board the lifeboat,

I was responding to the statement that self defense requires guaranteed knowledge of intention rather than certainty of harm. I make no statements about the examples in this thread beyond my previous "you can do better, do not limit yourself to the given binary".

[AMFV]

Possession of a weapon isn't intention, though. By belief, specifically reasonable belief, you have to pass a sort of LD 50; about half of regular folks would say "yeah, that's reasonable". "Has a gun", "is mean", "fought against me for a bit", "is a wicked person", "threatened me verbally in an argument that got heated", and "keeps looking at me like he wants to do something" alone, or even in pairs, are not enough. Three or more sounds reasonable.

As always it is a matter of judgement; no rules can ever replace the ability of a person to have to consider what's going on. Ever.

Agreed, there's quite a bit more to this sort of scenario. I don't think that any reasonable person would approve of killing people trying to flee a sinking ship though.



I would also like to point out that "has a gun" and "has a gun and is an officer whose job involves having a gun" are noncomparable. They are qualitatively different; one is a statement, the other is a qualified statement. That's generally considered a shifting goalpost, not because it is inherently, but because it is easy to use the written medium against a person by keeping otherwise plain details hidden, and then casting aspersions on their judgement. Careful with that. :)

I wasn't shifting the goalposts at all, I've noticed people love to make that accusation. I was pointing out that different things have differing degrees of reasonability in a different context. And then stating that I didn't believe that there was any scenario where one could reasonably kill somebody for trying to board a lifeboat (the aforementioned canibal murderer scenario excepted.)



I was responding to the statement that self defense requires guaranteed knowledge of intention rather than certainty of harm. I make no statements about the examples in this thread beyond my previous "you can do better, do not limit yourself to the given binary".

But you can't always do better, in that split second you may have only one choice, that's imperative in a moral type discussion, you arbitrarily limit options because otherwise it would become unmanageably complex.

Although to be fair I was going to compare your stance to the Red Knight type Paladin followers (because I'm still excited about that tangent), since they would teach that foresight and planning is paramount, they would find the entire situation, of insufficient lifeboat space to be abhorrent, and would object to the whole matter.

[SiuiS]

I wasn't shifting the goalposts at all, I've noticed people love to make that accusation.

You'll also notice that I did not make that accusation. I showed you why others may say so, but that is all. This isn't a fight between you and I.

People recognize that a statement and a qualified statement are different enough as to be two discrete objects. Conflating the two as a rhetorical tool, and then revealing the differences, is viewed in a bad light.



But you can't always do better, in that split second

"You can't always do better" and "you can't always do better in that split second" are qualitatively different, enough so as to be two discrete objects.
The first is wrong; you can usually do better en potentia. The second is correct, and is why we bother with training and philosophy; to act appropriately when time is of the essence and analysis paralysis crops up.

The difference though, while small, and technical, is important. You will find that people will notice that you ignore this distinction, and will act as if everything you say is flawed because it comes from a flawed premise. The people you're arguing with are intelligent, right? If telling them they are wrong doesn't work, then examining how an otherwise intelligent person can hold a 'wrong' viewpoint is worth your time, since it cuts down the workload. I think you'll find a lot of disagreements hinge on small pivots like these.

[AMFV]

You'll also notice that I did not make that accusation. I showed you why others may say so, but that is all. This isn't a fight between you and I.

People recognize that a statement and a qualified statement are different enough as to be two discrete objects. Conflating the two as a rhetorical tool, and then revealing the differences, is viewed in a bad light.


But this is not a formal debate, and the things that are viewed in a bad light will be different. Also rhetorical tools and tricks are used for a reason, now it may see like showmanship and trickery, but there is something to that way of presenting a point.

For example in the discussion, one might say, well there is clearly lethal intent towards me. And a police officer should have lethal intent towards somebody they believe to be a threat. So that is a legitimate concern, but the intentions behind it affect how it should be interpreted in terms of whether it would be justifiable self-defense. The circumstances dictate that.

What I'm saying is that in the lifeboat scenario, there is insufficient information to make that claim.



"You can't always do better" and "you can't always do better in that split second" are qualitatively different, enough so as to be two discrete objects.
The first is wrong; you can usually do better en potentia. The second is correct, and is why we bother with training and philosophy; to act appropriately when time is of the essence and analysis paralysis crops up.


But the point is that you aren't omnipotent. Yes there could be enough lifeboats, that would be ideal. Yes, there could be an orderly system of evacuation, that would be ideal. Yes, the boat could be not sinking, also ideal. But in the scenario we are presented with those are all turned off. Yes, ideally that never happens, but it has happened in real life. And so to use it as an example scenario is worthwhile because it has happened it is possible that despite all forethought it will happen, which is examining that kind of binary scenario is important, because sometimes it happens.



The difference though, while small, and technical, is important. You will find that people will notice that you ignore this distinction, and will act as if everything you say is flawed because it comes from a flawed premise. The people you're arguing with are intelligent, right? If telling them they are wrong doesn't work, then examining how an otherwise intelligent person can hold a 'wrong' viewpoint is worth your time, since it cuts down the workload. I think you'll find a lot of disagreements hinge on small pivots like these.

Which I've done, but have not yet had a direct response. The hinge appears to be that both sides are qualifying responsibility for death differently. I am advocating that even negligence, or inaction is equivalent to action, they are holding that it is not. So clearly as far as the alignment system goes, if they are correct, boarding the lifeboats is neutral (since it's in the interest of your survival, but doesn't result in the death of others, in a way that is your responsibility), in my viewpoint it is evil because it both self-interested (a point on which both sides agree) and results in the harm of others. The question appears to be where the fault actually lies and what degree of responsibility is assumed by an individual in that scenario.

[hamishspence]

How can one be less selfish than one is protecting one's person? That's extreme selfishness in and of itself, since the self is the only thing you are concerned with. And it results in death.

Extreme selfishness is violating the rights of others when "protecting one's person" - or, for less reason than that.

One way of looking at moral codes is to ask the question - "If everyone acted that way - would the result be good or bad?" (I think Kant's Categorical Imperative is basically this).

Take the lifeboat scenario. If everyone there told themselves "If I board, I am indirectly harming another - so I won't board" - then no-one would board the lifeboat, and everyone would die - and the lifeboat would be completely wasted.

Result - bad.

[AMFV]

Extreme selfishness is violating the rights of others when "protecting one's person" - or, for less reason than that.

One way of looking at moral codes is to ask the question - "If everyone acted that way - would the result be good or bad?" (I think Kant's Categorical Imperative is basically this).

Take the lifeboat scenario. If everyone there told themselves "If I board, I am indirectly harming another - so I won't board" - then no-one would board the lifeboat, and everyone would die - and the lifeboat would be completely wasted.

Result - bad.

I can't properly respond, because I can't discuss Kantian morality in this context (or on this forum). However suffice it so that the universal imperative is not exactly agreed on for an ethical standard in all cases (there are in fact some where it breaks down).

The answer is to have the right number of people voluntarily decide to sacrifice themselves, obviously that's not going to happen, but that is the way that morally you wind up with the most clean hands. You have those who are in the boat are the innocents (children and the like) and those individuals who are need to care for them (doctors, mothers who are still nursing). All of whom, I gave a go-ahead to earlier in the discussion. If they are all on the boats and there is still room, then lots could be drawn, or any other random system, or you could have a code already in place for this.

In any case the point you haven't addressed is selfishness. Rights are not relevant in D&D morality, since those are addressed on a different axis. D&D addresses interests and altruism (which is why it's possible to force somebody to do something good and have it still be lawful good). So you are clearly acting against somebody else's interests for your own, that's generally evil, depending on the degree of responsibility which is I think the current sticking point.

[Amphetryon]

For the grenade scenario, how do we address the rights of the family directly impacted by your decision to jump on the grenade? Your decision to do so makes a widow of your wife, takes away the father of any children you have (to statistically deleterious long-term impact), and generally forces your friends and family to deal with the loss of a loved one. Is your decision to negatively impact all of those lives a Good one? Why?

For the lifeboat scenario, anyone getting on the lifeboat because the ship is sinking is doing so to protect himself or herself. Is it really, truly your belief that everyone who survives the shipwreck did so by dint of Evil intent?

[AMFV]

For the grenade scenario, how do we address the rights of the family directly impacted by your decision to jump on the grenade? Your decision to do so makes a widow of your wife, takes away the father of any children you have (to statistically deleterious long-term impact), and generally forces your friends and family to deal with the loss of a loved one. Is your decision to negatively impact all of those lives a Good one? Why?

It's absolutely a Good decision. Rights are NOT important in D&D, that's not what we should be discussing, your wife does not have a right to control you or to require to act in a way that is not moral. Yes, it is a loss for the family, but if you would expect another to make that same sacrifice... then you need to be willing to accept that one day it may be your turn.



For the lifeboat scenario, anyone getting on the lifeboat because the ship is sinking is doing so to protect himself or herself. Is it really, truly your belief that everyone who survives the shipwreck did so by dint of Evil intent?

Nope, that's not what I said either... In fact I have repeatedly presented scenarios where it was non-evil or the evil was mitigated. Just that if done out of self-interest, the negative impact on others makes it evil. I addressed the family survival, I've previously also addressed intent and why that matters.

What I've said is that if you are acting only in the interests of your survival and you make that decision it's evil. That's what I've said, I've presented scenario options, even going so far as to point that changing intent changes the scenario and the evilness of the options.

[Aedilred]

It's absolutely a Good decision. Rights are NOT important in D&D, that's not what we should be discussing, your wife does not have a right to control you or to require to act in a way that is not moral. Yes, it is a loss for the family, but if you would expect another to make that same sacrifice... then you need to be willing to accept that one day it may be your turn.
I'd have thought part of the point, though, is that nobody expects you to make that sacrifice. That's what sets heroism, and Good in general, apart; it goes over and above what is expected.

[Amphetryon]

I'd have thought part of the point, though, is that nobody expects you to make that sacrifice. That's what sets heroism, and Good in general, apart; it goes over and above what is expected.

Indeed, I would say that expecting someone else to die in order to allow another person to live could very easily fit within a definition of Evil, yet it is what is being espoused here as Good.

[AMFV]

I'd have thought part of the point, though, is that nobody expects you to make that sacrifice. That's what sets heroism, and Good in general, apart; it goes over and above what is expected.

Well maybe expects is a poor turn of phrase here, I would do this for somebody else, because I would anticipate they would do the same for me, whether or not they actually would. In any case, I would still argue that the scenario falls down to a binary outcome. Not all scenarios have all alignment components.

In any case I think that the difference of opinion now at least, largely rests with the idea of how much responsibility a person has to prevent injury to another through their own action, which is difficult to nail down in terms of RAW (since it isn't unambiguous).

Which means I think we are at a point where no agreement can be reached. I concede that your reading of the text is valid given the set of assumptions you've made, and I'm pretty sure that mine is as well given my assumptions. I don't see any way that either of us can budge said assumptions at present though.

Edit: Although I still feel that my assumptions are the correct ones...

[SiuiS]

But this is not a formal debate, and the things that are viewed in a bad light will be different. Also rhetorical tools and tricks are used for a reason, now it may see like showmanship and trickery, but there is something to that way of presenting a point.

No, it's not a formal debate. This is the heart of your initial disagreement with Lord Razierre however; you say that at the last possible second there are limited options. He says before the last possible second there are more options. And then you tell each other that the other is wrong.



But the point is that you aren't omnipotent.

Nope. That's not important unless you equate missed possibilities with guilt, though. It seems like because you feel that if those opportunities did exist, and you didn't take them, then you are responsible for events out of your control, so you are trying to develop a position that discredits those opportunities so you won't bear that burden.

I would solve this by saying that reason ability, again, comes into it. You're only responsible for reasonable opportunities you missed, not all opportunities.



Which I've done, but have not yet had a direct response.

It has gotten lost in the noise. It was my impression that you did not.


For the grenade scenario, how do we address the rights of the family directly impacted by your decision to jump on the grenade? Your decision to do so makes a widow of your wife, takes away the father of any children you have (to statistically deleterious long-term impact), and generally forces your friends and family to deal with the loss of a loved one. Is your decision to negatively impact all of those lives a Good one? Why?

Why is being a widow bad?
Why is losing a single parent bad?
Why is dealing with loss bad?

I do not characterize these things as objectively negative. They suck, but they aren't exactly moral in the sense of direct willful action. This is actually the purpose of our own antagonistic dialectic; the words "No, you're wrong." Delivered across an Internet screen, are almost universally regarded as antagonistic. But we do it anyway. Why not characterize your own stance in this argument – that you are even arguing at all – as morally wrong?

Pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, tragedy, all have value. The widow and the orphan may become better, greater, from their ordeals. The friends who cherish you may gain more from your legacy than from falling out with you or developing into a comfortable clique with no growth. Pain is a catalyst. Adversity stimulates growth.

[Amphetryon]

Pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, tragedy, all have value. The widow and the orphan may become better, greater, from their ordeals. The friends who cherish you may gain more from your legacy than from falling out with you or developing into a comfortable clique with no growth. Pain is a catalyst. Adversity stimulates growth.

Is it your position that the deliberate act of inflicting pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, and tragedy on people whom you know and (theoretically) love is a Good act, an Evil act, or a Neutral act? Does your position change if the people are not those whom you know and love?

[AMFV]

Is it your position that the deliberate act of inflicting pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, and tragedy on people whom you know and (theoretically) love is a Good act, an Evil act, or a Neutral act? Does your position change if the people are not those whom you know and love?

It's the same for everybody, me making my wife a widow, is no worse than me deciding that the other man's wife should be a widow. So there is no net moral gain either way for either person. One widow to one widow, fatherless sons to fatherless sons. And then... and then, we have the addition of the fact that you could have prevented the suffering of the other man, his death.

If you are only helping people because you love them, out of your self interest, and you wouldn't be willing to help anybody, then that's still morally wrong as far as D&D is concerned.


Indeed, I would say that expecting someone else to die in order to allow another person to live could very easily fit within a definition of Evil, yet it is what is being espoused here as Good.

Only if I would chastise or punish them for failing in that regard, and I've already said that I wouldn't since intentions matter in this case, I can't know fully their intent, but for me, if I were to be put in that scenario to act to save myself over others would be evil, for others I can't say, probably evil as a general rule, but I don't know why and that matters since evil is wrapped up in self-interest.

Furthermore, expecting somebody to die is neither good nor evil in D&D terms. Duty unto death isn't evil or good, but lawful. Noble sacrifice is explicitly good. It is when you expect somebody to die to preserve your own interests that it becomes evil.

[SiuiS]

Is it your position that the deliberate act of inflicting pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, and tragedy on people whom you know and (theoretically) love is a Good act, an Evil act, or a Neutral act? Does your position change if the people are not those whom you know and love?

Technically;
I didn't say anything about inflicting, which is a direct action and choice. I was talking about the emergent properties of actions which have ripples, and acknowledging that the same judgement that would say 'this ripple is bad' also says 'this ripple is good' making it a useless data point.

Conversationally;
It's amoral. After so many degrees, it's not relevant. Buying Starbucks coffee is amoral, even if the coffee is made in a store owned by a company that gets coffee from countries that use slave labor, because store > company > farmers > slaves is far enough afield that it's not relevant.

Further, my wife would not be solely grief stricken. She would also be proud of my nobility mad at my stupidity, and happy at the honor reaped. A com Latin that's only ten percent fruit juice and also ninety percent alcohol can't be a non alcoholic juice; as result that is only partly negative and also partly positive cannot be a negative result.


It's the same for everybody, me making my wife a widow, is no worse than me deciding that the other man's wife should be a widow.

/)

[Aedilred]

If you are only helping people because you love them, out of your self interest, and you wouldn't be willing to help anybody, then that's still morally wrong as far as D&D is concerned.
You're taking a very broad view of "self-interest" there.

I do think it's worth quoting this again:

A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
Because I really can't see how that's ambiguous.

The other thing that troubles me about your approach, which dawned on me earlier, is that not only does it trivialise murder but it devalues sacrifice. Sacrificing one's own life is the greatest price anyone can pay. Sacrificing one's own life for another is just about the most Good act it's possible to perform, as you say:

Noble sacrifice is explicitly good.

But your approach treats it as a minimum moral expectation. In a life-or-death scenario, anything less than that is Evil. Given that not sacrificing oneself for another is apparently morally equivalent to murder, then sacrifice itself becomes morally equivalent only to not-murder.

This is what I mean about eliminating Neutral as a viable alignment. If the standard for not-Evil is set at "sacrificing one's life for another", and that act is itself held to be Good, then any act equivalent to that - by extension, pretty much any act that is not murder, or at least that does not harm another person - is also Good. There's no Neutral at all.



Why is being a widow bad?
Why is losing a single parent bad?
Why is dealing with loss bad?

I do not characterize these things as objectively negative. They suck, but they aren't exactly moral in the sense of direct willful action. This is actually the purpose of our own antagonistic dialectic; the words "No, you're wrong." Delivered across an Internet screen, are almost universally regarded as antagonistic. But we do it anyway. Why not characterize your own stance in this argument – that you are even arguing at all – as morally wrong?

...

Further, my wife would not be solely grief stricken. She would also be proud of my nobility mad at my stupidity, and happy at the honor reaped. A com Latin that's only ten percent fruit juice and also ninety percent alcohol can't be a non alcoholic juice; as result that is only partly negative and also partly positive cannot be a negative result.)

Although I can see what you're getting at, I do disagree. Ending your own life if you have loved ones and dependents is inflicting pain and suffering on them: at minimum, you're depriving them of a care-giver and breadwinner. It pretty much automatically makes their lives harder. The other factors you mention are mere possible (not automatic) compensations for that; indeed, in many cases little more than psychological coping techniques to deal with the scale of the pain inflicted. It might be better for your loved ones if you die "well" than die "badly", but even so, I'd be highly surprised if any bereaved party would take the knowledge of a "good death" over not having had you die in the first place.

It's not entirely different to the approach of child-rearing that says that bullying is, if not actively to be encouraged, then at least not something to be concerned about, because it helps toughen youngsters up. When in fact what it usually does is inflict lifelong trauma upon its victims far outweighing any good they get from the experience, and they'd have been much better off not being bullied at all.

There aren't many things in the world that are entirely negative, but the existence of minor positives within them - silver linings to the clouds - does not mean they're value-neutral. Where a positive outcome is dependent upon a greater wrong, it's surely a negative outcome overall. If thousands of people die in a natural disaster, the fact that some aid workers have the ability to pull down overtime pay doesn't balance the scales. Indeed, in D&D alignment terms, a greater Good is insufficient to justify even a relatively minor Evil act, although that is arguably an extreme approach.

[AMFV]

You're taking a very broad view of "self-interest" there.

I do think it's worth quoting this again:

Because I really can't see how that's ambiguous.

What's ambiguous is the section on neutral people being willing to kill for their own safety. I'm not arguing that neutral option would involve self-sacrifice but that it wouldn't involve killing.


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Bolded for emphasis, that is the section that makes it ambiguous. The fact that by acting as they are, results in killing, causing to die, meaning that the options as presented do not a neutral option as written either, it's invalidated from both sides. Neither option in the scenario is neutral.



The other thing that troubles me about your approach, which dawned on me earlier, is that not only does it trivialise murder but it devalues sacrifice. Sacrificing one's own life is the greatest price anyone can pay. Sacrificing one's own life for another is just about the most Good act it's possible to perform, as you say:


But your approach treats it as a minimum moral expectation. In a life-or-death scenario, anything less than that is Evil. Given that not sacrificing oneself for another is apparently morally equivalent to murder, then sacrifice itself becomes morally equivalent only to not-murder.


It is a minimum moral expectation for a good person. I value good very highly, which is why I value sacrifice highly, in fact more so, because the alternative is to do evil, and most or many people would do evil under those circumstances. It's not trivialized at all. In fact it is more significant because the alternative is starker.



This is what I mean about eliminating Neutral as a viable alignment. If the standard for not-Evil is set at "sacrificing one's life for another", and that act is itself held to be Good, then any act equivalent to that - by extension, pretty much any act that is not murder, or at least that does not harm another person - is also Good. There's no Neutral at all.

In this scenario there is no neutral option, examine the SRD text, the problem is that the scenario has no options that don't involve killing somebody (causing them to die, or whatever have you), or self-sacrifice that by definition as presented means that there is no neutral option.

Now you could argue that it's not self-sacrifice, or that it's not killing, but if you accept both precepts, then that scenario has no neutral outcome.

[hamishspence]

Going right back to the first post in which the lifeboat scenario was raised:


You're on a sinking ship, and there aren't enough lifeboats for everyone. Is it evil to do your utmost to get on a boat? To get on a boat at all? To prevent people from getting on the boat after it's full because they'd put your life at risk?


If you cause other (innocent) people to die so that you can survive, then it's evil, killing innocents is explicitly evil as per D&D alignments. Yes if you shove past the women and children to get on the lifeboat it's evil. There is no non-evil way to survive that scenario.

There's nothing in the description that precludes "drawing straws as to who should get on that boat".

[AMFV]

Going right back to the first post in which the lifeboat scenario was raised:





There's nothing in the description that precludes "drawing straws as to who should get on that boat".

And I've since altered my position. Did I miss that was not allowed, in fact I have emphatically altered my position as can be seen in every other post recently. Also "Do your utmost to get on the boat" does preclude drawing straws, at least to my mind that would involve only those options where you had a good likelihood of survival.

[hamishspence]

The point I was making was, you've said:

That's again CHANGING THE SCENARIO.
I was trying to find out what the original scenario was in the first place.

[AMFV]

The point I was making was, you've said:

I was trying to find out what the original scenario was in the first place.

The original scenario was that one was going to do their utmost to make to the lifeboat, which I said, and I still hold was evil.

[hamishspence]

It also included "To get on the boat at all".

When someone says "I'm going to do my utmost to win this race" the presumption is that they mean "without cheating" as well.

[AMFV]

It also included "To get on the boat at all".

When someone says "I'm going to do my utmost to win this race" the presumption is that they mean "without cheating" as well.

Yes, and I held and still hold that without extenuating circumstances, getting on the boat at all is still evil, just arguably less evil, since the end result is the same, the intention is the same. We're only quibbling over method here.

Edit: And since the end result is the same, somebody dying, either you or somebody else. The issue is that it still runs afoul of the SRD definition for neutral.

[hamishspence]

Which part? "Has compunctions against harming the innocent"? A case can be made that taking a spot that you did not "cheat" to obtain, does not qualify.

And "Respect for life" demands respect for one's own life as well.

[AMFV]

Which part? "Has compunctions against harming the innocent"? A case can be made that taking a spot that you did not "cheat" to obtain, does not qualify.

And "Respect for life" demands respect for one's own life as well.

Yes, and as I said, that is the crux of the argument, a case could be made for both sides. I'm arguing against it, that's been my entire argument, has been that taking a seat counts as harming the innocent, the others have been arguing against that. That is the meat of the issue.

[hamishspence]

It's worth looking at the concept of negative and positive rights in morality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

A negative right to life allows an individual to defend his life from others trying to kill him, or obtain voluntary assistance from others to defend his life—but he may not force others to defend him, because he has no natural right to be provided with defense.

In the lifeboat scenario - people have the negative right to not have their seat stolen from them by force once they're in it - but they do not have a positive right to a seat.

Thus - taking a vacant seat does not violate anybody's right to life - and cannot be called "harming somebody".

[Amphetryon]

Technically;
I didn't say anything about inflicting, which is a direct action and choice. I was talking about the emergent properties of actions which have ripples, and acknowledging that the same judgement that would say 'this ripple is bad' also says 'this ripple is good' making it a useless data point.

Conversationally;
It's amoral. After so many degrees, it's not relevant. Buying Starbucks coffee is amoral, even if the coffee is made in a store owned by a company that gets coffee from countries that use slave labor, because store > company > farmers > slaves is far enough afield that it's not relevant.
)
I don't recall saying that you, personally, said 'inflicting.' That said, when your personal choice is to jump on the grenade, you are taking a direct action and choice that inflicts those conditions (pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, and tragedy) upon those you know and care about, which is why I used the word. The 'technicality' you're bringing up reads, from here, as dodging the question, as does calling it amoral. . . the latter because it entirely sidesteps the debate to which I was responding in which it is quite clearly being argued as a moral (in other words, a Good or Evil) point.

[hamishspence]

Maybe we should create a new thread for "Moral Dilemmas and How To Avoid Committing An Evil Act" - and let this one return to "declaring one's own perceived alignment".

I perceive my alignment as LN.

[AMFV]

It's worth looking at the concept of negative and positive rights in morality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

A negative right to life allows an individual to defend his life from others trying to kill him, or obtain voluntary assistance from others to defend his life—but he may not force others to defend him, because he has no natural right to be provided with defense.

In the lifeboat scenario - people have the negative right to not have their seat stolen from them by force once they're in it - but they do not have a positive right to a seat.

Thus - taking a vacant seat does not violate anybody's right to life - and cannot be called "harming somebody".

Defense isn't the issue if you sit a vacant seat, somebody will die, if you don't you will die. That has absolutely nothing to do with forcing somebody to defend you, or negative and positive rights (which are additionally real world morality and not agreed on by everybody even there).


I don't recall saying that you, personally, said 'inflicting.' That said, when your personal choice is to jump on the grenade, you are taking a direct action and choice that inflicts those conditions (pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, and tragedy) upon those you know and care about, which is why I used the word. The 'technicality' you're bringing up reads, from here, as dodging the question, as does calling it amoral. . . the latter because it entirely sidesteps the debate to which I was responding in which it is quite clearly being argued as a moral (in other words, a Good or Evil) point.

However, I notice you didn't address the self-centered focus. Since in D&D, putting your interests above others is what is the crux of what makes you evil provided that harm is involved. So if you willing cause the other man's family to deal with those same issues, then it's morally as bad as if you favored your life over the other man's.

[hamishspence]

Treating your interests as equal to "those of others" qualifies as Neutral though.

[AMFV]

Treating your interests as equal to "those of others" qualifies as Neutral though.

But that's not an option in this case.

Reiterating...


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent...

This invalidates taking a seat, provided of course that it is "killing" to take a seat


but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

This invalidates giving up your seat or not taking seat.

Ergo, we have no real neutral option, unless taking a seat does not make you responsible for the death of others, and I can't see how that would be... since if you don't take the seat somebody will live and if you do they'll die. There is no way to abdicate or avoid responsibility here, and there is no option that preserves your own interests without harming others.

[hamishspence]

Ergo, we have no real neutral option, unless taking a seat does not make you responsible for the death of others, and I can't see how that would be.

Differing definitions of "responsible" may be in play here.

[Amphetryon]

However, I notice you didn't address the self-centered focus. Since in D&D, putting your interests above others is what is the crux of what makes you evil provided that harm is involved. So if you willing cause the other man's family to deal with those same issues, then it's morally as bad as if you favored your life over the other man's.
If you could present a version of the Lifeboat and/or Grenade scenario where 'putting your interests above others' is not a valid interpretation of a given course of action, I'd be interested to see it.

I'm of the opinion that - as you've consistently defined the terms - such a course of action is impossible.

[AMFV]

Differing definitions of "responsible" may be in play here.

Yep, hence the six or seven page debate over that exact issue. It's meandered some, but that's really the sticking point. I argue that inaction and indifference to another human being to save yourself is tantamount to murdering that person. There are circumstances where it might be acceptable (drawing lots is one actually), the doctor scenario, nursing mother, or if you are a child. But... if by failing to act you cause somebody to die, or by acting in a certain manner you cause somebody to die, when otherwise they would not have, that's responsible, at least by my definition.

[Amphetryon]

But... if by failing to act you cause somebody to die, or by acting in a certain manner you cause somebody to die, when otherwise they would not have, that's responsible, at least by my definition.

This makes you responsible for every single person who died today (or yesterday, or tomorrow) whom you did not actively attempt to help.

[AMFV]

If you could present a version of the Lifeboat and/or Grenade scenario where 'putting your interests above others' is not a valid interpretation of a given course of action, I'd be interested to see it.

I'm of the opinion that - as you've consistently defined the terms - such a course of action is impossible.

Jumping on the grenade, as I've pointed out it's a moral wash as far as your family goes (since the other guy has a family), also you're putting the interests of the other guy over the interests of your family, not your interests, so as far as D&D is concerned that's non-evil.

Edit: In fact, since you are putting the interests of others over your own interests (and that of your family) that counts as self-sacrifice and is explicitly good.

Edit 2: Also it's worth noting that to be evil putting your own interests over those of others has to be harmful to them (and may even have to be fatal depending on how much of a stickler you are).

[hamishspence]

Makes me think of the old joke:

Two man are walking in the jungle when, across the clearing, they see a hungry lion. The lion begins to advance. One man pulls out a pair of running shoes and puts them on. The other says "What did you do that for? You'll never outrun a lion." The first says "No. But I can outrun you."

[Amphetryon]

Jumping on the grenade, as I've pointed out it's a moral wash as far as your family goes (since the other guy has a family), also you're putting the interests of the other guy over the interests of your family, not your interests, so as far as D&D is concerned that's non-evil.

Edit: In fact, since you are putting the interests of others over your own interests (and that of your family) that counts as self-sacrifice and is explicitly good.

Edit 2: Also it's worth noting that to be evil putting your own interests over those of others has to be harmful to them (and may even have to be fatal depending on how much of a stickler you are).
You're deliberately ignoring the long-term interests of your loved ones (not the same as your own interestes) in order to help those whom you may have never even met. That's merely drawing an arbitrary line for whose interests you're allowed to consider paramount; the drawing of such an arbitrary line does not read as either Lawful or Good, from here.

Regarding edit 2, you'll note that the likelihood of harming others as a result of your actions has already been established within the Grenade scenario.

[AMFV]

You're deliberately ignoring the long-term interests of your loved ones (not the same as your own interestes) in order to help those whom you may have never even met. That's merely drawing an arbitrary line for whose interests you're allowed to consider paramount; the drawing of such an arbitrary line does not read as either Lawful or Good, from here.

Regarding edit 2, you'll note that the likelihood of harming others as a result of your actions has already been established within the Grenade scenario.

Well that's your opinion, but the interpretation as far as the RAW goes is simpler, and as far as my opinion goes, putting the interests of your family over the interests of another family is equally self-interested as putting your own interests over those of another. So neutral when it doesn't result in harm or death, and evil when it does.

[hamishspence]

So - you consider yourself LG, I consider myself LN - does anyone else want to chip in with their own perceived alignment?

[AMFV]

So - you consider yourself LG, I consider myself LN - does anyone else want to chip in with their own perceived alignment?

I don't really consider myself any of them to be absolutely honest, it's a gross oversimplification.

[Amphetryon]

Well that's your opinion, but the interpretation as far as the RAW goes is simpler, and as far as my opinion goes, putting the interests of your family over the interests of another family is equally self-interested as putting your own interests over those of another. So neutral when it doesn't result in harm or death, and evil when it does.

So, jumping on the grenade is Evil, then. As is - per previously established metrics - failing to jump on the grenade.

Or, did you think there was a non-Evil action available?

[Aedilred]

Defense isn't the issue if you sit a vacant seat, somebody will die, if you don't you will die. That has absolutely nothing to do with forcing somebody to defend you, or negative and positive rights (which are additionally real world morality and not agreed on by everybody even there).

D&D morality has a fairly strong relation to the real world, though. The main difference is in the existence of an objective good and evil and that these are (confirmed) "forces" in the universe, rather than a possibly-relative standard judged at ground level.

If D&D morality is completely abstracted from real-world morality then it's not going to work as a gaming mechanism, because players will have no frame of reference.

The existence of positive and negative rights - or rights and liberties, or whatever you want to call them - is also pretty uncontroversial philosophically. I'm sure there are people who don't agree with the validity of the theory, but then there are people who will disagree with almost literally anything, so that isn't necessarily meaningful. If you don't think it's a valid basis for discussion, it would probably be useful if you explained why, rather than just saying "it's not universally agreed" because that argument isn't helpful or relevant.


Going back to this with relevance to the PHB:


Bolded for emphasis, that is the section that makes it ambiguous. The fact that by acting as they are, results in killing, causing to die, meaning that the options as presented do not a neutral option as written either, it's invalidated from both sides. Neither option in the scenario is neutral.
I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between the two parts of the quote, and this is largely because your reasoning regarding the harming of the innocent is faulty. In any case, surely there is only one way that the last part of that alignment description can be interpreted, irrespective of what's gone before? The ambiguous part is in how the first part (about harming the innocent) is interpreted, and what circumstances will qualify. And this is the problem; you're not accepting any scenario in which the unambiguous part of the description can be actioned because you're hung up on the allegedly ambiguous one. In the course of your reasoning you're actually invalidating the whole alignment, because it can't get to grips with the distinction between not-Evil and Good.

Part of this is your assertion that there is no moral difference between sacrifice of another and non-sacrifice of yourself. I think there is a very clear difference, and that it's quite easily explicable. Redmage has already given it a go, but here's another try:

The key here is the null state: what will happen to person X assuming you have no agency in a given situation. The two fundamental outcomes are for our purposes:
1) Person X will die.
2) Person X will not die.

When we insert our agency, we can change the outcome by choosing whether to act or not act. So that gives us four available options (assuming in all cases that their life and yours are mutually incompatible.

1) a. You do not act, and person X dies.
b. You act, and person X does not die.
2) a. You do not act, and person X does not die.
b. You act, and person X dies.

So there is also a difference between action and inaction. On the situational matrix then, sacrificing another for oneself (2b) and not sacrificing yourself for another (1a) are as unrelated as it's possible to get.

Now, I would argue that inaction is fundamentally Neutral, irrespective of the underlying situation (excepting scenarios where you have specific responsibilities, such as giving care to a child, but that's a tangent). Any harm that pertains to Person X is as a result of the underlying situation and nothing to do with you. Good and Evil become available as options when you begin acting. Indeed, part of the point in Good and Evil is that they are action-dependent, since inaction is Neutral at heart. That doesn't mean that all actions are either Good or Evil, but that action is a prerequisite for Good or Evil to become an issue.

Now, in the sinking ship scenario, I think we've got bogged down in the "action" part of it. Firstly, let's assume that getting on the lifeboat constitutes an action for the purposes of the scenario, but it's not one already on the list. The scenario is type (1) where Person X is going to die by default. So the outcome would be, say, (1c), where you act, and Person X dies anyway. So you have acted, and Person X is still dead.

So assuming outcome (1c), have you harmed Person X, and is it equivalent to (2b). In (1c), what harmed - and killed - Person X was actually the underlying nature of the scenario over which you had no control, because he would have died whether you had been there or not.* The only way Person X would not have died is if you had acted in a specific way - to sacrifice yourself on his behalf.

In situation (2b), what harmed and killed Person X was you. Had you acted in any other way or not acted at all, he would not have died. The situation is actually almost completely reversed from (1a) and (1c).

Moreover there is the issue that Person X is a theoretical, uncountable entity. Unless you apply a greater deal of specificity than the scenario assumes by default, the identity of the person you saved through action, or failed to save through inaction or alternative action, can never be known. Unless the lifeboats are only one seat short, many "Persons X" are going to die irrespective of your action. The chain of causation breaks down at this point, because it was fundamentally the scenario that killed them, not you.

The following diagrams attempt to demonstrate this.

Fig. 1 demonstrates the basic scenario. A) the ship sinks. B) Person X dies.
Fig 2. demonstrates your options, with S being "self-sacrifice" and T being "anything else". S is the only thing that changes the outcome. (? represents unknowable variables, particularly regarding the identity of Person X.)

Fig. 1
A --> B


Fig. 2
--S --?--> C
-/
A --------> B
-\---------/
--T-------?

Fundamentally, taking action T leads to the same outcome as not being present at all.

Now if we change the notation to reflect the "sacrificing another for oneself" scenario (i.e. B is survival, C is death, S is the sacrifice and T is anything else) we find the difference between T in the first scenario, and S in the second. I really can't see how you can draw a moral equivalency between the two and say that they're identical.

(Now, there is one sticking-point here, and that's what constitutes inaction in the case of the sinking ship. However I believe this is actually pretty explicable on a moral basis. Given that the survival impulse is instinctual, and that animals have no moral agency, then surrendering to instinct is an abrogation of moral (not factual) agency and for the purposes of this scenario, surrendering to instinct can be considered inaction. Instinct would compel you to board a lifeboat, and provided that you take no steps over and above what is necessary to do so (i.e. not directly harming others in the attempt) would therefore fall under (1a).)

*In fact, if you are responsible for the harm that comes to Person X in the sinking ship scenario, it was when you boarded the ship in the first place, because you helped to change the nature of the scenario from (2) to (1). However even in that case it is possible someone else would have boarded in your place - and the people ultimately responsible for the situation are in any case the one who allowed for more crew/passenger berths than lifeboat places, and the one who crashed the ship (assuming human error in both instances).


Maybe we should create a new thread for "Moral Dilemmas and How To Avoid Committing An Evil Act" - and let this one return to "declaring one's own perceived alignment".
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea... but then it might also be too late.

[hamishspence]

*In fact, if you are responsible for the harm that comes to Person X in the sinking ship scenario, it was when you boarded the ship in the first place, because you helped to change the nature of the scenario from (2) to (1). However even in that case it is possible someone else would have boarded in your place - and the people ultimately responsible for the situation are in any case the one who allowed for more crew/passenger berths than lifeboat places, and the one who crashed the ship (assuming human error in both instances).

Lets assume no human error in this case- ship was attacked by monster - it was fought off but wrecked the side of the ship along with several lifeboats.

[Aedilred]

Lets assume no human error in this case- ship was attacked by monster - it was fought off but wrecked the side of the ship along with several lifeboats.
Well in that case it's the monster's fault.

[SiuiS]

I don't recall saying that you, personally, said 'inflicting.' That said, when your personal choice is to jump on the grenade, you are taking a direct action and choice that inflicts those conditions (pain, suffering, sorrow, anger, grief, loss, and tragedy) upon those you know and care about, which is why I used the word. The 'technicality' you're bringing up reads, from here, as dodging the question, as does calling it amoral. . . the latter because it entirely sidesteps the debate to which I was responding in which it is quite clearly being argued as a moral (in other words, a Good or Evil) point.

You said 'inflicted' in the post I quoted. :p

Yes. The argument clearly lays it out as having to be a moral choice. I call out the argument as bunk. I'm not sidestepping it, my valid answer is that it's not accurate nor applicable.


I don't really consider myself any of them to be absolutely honest, it's a gross oversimplification.

Yes. Alignment is not morality. It's about which primal cosmic faction (which is vaguely moral) you are most spiritually and ethically aligned with.

[hamishspence]

That said - if a person consistently "makes personal sacrifices for strangers" and goes to considerable lengths to "avoid harming the innocent" - they fit well with Good at least.

The others are a bit hazier.

[RedMage125]

Aedilred, your arguments are precisely what I was attempting to get at.

The difference is, in fact, what happens without your agency.

Which is what AMFV refuses to acknowledge. That being, "killing" requires agency on your part to end the life of someone who would have lived if not for your action. If the person in question will die without your agency, and you will also die, then moral abrogation enters the equation if you take an act to save your own life. That is, to say, you have not "killed" them, because you did not take an action to end the life of someone who would have otherwise lived.
It is Evil to "kill" someone to save oneself, yes. But if that person and yourself are both in mortal peril regardless of your action, the the action of "killing" them is not one you have taken just because you do not wish to end your own life to preserve theirs.

Regarding requiring "knowledge of intent": Since you cannot know the "intent" of anyone else boarding the lifeboat, it's logical to assume that other people are also boarding in the effort of saving their own lives, to INCLUDE the person you could potentially save by vacating your fairly-earned spot on the boat. So then the question becomes, if we were to hypothetically accept that "boarding a lifeboat with the intent to save one's own life" is Evil, then how is it Good overall to sacrifice one's own life (a Good act) in order to allow someone else to commit an Evil act? Because if their act is Evil, and was only enabled by your agency, does one not share the moral weight of the Evil act?


I don't really consider myself any of them to be absolutely honest, it's a gross oversimplification.
Of course it is. Even in D&D, that's all alignment is. Alignment is not an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. It is a grossly oversimplified summation of an individual's values, outlooks and beliefs, as shown through both action and intent.

And regading "interpreting the RAW differently", AMFV...no.

You are taking a stance that assumes a wildly different definition of "killing" than is used in D&D. Unless you take an action that ends a life that would have continued without you agency, you have not "killed". You have not acknowledged the association of "sacrificing oneself" in regards to Neutrality. If you insist that your view is supported by RAW, then please, by all means, prove it.

Provide a scenario where a person "Refuses to sacrifice himself to save the life of a stranger" in a way that is NOT Evil, by your interpretation. For this purposes, "stranger" must truly mean someone you do not know, so you cannot implement into the equation knowledge of the alignment or past misdeeds of the person you are refusing to sacrifice yourself to save. If your interpretation really is a valid interpretation of RAW, then anything taken from RAW can fit into it. That means that since the RAW say "refusing to sacrifice your life for the life of a stranger" is not an Evil act, then you can construct a way to showcase this that still fits in your interpretation. Otherwise, you must acknowledge that your interpretation requires a deviation from a strict RAW reading.

Either way. Acknowledging that would satisfy the point as well.

[veti]

I used to be LG. I'd obey speed limits, pay my taxes (without claiming perfectly valid deductions), give money and time to charity and to beggars, I'd point out checkout errors that were in my favour, I'd go out of my way to help others threatened by mild harm or even inconvenience, I'd do everything I could to minimise my environmental impact. When I did accidentally transgress, I'd pay penalties with no backchat.

Then two things happened. First, they changed the rules. Now, LG requires so much more than that. Apparently I also have to "fight relentlessly" and "hate to see the guilty go unpunished", although how that's supposed to align with "compassion" I'm still not clear.

Second, a funny thing happened when my first child was born. Looking at that baby, I knew, in a way I'd never understood before, what unconditional love really meant. I knew that not only would I throw myself on a grenade for this child - I'd also, if humanly possible, avoid going anywhere near the damn' grenade - no matter how many other people I could potentially save - because my death would leave this creature (relatively) alone and defenceless in the world. Now I'm probably True Neutral.

[AMFV]

Aedilred, your arguments are precisely what I was attempting to get at.

The difference is, in fact, what happens without your agency.

Which is what AMFV refuses to acknowledge. That being, "killing" requires agency on your part to end the life of someone who would have lived if not for your action. If the person in question will die without your agency, and you will also die, then moral abrogation enters the equation if you take an act to save your own life. That is, to say, you have not "killed" them, because you did not take an action to end the life of someone who would have otherwise lived.
It is Evil to "kill" someone to save oneself, yes. But if that person and yourself are both in mortal peril regardless of your action, the the action of "killing" them is not one you have taken just because you do not wish to end your own life to preserve theirs.

Regarding requiring "knowledge of intent": Since you cannot know the "intent" of anyone else boarding the lifeboat, it's logical to assume that other people are also boarding in the effort of saving their own lives, to INCLUDE the person you could potentially save by vacating your fairly-earned spot on the boat. So then the question becomes, if we were to hypothetically accept that "boarding a lifeboat with the intent to save one's own life" is Evil, then how is it Good overall to sacrifice one's own life (a Good act) in order to allow someone else to commit an Evil act? Because if their act is Evil, and was only enabled by your agency, does one not share the moral weight of the Evil act?


Of course it is. Even in D&D, that's all alignment is. Alignment is not an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. It is a grossly oversimplified summation of an individual's values, outlooks and beliefs, as shown through both action and intent.

And regading "interpreting the RAW differently", AMFV...no.

You are taking a stance that assumes a wildly different definition of "killing" than is used in D&D. Unless you take an action that ends a life that would have continued without you agency, you have not "killed". You have not acknowledged the association of "sacrificing oneself" in regards to Neutrality. If you insist that your view is supported by RAW, then please, by all means, prove it.

Provide a scenario where a person "Refuses to sacrifice himself to save the life of a stranger" in a way that is NOT Evil, by your interpretation. For this purposes, "stranger" must truly mean someone you do not know, so you cannot implement into the equation knowledge of the alignment or past misdeeds of the person you are refusing to sacrifice yourself to save. If your interpretation really is a valid interpretation of RAW, then anything taken from RAW can fit into it. That means that since the RAW say "refusing to sacrifice your life for the life of a stranger" is not an Evil act, then you can construct a way to showcase this that still fits in your interpretation. Otherwise, you must acknowledge that your interpretation requires a deviation from a strict RAW reading.

Either way. Acknowledging that would satisfy the point as well.


No, my interpretation DOES NOT require a deviation. Just because you disagree with it, does not mean that there is not a definition of killing that fits failing to act... I've even presented a legal code which identified explicitly that failing to act could be considered murder. My interpretation requires NO deviation from RAW. Since killing is not defined therein. Certainly starving a child is defined as killing, no? Not speaking in somebody's defense when you have information that could prevent them from being wrongfully executed? Also killing by some definition. I've provided legal definitions that agree with my and are sensible with my reading.

As to "provide a scenario where one can not sacrifice oneself", that's fundamentally impossible by my position which would not have a scenario like that exist. I don't think that scenario exists. That doesn't stop the neutral alignment from existing, but that does affect it with regards to a particular case.

[AMFV]

The key here is the null state: what will happen to person X assuming you have no agency in a given situation. The two fundamental outcomes are for our purposes:
1) Person X will die.
2) Person X will not die.

When we insert our agency, we can change the outcome by choosing whether to act or not act. So that gives us four available options (assuming in all cases that their life and yours are mutually incompatible.

1) a. You do not act, and person X dies.
b. You act, and person X does not die.
2) a. You do not act, and person X does not die.
b. You act, and person X dies.


Yes, this is what we've been arguing, I've shown legal documentation that shows that there are people, rational people, in the real world that agree that inaction qualifies as action for murder. I'm not sure that I should have to provide any more evidence, I've shown a reasonable person can share my views. Why are you continuing to insist that it's impossible?

Edit: you may not like the implications of a certain moral viewpoint but that doesn't alter it's validity, moral systems are not judged by their implications but by their foundations and I've done enough to support the foundations here.

[Amphetryon]

You said 'inflicted' in the post I quoted. :p

Yes. The argument clearly lays it out as having to be a moral choice. I call out the argument as bunk. I'm not sidestepping it, my valid answer is that it's not accurate nor applicable.

Yes. I said it. I even said that I was the one who used the term again in the post you quoted. I do not see why you feel the need to point this fact, which I acknowledged, out, let alone do so in tiny font with your tongue out, unless you failed entirely to see it within the very post you quoted.

Calling out the argument as bunk is, in fact, declining to engage it, which is sidestepping it, particularly since it is the crux of the current debate on both sides. If your wish is to simply disregard the argument, that's fine. Telling everyone they're wrong without backing that position up contributes nothing.

[AMFV]

This makes you responsible for every single person who died today (or yesterday, or tomorrow) whom you did not actively attempt to help.

No... that would make you responsible for those you could have saved, as I've pointed out before. If you couldn't have saved somebody, that would not be your responsibility.

[Amphetryon]

No... that would make you responsible for those you could have saved, as I've pointed out before. If you couldn't have saved somebody, that would not be your responsibility.

Did you eat food? Then you chose to withhold food from other people. Did you have any money you didn't donate? Then you similarly chose to selfishly hold it, instead of allowing someone else to have it to buy food, medicine, or shelter. Did you open your dwelling up as a shelter to any transient who might be in the neighborhood? If not, you chose to prevent people from enjoying the safety and protection from the elements that may have kept them alive for another day.

This holds true if you knew the people from whom you withheld these basic elements of survival, or not, by metrics you've previously established, since inaction and action are both equally guilty choices.

[Aedilred]

As to "provide a scenario where one can not sacrifice oneself", that's fundamentally impossible by my position which would not have a scenario like that exist. I don't think that scenario exists. That doesn't stop the neutral alignment from existing, but that does affect it with regards to a particular case.
In that case, how do you explain the last sentence of the neutral alignment description?

A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
Is that just gibberish? A logical impossibility?

This is one of the defining features of the alignment; one of the few examples mentioned in the basic alignment description. What is more likely, that the most common alignment can't actually exist because it's self-contradictory, or that you have misinterpreted some other part of the description which you (and nobody else) consider to create this logical conflict?

In fact, the phrase you're getting hung up on doesn't contradict the later one at all even if we accept your extremely punitive definition of "kill/directly harm/etc.".

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the compunction to make sacrifices to protect or help others...
"Compunction" does not mean "interdiction". This doesn't say "Neutral people will never kill the innocent", it says "Neutral people would feel bad about killing the innocent and would prefer not to". Taken as a whole, and written in simpler English, the alignment description reads something like:

"Neutral people don't like killing the innocent but also prefer not to make sacrifices to protect or help others. They might sacrifice their life for a loved one or even their country, but not for a stranger."

The imagined contradiction disappears. It doesn't say "Neutral people will never kill the innocent"; they'd just really rather not and will try to avoid doing so. But when put in a situation like the sinking ship, they'll leave folk to die and feel bad about it rather than volunteer to die on their behalf.




Yes, this is what we've been arguing, I've shown legal documentation that shows that there are people, rational people, in the real world that agree that inaction qualifies as action for murder. I'm not sure that I should have to provide any more evidence, I've shown a reasonable person can share my views. Why are you continuing to insist that it's impossible?
I'm not continuing to insist it's impossible (although I do still believe that your understanding of causation is fundamentally flawed on the evidence presented). You've shown that a reasonable person could share your views if they accepted your interpretation of certain terms. You haven't shown that a reasonable person actually does.

[AMFV]

In that case, how do you explain the last sentence of the neutral alignment description?

Is that just gibberish? A logical impossibility?

This is one of the defining features of the alignment; one of the few examples mentioned in the basic alignment description. What is more likely, that the most common alignment can't actually exist because it's self-contradictory, or that you have misinterpreted some other part of the description which you (and nobody else) consider to create this logical conflict?

In fact, the phrase you're getting hung up on doesn't contradict the later one at all even if we accept your extremely punitive definition of "kill/directly harm/etc.".

"Compunction" does not mean "interdiction". This doesn't say "Neutral people will never kill the innocent", it says "Neutral people would feel bad about killing the innocent and would prefer not to". Taken as a whole, and written in simpler English, the alignment description reads something like:

"Neutral people don't like killing the innocent but also prefer not to make sacrifices to protect or help others. They might sacrifice their life for a loved one or even their country, but not for a stranger."

A compunction is a moral prohibition or a moral attitude that prevents something. Also it's worth noting that the version in the PHB is prior to the version on the SRD, so we should use the more current version, and they are somewhat in contradiction, sometimes that happens with the rules. If you accept the older PHB version, I don't think you can accept the newer SRD version, they are simultaneously compatible viewpoints. I think the SRD version is more consistent with what is presented in other places (BoED and BoVD), but that is neither here nor there.



The imagined contradiction disappears. It doesn't say "Neutral people will never kill the innocent"; they'd just really rather not and will try to avoid doing so. But when put in a situation like the sinking ship, they'll leave folk to die and feel bad about it rather than volunteer to die on their behalf.


True, however,


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

So hurting others is explicitly defined as evil, so while a neutral person might be more inclined to do that than to sacrifice their life, it still remains an evil act.



I'm not continuing to insist it's impossible (although I do still believe that your understanding of causation is fundamentally flawed on the evidence presented). You've shown that a reasonable person could share your views if they accepted your interpretation of certain terms. You haven't shown that a reasonable person actually does.

The entire state of New York shares my viewpoint that murder does not have to involve actually actively doing something. Furthermore I can't demonstrate that to you, since real world religion and philosophy are off the table. Suffice it say that there are philosophies that agree, and I'm sure you're aware of that as well.

The original cause is not important here, what's important is what actions are available and what results from those actions, and the intention involved in them. If original cause were important than a murderer would be able to argue that they did not in fact cause themselves to murder, that it was the circumstances they were in that caused this. That is to my thinking as absurd as your suggestion.

[AMFV]

Did you eat food? Then you chose to withhold food from other people. Did you have any money you didn't donate? Then you similarly chose to selfishly hold it, instead of allowing someone else to have it to buy food, medicine, or shelter. Did you open your dwelling up as a shelter to any transient who might be in the neighborhood? If not, you chose to prevent people from enjoying the safety and protection from the elements that may have kept them alive for another day.

This holds true if you knew the people from whom you withheld these basic elements of survival, or not, by metrics you've previously established, since inaction and action are both equally guilty choices.

I've addressed this, my eating food does not withhold it from others, that's absurd. If I stopped eating, then others would continue starve and nobody would have any more food, ergo not an equivalent scenario, there is no action I can take that would change this. If there is no action I could take that would affect the scenario there is no responsibility on my part, something which I'm fairly sure I've addressed in this debate, more than once.

[Aedilred]

A compunction is a moral prohibition or a moral attitude that prevents something. Also it's worth noting that the version in the PHB is prior to the version on the SRD, so we should use the more current version, and they are somewhat in contradiction, sometimes that happens with the rules. If you accept the older PHB version, I don't think you can accept the newer SRD version, they are simultaneously compatible viewpoints. I think the SRD version is more consistent with what is presented in other places (BoED and BoVD), but that is neither here nor there.
In that case, can you quote the relevant portion of the SRD that supports your interpretation?

Edit: Never mind, I found it. It's worded almost identically, although it does remove the last phrase which indicates "will not sacrifice life for a stranger". It however retains the "lacks the commitment [previously, "compunction"] to make sacrifices to protect or help others". So it's still in there that a neutral person will not sacrifice themselves to protect or help others, it's just worded less explicitly.

Also:


com·punc·tion [kuhm-puhngk-shuhn]
noun
1. a feeling of uneasiness or anxiety of the conscience caused by regret for doing wrong or causing pain; contrition; remorse.
2. any uneasiness or hesitation about the rightness of an action.

Not a prohibition, nor a prevention.


The entire state of New York shares my viewpoint that murder does not have to involve actually actively doing something. Furthermore I can't demonstrate that to you, since real world religion and philosophy are off the table. Suffice it say that there are philosophies that agree, and I'm sure you're aware of that as well.
Actually, I disagree with your interpretation of the statute there. I don't think it means what you think it means. Can you cite any cases on the subject? Because I've never heard of a case where someone has even been prosecuted for murder, let alone convicted, for a vaguely analogous situation, and I would have hoped I would have if such a one existed.


The original cause is not important here, what's important is what actions are available and what results from those actions, and the intention involved in them. If original cause were important than a murderer would be able to argue that they did not in fact cause themselves to murder, that it was the circumstances they were in that caused this. That is to my thinking as absurd as your suggestion.
No, you're confusing directness and indirectness again.

Q.
1. I push past Mr X on the street. This makes him angry and he kills Mrs Y. What killed her?
2. Mr X is burning to death. I do not intervene. What killed him?

A.
1. Mr X.
2. The fire.

This is why I suggest that your reasoning of causation is flawed. It's similar to where you rebut the suggestion that eating is depriving another of food because of the existence of interceding stages, while insisting that the lifeboat scenario is killing someone despite the existence of interceding stages.

Edit:

If there is no action I could take that would affect the scenario there is no responsibility on my part, something which I'm fairly sure I've addressed in this debate, more than once.
Opportunity does not equal responsibility, unless you are holding everyone to a Good standard.

[Melville's Book]

I just wanted to ask this because I keep hearing people talk about it. Why does everyone keep saying Neutral is the most common alignment?


Player's Handbook, page 13

Alignment: Humans tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality. The best and worst are found among them.

I also read somewhere else, though I can't find the book (I just spent half an hour with BoED, so probably not that, though it seems like just the place for such a thing to be written), something to the effect of "if a Paladin were to detect the alignments of ten random townspeople, he would likely find three Good people, four Neutral people, and three Evil people. Despite these people showing up as Evil, the Paladin may not attack them while adhering to his code; the Paladin is charged to protect these people."

That was obviously not word for word, but if you've read the book in question you'll probably recognize it. Neutrality is only slightly more abundant than Good or Evil in D&D terms.

(Completely unrelated, but since the discussion is about alignment, there was something else I read too, which I don't even think was in an actual book but for all I know might have been in the 3.0 PHB or the 3.5 PHB2 or something else that remains vague to me: a very interesting little article about a squishy of some sort, I think a Sorcerer, running from a bugbear, and their flight resulting in a rockslide, with the alignment of the action depending on whether or not they had deduced that they would in fact cause a rockslide. Does anybody know where I can find this?)

[Aedilred]

I just wanted to ask this because I keep hearing people talk about it. Why does everyone keep saying Neutral is the most common alignment?
...

That was obviously not word for word, but if you've read the book in question you'll probably recognize it. Neutrality is only slightly more abundant than Good or Evil in D&D terms.
Huh. I had always been led to believe that Neutrality was the norm and divergence was the exception. If it's not in the books I must have got it from the forum. Weird. Is that quote from the 3/3.5 PHB or is it a 4th ed introduction?

In any case, that doesn't alter my general position, other than the bits where I specifically stated Neutral was the most common alignment.

(Edit: although now I check, the table on p.104 of the PHB does give Neutral as the default alignment for humans (and halflings), and Chaotic Neutral as the default for half-humans.)


(Completely unrelated, but since the discussion is about alignment, there was something else I read too, which I don't even think was in an actual book but for all I know might have been in the 3.0 PHB or the 3.5 PHB2 or something else that remains vague to me: a very interesting little article about a squishy of some sort, I think a Sorcerer, running from a bugbear, and their flight resulting in a rockslide, with the alignment of the action depending on whether or not they had deduced that they would in fact cause a rockslide. Does anybody know where I can find this?)
I'm not sure, but it sounds similar to the bit from (I think) the BoVD that was being discussed earlier.

[Melville's Book]

Huh. I had always been led to believe that Neutrality was the norm and divergence was the exception. If it's not in the books I must have got it from the forum. Weird. Is that quote from the 3/3.5 PHB or is it a 4th ed introduction?

3.5 PHB. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.


In any case, that doesn't alter my general position, other than the bits where I specifically stated Neutral was the most common alignment.

Nor was it meant to. It's just something I needed to get off my chest, what with how often the assertion is made that people are mostly Neutral. That, and while I agree with the majority of AMFV's argument, I think he makes it a bit too harsh to the point where I wonder how games he plays in with any sort of consistent threats have any Neutral characters at all.


I'm not sure, but it sounds similar to the bit from (I think) the BoVD that was being discussed earlier.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find it there.

[AMFV]

In that case, can you quote the relevant portion of the SRD that supports your interpretation?

I did when I was the evil reference.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

That's pretty explicit. If you are harming, oppressing or killing then it's evil.



Also:

Not a prohibition, nor a prevention.

As I've pointed out though, the evil section addresses, that since the two are not mutually inconclusive, A neutral person would have compunctions against evil, and killing is an evil act. It doesn't relegate killing to survive to neutral (since that isn't addressed.



Actually, I disagree with your interpretation of the statute there. I don't think it means what you think it means. Can you cite any cases on the subject? Because I've never heard of a case where someone has even been prosecuted for murder, let alone convicted, for a vaguely analogous situation, and I would have hoped I would have if such a one existed.


Legally, I don't think you could. People have certainly been charged with Murder 2, for cases where children have starved to death though. In any case, it doesn't matter if it's been applied to an analogous situation, what matters is "does it require action"? And it doesn't putting somebody in a scenario where you know they are likely is sufficient.

So even if, even if there had never been a case on record, it doesn't change the fact that to the state action is not required for murder.



No, you're confusing directness and indirectness again.

Q.
1. I push past Mr X on the street. This makes him angry and he kills Mrs Y. What killed her?
2. Mr X is burning to death. I do not intervene. What killed him?

A.
1. Mr X.
2. The fire.

Wrong,

1. Mr X. and you (If you could have done something that could have demonstrably stopped him, I'm ignoring that if he is a murderer he would probably have killed her anyway later, but if it is your lack of a single action, not really very realistic mind you in this case, as you can't really prove that it wouldn't have happened otherwise, but if you could have done something different and stopped the death, then you share responsibility, morally, although not legally)

2. Again, you and the fire. Now you may not have been able to save him if you had intervened and that makes your responsibility less than in the lifeboat scenario, but if you could have saved them, then you have partial responsibility for his death. Morally.



This is why I suggest that your reasoning of causation is flawed. It's similar to where you rebut the suggestion that eating is depriving another of food because of the existence of interceding stages, while insisting that the lifeboat scenario is killing someone despite the existence of interceding stages.

Edit:

Opportunity does not equal responsibility, unless you are holding everyone to a Good standard.

Yes it does, inaction begets evil, in those cases, per the RAW definition of evil again



"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Just because you are hurting others by not acting does not remove your responsibility in the scenario.

Edit: Also I can't present you with more real world examples, at least not in this forum.

[Amphetryon]

Yes it does, inaction begets evil, in those cases, per the RAW definition of evil again In which case you're back to agreeing that the inaction of helping any person whose time is otherwise up today is the same thing as killing them yourself, and an Evil act. If you ate today, if you did anything other than donate all your money to helping people, if you didn't try to get an uninsured ER patient helped on your insurance or money, or didn't actively invite transients to stay in your house so that they could avoid the dangers of sleeping on the streets, you've committed an Evil act by your inaction. . . .

Or you don't really believe the part I just quoted you saying to actually be true by the RAW.

[Aedilred]

Evil implies...

That's pretty explicit.
Implicit being the opposite of explicit?


1. Mr X. and you (If you could have done something that could have demonstrably stopped him, I'm ignoring that if he is a murderer he would probably have killed her anyway later, but if it is your lack of a single action, not really very realistic mind you in this case, as you can't really prove that it wouldn't have happened otherwise, but if you could have done something different and stopped the death, then you share responsibility, morally, although not legally)
And we're back to "eating takes food from starving children" again.


2. Again, you and the fire. Now you may not have been able to save him if you had intervened and that makes your responsibility less than in the lifeboat scenario, but if you could have saved them, then you have partial responsibility for his death. Morally.
By extension, everyone in the world is morally culpable for his (and indeed every) death, because they also did not intervene at any stage to prevent the fire from starting, or to help him escape once it did. Indeed, many of their actions may have led up to the fire starting.

I think I'm just about done with this discussion, because we're just going in circles. In general, I disagree with your premises, your reasoning and your conclusions. Even when I hypothetically accept your premises and reasoning, I still disagree with your conclusions. I'm not sure how this is happening, but it seems we're just talking past each other. It might be because of your apparent presumption that self-interest is fundamentally evil, with which I disagree for reasons I won't go into (but would have thought were self-evident) but maybe it's something else. I don't know if you've taken in anything I've said. But anyway, I think we're done here. I do hope never to see you on a jury I'm in front of for whatever reason!

[AMFV]

In which case you're back to agreeing that the inaction of helping any person whose time is otherwise up today is the same thing as killing them yourself, and an Evil act. If you ate today, if you did anything other than donate all your money to helping people, if you didn't try to get an uninsured ER patient helped on your insurance or money, or didn't actively invite transients to stay in your house so that they could avoid the dangers of sleeping on the streets, you've committed an Evil act by your inaction. . . .

Or you don't really believe the part I just quoted you saying to actually be true by the RAW.

Only if your inaction causes that, if you'll look at the caveats in the answer to the fire and shoving past the guy examples, you'll see that I addressed that. If your action wouldn't directly change it, then you don't have a direct responsibility.

For example, if I walk past a burning house that is literally an inferno, and I can't enter, I'm not responsible to save the people in this house, since my actions would not affect things either way.

If I cease eating it doesn't prevent anybody from starving, there's no positive action, so eating does not make me responsible for starvation, unless I am directly taking food from somebody else, or unless there is a direct action I could take. As I've pointed out even giving all of my food to somebody while I starve doesn't work, since you wind up starving and then they are dependent on you and you are responsible for their later starvation.

If you meet a transient and they are freezing, and you don't help them, then you are responsible, if they would have dead or suffered serious injury otherwise, now you don't have to house them yourself (since that's dangerous), but you have a moral responsibility.


Implicit being the opposite of explicit?


And we're back to "eating takes food from starving children" again.


No it doesn't, unless there is a direct action I could have taken reasonably to stop that, given my knowledge of the scenario, as I've said I believe four times now. If you don't know about something or you don't have an ability to change it you don't have a responsibility to it.



By extension, everyone in the world is morally culpable for his (and indeed every) death, because they also did not intervene at any stage to prevent the fire from starting, or to help him escape once it did. Indeed, many of their actions may have led up to the fire starting.

The world has no moral agency and therefore cannot bear a moral responsibility.



I think I'm just about done with this discussion, because we're just going in circles. In general, I disagree with your premises, your reasoning and your conclusions. Even when I hypothetically accept your premises and reasoning, I still disagree with your conclusions. I'm not sure how this is happening, but it seems we're just talking past each other. It might be because of your apparent presumption that self-interest is fundamentally evil, with which I disagree for reasons I won't go into (but would have thought were self-evident) but maybe it's something else. I don't know if you've taken in anything I've said. But anyway, I think we're done here. I do hope never to see you on a jury I'm in front of for whatever reason!

That's a bit of a shot isn't it? I mean having a different moral interpretation of something doesn't mean that I would be unable to interpret the laws, and you'd have the other jurors, if my interpretation was wrong.

[Aedilred]

As a favour to me, please decouple the words "direct" and "action" in your argument and (preferably) thinking. I think this is causing (whether directly or indirectly, heh) several of the problems.


The world has no moral agency and therefore cannot bear a moral responsibility.
I didn't say "the world", I said "everyone in the world". Everyone in the world has a moral agency.


That's a bit of a shot isn't it? I mean having a different moral interpretation of something doesn't mean that I would be unable to interpret the laws, and you'd have the other jurors, if my interpretation was wrong.
Well, a significant part of the discussion has been legal in nature and your interpretation of the laws in question has been totally different to mine. You also seem to consider surviving a natural disaster to be murder if other people who you could have saved died in it, and I've proven incapable of persuading you of anything at all. So... I'm going to stand by my statement. :smalltongue:

Anyway, that's the last I'm going to say on the subject.

[AMFV]

As a favour to me, please decouple the words "direct" and "action" in your argument and (preferably) thinking. I think this is causing (whether directly or indirectly, heh) several of the problems.


Well your opinion that inaction is not direct, has caused many of the problems. Refusing to act is as much an action as acting is, which sounds convoluted but it's true.



I didn't say "the world", I said "everyone in the world". Everyone in the world has a moral agency.

And every human being has some small part in that, it's not a big enough part that direct action can usually be taken, but there is a moral responsibility to take small actions, to charity, to that sort of thing, to try to improve the whole lot.

But you are right that is a burden that all of humanity bears and has a responsibility to strive to improve, and many many many philosophers (mostly those of a similar moral viewpoint to mine) would agree with that statement, that there is a responsibility to improve humanity for that very reason.



Well, a significant part of the discussion has been legal in nature and your interpretation of the laws in question has been totally different to mine. You also seem to consider surviving a natural disaster to be murder if other people who you could have saved died in it, and I've proven incapable of persuading you of anything at all. So... I'm going to stand by my statement. :smalltongue:

Anyway, that's the last I'm going to say on the subject.

Moral responsibility does not equal legal culpability though. Not letting your child back in when it's freezing and they're going to die of exposure is legally wrong, not letting a stranger in the same conditions is not necessarily legally wrong but it is morally wrong.

Edit: Also for legal culpability you'd have to show the indifference to human suffering. Which is difficult to prove, since moral culpability is self-evaluative and you don't to prove intent it's a broader stroke.

[veti]

1. Mr X. and you (If you could have done something that could have demonstrably stopped him, I'm ignoring that if he is a murderer he would probably have killed her anyway later, but if it is your lack of a single action, not really very realistic mind you in this case, as you can't really prove that it wouldn't have happened otherwise, but if you could have done something different and stopped the death, then you share responsibility, morally, although not legally)

So... if I'm so enraged by an argument I see on the Internet that I drive recklessly and kill someone, is the author of the Internet argument also responsible?

By your logic, it seems to me that everyone who's ever interacted with Mr X - thereby shaping his character and life experience to the point where he becomes a murderer - has to share in responsibility. And by extension, everyone who's contributed anything to the behaviour or life pattern of those people, that contributed to bringing them into contact with Mr X's contacts at the right moment in their lives to bring about their fateful encounters with X... And I find it hard to think of anyone in the world, unless living in a wholly isolated tribe somewhere, who isn't implicated.

Let's try something more direct. If I, say, visit the web page of a life-saving charity with Adblock enabled, thus depriving the charity of ad revenue that might have enabled them to save someone's life, am I morally culpable for that death?

[AMFV]

So... if I'm so enraged by an argument I see on the Internet that I drive recklessly and kill someone, is the author of the Internet argument also responsible?

Partially, again intent matters in these case which I didn't actually mention in the previous response, he has a partial responsibility to this case. However, if he could not reasonably have expected that his actions would result in death we cannot reasonably expect to behave in a manner that would save you.

Let's say somebody offers me food, they buy it, they give it to me, and I eat it. But they don't know I have an allergy to peanuts and I die. They are responsible, they performed the actions that led to my death, but the intention and knowledge wasn't there for there to be full responsibility, in order to actually be an evil act there has to be intent it can't just be a random thing.

As I was discussing in the other example, if you push past somebody on the street expecting them to suddenly turn into a murderer isn't reasonable, and it's likely to suspect that if they are that easily set off that something else would have set them off later.



By your logic, it seems to me that everyone who's ever interacted with Mr X - thereby shaping his character and life experience to the point where he becomes a murderer - has to share in responsibility. And by extension, everyone who's contributed anything to the behaviour or life pattern of those people, that contributed to bringing them into contact with Mr X's contacts at the right moment in their lives to bring about their fateful encounters with X... And I find it hard to think of anyone in the world, unless living in a wholly isolated tribe somewhere, who isn't implicated.


Yes, there is a degree of shared societal responsibility, it is why charity is so important, and proper behavior is important, every murderer (that's not resulting from some kind of medical defect, in which case that's natural and not preventable) is everybody's responsibility to a degree. Now intent is missing and it's not evil therefore, since the intent is not there, but the responsibility is.



Let's try something more direct. If I, say, visit the web page of a life-saving charity with Adblock enabled, thus depriving the charity of ad revenue that might have enabled them to save someone's life, am I morally culpable for that death?

There is some degree of moral culpability, yes. But not much, if you had visited their page odds are that it wouldn't have saved somebody. So the degree of culpability you have in this is not sufficient for it to even qualify as harm in my opinion.

Furthermore you may or may not have the intent or knowledge to be culpable, yes using an adblocker is supporting your own interests (not being hassled what-not), but... unless there is some of form of statement that identifies it as such, so your lack of knowledge further reduces your culpability, for example if I boarded the lifeboats in the previous scenario and was unaware that there were not sufficient seats, it decreases the action to neutral, since intent is a relevant factor in this sort of discussion.

In any case for the above, it's not really evil, although in my opinion it's actually kind of rude if the ads aren't particularly egregious since you are depriving those folks of revenue while enjoying their webpage which is a little skeezy and equivalent to a minor theft.

[Amphetryon]

The logical twists and turns necessary to make you morally culpable for a death caused by your choice to run an ad-blocking software, while simultaneously claiming that moral culpability for someone's death is not Evil, are truly monumental.

[SiuiS]

I used to be LG. I'd obey speed limits, pay my taxes (without claiming perfectly valid deductions), give money and time to charity and to beggars, I'd point out checkout errors that were in my favour, I'd go out of my way to help others threatened by mild harm or even inconvenience, I'd do everything I could to minimise my environmental impact. When I did accidentally transgress, I'd pay penalties with no backchat.


None of that sounds good whatsoever. Just lawful.



Then two things happened. First, they changed the rules. Now, LG requires so much more than that. Apparently I also have to "fight relentlessly" and "hate to see the guilty go unpunished", although how that's supposed to align with "compassion" I'm still not clear.

Compassion is sympathetic pity or concern. I think the books make the jump to being proactive; you will stop bad things happening to you. Your compassion means that bad things happening to others also means they are happening to you by proxy. So you will stop bad thigs happening to others.



Second, a funny thing happened when my first child was born. Looking at that baby, I knew, in a way I'd never understood before, what unconditional love really meant. I knew that not only would I throw myself on a grenade for this child - I'd also, if humanly possible, avoid going anywhere near the damn' grenade - no matter how many other people I could potentially save - because my death would leave this creature (relatively) alone and defenceless in the world. Now I'm probably True Neutral.

Yeah, this stuff gets much less debate-y when the rubber meets the road.


Yes. I said it. I even said that I was the one who used the term again in the post you quoted. I do not see why you feel the need to point this fact, which I acknowledged, out, let alone do so in tiny font with your tongue out, unless you failed entirely to see it within the very post you quoted.

You said "I don't see where I said this to you personally", and I told you where you said it to me, though not personally.


I don't recall saying that you, personally, said 'inflicting.'

I don't see why you would make snide comments in the Internet about something with factual basis and not expect that factual basis to be shown to you, myself. The real question is why a tongue-in-cheek playful statement has you so in an uproar that you're mad at me equally in turn with people who seem morally reprehensible to you. That's pretty bizarre.


Calling out the argument as bunk is, in fact, declining to engage it, which is sidestepping it, particularly since it is the crux of the current debate on both sides. If your wish is to simply disregard the argument, that's fine. Telling everyone they're wrong without backing that position up contributes nothing.

Yes, I am engaging the argument. I am then making a third choice backed by my prior reasoning. I'm contributing the most important thing of all in these sorts of discussions; perspective. While you quibble binaries I'm going to rebel in my spectrum. ;)


Did you eat food? Then you chose to withhold food from other people. Did you have any money you didn't donate? Then you similarly chose to selfishly hold it, instead of allowing someone else to have it to buy food, medicine, or shelter. Did you open your dwelling up as a shelter to any transient who might be in the neighborhood? If not, you chose to prevent people from enjoying the safety and protection from the elements that may have kept them alive for another day.

This holds true if you knew the people from whom you withheld these basic elements of survival, or not, by metrics you've previously established, since inaction and action are both equally guilty choices.

Some of this is actually provably false. People in Africa will starve despite the amount of Americans starving. Me not eating rice does not directly or indirectly contribute to the logistics of shipping food to another country and disseminating it to the populous routinely before it rots. Doesn't the US make enough good to end world hunger three times over by calorie alone?

Having does not deprive others except within a very narrow scope. Once someone is more than a degree away, it doesn't apply.

[hamishspence]

None of that sounds good whatsoever. Just lawful.

Given the limited amount of Time everyone has in the world - sacrificing it for the sake of Others may qualify as a minor Good act, each time.

[AMFV]

The logical twists and turns necessary to make you morally culpable for a death caused by your choice to run an ad-blocking software, while simultaneously claiming that moral culpability for someone's death is not Evil, are truly monumental.

I said you were not morally culpable if you'll read, I said you were morally culpable of minor theft maybe, since you are using their product and denying them funds for it. But you to be guilt intent and awareness need to be present, there is no way to reasonably predict when a particular ad-space may used for something, and there is no way to reasonably assume that said revenue would save somebody. Since you can't make those assumptions there is no reasonable culpability.

If I walk by a burning building there is no obligation for me to run into it. None, but... if I walk by that same burning building and an elderly lady tells me her child is in the building, then I do have a moral responsibility to try to help, in whatever way I am able to. If walk down the street, I have no responsibility to leave food strewn about since somebody may be starving, but if I encounter a person who is clearly starving and I don't help and they die, then I have an increased degree of moral culpability. There is an inherent moral responsibility to do what you can to help others, but that's mitigated by your knowledge, and reasonability standards.

If I don't know somebody is dying and I haven't made an effort to avoid such knowledge, I can't be responsible for saving them, I'm not a superhero, I can't be everywhere at once or know everything. That'd be an unreasonable expectation for somebody to have of me, but expecting me to do what is reasonable to help others is acceptable. I'm sure I'm capable of not getting on a lifeboat, that's pretty easy, I know that there aren't enough spots (because that's the scenario presented) so I have full knowledge and I'd have to full intent to stop another person from getting on by getting on myself.

[hamishspence]

If I walk by a burning building there is no obligation for me to run into it. None, but... if I walk by that same burning building and an elderly lady tells me her child is in the building, then I do have a moral responsibility to try to help, in whatever way I am able to.

Thing is, the first thing they tell you in first aid training is "Do not put yourself at risk".

[AMFV]

Thing is, the first thing they tell you in first aid training is "Do not put yourself at risk".

That's because first responders regularly, I mean regularly do. Also first aid training is not, to my knowledge an ethics course. Particularly not WRT D&D ethics. So it's not really useful or relevant here. They are telling you that for liability reasons, because they believe that they would be responsible for your injury if they encouraged you to do something stupid, which is I think may be the best admission that one can be culpable for something they did not directly do.

[Lord Raziere]

That's because first responders regularly, I mean regularly do. Also first aid training is not, to my knowledge an ethics course. Particularly not WRT D&D ethics. So it's not really useful or relevant here. They are telling you that for liability reasons, because they believe that they would be responsible for your injury if they encouraged you to do something stupid, which is I think may be the best admission that one can be culpable for something they did not directly do.

for a moral guy, your really cynical y'know that? :smallyuk:

[AMFV]

for a moral guy, your really cynical y'know that? :smallyuk:

I don't that's necessarily true, or that those two positions are necessarily in opposition. In my statement was one of fact, not of cynicism, it'd be cynicism if I suspected that it was for liability reasons, but I've done my share of instructing folks and frankly it's necessary, it's not a matter of moral rightness. As I've pointed out one cannot be expected to help beyond one's capacity for action, but I can expect exactly that.

Furthermore, while first aid instructors are interested in avoiding being responsible for injury to those they instruct, that does not necessarily stem from a position that is advocating the most moral for the individual but rather the highest moral responsibility for the instructor.

[RedMage125]

No, my interpretation DOES NOT require a deviation. Just because you disagree with it, does not mean that there is not a definition of killing that fits failing to act... I've even presented a legal code which identified explicitly that failing to act could be considered murder. My interpretation requires NO deviation from RAW. Since killing is not defined therein. Certainly starving a child is defined as killing, no? Not speaking in somebody's defense when you have information that could prevent them from being wrongfully executed? Also killing by some definition. I've provided legal definitions that agree with my and are sensible with my reading.

As to "provide a scenario where one can not sacrifice oneself", that's fundamentally impossible by my position which would not have a scenario like that exist. I don't think that scenario exists. That doesn't stop the neutral alignment from existing, but that does affect it with regards to a particular case.
If you cannot present a scenario, compliant with your view where something that the RAW says to be true - that is, "not sacrificing your own life to save the life of a stranger is Neutral" - then your view is not compliant with RAW.

Simple as that.

If the stance you espouse was, in fact, compliant with RAW, you would be able to find or construct a scenario compliant with your view in which a person could ahve refused to sacrifice their own life for that of a stanger, and have it not be an Evil act.


Yes it does, inaction begets evil, in those cases, per the RAW definition of evil again

What you fail to see is the meat of what Aedilred was saying. That is, that you are holding everyone to a Good standard.

Your view is compliant with real-world morality issues, not with D&D ones. In the real world, we have such moral trusisms as "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"-Winston Churchill. Which is what you are saying amounts to. That Evil is, essentially, the absence of Good.

But D&D morality does not hold everyone to the high standards that you do. People can be Neutral without being "minor evil". By your standards, there are 3 kinds of people on the moral axis of D&D: 1)Those who are Good 2) Those who are Evil and 3)Those who are evil (little "e"), but not as evil as those in category 2. And that is simply not true in D&D. That may be your view of them, which is as valid as any opinion, but it doesn't hold as objectively true in the moral/ethical framework of D&D. I'm not saying that "your opinion is wrong", or that you should change it. I'm just saying that your opinion is not a fact in regards to the facts of the objective moral/ethical framework of D&D.

You have shown that "getting on a lifeboat is evil by the D&D definition of 'Evil', specifically regarding 'killing others'" IF AND ONLY IF one accepts YOUR initial assumption of "failing to save someone's life, even if it costs you your own counts as 'killing them'". For anyone that does not hold the latter to be true, the former IS NOT, in fact, a true statement.

And that's where the disconnect is. Not in your points regarding killing, but in your initial, founding presumptions.

Let me put it this way: If someone presented a scenario regarding a D&D character coming across a demon -let's say a Vrock - and then killing it. Now, then they use your justification of the SRD definition of Evil and say that killing the demon is an Evil act, because killing is evil. Are they right, in accordance with RAW? Or are they deviating from RAW? The RAW also say that demons are creatures to whom Evil is literally inherent in their nature. In the BoVD, it says that killing a demon is a Good act, because it is reducing the amount of Evil in the world. But this person uses the same quote of the SRD that you provided, citing that killing is Evil, therefore killing a demon is Evil. Is that a valid interpretation of RAW or not?

[RedMage125]

Only if your inaction causes that, if you'll look at the caveats in the answer to the fire and shoving past the guy examples, you'll see that I addressed that. If your action wouldn't directly change it, then you don't have a direct responsibility.
Then why do you not apply those same caveats to the sinking ship example?

If I cannot stop the ship from sinking, which is what is causing the (imminent) deaths of the people aboard, then how do I have responsibility for their lives?

If I made it to a spot on a lifeboat in a fair and orderly fashion, not pushing past anyone, not throwing anyone out, because I want to live and see my family again when I get home, how am I commiting an Evil act by getting on the lifeboat?


For example, if I walk past a burning house that is literally an inferno, and I can't enter, I'm not responsible to save the people in this house, since my actions would not affect things either way.
But you have said before that even if it costs you your life, you are morally obliged to do your best to save lives. By your standards, isn't the inaction of "not entering the house to tray and save someone still trapped inside" an Evil act? It would cost you your life to enter the house to save the woman still trapped inside, but you do not, because you are not wearing fire-retardant clothing. By the values you have espoused in your earlier scenarios, standing by is Evil.

Now you say it would not be. How is that any different from the lifeboat scenario. If it is not possible for me to save anyone else on the boat except by giving up my own life to do so, how is it an Evil act for me to choose to live?


If I cease eating it doesn't prevent anybody from starving, there's no positive action, so eating does not make me responsible for starvation, unless I am directly taking food from somebody else, or unless there is a direct action I could take. As I've pointed out even giving all of my food to somebody while I starve doesn't work, since you wind up starving and then they are dependent on you and you are responsible for their later starvation.
But by the point that they starve, you are already dead, having moved on and been judged for your deeds in life, and are presumably sitting comfortably on Celestia, so you have not committed an Evil deed by inaction, because you are dead by that point.

This is the logical conclusion of your stance. If you ever do anything to promote your own well-being, even just the bare minimum you need to survive, when you COULD have sacrificed to save another, you have comited an Evil act, by your definition.

Where does it stop, then? You must have a point where the line is drawn. As you have pointed out (correctly), Aedilred and I draw the line at "when your own survival is literally on the line". If you contest that "eating food instead of giving it all to a starving person" is not Evil, but the lifeboat scenario is Evil; where do YOU draw the line for when one's own survival can be non-evil? Because from the view you have espoused, I don't see the difference.


If you meet a transient and they are freezing, and you don't help them, then you are responsible, if they would have dead or suffered serious injury otherwise, now you don't have to house them yourself (since that's dangerous), but you have a moral responsibility.
First, this is a poor example, because helping a freezing person does not necessarily cost you your life.

I only have a moral responsibility if my morals dictate that I do. Such as the morals of a Good person. For you to insist that EVERYONE has that moral responsibility is holding EVERYONE to the standard of Good. Which again, D&D does not do.

D&D morality does not say the following: There is Good, it is a concrete, objective force. Anything that is not Good, therefore, is Evil, even if only slightly.

D&D morality does say the following: There is Good, it is a concrete objective force. There is also Evil, which is another concrete, objective force. Some things are neither Good nor Evil, they are Neutral.


No it doesn't, unless there is a direct action I could have taken reasonably to stop that, given my knowledge of the scenario, as I've said I believe four times now. If you don't know about something or you don't have an ability to change it you don't have a responsibility to it.
By this standard, then:
I do not have the ability to change the ship sinking. Therefore, I do not have responsibility to those who die on the sinking ship.

If I do not have responsibility to those who die, I can board a lifeboat and not commit an Evil act doing so.

That was easy.

[Jay R]

There are three crucial problems underlying our inability to reach any agreement on this thread:

1. There is no agreement about real-world morality.
2. There is no agreement about the meaning of D&D alignments, and
3. There is no agreement to what extent we are talking about real-world morality and to what extent we are talking about D&D alignments.

I recommend that we would be better off trying to uncover the underlying assumptions that lead to our disagreement than trying to make the other person agree.

[AMFV]

If you cannot present a scenario, compliant with your view where something that the RAW says to be true - that is, "not sacrificing your own life to save the life of a stranger is Neutral" - then your view is not compliant with RAW.

I've never claimed that it was neutral, EVER, not once, just that there was no neutral option I've presented RAW to show that it would be evil. There is no RAW to show that it's neutral.



Simple as that.

If the stance you espouse was, in fact, compliant with RAW, you would be able to find or construct a scenario compliant with your view in which a person could ahve refused to sacrifice their own life for that of a stanger, and have it not be an Evil act.

Again for emphasis...


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Killing another to save yourself is evil. Sacrificing to save another is good, if those are your only options there are no neutral options.

Also I have constructed such a scenario four or five times in fact. I'll repost them

A doctor getting on the boat, who is necessary to keep the people on the boat alive, a mother who is nursing and is keeping her children alive, an individual who is not aware that there are insufficient seats on the lifeboat, a child who does not have the required moral agency to be allowed to sacrifice themselves.

That's four. Should I keep going?



What you fail to see is the meat of what Aedilred was saying. That is, that you are holding everyone to a Good standard.

No I am saying that in this case there is no neutral option, there are only two options, that means that all three ranges in the alignment scale cannot be covered by two options, one has to be excluded, by definition.



Your view is compliant with real-world morality issues, not with D&D ones. In the real world, we have such moral trusisms as "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"-Winston Churchill. Which is what you are saying amounts to. That Evil is, essentially, the absence of Good.


No, evil is a specific type of behavior in D&D. As I've said, I've only argued that acting in the manner you describe is evil, not that self-sacrifice was neutral, why are you accusing me of saying that, there is no neutral option in that scenario.



But D&D morality does not hold everyone to the high standards that you do. People can be Neutral without being "minor evil". By your standards, there are 3 kinds of people on the moral axis of D&D: 1)Those who are Good 2) Those who are Evil and 3)Those who are evil (little "e"), but not as evil as those in category 2. And that is simply not true in D&D. That may be your view of them, which is as valid as any opinion, but it doesn't hold as objectively true in the moral/ethical framework of D&D. I'm not saying that "your opinion is wrong", or that you should change it. I'm just saying that your opinion is not a fact in regards to the facts of the objective moral/ethical framework of D&D.


My opinion is completely within the moral framework of D&D. Because as I've said that act is definitionallly evil, I've posted that line from the SRD more than five times now here I'll post it again...


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

There you go that is a strong indication that if your actions are killing another person for selfish reasons you are RAW acting in a manner that is evil. That's all there is to it.



You have shown that "getting on a lifeboat is evil by the D&D definition of 'Evil', specifically regarding 'killing others'" IF AND ONLY IF one accepts YOUR initial assumption of "failing to save someone's life, even if it costs you your own counts as 'killing them'". For anyone that does not hold the latter to be true, the former IS NOT, in fact, a true statement.

How is it not? You are directly responsible, you acted and they died because you acted, that is direct responsibility. You chose to put your life over theirs in value, that is a direct choice that leads to that responsibility. Your action resulted in a death that would not have occurred if you had not acted, I don't see how that at could be not a direct responsibility.



And that's where the disconnect is. Not in your points regarding killing, but in your initial, founding presumptions.

Let me put it this way: If someone presented a scenario regarding a D&D character coming across a demon -let's say a Vrock - and then killing it. Now, then they use your justification of the SRD definition of Evil and say that killing the demon is an Evil act, because killing is evil. Are they right, in accordance with RAW? Or are they deviating from RAW? The RAW also say that demons are creatures to whom Evil is literally inherent in their nature. In the BoVD, it says that killing a demon is a Good act, because it is reducing the amount of Evil in the world. But this person uses the same quote of the SRD that you provided, citing that killing is Evil, therefore killing a demon is Evil. Is that a valid interpretation of RAW or not?

It depends, it could certainly be valid, you are talking about a specific case, it could certainly be evil, if it was done for the wrong reasons, on your part at least. Just because you've increased cosmic good (a nebulous and arbitrar concept anways) does not mean that you've improved yourself morally, so you could continue to fall.

In fact if killing demons or devils made one good, then all Demons and Devils would be good, or most of them, since that's what they spend the majority of their time doing.

An evil person is capable of doing things that wind up having good results. Intent matters and motivation matters. Demons can be evil and do evil to each other and it's still evil even though the cosmic force might balance out because the intention is evil. In fact I reject the cosmic force argument out of hand it's nonsensical, because again Demons and Devils would be good since they have destroyed more of each other than ever possible for a good individual to do, it is therefore requisite that the matter is more complex than you are assuming.

Here we'll do another example, one that is more in line with something we can conceptualize. I see a man walking down the street, I beat him to death, because I'm a psychopath and I'm clearly a terrible person. Later on it turns out that he was about to murder his wife. My action saved her, but my intentions were not to save her, and I did not have the requisite knowledge to act in that manner. I'm still a murderer, just because it turned out okay, does not unmake the action itself, and the fact that the intention and knowledge is an important aspect.

Killing a devil is good, killing one so that you can overthrow the forces of good once your cosmic power is enough, is probably evil.


Then why do you not apply those same caveats to the sinking ship example?

I did.



If I cannot stop the ship from sinking, which is what is causing the (imminent) deaths of the people aboard, then how do I have responsibility for their lives?

You still have responsibility because it's still your action, the boat sinking sets that into motion but it doesn't remove responsibility from you, any more than a doctor who decapitates me when I come in with a severe injury is exempt from malpractice.



If I made it to a spot on a lifeboat in a fair and orderly fashion, not pushing past anyone, not throwing anyone out, because I want to live and see my family again when I get home, how am I commiting an Evil act by getting on the lifeboat?

Because your desire to live is selfish, that's the rules, thems the breaks. Acting to kill another to preserve your life is evil, whether or not you're acting in an orderly fashion or panicking. It's the same exact result as throwing somebody off, the same exact intent (screw these people, I'm living), so I fail to see how a minor difference in methodology makes a moral difference here.



But you have said before that even if it costs you your life, you are morally obliged to do your best to save lives. By your standards, isn't the inaction of "not entering the house to tray and save someone still trapped inside" an Evil act? It would cost you your life to enter the house to save the woman still trapped inside, but you do not, because you are not wearing fire-retardant clothing. By the values you have espoused in your earlier scenarios, standing by is Evil.

No you are morally obligated to save lives when it is reasonably in your power to do so, as I said.



Now you say it would not be. How is that any different from the lifeboat scenario. If it is not possible for me to save anyone else on the boat except by giving up my own life to do so, how is it an Evil act for me to choose to live?

Because it is, you have a 100% chance of saving somebody if you get off the lifeboat, and 100% that that person would die, there is no question of skill or knowledge here, you know that somebody is dying so that you can live and you are doing nothing about it. It is clearly an evil act.



But by the point that they starve, you are already dead, having moved on and been judged for your deeds in life, and are presumably sitting comfortably on Celestia, so you have not committed an Evil deed by inaction, because you are dead by that point.

This is the logical conclusion of your stance. If you ever do anything to promote your own well-being, even just the bare minimum you need to survive, when you COULD have sacrificed to save another, you have comited an Evil act, by your definition.

No, I've pointed out that is not the logical conclusion. It is only when your direct action saves somebody or dooms them.



Where does it stop, then? You must have a point where the line is drawn. As you have pointed out (correctly), Aedilred and I draw the line at "when your own survival is literally on the line". If you contest that "eating food instead of giving it all to a starving person" is not Evil, but the lifeboat scenario is Evil; where do YOU draw the line for when one's own survival can be non-evil? Because from the view you have espoused, I don't see the difference.

First, this is a poor example, because helping a freezing person does not necessarily cost you your life.

I only have a moral responsibility if my morals dictate that I do. Such as the morals of a Good person. For you to insist that EVERYONE has that moral responsibility is holding EVERYONE to the standard of Good. Which again, D&D does not do.

D&D morality does not say the following: There is Good, it is a concrete, objective force. Anything that is not Good, therefore, is Evil, even if only slightly.

D&D morality does say the following: There is Good, it is a concrete objective force. There is also Evil, which is another concrete, objective force. Some things are neither Good nor Evil, they are Neutral.

By this standard, then:
I do not have the ability to change the ship sinking. Therefore, I do not have responsibility to those who die on the sinking ship.

If I do not have responsibility to those who die, I can board a lifeboat and not commit an Evil act doing so.

That was easy.

Look if you are not going to pay attention to my points, then I can't debate with you. I've pointed out why that was different more than two times in this very thread. You are still causing a death it doesn't matter if "they were probably going to die anyways" because then no murder is a crime, and the only crime is giving birth.

You have a responsibility if you are good to act in a way that accords to that, and that would be sacrificing yourself, if you are evil you are likely to act selfishly to preserve yourself, if you are neutral, you'd pick one of those two options either/or, and you've move a little bit in that direction.

[zephyrkinetic]

I took an online quiz a while back, which I think WOTC put up, which said I'm LG. I don't think that's necessarily true, though. I feel more NG most of the time.

[hamishspence]

Killing another to save yourself is evil.

Except when it's self defence.

And, arguably, when it's "collateral damage".

There's at least one paladin-centric order (which includes a few clerics as well) that subscribes to the philosophy that sometimes collateral damage must be accepted as part of the price of acting - the Order of Illumination, from Complete Adventurer.

[AMFV]

Except when it's self defence.

And, arguably, when it's "collateral damage".

There's at least one paladin-centric order (which includes a few clerics as well) that subscribes to the philosophy that sometimes collateral damage must be accepted as part of the price of acting - the Order of Illumination, from Complete Adventurer.

Killing in self-defense is morally justified for other reasons, not because it's protecting yourself, but because it is protecting society, and probably others. It is not unreasonable to assume that somebody who is trying to unjustly murder you would try the same with others, and if they are trying to justly murder you, then we can reasonably assume that you aren't the focus of this debate.

Collateral damage is to protect more lives, and it's probably neutral at best, if you can avoid it and you don't attempt to, then it's evil.

[hamishspence]

Killing in self-defense is morally justified for other reasons, not because it's protecting yourself, but because it is protecting society, and probably others.

Suppose it has nothing to do with protecting society - like when one is an adventurer up to one's ears in jungle?

[AMFV]

Suppose it has nothing to do with protecting society - like when one is an adventurer up to one's ears in jungle?

It still has to do with protecting society. You can reasonably assume that the individual may seek out others to murder, or if somebody else runs across them, you can assume that they would also try to murder them, so you are acting to protect others, not just yourself, and that's what makes the difference. If say you provoked somebody into a fight with lethal force... then you are guilty of murder, if you deserved it, then again you're probably guilty of murder.

If you didn't deserve it, and didn't intentionally provoke it is not unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future the individual will do the same thing to somebody who is undeserving and didn't provoke them, so if you have the power to prevent that you have an obligation to do so.

[hamishspence]

The conflict is between "respect for life" (your own) and "respect for life" (another being's).

If something is attacking you unprovoked, keeping yourself alive will normally be the first thing on your mind.

[RedMage125]

AMFV, I think I've come up with a good metaphor to how you see Good and Evil as opposed to how we see it RAW says they work..

You have a thick, heavy rope, lying on the ground, no force acting on it other than gravity. Submitting to gravity is the Neutral, default state for this rope.

D&D's view, which we shall call "Rope Scenario 1":
There are two people pulling on opposite ends of the rope in a timed scenario. You have person A, and person B, both pulling on it. There are 2 lines on the ground separating the floor into 3 equal sections: person A's section, person B's section, and a section between them that belongs to neither. The rope now has 3 forces acting on it, because gravity is still trying to pull the rope down. When the time is up, both people drop the rope. If either person drops the rope before the time is up, the other still has to exert significant force to get the rope on their side, and that person may not have the strength to pull it all the way over. In fact, the rope is so heavy, that even without the person acting opposite them, neither person can succesfully pull the rope to their side unless their strength is improved somehow.


See, in this metaphor, A is Good, B is Evil, and gravity is Neutral. The rope is the deciding factor of moral weight of an act. And the timer is any given situation. Which section of the floor the majority of the rope is in at the end of the timer is what alignment that act most strongly is. If most of the rope is in the middle section, it is Neutral. The choices one makes lend strength to A or B when they are choices with moral weight. Choices that are not Good or Evil will lend sufficent strength to neither A nor B, and thus most of the rope will remain in the middle. Dropping the rope before the timer is up is, in this metaphor, is when choice is made to turn down one or the other moral agency (Good or Evil). But that does not -IN ANY WAY- empower the other person, and the rope is heavy. So just because a decision is "not Good" does not make it "Evil". Evil (person B) must ALSO be objectively present for something to be an Evil act, simple failure of Good is not enough. Remember, the rope is so heavy that person B does not win just because person A dropped the rope. Sometimes something is both "not Good" and "not Evil" at the same time. And sometimes, a single choice lends a little bit of strength to both people, and again, it's a wash.


Your view, which we shall call "Rope Scenario 2":
Again, we have a rope. But this time, there is only one person pulling on the rope, person A. The rope is currently spooled on a spring-loaded spool that wants to wind the rope back up. There is also only one line on the ground, separating the side of the room with the spool, from the side belonging to person A. And in this case, the spring loaded spool IS strong enough to pull the rope in if there is no opposite force, but Person A is just strong enough to maintain an even standstill with the spool as long as neither are empowered in any way.

In this scenario, person A is still Good. But the spool, exerting constant pulling force on the rope, is Evil. If person A drops the rope, it immeditaely springs back into the spool. Now, with his view, the lack of Good begets Evil. Good thus requires constant exertion, and Neutrality is almost impossible. Neutral ONLY being possible if the EXACT CENTER of the rope (let's say it's marked by a line, and the scenario starts with it on that line) falls EXACTLY on the line that separates person A's side from the spool's, which, to say the least, a highly unlikely occurance. A choice that is Evil is -in this example- someone helping to manually crank the spool to wind the rope back up, granting additional pulling strength to the spool. But any choice that is not clearly Good (i.e. person A drops the rope), results in Evil.

Obviously, this metaphos only works in situations that are charged with moral weight.

Now, as to why I phrased it as "D&D's view" and not "Aedilred and mine's"...In D&D Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces. And a gulf of Neutral exists between them. Lots of people and creatures in D&D are Neutral. Neutrality is not exclusively "a balance of Good and Evil", but is sometime "the absence of Good or Evil". And that's not only in creatures like animals without moral agency. Neutral people exist in D&D. Not because they are a good mix of both, but because they are neither. Evil must exert as much as Good in order to have influence. Just because a given action is "clearly not a Good act" does not make it an "Evil act". Because Evil must ALSO exert influence. Evil doesn't "win" when Good does nothing in D&D, because Evil is equal in strength, and opposite to, Good. Want Proof? The Outer Planes in a Great Wheel Cosmology. If Evil were default of the absence of Good, then Mechanus, Limbo, and The Outlands would all have Evil-dominant (even if only mildly so) traits. They do not.

To wit: On a sinking ship where everyone is going to die. I get in a lifeboat because I reach one in a fair manner and there is a spot available. Others board the lifeboat after me. Now it is full. One more person approaches the lifeboat, wanting to get on. Now I have a choice, give up my spot on the lifeboat or not. Choosing to give up my spot on the lifeboat would be a Good act (thus lending a great deal of strength towards person A). Choosing to not do that is choosing to reject actively taking the Good option (person A drops the rope). The only choice that has been made, the only action is refusing to do Good.
With the presumption of Rope Scenario 1, person A dropping the rope quite obviously excludes the act from being Good. But simply refusing to take the Good option is not taking an Evil one, as person B has NOT been lent the strength to pull the rope sufficiently. And the action is thus Neutral.
With the presumption of Rope Scenario 2, person A dropping the rope results in the rope retracting into the spool. So not only is the act "not Good", but it is also "Evil". By actively rejecting a proffered Good course of action, the action taken is, instead, Evil.

This is why you disagree so violently, and why Aedilred and I have been saying to you that you are deviating from RAW. By your values (Rope Scenario 2), Good and Evil are not equal and opposite forces. Either that, or you assume the rope is light enough that if one person is not acting on it at all, the other automatically wins. Either way, you diminish Neutrality in your worldview. Neutrality is the gulf between Good and Evil. Something that is clearly not Good does not become Evil by default.

[SiuiS]

Given the limited amount of Time everyone has in the world - sacrificing it for the sake of Others may qualify as a minor Good act, each time.

Maybe. But being timid before the monolith of social conditioning isn't sacrificing for other people. It's a cynical view of things, but doing what the rules say good citizens are supposed to do isn't moral, exactly.


Thing is, the first thing they tell you in first aid training is "Do not put yourself at risk".

Protecting yourself professionally is not a moral action, as such.

[Aedilred]

The conflict is between "respect for life" (your own) and "respect for life" (another being's).

If something is attacking you unprovoked, keeping yourself alive will normally be the first thing on your mind.
Indeed. Reasoning that someone attacking you might go on to harm others is all very well in theory, but in practice, it's quite difficult to make some kind of Holmesian deduction based on his clothing, facial expression, apparent prevailing direction of travel about the probability of his reoffending and determine whether it passes your threshold for making it ok to kill him rather than let him kill you (wherever that's set). It's even more difficult to do so in a few seconds while being attacked.

Moreover, I'd argue that even if you did construct a formula for assessing all of the above and internalise it to the extent that you were able to apply it quickly enough for it to be relevant, your action in that moment would anyway be Lawful, rather than Good.


The self-defence principle can actually be abstracted to the lifeboat scenario. If we accept that boarding a lifeboat is killing someone, then everyone attempting to board a lifeboat is attempting to kill someone else. So boarding a lifeboat ahead of the person who would have taken your place and killing them is no different to self-defence.

Now let's say we take the proposition that killing the innocent is Evil. Therefore everyone who is attempting to board a boat in this scenario is attempting to kill an innocent and therefore their action is Evil... except that now they're attempting to kill innocents they're not innocent any more, so we can no longer call them Evil on the basis that they're attempting to kill innocents... oh dear. The logic becomes circular and disintegrates.

Unless we accept the premise that neutrality can encompass prioritising one's own survival in extremis, and that causing harm to the innocent (whether directly or indirectly) while doing so can't always be avoided. Then everything's peachy (well, apart from the people left to die).



I've never claimed that it was neutral, EVER, not once, just that there was no neutral option I've presented RAW to show that it would be evil. There is no RAW to show that it's neutral.
Apart from the bit Redmage and I have repeatedly quoted which explicitly states that it is?



Well your opinion that inaction is not direct, has caused many of the problems. Refusing to act is as much an action as acting is, which sounds convoluted but it's true.
No, that's not my point. It's again that you're confusing action/inaction with causation. In the strictest sense, actions are always direct, and therefore calling something a "direct action" is tautologous.* That doesn't mean that everything that follows is necessarily a direct consequence. By coupling "action" with "direct" it's assuming a directness of causation that actually requires a distinct assessment.


*Now, you could make the argument that ordering someone to kill someone else is indirectly acting to kill them, but strictly, your action is the giving of the order, which is direct. The killing is another, subsequent direct action undertaken by another party.

[AMFV]

Apart from the bit Redmage and I have repeatedly quoted which explicitly states that it is?

Which is in direct disagreement with the statement that I posted. At least to my reading. A neutral person is not likely to risk their life to save others, but they aren't likely to act in a scenario that has the same degree of dichtomy here. Neutral people who are not strongly lawful or chaos aligned, tend to be difficult conceptually for this very reason, either they balance out, or they are inactive and poorly suited for knowing things.



No, that's not my point. It's again that you're confusing action/inaction with causation. In the strictest sense, actions are always direct, and therefore calling something a "direct action" is tautologous.* That doesn't mean that everything that follows is necessarily a direct consequence. By coupling "action" with "direct" it's assuming a directness of causation that actually requires a distinct assessment.

The problem is that there isn't only one cause for the person dying. They were on the boat, whatever put them there is causal for death. The boat started sinking whatever caused that is causal for death. There were insufficient lifeboats, whatever caused is causal for death. And some jackass took their spot.

If any one of those steps had been broke they'd still be alive, meaning that there is plenty of responsibility to go around, now the question is, at what point would a reasonable have stopped the chain and been aware of it. Now being on a boat is a risk, but people go on boats and live all the time, so that can't be helped and we can't assume that whoever failed to stop him from getting on the boat is at fault, since a reasonable person wouldn't make that leap. So no fault there. The lifeboat thing, whoever shortstaffed the lifeboats, is significantly at fault, however they may not have actually anticipated an accident, lifeboats can malfunction, or the boat could be overbooked, so they may or may not be at fault. Whatever caused the boat to start sinking is clearly at fault here, for the fact that the lifeboat scenario exists at this point. However that individual still has a good chance to survive even though the boat is sinking and there aren't enough lifeboats.

The one action, the ONLY action that results in their inevitable death, is the fact that you've taken a spot on the lifeboat, that is causal, up to that point we have related causes, and things that have led to that point, but that is the point where you have a responsibility to break the chain, either you are murdering somebody, causing death... or... you are killing yourself.

The fact that you've taken the seat when you knew there were not enough spots on the lifeboat means that you were aware that if you took that course of action somebody is going to die. So we have knowledge, and again your course of action causes one person inevitably to die in this scenario. Next up is intent, you're only motivation stated is to save yourself, fair enough, your action does that by killing somebody else. So you've killed somebody to save yourself, which is explicitly identified as evil



*Now, you could make the argument that ordering someone to kill someone else is indirectly acting to kill them, but strictly, your action is the giving of the order, which is direct. The killing is another, subsequent direct action undertaken by another party.

And I could argue that sitting on a lifeboat is direct. I don't see what the point in that would be, you get to the lifeboats and sit down, there... direct action.


AMFV, I think I've come up with a good metaphor to how you see Good and Evil as opposed to how we see it RAW says they work..

I think you've missed the point where I've been saying that getting on the lifeboat was evil, not neutral. I'm not holding to a neutral to a standard of Good as for some reason you seem to be insisting. I'm claiming in one particular scenario with two options has one option that is good and one option that is evil. I'm not claiming that the decision is evil, because it is not good.

We have one option with altruism present, explicitly good as per the SRD. So that scenario is good.

The other scenario is using another for your personal gain, as per BoVD, page 9. That is explicitly evil. And as per SRD where it references killing explicitly evil.

So for there to be a neutral option in this scenario it would have to not involve killing or loss of life, or the other option would have to not involve self-sacrifice. All of your talk about cosmology is irrelevant, since the actions are explicitly defined, now one could argue that it's not killing, that's a fair direction, but not that if since there as cosmic forces there has to a middle ground.

If one has two options then there can be no middle ground. Now you folks have made the "throwing off" argument, but functionally that's the same as sitting on the lifeboat, just because you acted against somebody who got there first instead of after is irrelevant, your intention is the same, the result is the same, and the consequences are the same.

To be honest your rope metaphor isn't relevant, because we're not arguing about cosmic good, not even a little bit we are arguing whether a particular action is evil, and by RAW if my supposition that getting on the lifeboat is causal to killing the other person to save yourself, it's evil.

Also your rope metaphor appears nowhere in RAW, there is no RAW that states that the cosmological morality is different, that's evolved on the forums in response to confusing morality issues in different books. There is no statement that would suggest that neutral is a force acting on morality, it's rather the middle point of the rope. Your analogy is flawed because in it neutral is a force. There is no force that is explicitly neutral, in fact RAW, the neutral outsiders only attempt to preserve a balance, that's not fitting with your metaphor, not at all. To put it this way, Neutral is the rope, it's springy, it pulls back in towards the center as you pull it, it can never get all the way to one side or the other, since it's knotted, but it can be pulled briefly either way.

[Aedilred]

The problem is that there isn't only one cause for the person dying. They were on the boat, whatever put them there is causal for death. The boat started sinking whatever caused that is causal for death. There were insufficient lifeboats, whatever caused is causal for death. And some jackass took their spot.
If you refer back to my earlier post on general causation, the lifeboat scenario is type "they're going to die unless x happens", because the ship is sinking and that will kill them. x in this case is sacrificing your own life for them by giving up a space on the lifeboat. Not doing x is explicitly identified as neutral.

Now, you might (and indeed do) argue it the other way, that the scenario assumes survival unless you intercede to steal his seat (although this still requires action on his part; see my above point on there being no innocents in this scenario by this understanding). But this is at best a question of nuance and interpretation and is in no way absolute.

The RAW state that not sacrificing yourself for another is Neutral, but sacrificing another for yourself is Evil. If we assume that both courses of action are actually the same, then there is a contradiction here but it's a toss-up which way we go: it really doesn't look to me like an absolute rule brooking no argument.

(If we assume that the two are actually different, as Redmage and I (and others) have been saying all along, the imagined contradiction disappears).


And I could argue that sitting on a lifeboat is direct. I don't see what the point in that would be, you get to the lifeboats and sit down, there... direct action.
I'm not sure you could have missed my point more completely.

My point is that the directness of the action is entirely unrelated to the directness of causation. Because action is always direct. Calling something a "direct action" thus serves no purpose except to attempt to confuse the question of causation.


I think you've missed the point where I've been saying that getting on the lifeboat was evil, not neutral.
No, we really haven't. That's what this entire discussion has been about.

Edit: I also think you might have missed the point of Redmage's rope illustration, judging from this response.


I'm not holding to a neutral to a standard of Good as for some reason you seem to be insisting. I'm claiming in one particular scenario with two options has one option that is good and one option that is evil. I'm not claiming that the decision is evil, because it is not good.
I think we've come full circle.


The other scenario is using another for your personal gain, as per BoVD, page 9. That is explicitly evil. And as per SRD where it references killing explicitly evil.
Implicitly evil, actually. See my earlier post (edit: and hamishspence's below).

But anyway, I think there is a fundamental problem here. You're apparently starting from the presumption that self-interest is essentially evil, and it seems to me therefore trying to fit the reasoning and theory of causation to meet these criteria. This in turn seems to be leading you to find contradictions where there are none, draw false equivalencies between courses of action that are fundamentally different, and indeed rejecting the RAW when they disagree with you. Indeed, you've rejected your own reasoning of causation when applied to other scenarios.

So I don't see how we're going to make any progress.

[hamishspence]

When SRD says "Evil implies killing others" this does not mean that "Killing others is intrinsically evil" - if the only way to survive an attack is to kill the attacker - killing becomes Neutral at worst.


And per BoED "Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world."

The BoVD statements, I feel, are being interpreted far too widely in this context - they are supposed to be narrow - and not something that prevents adventurers from acting normally.

[AMFV]

If you refer back to my earlier post on general causation, the lifeboat scenario is type "they're going to die unless x happens", because the ship is sinking and that will kill them. x in this case is sacrificing your own life for them by giving up a space on the lifeboat. Not doing x is explicitly identified as neutral.

Now, you might (and indeed do) argue it the other way, that the scenario assumes survival unless you intercede to steal his seat (although this still requires action on his part; see my above point on there being no innocents in this scenario by this understanding). But this is at best a question of nuance and interpretation and is in no way absolute.


Fair enough, I've already conceded that at this point it's a mess of interpretation, I imagine that in D&D there would likely be similar debate over it.



The RAW state that not sacrificing yourself for another is Neutral, but sacrificing another for yourself is Evil. If we assume that both courses of action are actually the same, then there is a contradiction here but it's a toss-up which way we go: it really doesn't look to me like an absolute rule brooking no argument.

There could be cases where they are not the same. In any case it's certainly not exactly the most defensible rule.



(If we assume that the two are actually different, as Redmage and I (and others) have been saying all along, the imagined contradiction disappears).


Not necessarily, then you'd have a contradiction the BoVD rule, there isn't really a way to have all of the alignment supported in a scenario where there are only functionally two options.



I'm not sure you could have missed my point more completely.

My point is that the directness of the action is entirely unrelated to the directness of causation. Because action is always direct. Calling something a "direct action" thus serves no purpose except to attempt to confuse the question of causation.

The problem is that causation is confusing as I pointed causation is complex, and you have a responsibility even in scenarios that you did not directly cause.



No, we really haven't. That's what this entire discussion has been about.

Edit: I also think you might have missed the point of Redmage's rope illustration, judging from this response.

No I just didn't think that it was relevant to the discussion at this point.





Implicitly evil, actually. See my earlier post (edit: and hamishspence's below).

But anyway, I think there is a fundamental problem here. You're apparently starting from the presumption that self-interest is essentially evil, and it seems to me therefore trying to fit the reasoning and theory of causation to meet these criteria. This in turn seems to be leading you to find contradictions where there are none, draw false equivalencies between courses of action that are fundamentally different, and indeed rejecting the RAW when they disagree with you. Indeed, you've rejected your own reasoning of causation when applied to other scenarios.

I haven't rejected my own theory of causation with any scenarios. Ever, seriously I'll take that we can disagree, but I have not been inconsistent at all. My position has been extremely consistent, and that is a serious accusation. I've stated that if you have an ability, knowledge and the ability to prevent death inaction is tantamount to directly acting to kill somebody, refusing is acting.

In the other cases, eating you can't save somebody by not eating, it's not equivalent. In the brushing past the guy scenario, I agreed that there was some responsibility but knowledge and intent are lacking.


When SRD says "Evil implies killing others" this does not mean that "Killing others is intrinsically evil" - if the only way to survive an attack is to kill the attacker - killing becomes Neutral at worst.


And per BoED "Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world."

The BoVD statements, I feel, are being interpreted far too widely in this context - they are supposed to be narrow - and not something that prevents adventurers from acting normally.

I'm not arguing for pacifism, and as far as I can tell nobody else is. I've even pointed out the moral why self-defense is justifiable for me. I'm not sure what you're addressing here.

[RedMage125]

I've never claimed that it was neutral, EVER, not once, just that there was no neutral option I've presented RAW to show that it would be evil. There is no RAW to show that it's neutral.
There absolutely is. The bolded statement, above, is flat-out false. The PHB says that a Neutral person may sacrifice their ownlife for a loved one, but not a complete starnger. That in the context of defining what Neutral on the Good vs. Evil axis means.


Again for emphasis...

Killing another to save yourself is evil. Sacrificing to save another is good, if those are your only options there are no neutral options.
But you have not proven that RAW says that "refusal to sacrifice yourself" is equal to "killing".

You have used real-world examples (that are NOT in keeping with D&D morality) to show when responsibility for the life of another is present. But ignoring responsibility to one who is dependent on you in all ways (like a child) is different from refusing to die to save the life of an adult stranger. And no court of law would try you for murder if you boarded a lifeboat in a fair and orderly fashion, just because some other people did not get a spot and died because a ship sank.


No I am saying that in this case there is no neutral option, there are only two options, that means that all three ranges in the alignment scale cannot be covered by two options, one has to be excluded, by definition.
Except that you haven't shown that "refusal to sacrifice" is the same as "killing". SO the one that gets left out is Evil. If you have fairly aquired a spot on one of the lifeboats through non-evil means, your only remaining options are Good (give up your spot for someone else) or Neutral (stay on the lifeboat).


No, evil is a specific type of behavior in D&D. As I've said, I've only argued that acting in the manner you describe is evil, not that self-sacrifice was neutral, why are you accusing me of saying that, there is no neutral option in that scenario.
How did you read what I said as saying that "self-sacrifice was neutral"? That's not what I said at all. Please re-read it.
Self sacrifice for another is Good. I have never contested that.

My opinion is completely within the moral framework of D&D. Because as I've said that act is definitionallly evil, I've posted that line from the SRD more than five times now here I'll post it again...

There you go that is a strong indication that if your actions are killing another person for selfish reasons you are RAW acting in a manner that is evil. That's all there is to it.
But "my actions" aren't what kills them, the sinking ship is, which is a neutral agency. The only way that "my actions" kill someone is if that person would have lived in the absence of "my action". Otherwise, I have not "killed" them.

Your view is only true if one accepts that "causing the death of someone by virtue of not commiting suicide" equates to "killing that person".

This is why Aedilred and I were so adamant about pointing out the difference between "choosing to kill someone to live" and "choosing to not sacrifice your life for another". The difference is in whether or not saving that person would cost you your life. And that's a HUGE difference. So different, in fact, that those are entirely different moral acts. If the choice is "kill another person to continue living" your options are either Evil (kill someone who would have lived) or Neutral (die without having commited murder). Neither of those is Good, because even by sparing the person, you haven't committed an act of Good, you've simply refused to commmit Evil. On the other hand, if you are both going to die, and you simply "refuse to sacrifice yourself to save the life of another", your options are either Good or Neutral. The other person is in imminent danger of dying without your agency entering the picture at all. There is no Evil option (short of murdering the person yourself before the imminent danger carries them off), because all you have done is refuse to commit a Good act. That a life ends because of that is regrettable, and you may feel guilty. But by D&D standards, you have not "killed" them.

This is why your repeated SRD quote means nothign in this context. You have not proven that "refusal to end my life for theirs" equates to "killing" in the same way that "killing someone by stabbing them" is "killing".

How is it not? You are directly responsible, you acted and they died because you acted, that is direct responsibility. You chose to put your life over theirs in value, that is a direct choice that leads to that responsibility. Your action resulted in a death that would not have occurred if you had not acted, I don't see how that at could be not a direct responsibility.
You have yet to show that it IS. You can't just say "it's a given that this is true, and therefore, by what the RAW say, I'm right". There are no "givens" in this scenario, other than what RAW says. Since RAW does not say "failing to save someone's life, even if it costs you your own, counts as 'killing them'" that is not a valid "given" starting point of assumption for this scenario.

Furthermore, in a discussion with Aedilred, you stated that the text missing from the SRD that is present in the PHB is somehow "proof" that the SRD trumps the PHB.

It does not.

The SRD is meant to be applied to other games that are not D&D. Things exclusive to D&D are excluded, which is why the individual alignment references to the iconic D&D characters are missing. For example, in the SRD, Tenser's Floating Disk is simply Floating Disk, removing the D&D specific element of that. Does that mean that the spell in D&D is no longer properly Tenser's Floating Disk? No. For D&D-world based discussions, you use D&D RAW, not game-generic source documents. In this instance, the PHB (with errata) trumps the SRD. If you could prove that the errata to the PHB removed that line, you would have more support for your case.

It depends, it could certainly be valid, you are talking about a specific case, it could certainly be evil, if it was done for the wrong reasons, on your part at least. Just because you've increased cosmic good (a nebulous and arbitrar concept anways) does not mean that you've improved yourself morally, so you could continue to fall.
In correct, and you continue with semantics and dodging instead of acknowledging the meat of the issue.

The BoVD states that killing a demon is not Evil. The person in the example is claiming the exact text of the RAW that you are that says "Evil implies killing others". Specific trumps general. Killing others is Evil, but killing a demon is emphatically NOT Evil.

Because the issue of how self-sacrifice comes into the issue, we must look at if and where the RAW explicitly covers refusing sacrificing oneself to save another. Oh, look at that, the RAW says it's Neutral.

An evil person is capable of doing things that wind up having good results. Intent matters and motivation matters. Demons can be evil and do evil to each other and it's still evil even though the cosmic force might balance out because the intention is evil. In fact I reject the cosmic force argument out of hand it's nonsensical, because again Demons and Devils would be good since they have destroyed more of each other than ever possible for a good individual to do, it is therefore requisite that the matter is more complex than you are assuming.
You are attempting to change the scenario to prove your point. This is either issue-dodging word semantics, or moving the goalposts, take your pick. Either way, not constructive. I didn't ask you to change the scenario to make you right, I created a scenario and asked you about it. Your answer in keeping with your view was in violation of the RAW. Ergo, your view is not always in keeping with the RAW.
I did.

You still have responsibility because it's still your action, the boat sinking sets that into motion but it doesn't remove responsibility from you, any more than a doctor who decapitates me when I come in with a severe injury is exempt from malpractice.The doctor (by virtue of being a doctor, having taken a Hippocratic Oath, and presumably working in a medical facility) is obliged to help you, and decapitating you is murder. So this example is non-sequitur


Because your desire to live is selfish, that's the rules, thems the breaks.
Neutral on the Good/Evil axis is a little bit selfish. "Neutral people are commited to others by personal relationships", a quote from the PHB that is ALSO in your much-vaunted SRD. A Neutral person has no commitment (and therefore no responsibility) towards strangers. You can be a little bit selfish without being Evil. That's what Neutral is. Looking out for yourself and those you care about, while trying not to hurt others if that is possible, but not actively caring about others enough to go to extreme ends for them. If keeping yourself or those you care about means letting others be harmed by things that are out of your control (and I mean if that it literally the only option, then oh well. That's Neutral. Thems the breaks.

As I said before:
By your standards, there are 3 kinds of people on the moral axis of D&D: 1)Those who are Good 2) Those who are Evil and 3)Those who are evil (little "e"), but not as evil as those in category 2. And that is simply not true in D&D. That may be your view of them, which is as valid as any opinion, but it doesn't hold as objectively true in the moral/ethical framework of D&D. I'm not saying that "your opinion is wrong", or that you should change it. I'm just saying that your opinion is not a fact in regards to the facts of the objective moral/ethical framework of D&D.

Because you see fit to judge ANY level of selfishness, even simple self-preservation, as "Evil", there can be no neutral in your view.


Acting to kill another to preserve your life is evil, whether or not you're acting in an orderly fashion or panicking. It's the same exact result as throwing somebody off, the same exact intent (screw these people, I'm living), so I fail to see how a minor difference in methodology makes a moral difference here.
Are you f-ing serious? You think "throwing someone into the water where they will die" and "sitting quietly in a lifeboat" are minor differences in methodology? That's not even logical, by any standards.

It's not the same result, because the person I refuse to vacate my spot in a lfieboat for may find a spot on one of the other, remaining lifeboats. Just because I know SOME people on the ship will die doesn't mean I know WHICH people on the ship will die. Throwing that person off myself ENSURES that they will die, and thus they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

And it's not "acting to kill another" to preserve your life. It's "refusing to give up your own life", which is different.

No you are morally obligated to save lives when it is reasonably in your power to do so, as I said.
Then, once again, where do YOU draw the line at "reasonable"?

Because it is, you have a 100% chance of saving somebody if you get off the lifeboat, and 100% that that person would die, there is no question of skill or knowledge here, you know that somebody is dying so that you can live and you are doing nothing about it. It is clearly an evil act.
Prove it. Show, in RAW, where it says that if someone's life is on the line in a manner that costs me my own, it is an Evil act to not save them. Ver batim. Find it in the rules, or admit it's your opinion.

No, I've pointed out that is not the logical conclusion. It is only when your direct action saves somebody or dooms them.

You've been arguing that "failing to act when you could have saved them" is the same as "directly acting to harm/kill them". So yes, it IS the logical conclusion.
Because by sitting the lifeboat when I have already fairly earned a spot on the boat, I am not "dooming anyone by direct action", only by the indirect action of "not giving up my life for them".
If "not giving up my life" is direct action that dooms them, by your claim, then so is easting when you KNOW there are starving people in the world. Any food that you eat is food that you had the opportunity to give to someone else, and chose instead to eat for yourself. By your logic, selfish and Evil.
Now, if you are saying that eating is NOT selfish and Evil, then at point, exactly, is self-interest not Evil? Because there has to be some level of self-interest that has to be Neutral.

Look if you are not going to pay attention to my points, then I can't debate with you. I've pointed out why that was different more than two times in this very thread. You are still causing a death it doesn't matter if "they were probably going to die anyways" because then no murder is a crime, and the only crime is giving birth.

You have a responsibility if you are good to act in a way that accords to that, and that would be sacrificing yourself, if you are evil you are likely to act selfishly to preserve yourself, if you are neutral, you'd pick one of those two options either/or, and you've move a little bit in that direction.
I have been paying attention. You haven't. Either that, or you are intentionally putting on blinders to the contradictions in what you say.
You said:
"If you don't know about something or you don't have an ability to change it you don't have a responsibility to it."
I don't have the power to stop the ship from sinking. The sinking of the ship is what is going to cause these people's deaths. Ergo, using your words, I am absolved of responsibility for those people's deaths.

If I board the first lifeboat, and it fills up. And a complete stranger wants to board and I say "I'm not giving up my spot, there's another lifeboat near the forecastle", and they run off to find it, and my lifeboat takes off. Have I committed an Evil act? After all, when I boarded, there were other lifeboats available (although I know not enough for EVERYONE). I refused to sacrifice my life, but tried to help this stranger to the best of my ability without sacrificing my own life, which I value. I am not a doctor, but I have a wife back home whom I want to see again.

If my lifeboat takes off and I never know what happens to that guy, does the moral weight of my choice change based on what happens to him afterwards? For example, let's say he finds a lifeboat because of my directions and gets on and is saved.
Or, conversely, he gets there and THAT one is full, and none of those people gave up a spot, either. Assuming this guy then dies on the sinking ship, who caused his death? Just me? Or everyone in my lifeboat who also didn't vacate? Or is it just the people in the last lifeboat he tried to board and was refused from? Have we all "killed" him, by your view?

[RedMage125]

Which is in direct disagreement with the statement that I posted. At least to my reading.
Exactly. It's YOUR READING that causes a disgreement between the 2 quotes from RAW. By our reading, there is no disagreement between the 2.

Work with me here, for a moment. Suspend your opinion for a minute and accept a hypothetical where "refusing to sacrifice yourself to save the life of a stranger" is NOT AT ALL "killing that person". IF you accept that to be true, then the two RAW quotes do not contradict, because it is still Evil to kill someone. But if they are going to die unless you die for them, it is not Evil to sacrifice yourself.

So we are with your view: where there is a discrepancy between 2 parts of the same core RAW sourcebook.
And what Aedilred and I have been saying: Where every quote from the RAW is harmonious and in accord.

Just...think about it, with an open mind, please.

A neutral person is not likely to risk their life to save others, but they aren't likely to act in a scenario that has the same degree of dichtomy here. Neutral people who are not strongly lawful or chaos aligned, tend to be difficult conceptually for this very reason, either they balance out, or they are inactive and poorly suited for knowing things.
How is this situation NOT a situation of "risking their life to save others"? It's more than "risk", even. It's "completely throw away" their life to save others. How can you acknowledge that this is Neutral and still say what you do about the "evil of getting on a lifeboat"? That's complete contradiction.


The problem is that there isn't only one cause for the person dying. They were on the boat, whatever put them there is causal for death. The boat started sinking whatever caused that is causal for death. There were insufficient lifeboats, whatever caused is causal for death. And some jackass took their spot.
Only if they have right to a spot is it "theirs" that someone took. I have an equal right to that spot, do I not? If we are all judged by the same moral scales, with the same obligations, then he has just as much moral obligation to give "his" spot up to me as I do to give up "mine" to him.

Since that spot belongs to no one, it is fair game.

And I could argue that sitting on a lifeboat is direct. I don't see what the point in that would be, you get to the lifeboats and sit down, there... direct action.
And I could argue that "sitting in a lifeboat" is only "directly" causing myself to live. That they die from a lack of lifeboat spots is tangenical, and therefore "indirect".


I think you've missed the point where I've been saying that getting on the lifeboat was evil, not neutral.
I haven't missed that. In fact, it is the very thing I have been contesting. Getting in a lifeboat when there are still spots available is Neutral, as you yourself have said (since there were still spots available after I got in).
The only act you have labelled as "evil" is the refusal to vacate once on it. And, as I have been saying, that is simply turning down an option that is Good.


I'm not holding to a neutral to a standard of Good as for some reason you seem to be insisting. I'm claiming in one particular scenario with two options has one option that is good and one option that is evil. I'm not claiming that the decision is evil, because it is not good.
Yes, you are. You have used the exact wording that choosing to not do Good is "minor evil". That is exactly what you have said, in those exact words.


We have one option with altruism present, explicitly good as per the SRD. So that scenario is good.
Agreed.


The other scenario is using another for your personal gain, as per BoVD, page 9. That is explicitly evil. And as per SRD where it references killing explicitly evil.
I am not "using another for my personal gain". You may want to re-read that section of the BoVD (which, by the way, you ARE allowed to cite and post quotes from if you cite the source). And the SRD says "killing" is Evil. But does not say that "refusal to martyr myself" counts as "killing". THAT is where you fail to have rules support.


So for there to be a neutral option in this scenario it would have to not involve killing or loss of life, or the other option would have to not involve self-sacrifice. All of your talk about cosmology is irrelevant, since the actions are explicitly defined, now one could argue that it's not killing, that's a fair direction, but not that if since there as cosmic forces there has to a middle ground.
It absolutely is. As seperate cosmic forces, something can be neither Good nor Evil. There HAS to be a middle ground. If somethign is not Good, it doesn't become Evil.


If one has two options then there can be no middle ground. Now you folks have made the "throwing off" argument, but functionally that's the same as sitting on the lifeboat, just because you acted against somebody who got there first instead of after is irrelevant, your intention is the same, the result is the same, and the consequences are the same.
"Funtionally the same" is not equal to "the same".
If a fuse breaks, and you don't have a replacement, you can use a penny. They "function" the same, but are not the same, a penny does not have a breaking point of a set amount of current.

And furthermore, the intention of "I want to live" is not the same intention as "I want to kill someone else". Those are 2 WILDLY DIFFERENT intents.


To be honest your rope metaphor isn't relevant, because we're not arguing about cosmic good, not even a little bit we are arguing whether a particular action is evil, and by RAW if my supposition that getting on the lifeboat is causal to killing the other person to save yourself, it's evil.
The Good or Evil in the hearts of mortals is the same Good or Evil in the cosmos, there's just less of it. This is why a level 10 Evil Fighter and a 10 HD Evil Outsider both register on a Detect Evil spell (at different strengths), and why a paladin's Smite Evil works equally well on both.

And I bolded something key, above. Your view requires that we accept your supposition that getting on a lifeboat is causal to killing someone to save yourself. I'm glad you used the word "supposition" because it means you may be open to the idea that it's your opinion and not a fact. Aedilred and I have been arguing that your supposition is wrong.


Also your rope metaphor appears nowhere in RAW, there is no RAW that states that the cosmological morality is different, that's evolved on the forums in response to confusing morality issues in different books.
I know that my rope metaphor is not ver-batim in the books. It was a metaphor to explain how D&D forces of Good and Evil work, by the books.
And see above regarding cosmological morality as it applies to mortals.

There is no statement that would suggest that neutral is a force acting on morality, it's rather the middle point of the rope. Your analogy is flawed because in it neutral is a force. There is no force that is explicitly neutral, in fact RAW, the neutral outsiders only attempt to preserve a balance, that's not fitting with your metaphor, not at all. To put it this way, Neutral is the rope, it's springy, it pulls back in towards the center as you pull it, it can never get all the way to one side or the other, since it's knotted, but it can be pulled briefly either way.
Ugh...you missed it. Part of it is my fault, and I am sorry.
Neutrality is not so much a force acting on the rope, but rather, the force of gravity acting on the rope is the default (Neutral) state of the rope, without the active influence of Good or Evil. It was confusing if I presented the idea that Neutrality was an Active Force. It is not, I know that. I was unclear.

But Rope Situation 1 is a valid metaphor for how Good and Evil actions are judged by D&D RAW. Just because something is not Good does not make it Evil. Any given act has to be objectively Evil. "Refusing to commit a Good act" is not "committing an Evil act" by default. SImply "refusing to sacrifice my life for the life of another" is not two acts, it's one. And since "sacrificing my life for the life of another" is a Good act, I am "refusing to commit a Good act", not "committing an Evil one". Absence of Good is not presence of Evil.

And Rope Situation 2 is EXACTLY how you have been proposing Good and Evil work. You have said that Neutral is "minor evil" at best, and prescribed only a very narrow set of circumstances that could be Neutral.

[AMFV]

E

And Rope Situation 2 is EXACTLY how you have been proposing Good and Evil work. You have said that Neutral is "minor evil" at best, and prescribed only a very narrow set of circumstances that could be Neutral.

Here is where you are mistaken, I've not said that neutral is a minor evil, I've said there are circumstances where neutral is not an option.

[hamishspence]

I've even pointed out the moral why self-defense is justifiable for me. I'm not sure what you're addressing here.

Problem is - that argument is couched in solely altruistic terms.

Self defense is justifiable even if the reason is purely selfish. It might not be a Good act (so, causing a Paladin of Tyranny to "Fall") but it's not normally an Evil act, either.

[RedMage125]

Not necessarily, then you'd have a contradiction the BoVD rule, there isn't really a way to have all of the alignment supported in a scenario where there are only functionally two options.
You STILL missed what he said. He said IF YOU ASSUME that "sacrificing another to save yourself" and "not sacrificing yourself to save another" are DIFFERENT, then there is no contradiction.

PLEASE, try reading through that section of the BoVD again, with an open mind and assuming (even as a hyopthetical) that the above assumption is true. You will see no contradiction with the BoVD.

And I know you're talking about the Zophas examples. Keep in mind a few things, first, that the first example (taking an action to save yourself that ended up harming/killing innocents) was explicitly not evil. Also, Zophas is a paladin and held to a higher standard than anyone else. And third, that the commoners in the hut are not analogous to the people on the boat, because the people in the hut were not also in mortal danger before Zophas acted.


The problem is that causation is confusing as I pointed causation is complex, and you have a responsibility even in scenarios that you did not directly cause.
It is YOUR MORALS that dictate your responsibiltiy to those other people. You have very high ideals and are probably Good in alignment (were you to exist in a D&D world). I am genuinely impressed at your devotion to altruism.

By your morals, everyone has those same responsibilities.

But D&D does not present such a myopic scope of obligation and responsibility. It allows for people who DO NOT believe that they have a responsibility to anyone other than those they personally care about, and are also not Evil in alignment.


No I just didn't think that it was relevant to the discussion at this point.

It was relevant, and you did miss the point of the rope illustration. It was a metaphor for the way Good and Evil acts are judged, irrespective of contributing or exemplary factors.


I haven't rejected my own theory of causation with any scenarios. Ever, seriously I'll take that we can disagree, but I have not been inconsistent at all. My position has been extremely consistent, and that is a serious accusation. I've stated that if you have an ability, knowledge and the ability to prevent death inaction is tantamount to directly acting to kill somebody, refusing is acting.
Except the burning building. If you could run into it, costing you your life, to save someone else, and did not, then by your definition that's Evil.

In the other cases, eating you can't save somebody by not eating, it's not equivalent. In the brushing past the guy scenario, I agreed that there was some responsibility but knowledge and intent are lacking.
The eating thing is absolutely a prallel, and you're putting on blinders so you won't have to see your own argument's flaws.
The parallel is that food is a spot on the lifeboat.
You having food is getting on the lifeboat.
You eating the food for yourself instead of giving it to someone else is you staying in the lifeboat instead of giving up your spot.
You have the OPPORTUNITY to give your food away to other people. There are people all over this country that are going hungry. Any food that you have COULD be given to them.

Bottom line: If ANY action taken for your own interest-EVEN TO SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE-is Evil, then it is Evil across the board. You can't say that the food example doesn't fit just because you don't want to. You get judged by the same scale you want to put everyone else on. If eating food -instead of giving away every scrap of food you buy- is not Evil, then it means there is some "cutoff point" at which is becomes acceptable (i.e. Not Evil) to act in your own self-interest.

The new question Aedilred and I have asked you multiple times and you refuse to answer is: According to your value system, where is the line drawn at which one can act in their own self-interest without it being Evil?

I'm not arguing for pacifism, and as far as I can tell nobody else is. I've even pointed out the moral why self-defense is justifiable for me. I'm not sure what you're addressing here.
You also used semantics to dodge the question about self-defense that I posed to you.

For crying out loud, answer honestly, and don't dance around it.

If you killed a lich and were carrying around his crown as a trophy, and a paladin, having used detect evil and under the mistaken belief that you were Evil, was attacking you with lethal force, and you defended yourself, got in a lucky shot and killed her, have you committed an Evil act?

THAT is the situation, and the paladin is just as I described before. Do not alter the situation to "well, if it's a fallen paladin" or "I must be Evil, then". That is not the scenario. I am presenting THIS scenario. Respond.

Because by the RAW, no. Killing in self-defense does not equate to "murder", which the BoVD defines as "killing another for selfish or nefarious purposes".

[hamishspence]

Not to mention that BoVD also points out that "Even with the most black-and-white approach to evil, gray areas will always exist"

[RedMage125]

Here is where you are mistaken, I've not said that neutral is a minor evil, I've said there are circumstances where neutral is not an option.
You haven't?

I didn't say anybody going on the lifeboat was evil. I said that getting on the lifeboat TO PROTECT YOURSELF is an evil act, albeit a minor evil act.

When asked if I should orphan my children over YOUR perception of "the right choice", as opposed to my value of getting back to my children...

If you don't want to commit a minor evil act, yes.

Not going to quote, because these are getting fairly long. Malice aforethought is not always a requirement for murder, even legally. Disregard for human life is sufficient in many places. Now you could argue that this is a lesser evil (closer to manslaughter) given that it's made in the heat of passion. But it still is an evil. Now I'm not saying that a neutral action should or does involve sacrificing oneself. I'm saying it doesn't involve harming another to preserve your interests. Meaning that if there is a moral dilemma that requires one or the other, it cannot be resolved in a way that is consistent with a neutral alignment, and would require an out of alignment action for a neutral person.

In response to me saying that you called Neutrality a "lesser evil"


I also said it was "lesser good" it's both.

So...it's it's not strongly one or the other, it's...Neutral, right?

But...yes, yes you have. That's just the first 4 I found.

[hamishspence]

I just wanted to ask this because I keep hearing people talk about it. Why does everyone keep saying Neutral is the most common alignment?



I also read somewhere else, though I can't find the book (I just spent half an hour with BoED, so probably not that, though it seems like just the place for such a thing to be written), something to the effect of "if a Paladin were to detect the alignments of ten random townspeople, he would likely find three Good people, four Neutral people, and three Evil people. Despite these people showing up as Evil, the Paladin may not attack them while adhering to his code; the Paladin is charged to protect these people."

That was obviously not word for word, but if you've read the book in question you'll probably recognize it. Neutrality is only slightly more abundant than Good or Evil in D&D terms.

Actually it didn't come from a book - but on an online article about Eberron:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

though something similar is said in Pathfinder, about how evil "does not require one to be killed":

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

[SiuiS]

Actually, I think there is straight up RAW text saying killing things is always evil, with the only exception being killing a fiend which is always unanimously a good act.

Because let's face it, we aren't discussing philosophy or morality. We are discussing a set of prescriptive game rules designed to represent loyalty, willing or unwilling, to cosmic objective forces which literally insinuate themselves into and through all things by the actions and reactions of those things. Murdering a recovered fiend who is the most sanctified being in all existence through the most torturous means possible makes you more [good], and killing a rat to eat when you're a starving makes you [evil], because the rules weren't designed to apply in such scenarios.

[hamishspence]

Actually, I think there is straight up RAW text saying killing things is always evil

Where?

We have "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" - but no "killing things is always an evil act".

If that was the case, there would be no paladin adventurers in the first place.

BoVD I think doesn't really fit well with BoED - and since it's the later book - it overrides the earlier one where there is a contradiction.

As someone once pointed out, an act can be both [Good] and Evil.

[veti]

None of that sounds good whatsoever. Just lawful.

Really? Volunteering for charities and going out of one's way to help strangers in need doesn't qualify as 'good'? Wow, it's harder than I thought.

[hamishspence]

Really? Volunteering for charities and going out of one's way to help strangers in need doesn't qualify as 'good'? Wow, it's harder than I thought.

I think the problem is he's going with "Evil As A Choice" whereas we're going with "Low Grade Evil Everywhere".

From Quintessential Paladin II:

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin.

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

[Amphetryon]

I think the problem is he's going with "Evil As A Choice" whereas we're going with "Low Grade Evil Everywhere".

From Quintessential Paladin II:

Two issues:
1) While QPII is a reasonable treatise on Good/Evil, it's 3rd party and therefore of questionable standing vis a vis the RAW of the actual D&D axis.

2) He's been pretty consistently labeling 'minor acts of cruelty and malice' as Evil on the cosmic scale, which differs from the proposed "Evil As A Choice" metric in at least one important feature.

[hamishspence]

Two issues:
1) While QPII is a reasonable treatise on Good/Evil, it's 3rd party and therefore of questionable standing vis a vis the RAW of the actual D&D axis.
True - I was using those terms as shorthand.


2) He's been pretty consistently labeling 'minor acts of cruelty and malice' as Evil on the cosmic scale, which differs from the proposed "Evil As A Choice" metric in at least one important feature.

I was talking about SiuiS's comment:


None of that sounds good whatsoever. Just lawful.

[veti]

Where?

We have "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" - but no "killing things is always an evil act".

Not disagreeing with you in any way, just noting:

The most basic RAW description of Good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) says that it "implies respect for life". The interesting thing about that is that it's not limited to "innocent life", or even "sentient life". All life needs to be respected.

"Innocent" life, whatever that means, also deserves to be "protected". That's a higher bar than mere "respect", and it can be read as implying that eating a stick of celery isn't necessarily an evil act, so long as you're properly thankful to the plant for its sacrifice.

[hamishspence]

That said - "vegetarian-type feats" tend to be Exalted - with the implication that for a character without those feats, it's optional rather than compulsory.

The Vow of Peace bans you from harming any living creature, and the Vow of Purity bans you from eating any dead creature.

[Amphetryon]

Not disagreeing with you in any way, just noting:

The most basic RAW description of Good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) says that it "implies respect for life". The interesting thing about that is that it's not limited to "innocent life", or even "sentient life". All life needs to be respected.

"Innocent" life, whatever that means, also deserves to be "protected". That's a higher bar than mere "respect", and it can be read as implying that eating a stick of celery isn't necessarily an evil act, so long as you're properly thankful to the plant for its sacrifice.

You can be thankful to the plant that gave you the celery while utterly disregarding the fact that you're keeping food out of someone else's mouth by virtue of your choice to eat it.

[hamishspence]

The Star Wars Ithorian doctrine was "For every plant you uproot, you must plant two to replace it."

That's one way of showing respect for the plants you eat, at least.

[lolthfollower]

Hey guys, title says it all, so I'll just head to what I think I am.
I personally think of myself as CG or CN. (Not sure which, I like to think I'm good, but doesn't everybody?)

i don't generally want to be good. i like to consider myself chaotic evil, because evil people are always the guys that have the coolest stuff, but in actuality, i'm probably true neutral

[Aedilred]

The Star Wars Ithorian doctrine was "For every plant you uproot, you must plant two to replace it."
Alas, the Ithorian civilisation was completely destroyed within forty seconds of the arrival of the Triffids?


i don't generally want to be good. i like to consider myself chaotic evil, because evil people are always the guys that have the coolest stuff, but in actuality, i'm probably true neutral.
There is a definitely a persistent cultural trend of evil being cooler than good, going back an awfully long way. The devil has all the best tunes, after all. Evil as portrayed in fiction tends to be of two types: grotesque, or cooler than the hero. Even where the coolest character on show is not a villain, he tends not to be a hero; he's a neutral ally (cf. Han Solo).

(An arguable exception among widely popular fiction is the James Bond series, but even then, he occasionally runs into a cooler villain, many of the villains - especially in the novels - are grotesque, and Bond is Good in name only anyway, being at best a rather dark Neutral.).

I'm not sure why this is. It might have begun as a moral lesson; that just because something is superficially cool doesn't mean it's not morally rotten. But it seems to have had the opposite effect, with people striving to be dark and edgy because that's cooler (see also: the modern antihero).

But in any case, I would say that Evil isn't cool. At least, not inherently. Being evil might make it easier to be superficially cool, because you're not bound by the same restrictions as the good and neutral guys, but that's not the same. Remember, coolness comes from within, not from your place on the alignment chart. :smallwink:

(I'm not sure CE would be the best alignment for the sake of coolness, either. CG and CN have the contempt for authority part down, sure, but CE tends to be too indiscriminately destructive. When I think of the coolest Evil characters, they're usually more LE or NE than CE.)

[hamishspence]

Alas, the Ithorian civilisation was completely destroyed within forty seconds of the arrival of the Triffids?
Or they could just engineer a Triffid-hunting plant and introduce it to Triffid-infested areas :smallamused:

[Aedilred]

I imagine they'd still struggle with Japanese knotweed.

[hamishspence]

Heh.

The guy quoting that, was an exiled Ithorian in Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina - who'd been exiled for cooperating with the Empire in order to protect his city from them.

He's the guy with the head that looks a bit like a hammer.

[lolthfollower]

Well, Law does not necessarily mean following the laws of the government, but rather following a personal code of conduct.

put that way, i think i could be lawful. definitly nt good though. probably still neutral there

[veti]

But in any case, I would say that Evil isn't cool. At least, not inherently.

Obviously, this hinges on your understanding of what makes something "cool".

The nearest I can get to a plausible definition is that "cool" is what people want to be - it's an expression of envy or aspiration. When you say something is "cool", the implication is "I would like to do/be/have that myself".

So yes, it's easy for evil to be 'superficially cool', in that they can do the things everyone kinda-sorta wishes they could, but doesn't really want to because they're not sociopaths.

[Zrak]

Lawful Evil is basically the alignment of Cool. It follows the socially-enforced norms to its own advantage without conscience, pity, or empathy.

Chaotic Good is the alignment of "college cool" or "geek chic" or whatever. Chaotic Good is the loser hipsterdom that — if it is cool — is cool because it dares, with an idealistic and often bored contempt, not to care whether or not it is cool.

[Aedilred]

The key question is, what is the alignment of James Dean?

Unfortunately, I have a feeling it's something like "Neutral Cool".

[AMFV]

Two issues:
1) While QPII is a reasonable treatise on Good/Evil, it's 3rd party and therefore of questionable standing vis a vis the RAW of the actual D&D axis.

2) He's been pretty consistently labeling 'minor acts of cruelty and malice' as Evil on the cosmic scale, which differs from the proposed "Evil As A Choice" metric in at least one important feature.

No, I've not labeled minor acts of cruelty as evil at all. I've labeled acts of cruelty that result in death as evil.

[Lord Raziere]

No, I've not labeled minor acts of cruelty as evil at all. I've labeled acts of cruelty that result in death as evil.

so the normal guy who goes
"dude, I just want to live!" and runs for the lifeboat in distress is evil because he is somehow being cruel to everyone else then?

[Goblinoir]

Just asking do you think the dm / narator / storyteller is influenced by is own alignment?

Anyway I would say for myself Lawful neutral even to I thrive to be as Evil as I can...

[SiuiS]

Monsieurs, pronouns s'il vous plaît. I lost track of who was talking about me for a moment there.


Where?

We have "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" - but no "killing things is always an evil act".

If that was the case, there would be no paladin adventurers in the first place.

BoVD I think doesn't really fit well with BoED - and since it's the later book - it overrides the earlier one where there is a contradiction.

As someone once pointed out, an act can be both [Good] and Evil.

I think it's the book of exalted deeds, but honestly, it's an "I don't care" rule. There's a thread around about something like this where Keb Panthera and myself got into it. The end result was, all rules compiled, ending a life is [evil]. The thread topic is top of my tongue...


Really? Volunteering for charities and going out of one's way to help strangers in need doesn't qualify as 'good'? Wow, it's harder than I thought.

Helping strangers? Yes.
Paying an organization to help strangers out of social pressure? No.
Telling a cashier they have you an extra discount? No.
Paying government mandated fees in full and on time? No.

Doing [good] things because you're supposed to by law and custom is indeed performing [good] acts but doesn't make you good.


The Star Wars Ithorian doctrine was "For every plant you uproot, you must plant two to replace it."

That's one way of showing respect for the plants you eat, at least.

That would make every war end in a surge of hippies, syphilis, and an exponential rise in prophylactics in cycle.


Well, Law does not necessarily mean following the laws of the government, but rather following a personal code of conduct.

Not so much 'personal'. Being [Lawful] is accepting an authority that one considers objective. This can be legal, yes. But it can also be moral or spiritual or even tribal. If your personal code is internalized but came from an outside authority it would qualify, and there's wiggle room, but believing in your own code isn't lawful, unless you believe In Your own code because everyone should believe in their own code, objectively.


so the normal guy who goes
"dude, I just want to live!" and runs for the lifeboat in distress is evil because he is somehow being cruel to everyone else then?

Is evil? No.
Performs an action with the [evil] descriptor? Possibly.

[Lord Raziere]

Is evil? No.
Performs an action with the [evil] descriptor? Possibly.

See, thats what I can't accept.

saving your life, unless your actively taking actions to hinder the safety of others, is not evil, as evil is never reasonable, while working to survive is completely reasonable. I cannot judge anyone trying to save their own life evil by such criteria. There needs to be more than just that to make them evil.

just getting on a lifeboat is not evil. I might as well condemn everyone who ever tried to save their own lives if inaction to save others is all that needs to be evil. and who wouldn't save their own lives, aside from people specifically trained not to? I'm not saying people are inherently selfish, but expecting them to do anything other try to save their own life in that kind of situation is expecting far too much from them. I cannot judge them for that.

[SiuiS]

See, thats what I can't accept.

saving your life, unless your actively taking actions to hinder the safety of others, is not evil, as evil is never reasonable, while working to survive is completely reasonable. I cannot judge anyone trying to save their own life evil by such criteria. There needs to be more than just that to make them evil.

Alignment isn't about your judgement. It's a multi account debit system. An action can be [good], [evil], [chaotic] and also morally neutral at the same time in varying amounts. Executing a lawfully tried and very guilty mass mytdering serial killer is [lawful], and probably [good], but it's also a bit [evil] because killing always is.


just getting on a lifeboat is not evil.

Irrelevant.

just getting on a lifeboat

Is also not the same as

[a person shouts] "dude, I just want to live!" and runs for the lifeboat in distress

One is getting in a lifeboat. The other is specifically abjuring other choices you are Ware of in favor of getting in a lifeboat regardless of cost. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

I think it's the book of exalted deeds, but honestly, it's an "I don't care" rule. There's a thread around about something like this where Keb Panthera and myself got into it. The end result was, all rules compiled, ending a life is [evil]. The thread topic is top of my tongue...

Is evil? No.
Performs an action with the [evil] descriptor? Possibly.

Couldn't find it in BoED. Indeed - it specifically states that Good demands violence be used against "its enemies".

It also says you need just cause and good intentions though - and to offer mercy.

BoED also has a line saying "Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil."

So it's pretty consistent about killing being sometimes nonevil.


Executing a lawfully tried and very guilty mass mytdering serial killer is [lawful], and probably [good], but it's also a bit [evil] because killing always is.

A paladin who carries out such an Execution will not Fall.

[Lord Raziere]

Alignment isn't about your judgement. It's a multi account debit system. An action can be [good], [evil], [chaotic] and also morally neutral at the same time in varying amounts. Executing a lawfully tried and very guilty mass mytdering serial killer is [lawful], and probably [good], but it's also a bit [evil] because killing always is.



Irrelevant.

just getting on a lifeboat

Is also not the same as

[a person shouts] "dude, I just want to live!" and runs for the lifeboat in distress

One is getting in a lifeboat. The other is specifically abjuring other choices you are Ware of in favor of getting in a lifeboat regardless of cost. :smallwink:

1. I don't think of morality or alignment as math. doing so is monstrous.

2. What other choice.

Stay and die?

Stay, try to decide who should live, and die when the ship sinks while your deciding?

Stay, fight people over who should sacrifice oneself, die anyways because you were stupid enough to fight over who should sacrifice themselves?

Stay, try and patch up the ship in vain and die?

sorry but all the other options are Die. I choose to live, because if I'm in that situation, there is no other choice that makes sense if we a limited time to get out of there while we still can. I'd rather be condemned for saving one life than praised for saving none at all. :smallmad:

[hamishspence]

just getting on a lifeboat

Is also not the same as

[a person shouts] "dude, I just want to live!" and runs for the lifeboat in distress


true - but the OP included both.


You're on a sinking ship, and there aren't enough lifeboats for everyone. Is it evil to do your utmost to get on a boat? To get on a boat at all? To prevent people from getting on the boat after it's full because they'd put your life at risk?

Now - knocking others over on the way to the lifeboat, so you get there before they do - that would qualify as evil.

Otherwise - taking reasonable steps to get there is not evil.

Similar principles apply when you and another are about to be attacked by a very powerful predator that cannot be fought off (both of you are only 1st level and lightly armed) and will attack the nearest.

Running is Neutral.

Tripping the other person before running, is Evil.

[Amphetryon]

A paladin who carries out such an Execution will not Fall.
I agree with you, but is there a RAW citation for this? I know there is a RAW citation for killing being evil.

[hamishspence]

BoED - Crime and Punishment section.

[Balor01]

Pretty much you are all CE. If not for laws and social guidelines and RESTRICTIONS, you would all be Kim Jong Uns, raping the world.

Power shows the true face of a person and mostly, it is ugly one.

[Amphetryon]

BoED - Crime and Punishment section.

Thank you. *tips cap*

@Balor01: I'm going to go ahead and disagree with your sweeping generalization of every other human being in the thread or on the planet as CE.

[SiuiS]

Couldn't find it in BoED.

Alright. Still no idea which thread it was. Something... Use of atonement? Hmm.



A paladin who carries out such an Execution will not Fall.

Never said they did.


1. I don't think of morality or alignment as math. doing so is monstrous.

Cool.


2. What other choice.

You tell me, it's not my silly arbitrary binary set up. :smalltongue:


true - but the OP included both.


I'm not addressing the OP or the boat Schema thread at all. I'm addressing what Raziere said in the quotes section, alone.


Pretty much you are all CE. If not for laws and social guidelines and RESTRICTIONS, you would all be Kim Jong Uns, raping the world.

Power shows the true face of a person and mostly, it is ugly one.

Alignment is who you are when no one is watching, yes.
"We are all chaotic evil", no. That viewpoint says more about you than the rest of the world. 'It's not a crime if you don't get caught' is a repugnant concept. I Don't do things that are bad just because no one else will know. I will know. And I am who matters.

[hamishspence]

Never said they did.


I thought you were saying:


Executing a lawfully tried and very guilty mass mytdering serial killer is [lawful], and probably [good], but it's also a bit [evil] because killing always is.

that it's a bit [evil] and that since paladins always fall for [evil] acts - they'd fall for Executions.

[Amphetryon]

that it's a bit [evil] and that since paladins always fall for [evil] acts - they'd fall for Executions.
Or using lethal force in self defense/defense of their party/family/country. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but the notion that a Core Paladin will fall for not having a reasonable option for fighting - on a full-BAB chassis - seems a bit silly and far-fetched to me.

[SiuiS]

I thought you were saying:



that it's a bit [evil] and that since paladins always fall for [evil] acts - they'd fall for Executions.

I also said debit system. +5-1 is still a net +4.
Selfishness is an evil act, but paladins do not fall for wanting money (anymore).

[hamishspence]

I also said debit system.

I didn't see at the time a clarification that if the amount of [good] is greater than the amount of [evil] then the act is non-evil.

Another tricky situation for paladin-types is the Cut The Safety Rope one:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutTheSafetyRope

It is hard to define it as anything other than "sacrificing someone else to save yourself".

or "killing the innocent"

Though a case can be made that it is a violation of the paladin's code, but not an evil act - since the other person is certain to plummet no matter what the paladin does.

[erikun]

My alignment is Purple Menthol, which is about as good at describing any actions I may take as any other alignment you might give me.

The problem is that, while actions may be considered good or evil, people themselves are not. There is no cosmic power forcing a person to only participate in actions of one type or another. There is no cosmic scorecard that we can reference which fits people into nine nice and tidy categories. At best, the labels of good/evil are primarily a social construct, ones assigned by people based on their assumptions and their knowledge. There are "Good" people who do a bunch of "Evil" things. There are "Evil" people who do a bunch of "Good" things. See... well, pretty much any real person as an example.


And on the current topic of discussion, I cannot see basic self-preservation as evil even in the broadest sense of the word. Hurting others in the process of self-preservation, I could understand as potentially evil. But not just basic self-preservation. If that was the case, then basically every living thing would be undenyably evil due to the simple process of eating and surviving and the things that died in allowing it to happen.

[hamishspence]

The usual counter to that is "Animals are incapable of moral action - therefore no matter how many [evil] things one does, it is Neutral"

Not sure how good a counter it is though.

[erikun]

I find it a fairly poor counter, as it is basically saying "You can perform as much evil stuff as you'd like, and it's okay if you are dumb enough."

[Aedilred]

Alignment is who you are when no one is watching, yes.
"We are all chaotic evil", no. That viewpoint says more about you than the rest of the world. 'It's not a crime if you don't get caught' is a repugnant concept. I Don't do things that are bad just because no one else will know. I will know. And I am who matters.

I dunno. Hobbes would probably back the "human default alignment is CE" stance, and I've always felt Hobbes had the surest handle on human nature of any theorist I'd read.

On the other hand, one could argue that since that is the default state, and all anyone in that society is doing is making the most of their opportunities, that's Neutral. It doesn't square with D&D morality, certainly. I'm not sure it squares with RL morality either, come to that. But there's a point there, sort of.

[hamishspence]

"Alignment is who you are most of the time" might also be valid.

Sure - in some situations a person might move toward Evil, or Good - but how are they normally?

[RedMage125]

The problem is that, while actions may be considered good or evil, people themselves are not. There is no cosmic power forcing a person to only participate in actions of one type or another. There is no cosmic scorecard that we can reference which fits people into nine nice and tidy categories.
Yes there is, it's called alignment. It's basically that "cocmic scorecard".

HOWEVER, it does not apply in real-life, where perceptions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are so varied and subjective. Especially because a lot of modern cultures focus on rights of individuals to believe what they want. Alignment is only valid in a scenario in which we assume that the default assumption of D&D (that is, objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) is the case.

At best, the labels of good/evil are primarily a social construct, ones assigned by people based on their assumptions and their knowledge. There are "Good" people who do a bunch of "Evil" things. There are "Evil" people who do a bunch of "Good" things. See... well, pretty much any real person as an example.
Alignment is descriptive of a person's behavior, not precriptive of it.

Basically, this: Alignment is NOT and absolute barometer of action or affiliation.

Also: Alignment is a gross oversimplification of an individual's overall outlooks and beliefs, as shown through -and affected by- the actions they take with moral or ethical weight.

And again, only works in a universe where Good and Evil can be objectively quantified.


Alignment is who you are when no one is watching, yes.


"Alignment is who you are most of the time" might also be valid.

Sure - in some situations a person might move toward Evil, or Good - but how are they normally?

On a WotC forum alignment thread, someone said something that I think both of you can agree with.

Alignment is descriptive of how your ideal self. Given the choice, most of your actions will play to the ideals and values that you hold.

Of course, that should be tempered with what I said about gross oversimplification and absolute barometers, above.