Alignment Question

[Pinkcrusade]

So, I was reading through this http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Heresy, and I was wondering how you could classify this in the alignment spectrum. Whilst murder is condemed and "evil", if you are exterminating inherently evil (demons, for instance), it is considered a "good" act. What about those who don't conform to your religious beliefs? In all other aspects, this religion would classify as Lawful Good, giving to the poor, defending the meek and such.

I am referring to the "Dealing With Heresey", specifically.

[OldTrees1]

I may be misreading this.

Are you asking if it is immoral to kill someone who has done nothing other than disagree with group X?

Yes.

Remember Evil can be nice. Evil can love. An Evil group can be "giving to the poor, defending the meek and such."

[Pinkcrusade]

Well, from that perspective, yes. But I was wondering about it on a civilization scale. Our morals are based on our society, and if the society practices the purging of heretics, would that be "evil"?

[OldTrees1]

Well, from that perspective, yes. But I was wondering about it on a civilization scale. Our morals are based on our society, and if the society practices the purging of heretics, would that be "evil"?

Same holds on the civilization scale. However being part of an evil civilization does not decide a citizen's alignment. Their participation in the purging would if they participated.

[Hexalan]

40k morals is an iffy topic, because pretty much everything is Chaotic Evil.

Imperial forces exterminating demons is going to be lawful. Probably.

Some people whose ideas I don't like say that the whatever being (in this case, a daemon) is automatically Evil, and interacting with it anyway is Evil, except for destroying it, which is inherently extremely Good. The problem is, nothing is actually automatically, totally, Evil or Good, and dealing with it in any way cannot be exactly totally Evil or Good.

Someone could say that Daemons are evil, so you have to hunt down and destroy any possible daemons. Anything hesitation, or doubt, or the application of due process of law is merely prolonging the existence of the daemon, which is evil (and Evil).

But in real life, you can't know for sure that something is something. If you track down and kill a guy, and he is a chaos cultist, it seems that was a Good act. But what if he wasn't, but you thought he was? You were trying to stop Chaos cultists, so isn't your intent Good? But what if you're just murdering random people, and it turns out, purely by coincidence, that one of them was a cultist? Sure, technically, that could be a good act, 'cause you stopped a cultist. But you weren't even trying to, and you didn't even know you did. Would that still be Good?

What if there are some cultists, and they need to sacrifice a particular person in a particular way to summon a host of daemons. Obviously, stopping them is going to be a Good act, right? But what if the only way to stop them is by killing the sacrifice and ruining their ritual? That guy was innocent, but you killed him in cold blood, so was that Evil? But by killing him, you stopped a daemon-summoning ritual that would have ended up killing millions, so is that Good? But maybe those weren't cultists, just some dudes and a Halloween party, or maybe the daemons would have just eaten the cultists and left, and now those still-living cultists are just going to kill some other people for fun instead? So now stopping the ritual is Evil.

Maybe, in my opinion, it might be Lawful Good. Maybe. If you genuinely thought that by killing this other-religious person, you were saving the souls of other people, or believed that that other religion had some secret agenda of evil, or just by being of that religion that person is inherently Evil, maybe that's a Good act.

But maybe he's not evil, and really is Lawful Good, and is trying to help the poor, so killing that innocent Lawful Good person would be an Evil act. But maybe you really thought he was Evil, so your belief that you are Good is so strong you are Good.

I usually go with intent (I was trying to be Good) tempered with a generous dose of reason (So, did you investigate at all if he's secretly Cthulu or did you just murder him).

[Troacctid]

D&D runs off of virtue ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics): it's focused not on the morality of the act but on the moral character of the individual.

In this case, it sounds like it may be possible to have Lawful Good inquisitors. If so, they would investigate their targets much more carefully than nongood inquisitors and go the extra mile to be absolutely certain that the heretic is truly evil before purging them. If they honestly try to avoid false positives but don't investigate past the circumstantial evidence they're ordered to collect, they might be Lawful Neutral--well-meaning and law-abiding, but not especially virtuous. On the other hand, an inquisitor who is callous and unsympathetic toward his targets is going to be Lawful Evil, and I suspect that's the case for most of them.

Edit: I think an appropriate litmus test would be how they react if they find out the person they killed was actually innocent. If they're devastated, they're Good. If they wave it off saying they'd rather kill a hundred innocents than let a heretic go free, they're Evil. If they're somewhere in the middle, they're Neutral.

[holywhippet]

Within the 40K universe pretty much every species is rabidly xenophobic. There are only a few alien races the Imperium will tolerate, but for most of them they adopt a shoot on sight policy. They aren't too fond of mutants for the most parts and unsanctioned psykers are either killed or delivered to the black ships (Librarians being an exception).

It's hard to use the word "lawful" for an inquisitor because they are more or less outside of the law. They may be punished if they go too far, but they can do a lot of seriously awful stuff if they think it will help out in the long run. As an example, there was one inquisitor who performed exterminatus (killing off everyone on an entire planet) on a few planets to force a Tyranid swarm to divert towards Ork held planets. His idea was that either the Tyranids would be delayed by fighting the Orks or the Orks would manage to defeat them. IIRC he was declared a heretic for his actions, but it shows the lengths an inquisitor can and will go to.

As for religious differences in 40K, usually people fall into one of two categories: good and faithful worshipers of the Emperor or damned heretics who should be killed ASAP. There is very little leeway, at best I think they accept that some planets worship the Emperor a little bit differently.

[Troacctid]

Well, adhering to a rigid dogma and ensuring it remains dominant over all competing ideologies is pretty Lawful even when it's not a dogma that explicitly promotes Order and denounces Chaos.

[OldTrees1]

D&D runs off of virtue ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics): it's focused not on the morality of the act but on the moral character of the individual.

Are you sure? D&D labels several acts as Good or/and Evil. This is more like Deontological Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics).

[Desthro]

I really don't see it as an issue. Classifying alignments CAN get messy if one starts debating an endless cycle of what ifs and litmus tests for it.
On the other hand, we can take what we know of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil, and make some fairly accurate predictions.

Law is the presence of order: examples include - rules, regulations, restriction of freedoms, traditions.
Chaos is the presence of disorder: examples being - entropy, freedom, randomness, the ability to choose anything.
Evil is selfishness: examples being - holding oneself above others, exploiting others for one's own gain, coercion, imposing one's will on another without consent.
Good is selflessness: examples being - placing ones needs below other's needs, doing things for the benefit of others, gaining consent before acting upon another.

If you stick to those, it's fairly simple... otherwise you kind of muddy yourself.

---
Oh yeah and in the 40k universe...

Chaos is a threat to civilization as they know it. It is a force that can consume a world and destroy it, and Chaos gains entry through the choices of people. Killing people who indulge in "chaotic" behaviors in that world protects everyone in that world from utter destruction. It is a matter of fact, not faith.

Enforcing the rules/regulations is a lawful act, and the destruction of (chaotic) sentient life is doing things for the benefit of others in this case. People who strive to bring chaos are obviously chaotic (choosing to do whatever they want instead of submitting), and evil, (because they do so at everyone's peril for their own sake).

[Troacctid]

Are you sure? D&D labels several acts as Good or/and Evil. This is more like Deontological Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics).

Pretty sure. They're not entirely mutually exclusive, but D&D is definitely focused on alignment as it pertains to individuals. Case in point: There is no way to determine the alignment of an action (as far as I'm aware)*, whereas determining the alignment of a person is simple and easy for any 1st-level Cleric or Paladin. It's also explicitly possible for Good characters to perform Evil acts, and vice versa, without shifting alignment at all unless they start to perform such acts habitually or internalize the other alignment's virtues.

*I guess Phylactery of Faithfulness, but it only does it by warning you about actions that could potentially shift your alignment, which really just further supports my point, doesn't it?

[OldTrees1]

Pretty sure. They're not entirely mutually exclusive, but D&D is definitely focused on alignment as it pertains to individuals. Case in point: There is no way to determine the alignment of an action (as far as I'm aware)*, whereas determining the alignment of a person is simple and easy for any 1st-level Cleric or Paladin. It's also explicitly possible for Good characters to perform Evil acts, and vice versa, without shifting alignment at all unless they start to perform such acts habitually or internalize the other alignment's virtues.

*I guess Phylactery of Faithfulness, but it only does it by warning you about actions that could potentially shift your alignment, which really just further supports my point, doesn't it?

It is definitely hard to tell the difference from this side. Almost as if the writers were no consistent.

The ability for a person to be Moral and do some Immoral Acts is consistent with all 3 big theories(Consequentialism being the unmentioned one).

The ability to determine the alignment of a person is clear evidence for Virtue Ethics.
The Good and Evil labels on many acts is clear evidence for Deontological Ethics.

[Divide by Zero]

Pretty sure. They're not entirely mutually exclusive, but D&D is definitely focused on alignment as it pertains to individuals. Case in point: There is no way to determine the alignment of an action (as far as I'm aware)*, whereas determining the alignment of a person is simple and easy for any 1st-level Cleric or Paladin. It's also explicitly possible for Good characters to perform Evil acts, and vice versa, without shifting alignment at all unless they start to perform such acts habitually or internalize the other alignment's virtues.

*I guess Phylactery of Faithfulness, but it only does it by warning you about actions that could potentially shift your alignment, which really just further supports my point, doesn't it?

Well, BoED/BoVD do describe certain acts as always Good/Evil, but then there's a reason why those sections of the books are generally looked down upon.

[mangosta71]

I feel like, every time we see "alignment question" topics spring up, the answer is "yes, that's evil".

[hamishspence]

Well, BoED/BoVD do describe certain acts as always Good/Evil, but then there's a reason why those sections of the books are generally looked down upon.

Isn't just them - the PHB has, in the section on Channelling +ve/-ve energy: "Even if you're Neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is evil"

And not everything listed in BoVD is "always Evil" - for example, it says "Lying is not always an evil act".


Conversely, BoED makes a point of saying that the most benevolent acts listed - if they come at no cost to the doer, or even profit the doer - are Neutral at best - it's that element of sacrifice that makes such acts Good rather than Neutral.