PDA

View Full Version : Alignment question: Judge Death and killing for the sake of killing alone



Mr Horse
2007-03-22, 06:59 PM
Inspired by the latest of the many "ZOMG MIKO IS EVIL!?!?" threads, and the responses concerning what constitutes an evil act, someone mentioned that killing for no (apparent?) reason at all is CN, not evil.

By this reasoning, killing someone simply because they exist is also chaotic neutral? i truly doubt this myself.

But anyway,
there is one such character that comes to mind that does exactly that - the 2000AD character Judge Death.

Those of you familiar with Judge Death might recall that he's a semi-ethereal being of pure malevolence who has "judged" existance (or more exactly, life) to be a crime punishable only by nonexistance/death. As cunning as he is, the methods he uses are cruel and grusome, random and based on how much he can kill and hurt in the shortest time-frame possible.

What would you say his alignment is?

Considering he calls himself a Judge and that he's simply following "the law" of ending all concievable life, one could argue that he is in fact lawful neutral.

However, considering that he more than anything seems like a perverse and vile mockery of the Street Judges (and Judge Dredd in particular) - all of whom I'd generally place at lawful neutral - wearing a warped version of the Street Judge uniform, he could just as easily be either lawful evil or even chaotic evil, considering how much he revels in slaughter.

So, maybe the real answer is that indiscriminately murdering (or at least turning everyone into undead - as long as they aren't alive) simply because the victims are alive is in fact a neutral/true evil act?

What are your thoughts?

Sardia
2007-03-22, 07:05 PM
I'd put him at Lawful Neutral.
He's not Good, so there goes Lawful Good. He's not doing it for personal gain, so he's not Lawful Evil. If he has an internally-consistent sense of doing what he's doing to enforce a greater order, then he's probably Lawful...just an extreme example of it.

Mind you, I think any of the alignments taken to an extreme would send moderate people screaming into the streets sooner or later.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-22, 07:13 PM
Taking enjoyment from causing harm, simply because it's harm, is a clear evil trait.

If it were simply a matter of holding all living beings as due for a death sentence by the most expedient means available, that might be an extremely disturbing form of lawful neutral. Not that that should stop any sane person from either killing the thing or running away as fast as possible, depending on relative power levels. Joyously painting the walls with the blood of your not-quite-dead victim, on the other hand, is almost certainly an indicator of evil...

kamikasei
2007-03-22, 07:14 PM
It's evil. It's clearly and obviously evil. I don't know if the argument you mention in the other thread may have been more nuanced than you describe, but those nuances don't really apply here. He may be lawful or he may be chaotic, that's often hard to determine, but he's certainly evil.

Ask this question: what would make him not evil?


He's not doing it for personal gain, so he's not Lawful Evil.
I don't agree that "personal gain" is the criteria that determines Evil.

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 07:16 PM
Joyously painting the walls with the blood of your not-quite-dead victim, on the other hand, is almost certainly an indicator of evil...

Now I have the image of a gay designer going "You know what would be like totally awesoooome on that wall, the color of the blood of newborn, it's a nice shade to contrast the couch and it really lights up the room, lovely don't you think?"

Sardia
2007-03-22, 07:26 PM
I don't agree that "personal gain" is the criteria that determines Evil.

Look at it this way-- if a lion catches a limping child out on the plains, runs it down, chews on it until it dies, then loses interest and moves on, the lion isn't evil-- it's explicitly stated that animals like the lion are neutral. It's just doing what it does without the slightest thought of good or evil.

Now, not being totally familiar with Judge Death, the one question I have is how much joy (if any) he takes in the suffering of others. That would probably affect the answer.

greenknight
2007-03-22, 07:42 PM
Based on Judge Death's Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Death), I think it's fair to say he's Evil. If one applies the "personal gain" standard, then the gain here is personal pleasure (the character is a sadist, after all).

Sardia
2007-03-22, 07:52 PM
Based on Judge Death's Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Death), I think it's fair to say he's Evil. If one applies the "personal gain" standard, then the gain here is personal pleasure (the character is a sadist, after all).

Yep, that'd do it. Put me down as calling him Lawful Evil, then, due to attitude.

Desaril
2007-03-22, 08:41 PM
Haven't looked at Judge Death's wiki, but I will before we end this debate. First off, it is difficult to judge someone's alignment by a single (or even a few) actions. No one action or course of action defines an alignment.

But can we judge the alignment of a single act? Perhaps. Indiscriminate killing is probably evil, because we define evil from the perspective of living beings. We value our own lives. We want others to value them, so we have to place an intrinsic value on all lives. If it's wrong for you to kill me; it's wrong for me to kill you; it's wrong to kill anyone (with certain exceptions).

But if we eliminate the premise that life is intrinsically valuable, we cannot make that distinction. Although I think animals are neutral because they lack moral accountability, the lion example demonstrates my point. If life has no intrinsic value, it becomes a resource to be expended like any other. That's why it's not evil for the lion to kill his prey. Animal life does not have the same intrinsic value as human(oid) life and thus it's OK to kill animals for food. The predators right to life supercedes the prey's right to life.

I admit that I'm suggesting that morality is relative and it depends on what you believe. However, D&D has a fixed morality and we have to accept that life has intrinsic value and killing without moral justification is wrong, i.e. evil.

However, the lion example again steps in and provides a moral justification for certain killings. If a lion destroys even the intrinsically valuable human life, that act is not evil, becuase animals are not morally culpable. Lions cannot choose between good and evil. And this gets us back to Judge Death. His mistaken (but honest) belief that life has no value (and actually has negative value) eliminates his moral culpability. He, like the lion, cannot make a moral decision, because he is morally impaired- he does not know right from wrong and cannot make the correct moral choice. His actions are unaligned.

Does this unbalance the game or make alignments useless? No, it just accepts that some people are insane, mentally retarded, demon-possessed (or otherwise morally impaired). A player should not successfully rely on the insanity defense unless they have DM approval.

marjan
2007-03-22, 10:27 PM
Look at it this way-- if a lion catches a limping child out on the plains, runs it down, chews on it until it dies, then loses interest and moves on, the lion isn't evil-- it's explicitly stated that animals like the lion are neutral. It's just doing what it does without the slightest thought of good or evil.

Now, not being totally familiar with Judge Death, the one question I have is how much joy (if any) he takes in the suffering of others. That would probably affect the answer.

Animals are neutral because they can't tell diference between good and evil, not directly because their int. Though they cannot tell diference because they are not very inteligent (this is RAW I think). If you are aware that you are doing evil deeds then you are evil, but if you are for some reason unaware (like if you are mentaly ill) then you are not automaticaly evil. I'm not familiar with this judge but painting walls with someone's blood can be neutral if you are somehow unable to make diference between good and evil.
It's like in movies when serial killers kill people and believe they are helping them by sending them to heaven. They do this because they think it is good for the people they kill not because they like it. This isn't evil IMO. Those killers need help or something but they are not evil.

Though I cannot think of reason why would somebody think that it is good to paint walls with other person's blood.

belboz
2007-03-22, 10:36 PM
I wouldn't go *that* far. You don't have to know that you're evil to be evil. You do have to have a basic understanding of concepts like the suffering of others, though, which animals have at most very vaguely.

I can't tell from the wiki entry if Judge Death is so psychotic as to have lost touch with these basic things (in which case, however analytically clever he may be, he's as neutral as an animal), but assuming he's capable of...well...judgment, then he's clearly LE.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-03-22, 10:47 PM
Judge Death is blatantly evil. He's guilty of mass murder on a grand scale. I'll never be able to understand how people can convince themselves people like him are neutral.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 10:55 PM
It is impossible to argue he is anything but Chaotic Evil (though of course people will, since a lot of people don't take the time to really "get" the alignment system, or even look at the examples set forward.)

As for why, precisely, he is Chaotic Evil, it's clear from reading the description of Chaotic Evil in the SRD:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse.
Bolded the most relevant parts. Sure, Judge Death is somewhat "predictable" - in that you can be reasonably sure he's going to kill you - but he is driven by an incessant need to destroy, torture, maim and kill. That is the very essence of Chaotic Evil; thus, so is he.

Desaril
2007-03-22, 10:57 PM
@OV- what makes killing people evil? If its the deaths, than a natural disaster is evil. Everyone eventually dies, so time (or life or giving birth) is evil. We kill animals all the time, so are we evil? Even killing humans (or humanoids in a game setting) is acceptable under certain circumstances. What is the distinction? How do we know when the ending of a particular life is an evil act?

If we take moral culpability out of the equation, the question makes no sense. There must be some notion of the moral value of the action and also the actor's awareness of that moral value. If not, morality is not about right and wrong, but whether or not we agree with the result achieved.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-22, 11:07 PM
Judge Death is blatantly evil. He's guilty of mass murder on a grand scale. I'll never be able to understand how people can convince themselves people like him are neutral.

Because if he weren't a vicious, sadistic monster as he is reported to be, and were actually motivated by "The crime is life, the sentence is death!" (which the Wiki seems to say was his actual basis in an alternate version), he'd be nothing more than a merciless enforcer of an extremely bizarre code. Enforcing a code without applying moral judgment to it is a perfect example of LN. It just so happens that, while he may have "compunctions about killing the innocent" (PHB p104), he's never met an innocent, by his standards, who it was possible to kill.

As a vicious, sadistic monster who explicitly joined with the forces of 'law' to have an excuse for killing, he's more of an 'any evil' type. I'd actually say probably neutral rather than lawful or chaotic. Claiming to be a law enforcer, or even being employed as one, doesn't imply a lawful alignment. (But it does imply some degree of willingness and ability to work the system...not usually a CE trait)

About animals...if they were sapient, your typical animal would be NE, with some individual or species lawful or chaotic. Animals, pretty consistently, are completely unconcerned with lives other than their own and in some cases those of their immediate family. However, moral classifications aren't attached to non-sapient creatures in D&D. At a guess, this is to keep paladins from going insane any time they accidentally scan a beehive. It doesn't mean that a thinking creature with a poor or erroneous understanding of good and evil gets off the hook.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 11:07 PM
@OV- what makes killing people evil?
I'm not OV, but - The SRD does:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Hurting, oppressing, killing. That's the definition of evil.

Things without intelligence (or with animal intelligence) get a pass, mainly because they don't wontonly kill. If an animal kills, it's for one of three reasons: 1) territory, 2) food, 3) defense. Those situations don't really fall under the purvue of "evil", especially since one can escape said death just by running far enough away. An animal never kills because it's "convenient".

EvilElitest
2007-03-22, 11:09 PM
I'd put him at Lawful Neutral.
He's not Good, so there goes Lawful Good. He's not doing it for personal gain, so he's not Lawful Evil. If he has an internally-consistent sense of doing what he's doing to enforce a greater order, then he's probably Lawful...just an extreme example of it.

Mind you, I think any of the alignments taken to an extreme would send moderate people screaming into the streets sooner or later.

God damit, what is with all these pity cases? Killing for no reason is an evil act. And before people bring up aligments on animals, they don't have the int or the motive for such actions sort of the rare insane case. The lion that kills the kid musth have wanted to eat him, but changed its mind. No high int, no morals. A lion that eats it babies for no reason, i would call insane, and evil at that.

Barry the Chopper says when asks why he kills

"Why? What a strange little question, i surrpose because i enjoy it."
Ed (who is a captive and main charcter) "What kind of person would kill for such a foolish reason like that?"
Barry "Because i can. Men have morals, but send them to war and they have no problem killing eachother in the most brutal of fashions. Why is that?"
Ed "I have no idea."
Barry "Because deep down we all want to kill, we just need an excuse. I don't need such an excuse, i kill people for the sole intoxicating feeling of having blood between my fingers, to reduce people to their most basic building blocks. I KILL THEREFOR I AM"
Not all put together, but extra points for however knows the show this is from. Anywas, mindless killing is evil. And that included the judge, as he has no right to take other's lives to further his own ideals.

Because if he weren't a vicious, sadistic monster as he is reported to be, and were actually motivated by "The crime is life, the sentence is death!" (which the Wiki seems to say was his actual basis in an alternate version), he'd be nothing more than a merciless enforcer of an extremely bizarre code. Enforcing a code without applying moral judgment to it is a perfect example of LN. It just so happens that, while he may have "compunctions about killing the innocent" (PHB p104), he's never met an innocent, by his standards, who it was possible to kill.


As a vicious, sadistic monster who explicitly joined with the forces of 'law' to have an excuse for killing, he's more of an 'any evil' type. I'd actually say probably neutral rather than lawful or chaotic. Claiming to be a law enforcer, or even being employed as one, doesn't imply a lawful alignment. (But it does imply some degree of willingness and ability to work the system...not usually a CE trait
No, just because you can hide behind a code does not make you not evil. A LN person might be able to commit some evil acts, but their code has to be good for that to pass and they can't be breaking it. By you defination, only deamons and devils are evil and that would make Redcloak good.

from,
EE

ElHugo
2007-03-22, 11:17 PM
Through the intent rather then action argument?

This refers to the lion argument, and it's a subjective moral viewpoint - do we consider certain action to be inherently evil, or does evil require evil intent?

If the lion, despite killing indiscriminately, is neutral because he does not have evil intent (because he is incapable of understanding the concept of evil) then a similar argument can go for this Judge Death thingy.

EDIT: whoa, leaving threads in tabs doesn't work so well when it's a "hot thread". My response was directed at OzymandiasVolts post

NemoUtopia
2007-03-22, 11:22 PM
Everything I know about Judge Death screams "insane NE." Why? Well, he/it is clearly insane, for one thing. That aside, the "judgment against life" is just the being's rationalization and not really an indicator of lawfulness...he/it follows no codes that I can think of other than "kill and enjoy it." Also, he doesn't exactly seem to be chaotic...he's neither going to pretend he's not evil to try and get away or do anything random unless it is specifically taking up an opportunity he/it didn't know about to kill some more. Put in another way:

Judge Death, in D&D terms, is a fiend. He/it is neither from Baator (The Nine Hells) nor the Abyss, and would not participate in the Blood War. He/it would just go and try to kill, kill, kill. Judge Death represents just that, death, and could basically be an avatar of Nerull.

EvilElitest
2007-03-22, 11:27 PM
Everything I know about Judge Death screams "insane NE." Why? Well, he/it is clearly insane, for one thing. That aside, the "judgment against life" is just the being's rationalization and not really an indicator of lawfulness...he/it follows no codes that I can think of other than "kill and enjoy it." Also, he doesn't exactly seem to be chaotic...he's neither going to pretend he's not evil to try and get away or do anything random unless it is specifically taking up an opportunity he/it didn't know about to kill some more. Put in another way:

Judge Death, in D&D terms, is a fiend. He/it is neither from Baator (The Nine Hells) nor the Abyss, and would not participate in the Blood War. He/it would just go and try to kill, kill, kill. Judge Death represents just that, death, and could basically be an avatar of Nerull.

Well done, but i would say CE, as NE seems a bit more self serving in nature, and LE would not tolerate such chaotic acts. He can delusion himself, but he is CE in my book. As for fiend, in you mean it isn a poetic sense, well done.
from,
EE

Krellen
2007-03-22, 11:30 PM
Chaos isn't just "random"; it's also a love of conflict, competition and change.

While Judge Death fits some aspects of Neutral Evil, he's a blatant violation of others:

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Judge Death doesn't just sit idle after wiping out life; he immediately has to move on to another inhabited place to wipe it out. He actively searches for new ways to kill more people. He thrives on the destruction, fear, pain and suffering of his victims - so much so that he is driven ever onwards to kill. That drive is the Chaos; he is, in fact, very much like Demons. He would participate in the Blood War, because it would be a perfect way to end more life.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-22, 11:36 PM
No, just because you can hide behind a code does not make you not evil. A LN person might be able to commit some evil acts, but their code has to be good for that to pass and they can't be breaking it. By you defination, only deamons and devils are evil and that would make Redcloak good.

from,
EE

You should re-position the quote tags on that...

Why on earth would that be? Let me take it in two parts:

-...Their code has to be good...
What definition of 'good' are you applying to this code that allows its obedient follower to be other than good? This completely erases the LN alignment.

A LN character is (can be) one who takes their 'moral' direction from their code, and doesn't yield (or balances) to pressures from either side of the good-evil axis. The moral character of the code itself is completely beside the point.

-Only fiends would be evil, Redcloak would be good.
Redcloak would be good...um, if neutral were the same as good, and if "hobgoblins suffering horrible deaths at random is desirable" were an element of a code (I can't quite fathom how) rather than a personal recreation. I think that covers that. And addresses how non-fiends could be evil.

Neutral 'senseless killing' works like this: First, discover that the subject is not innocent, by some standard you follow, and is in fact deserving of a nasty end. Optionally, develop hatred for subject based on their wrongdoing. Then kill them.
Evil senseless killing is more like this: First, notice that you want to kill the subject...either just because, or because you get some gain thereby. Optionally, make up a justification. Then kill them.

EDIT:
While I can't disprove the 'restless nature or love of conflict', I see no evidence that Judge Death has either. What he has is a love of killing (Evil, neither chaotic nor lawful), which isn't something you can satisfy without getting out a bit. If he could somehow arrange for helpless people to walk into a convenient slaughterhouse continuously as he 'executed' them, I don't think he'd get bored...though he probably would be looking for ways to do even better, on general principles.

TheOOB
2007-03-22, 11:53 PM
Good people kill when their life, the lives of a loved one, or an innocent's(a person who they have no personal attachment to and to their knowledge has done no wrong) life is at stake.

A neutral person kills when their life, or the lives of a loved one are at stake.

Killing for any other reason is evil...simple.

However, just because someone does something thats evil (such as killing someone who isn't a direct threat), doesn't neccesarly mean your evil. Alignment is a measure of how you usually act, not just one or two events.

Desaril
2007-03-22, 11:59 PM
@ Krellen- You prove my point in your own post. The SRD says that evil implies hurting oppressing, killing. Killing an evil being could be judged a good act.
You then go further and add something that's not in the rule- unintellgent creatures get a pass because the killing is wanton. That's my point. It's not the act of killing it's the justification (or lack of justification). The actor must be wrong in his act of killing; merely killing is not wrong.

I further disagree that the alignment descriptions are strict definitions of the alignments. They are helpful examples. You can create a play a CE character who never hurts, oppresses or kills anyone. He may just steal. He may want to do all those things, but is never succesful (thank God for the PCs). In either case, the characters disposition and predelicitions are toward chaos and evil, so that's his alignment.

@ NemoUtopia- You say that Judge Death's insanity is proof of his evilness. Are you saying all insane people are evil or all evil people are insane? Either way I think just the opposite. His insanity proves he can't be evil (or good for that matter). He lacks the moral decisionmaking to be good or evil. He actions are not determined by a moral guide, but by instinct (like an animal).

Without moral choice, there is no morality. A creature that cannot choose to do evil or good cannot be evil or good. It is merely a moral nullity. This flies in the face of our notion of both real and imaginary spiritual creatures, but morality is always about the choice.

I think many of you are trying to deduce an alignment by comparing his actions to someone who chooses to do them (and therefore is morally culpable). I think that his actions most closely resemble what we would describe as lawful evil. He has a twisted but rational approach, he joined the judges to give him the authority to kill, he worked with others to establish the necropolis.

@ Evilelitest- Your main point is that JD (and Barry) is evil because they kill for no reason. That's not true. They both have a reason, JD because he believes life is a capital crime and Barry because he enjoys it and values his joy over his victim's life. The problem is you disapprove with their reasons because you place a different value on life. It's not that they don't have a reason, it's only that their reasons aren't good enough for you.

NemoUtopia
2007-03-22, 11:59 PM
Chaos isn't just "random"; it's also a love of conflict, competition and change.

While Judge Death fits some aspects of Neutral Evil, he's a blatant violation of others:

Judge Death doesn't just sit idle after wiping out life; he immediately has to move on to another inhabited place to wipe it out. He actively searches for new ways to kill more people. He thrives on the destruction, fear, pain and suffering of his victims - so much so that he is driven ever onwards to kill. That drive is the Chaos; he is, in fact, very much like Demons. He would participate in the Blood War, because it would be a perfect way to end more life.

I had considered this, and in the end ruled NE (again, IMO) for a few other reasons. The blood war is a conflict based on the conflict between law and chaos...which Judge Death doesn't care about in the slightest. He/it only cares about killing, and if placed on a Blood War battlefield would likely just destroy whatever was around him at the time...or even disregard the other fiends entirely. Judge Death cares about life...or rather, death...but specifically human death. Even if one argues that demons/devils are truly sentient in their own right as opposed to being a "split personality" manifestation of their home plane and its ideals (they are spawned and created, not born), JD is still very singular minded. Put another way: JD is too lawful and dead set (pun intended) to be chaotic, and too spontaneous and chaotic without a real code to be really lawful. While I can see arguments that would make him either lawful or chaotic, it's that same dichotomy that makes me think of neutrality on that axis.






@ NemoUtopia- You say that Judge Death's insanity is proof of his evilness. Are you saying all insane people are evil or all evil people are insane? Either way I think just the opposite. His insanity proves he can't be evil (or good for that matter). He lacks the moral decisionmaking to be good or evil. He actions are not determined by a moral guide, but by instinct (like an animal).

Without moral choice, there is no morality. A creature that cannot choose to do evil or good cannot be evil or good. It is merely a moral nullity. This flies in the face of our notion of both real and imaginary spiritual creatures, but morality is always about the choice.

I think many of you are trying to deduce an alignment by comparing his actions to someone who chooses to do them (and therefore is morally culpable). I think that his actions most closely resemble what we would describe as lawful evil. He has a twisted but rational approach, he joined the judges to give him the authority to kill, he worked with others to establish the necropolis.


Actually, I never mentioned insanity as proof of evil, only that in Judge Death's case, they go hand in hand. Also, your insanity/good/evil argument reminds me of a defense lawyer trying to get the death sentance (man, that subject keeps coming up like the plauge [ok, somebody stop me, please, before we all drop de...)_)...(_(...deeply unconscious]) off the table for his sociopath client. In JD's case, the most correct term is "alien mindset", and alien in a form is defined by killing. Killing as a goal unto itself is evil. Still, let's assume he was an ordinary human being, albiet one who killed for death's own sake. That leaves us two options:
1) JD is sane (in the legal but not what I would consider true sense of the word) and has made a choice to be evil and kill.
2) JD's acts are the cause of clinical insanity (i.e. something that can be fixed with medication to re-balance brain chemistry or resolved by institutionalization).
If option 1, he's evil and that's that. If 2, where does that leave you? A drunk is held responsible for their actions while drunk, as are drug users who commit atrocities while similarly influenced. So any person who chooses (while sane) to not take care of the situation / take medication is similarly responsible for their actions done as a consequence. The exception would be mental retardation (not the case here) or an outside force preventing JD from keeping the problem fixed even though he tried to do so...which means the other party is held responsible. Really, no matter how you argue it, you end up with "evil", and while the being itself might not be evil and not deserve the cessation of existence, its actions and effective non-fixed persona ARE, making it a moot point.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-23, 12:01 AM
Good people kill when their life, the lives of a loved one, or an innocent's(a person who they have no personal attachment to and to their knowledge has done no wrong) life is at stake.

A neutral person kills when their life, or the lives of a loved one are at stake.

Killing for any other reason is evil...simple.

The death sentence is widely applied in most D&D settings, as far as I know. And not considered evil.

TheOOB
2007-03-23, 12:08 AM
The death sentence is widely applied in most D&D settings, as far as I know. And not considered evil.

I'd contend that the death sentance is evil, as it's done simply out of convienance. If you have a criminal subdued to the point where you could execute them, then they are no longer a threat to your society. At that point all killing them gains you is the money that would have been spent taking care of them in prison.

Executing someone is pretty evil, though once agian just because a country has capital punishment doesn't mean the countries government is evil, it could even still be good, but it still does commit evil acts.

Desaril
2007-03-23, 12:14 AM
Putting aside the insanity argument, there seems to be a dispute about why JD kills. If he does it for the joy of killing and he values that joy over the lives of his victim, that's pretty evil by most standards.

If instead he truly is trying to rid the world of crime and this is the only means to do so, isn't he pursuing a good end. According to Judeo-Christian beliefs God did it once with a flood and is gonna do it again. I'm not saying JD is God, but good for the goose...

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-23, 12:16 AM
There can be no one answer until what consitutes Law, Evil, Chaos, and Good is firmly defined by an official source, as opposed to the different, often contradictory statements WotC books make. Since there is no firm definition, our opinions on the alignment of Judge Death are just that - opinions. Nothing more and nothing less.

Me? Frankly, I say Lawful Evil, since he only joined the Judges to be able to kill legally.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, this could be a fine example of a character shifting alignments over time. He started NE, became LE when he signed on with the Judges, and finally shifted to LN over time as he became obsessed with stopping crime over all else.

NemoUtopia
2007-03-23, 12:23 AM
Putting aside the insanity argument, there seems to be a dispute about why JD kills. If he does it for the joy of killing and he values that joy over the lives of his victim, that's pretty evil by most standards.

If instead he truly is trying to rid the world of crime and this is the only means to do so, isn't he pursuing a good end. According to Judeo-Christian beliefs God did it once with a flood and is gonna do it again. I'm not saying JD is God, but good for the goose...

And your signature proves its truth (btw, no ill will, I just love debate as much as you do :smallbiggrin:)...

Let's say JD DOES kill to rid the world of crime. Assuming the Judeo-Christian belief that God flooded the Earth to rid if of wickedness, said deity still saved the righteous (Noah and family) and the innocent (animals). JD does not strive for either, and strives for total nihilism and cessation of life. Also, crime as JD (and indeed, the word itself) defines it is based on laws...not basic strictures, but legal codes. To rid the world of crime in that sense would be a strictly lawful goal, not a good one. To rid the world of evil or influences and things that cause suffering and harm would be a good goal...and JD would take any life, even the most pure and good and innocent, on the premise that it can (not has, or is fated to, but can) commit a crime...taken in its own context, this is what the Inevitables of Mechanus do, but in a proactive sense based on possibilities, not in a retroactive manner based on facts. Neither good, nor lawful, you're still boiled down to four alignments (N, CN, NE, CN), and JD exhibits a sadism and sole purpose that precludes N and CN potential.

Sardia
2007-03-23, 06:47 AM
Okay, let's take a hypothetical far extreme Lawful Neutral viewpoint-- all non-regulated activity is to be opposed. Living things, by their very nature, tend to avoid regulation, whether through volition or simple mutation.
The far LN might well consider the elimination of all life to be a meritorious act, because the resulting situation would be much more orderly.
This would, from what I can tell, look less like Judge Death and perhaps more like Modrons stacking frozen or petrified corpses into geometrically-pleasing arrangements back on Mechanus.
If you pursue perfect order, you're going to have to do something about the imperfectly ordered, which likely includes all living things.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-23, 07:22 AM
NE
judge death's views appear to reflect Nerull's views.
he is NE

seems fairly clear cut to me.

Jayabalard
2007-03-23, 07:37 AM
Evil for sure, and has both lawful and chaotic tendencies, so I'd put him at NE

Krellen
2007-03-23, 10:56 AM
@ Krellen- You prove my point in your own post. The SRD says that evil implies hurting oppressing, killing. Killing an evil being could be judged a good act.
An implication is a non-directly stated stance. How that translates into "sometimes it means the opposite" is beyond me.


You then go further and add something that's not in the rule- unintellgent creatures get a pass because the killing is wanton.
It is in the rule, I just didn't feel the need to quote the whole passage, as I assumed most people would reference the Alignment section themselves, instead of just assuming they knew what it said.

Specifically:

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.


You can create a play a CE character who never hurts, oppresses or kills anyone. He may just steal.
Depending on what he's stealing, he may indeed be hurting, oppressing and killing others. Stealing the bread from the poor peasants is going to kill them eventually, as they starve to death.


He may want to do all those things, but is never succesful (thank God for the PCs). In either case, the characters disposition and predelicitions are toward chaos and evil, so that's his alignment.
Even Belkar gets to do the things he wants to do from time to time (I'm guessing Belkar's who you have in mind when you brought up this arguement, no?) Yikyik is a prime example of this.

On another note: I haven't read the Judge Dredd comics, so I'm basing Judge Death solely off the descriptions of him I've seen here and other places online. Therefore, there could be Lawful-like aspects of him that get left out of said descriptions, bumping him up to Neutral Evil.

That said, "joining the Judges so he'd have lawful authority to kill" isn't Lawful; it's actually fairly Chaotic, in that he really has no respect for the law itself and is instead using the law as an excuse to kill.

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-23, 11:15 AM
Caring only for the letter instead of the spirit is still Lawful; otherwise, devils would also be Chaotic.

Foxer
2007-03-23, 11:23 AM
Judge Death is blatantly evil. He's guilty of mass murder on a grand scale. I'll never be able to understand how people can convince themselves people like him are neutral.

Because we judge the morality of a person's actions by more than one criterion. The main two criteria are intent and consequence. It is more than possible for an apparently good act to be motivated by evil intentions, and vice versa. Yes, Judge Death is guilty of mass murder on a genocidal scale (consequence), and we assume that such an action is inherently evil. However, considering the factor of intent often calls such initial judgments into question.

Suppose I go out to do the shopping for a little old lady who is housebound with a broken leg. On the face of it, I am doing a good deed, because we assume that helping those who are weak or infirm is a "good" thing to do. However, if I am doing it because I am getting paid to do so, then you might argue that I am motivated by self-interest rather than compassion, and say that the action was neutral (in terms of D&D alignments). If I was to perform the same action because I was currying favour with the old dear in hopes of a mention in her will at the expense of someone else, then my action might even be considered evil.

Judge Death believes that crime is wrong, and his intention is to stamp out crime. That is a very lawful attitude, and is certainly not evil. He pursues this aim by slaughtering every living thing he can (all crime is committed by the living). We might say that killing is evil - but Death's murders are clearly not motivated by an evil desire. Thus far the argument that Judge Death is Lawful Neutral holds water.

There is, however, a third factor to consider, and that is method. Death positively revels in the carnage he causes. He enjoys the suffering he brings about - an evil trait. If he was solely motivated by his Lawful nature, he would surely kill as quickly, cleanly and dispassionately as possible. Since he doesn't do so, the claim that he is Lawful Neutral looks shaky at best.

The fourth factor is culpability. As has been pointed out already, animals are neutral because they cannot distinguish between good and evil. They are not the only beings that lack this facility, however. People suffering from various abnormal mental states might be incapable of making the distinction (perhaps because they are unable to foresee the consequences of their actions, or because they are unaware of them) or, if aware of the distinction, compelled to select one over the other, without any real choice in the matter.

The examples are endless. For instance, suppose a delusional psychotic believes that a famous newsreader is beaming mind control lasers into his house. If he then kills that newsreader, he is motivated by a perfectly understandable desire to protect himself and cannot be said to be evil. The criminal behavior of many drug-addicts is the result of an inability to finance their addiction by lawful means, and cannot be held fully accountable for what their addiction compels them to do. Young children who commit crimes may simply not realise that what they're doing is wrong.

Is Judge Death morally culpable for his actions? Is the sadism and morbid humour indicative of a mental derangement, or of his evil soul? I guess that's a moral judgment we all have to make as individuals.

Foxer
2007-03-23, 11:32 AM
If you pursue perfect order, you're going to have to do something about the imperfectly ordered, which likely includes all living things.

Terry Pratchett's Auditors of Reality for instance?

OzymandiasVolt
2007-03-23, 11:42 AM
Murder is evil. He's a mass mass MASS murderer. There you go.

EvilElitest
2007-03-23, 11:42 AM
@ Krellen- You prove my point in your own post. The SRD says that evil implies hurting oppressing, killing. Killing an evil being could be judged a good act.

Killing it and of itself is a neutral leaning towards good act. Killing people to protect youself or others, can be good or evil depending on the situation.


You then go further and add something that's not in the rule- unintellgent creatures get a pass because the killing is wanton. That's my point. It's not the act of killing it's the justification (or lack of justification). The actor must be wrong in his act of killing; merely killing is not wrong.
So if this guy sacerfices 100 people to make a powerful object that will cure a magic plauge that will save 1,000 people is that right?


I further disagree that the alignment descriptions are strict definitions of the alignments. They are helpful examples. You can create a play a CE character who never hurts, oppresses or kills anyone. He may just steal. He may want to do all those things, but is never succesful (thank God for the PCs). In either case, the characters disposition and predelicitions are toward chaos and evil, so that's his alignment.
Your right, but they still need the motive to be CE. If this CE got the chance to, would he kill for his own personal profit. Even if he would not, what makes him CE. If he is just a theif, then yes he could be CE, but he needs some sort of mindset to differ him from NE or LE


@ NemoUtopia- You say that Judge Death's insanity is proof of his evilness. Are you saying all insane people are evil or all evil people are insane? Either way I think just the opposite. His insanity proves he can't be evil (or good for that matter).
how do you difine insane. I think Judge Death is quite insane, in the same way i think Hitler is insane. You don't have to froth and the mouth and play a banjo with you feet to be insane, you goals can be insane as well. And actions to. Also, Judge Death is not insane in the normal way, just in his mindset. The idea that life is a crime is insane. Is the judge insane to begine with or did he just adopt some twisted minset.


He lacks the moral decisionmaking to be good or evil. He actions are not determined by a moral guide, but by instinct (like an animal).
he is not like an animal because he seem to have the Int. to arrive to the conclusion that life is a crime


Without moral choice, there is no morality. A creature that cannot choose to do evil or good cannot be evil or good. It is merely a moral nullity. This flies in the face of our notion of both real and imaginary spiritual creatures, but morality is always about the choice.
And death has a choice, as he is not an "Always Evil creature."


I think many of you are trying to deduce an alignment by comparing his actions to someone who chooses to do them (and therefore is morally culpable).
The judge does chooses to do them. He can to this twisted idea himself.


I think that his actions most closely resemble what we would describe as lawful evil. He has a twisted but rational approach, he joined the judges to give him the authority to kill, he worked with others to establish the necropolis.
Working with others does not make you lawful. His rational approach is not rational at all. He kills simple because he thinks life is a crime.

[/QUOTE]
@ Evilelitest- Your main point is that JD (and Barry) is evil because they kill for no reason. That's not true. They both have a reason, JD because he believes life is a capital crime and Barry because he enjoys it and values his joy over his victim's life. The problem is you disapprove with their reasons because you place a different value on life. It's not that they don't have a reason, it's only that their reasons aren't good enough for you.[/QUOTE]
Ok, but because we are agruing aligments, both of their disaproval for life makes them commite evil acts. Their reason arn't good enough for me because they are not that to begine with, their "reasons" are in fact just inner homicadal earning
from,
EE

Foxer
2007-03-23, 11:50 AM
Murder is evil. He's a mass mass MASS murderer. There you go.

Define "murder".

Jayabalard
2007-03-23, 12:14 PM
Because we judge the morality of a person's actions by more than one criterion. The main two criteria are intent and consequence. It is more than possible for an apparently good act to be motivated by evil intentions, and vice versa. Yes, Judge Death is guilty of mass murder on a genocidal scale (consequence), and we assume that such an action is inherently evil. However, considering the factor of intent often calls such initial judgments into question.in his case though, his intent is to kill creatures because they are alive; obviously an Evil intent.

Anything beyond that is buying into his own rationalization of it.

Foxer
2007-03-23, 12:43 PM
in his case though, his intent is to kill creatures because they are alive; obviously an Evil intent.

Anything beyond that is buying into his own rationalization of it.

A) Death doesn't kill people because they are alive. He kills them because they are either criminals or potential criminals. He kills to end crime; definitely a Lawful intent.

B) There's a world of difference between a rationalisation and a reason.

factotum
2007-03-23, 12:47 PM
I would say that Judge Death is Lawful Evil. He's Lawful, because he's following the laws of his own home dimension which state that being alive is a crime; he's Evil, because he just enjoys killing people way too much.

Now, if you start including his companions things are less clear-cut. I would say that Judge Fire is Lawful Neutral, for example, because he kills his victims cleanly and quickly with no sign of pleasure (though it's obviously difficult to tell emotion from a flaming skeleton :smallsmile: ). Mortis, again Lawful Neutral; when he kills the man who is to become Death's new body, he seems almost apologetic when he says "Rest in peace, lawbreaker. Your guilt will soon be purged." Not sure about Judge Fear at all...

EvilElitest
2007-03-23, 02:35 PM
Define "murder".

1. Killing somebody who did nothing to you
2. Killing for personal gain
3. Killing for no reason/pleasure
4. Killing the defenceless
5. Killing in a dishonrable manner

take your pick.
Bear in mind, if mr. death is LN, then so is Kore.
from,
EE

Rumpus
2007-03-23, 03:27 PM
Because we judge the morality of a person's actions by more than one criterion. The main two criteria are intent and consequence.

...and the apologists keep assuming that the intentions trump the outcome in determining evil/not-evil, but I don't think that's neccessarily true. Intentions and mistakes of fact can be mitigating factors. However, if you intentionally kill an innocent it had better directly produce some MAJOR good karma down the line to qualify as non-evil. If evil actions (murder) actually resulted in a huge good, it might be considered neutral or even good in extreme cases. The example above of killing a few people in order to save thousands, or maybe going back in time to shoot a young Hitler (who hasn't actually done anything yet).

Anyone remember the village of Char from original NWN? The wizard was tricked into thinking that he had to (painlessly) sacrifice a bunch of children in order to become a baelnorn, and that everyone involved would be resurrected at the end of the ritual. The fact that he intended no long-term harm (and in fact, long-term good as a baelnorn) does not change the fact that he killed all the children in the village, an EEEEEEEEEVVVIL act. Bottom line is that if the foreseeable net outcome is bad enough, intentions are irrelevant.

Insanity or mental incapacity is sometimes a valid defense, such as Lenny from Mice and Men. But as for insanity making you ineligible to be evil, I'd submit the counterexample of the Joker. I don't think anyone can reasonably question that he is both insane and evil. (I think some real-world dictators could also be used in this argument, but they are less inclined to monologue than most comic villains, and as such are harder to analyze)

kamikasei
2007-03-23, 04:06 PM
Insanity or mental incapacity is sometimes a valid defense, such as Lenny from Mice and Men. But as for insanity making you ineligible to be evil, I'd submit the counterexample of the Joker. I don't think anyone can reasonably question that he is both insane and evil. (I think some real-world dictators could also be used in this argument, but they are less inclined to monologue than most comic villains, and as such are harder to analyze)

I think part of the difficulty here is that we might call insane both a man who honestly has no concept of "right" and "wrong", or is incapable of forming such a concept or judging between them, like Lenny - but also a man who has a strong concept of what's right and what's wrong but whose concepts don't align with ours at all. Drawing the line between the second kind of person and someone who's not insane but is evil (so that what he considers right is evil, but he's not insane or deluded, just evil)... well, I'm not actually sure there's any clear way to do so. And of course, as you say, you might consider it possible for a person to be insane as to what they regard as right, but be actually evil for pursuing it.


Anyone remember the village of Char from original NWN? The wizard was tricked into thinking that he had to (painlessly) sacrifice a bunch of children in order to become a baelnorn, and that everyone involved would be resurrected at the end of the ritual. The fact that he intended no long-term harm (and in fact, long-term good as a baelnorn) does not change the fact that he killed all the children in the village, an EEEEEEEEEVVVIL act. Bottom line is that if the foreseeable net outcome is bad enough, intentions are irrelevant.

Oh man, that section was awesome. The brother's part in it was honestly poignant.

EvilElitest
2007-03-23, 06:18 PM
just like to say, going back in time to kill baby hitler is not a good thing, becuase you will really screw up the entire world because you have altered histroy.
from,
EE

Foxer
2007-03-23, 07:06 PM
1. Killing somebody who did nothing to you
2. Killing for personal gain
3. Killing for no reason/pleasure
4. Killing the defenceless
5. Killing in a dishonrable manner
EE

1. Also covers the killing by state executioners and soldiers, which we do not classify as murder.
2. A fair starting point, but doesn't apply to Judge Death.
3. Nobody ever killed anyone for "no reason". Even people with absolutely zero regard for human life have a reason for killing. Killing for pleasure? Again a fair definition, but the view could be taken that in some cases deriving pleasure from the death of another would be the result of insanity, and therefore not morally culpable.
4. See point one.
5. Honour is a vague and nebulous concept. A samurai would be horrified by aerial bombardment, but is it murder?

@Rumpus: intention trumps outcome when determining good. Why shouldn't it trump outcome when determining evil. If I give a homeless guy five quid to buy food, and he uses the money to buy crack, overdoses and dies, have I murdered him? Or maybe the homeless guy I gave five pounds to does spend it on food. As a result he lives three more days - just long enough for him to get desperate enough to mug and kill two innocent people. Have I murdered them? Of course not. I committed a kindly act out of compassion and concern for a fellow human being. The outcome is less important than the intention and the motivation, and must be, since, ultimately the final result of an action is unknowable.

And the Joker isn't evil either. Were he sane then, obviously, we must consider him to be evil, but since he is not culpable (legally or morally) for his heinous crimes, by virtue of his derangements, he must be neutral (and chaotic neutral at that) just like an animal.

Hallavast
2007-03-23, 07:23 PM
I've never heard of this guy before, but a disregard for human life and dignity is evil. This judge guy might be following some dictum or other to promote a more secure universe or whatever, but he is cruel and kills people without question. Clearly evil and clearly lawful. Thus Lawful Evil.

Edit:

just like to say, going back in time to kill baby hitler is not a good thing, becuase you will really screw up the entire world because you have altered histroy.
from,
EE
Well, it may "screw up" history, but isn't that the whole point? To, you know, prevent the haulocaust? By the way, I don't see killing hitler as being the most sensible option. I'd say getting him into the art school he had applied to before ww2 would do the trick, because it would keep him out of politics.
And killing Hitler wouldn't necessarily be a good thing anyway. If you kill him before he commits the crime, then technically, he's still innocent.

Jayabalard
2007-03-23, 07:49 PM
nope, insane or not, the joker is quite evil.


Death doesn't kill people because they are alive. He kills them because they are either criminals or potential criminals. He kills to end crime; definitely a Lawful intent.That doesn't agree with the OP, who stated


Those of you familiar with Judge Death might recall that he's a semi-ethereal being of pure malevolence who has "judged" existance (or more exactly, life) to be a crime punishable only by nonexistance/death. As cunning as he is, the methods he uses are cruel and grusome, random and based on how much he can kill and hurt in the shortest time-frame possible.

his considering life a crime is a rationalization; it doesn't make him any less evil.

EvilElitest
2007-03-23, 11:06 PM
1. Also covers the killing by state executioners and soldiers, which we do not classify as murder.

Yes it does. A state executioner kills because the person he/her is killing broke the law and killed somebody else, because they have the death sentence, most likely in a nasty way. He is simple handing out the proper punishment. Most likely he would be LN. A soilder can commit murder. Happens ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the time. War crimes anyone? Nazies? Ect. In the best case situation, a solider is fighting to protect his/her country. If the solider goes beyond that, it is murder. And most generals (who do the most killing) are LN


2. A fair starting point, but doesn't apply to Judge Death.
According to his wiki, he was always a sadist. He apperenlty likes to kill and now has a justifecation to do it.


3. Nobody ever killed anyone for "no reason". Even people with absolutely zero regard for human life have a reason for killing. Killing for pleasure? Again a fair definition, but the view could be taken that in some cases deriving pleasure from the death of another would be the result of insanity, and therefore not morally culpable.
Ok, no valid reason. They have, from what I gather done nothing to him, ans he kills because life is a crime. So he is killing people for not valid reason, thus killing innocents.
4. See point one.
Still murder, as he has not right to preform such actions

5. Honour is a vague and nebulous concept. A samurai would be horrified by aerial bombardment, but is it murder?
How about giving them a chance to give up. Sounds like honor.


@Rumpus: intention trumps outcome when determining good. Why shouldn't it trump outcome when determining evil. If I give a homeless guy five quid to buy food, and he uses the money to buy crack, overdoses and dies, have I murdered him? Or maybe the homeless guy I gave five pounds to does spend it on food. As a result he lives three more days - just long enough for him to get desperate enough to mug and kill two innocent people. Have I murdered them? Of course not. I committed a kindly act out of compassion and concern for a fellow human being.
The actions is not evil. Their is nothing inheritly evil about giving money to a homeless guy. Until you can prove that their is, you point is void.


The outcome is less important than the intention and the motivation, and must be, since, ultimately the final result of an action is unknowable.
So does that make John Brown good? Or mr. Bin Ladin? Intent is meanless. Actions arewhat have the real effect. Sure intent explains the situation, but odes not change it.



And the Joker isn't evil either. Were he sane then, obviously, we must consider him to be evil, but since he is not culpable (legally or morally) for his heinous crimes, by virtue of his derangements, he must be neutral (and chaotic neutral at that) just like an animal.
No, he is not like an animal because he has pretty high int. Thus he is able to be smart enough to think about his actions, and therfor remotly understand them.

And the joker not evil, yeah you just think that, if it will somehow help you sleep at night.
I ask you, what good things has the joker commited as late?
Oh and animals are true neutral. They are natrual, not self serving.
from,
EE

factotum
2007-03-24, 02:50 AM
his considering life a crime is a rationalization; it doesn't make him any less evil.

That might be true if he came from OUR plane of existence, but he doesn't--he comes from another one, and you can't be sure the rules are the same there. In any case, Judge Death did not act alone in making this decision--it was a decision made by all the Judges of his world.

Jayabalard
2007-03-24, 05:38 AM
Nope, it doesn't matter what plane of existence he comes from; while that may make him strictly lawful, that doesn't make him any less evil

Zincorium
2007-03-24, 05:56 AM
Y'know what I think? I think that the entire alignment system was designed and applied without the use of any remotely consistent logic or precedent. If it's dark or creepy, make it evil, if it's bright and shiny make it good. If you don't really care one way or another about it, make it neutral. This, as far as I can tell, is how WotC does things.

An example: Cat vs. Skeleton

Appearance: Cats are fuzzy and cute, skeletons freak people out. This has no moral ramifications, but as this goes on you'll find it was apparently important.

Behavior: Cats are often but not always sadistic, selfish, greedy, antagonistic and violent. The only reason we keep them as pets is they're cute and let us pet them. Skeletons without orders have no behavior.

Motivation: Cats do things because they feel like it, based on their whims and self-centered desires. Skeletons act because they are magically compelled to do so.

Ability to understand morality: Cats do not adhere to any moral system, and would not understand ours as they do not speak english or any other human language with proficiency. Skeletons are completely incapable of understanding anything, due to a lack of intelligence.


Verdict: Cats would be evil except you can't prove they know it's wrong. So, lacking a moral compass, they are probably chaotic neutral. Skeletons shouldn't even have an alignment, any more than golems. They're objects that can move around when directed to do so.

However, skeletons are evil, despite clear precedent that not knowing about good and evil makes it impossible to be either good or evil. Furthermore, they are not in control of their own actions, and the compulsion is magical in nature.


In conclusion, make the damned judge evil and don't worry too much.

Awetugiw
2007-03-24, 06:39 AM
Yeah, I think Zincorium is pretty much right. If you want to know what alignment an act has in D&D mechanics, just check wether it FEELS right. It doesn't have to be consistent, because that would be way too complicated.

Killing ten people to save a thousand? Evil. Allowing ten people to die, instead saving a thousand? Good. There have been some very nice experiments on how strange human sense of right and wrong actually is.

There is no way to consistently define an absolute morality. But since the game is easier with an absolute morality than with a frame-dependant morality, the game has an absolute morality.

EDIT - There may or may not be a rational reason to call undead always evil though. There have been several very long arguments about this. Of course it's highly unlikely WOTC thought of this when designing the skeletons, but they're still not a very good example of "Using feeling to define good/evil".

Foxer
2007-03-24, 06:46 AM
Yes it does. A state executioner kills because the person he/her is killing broke the law and killed somebody else, because they have the death sentence, most likely in a nasty way. He is simple handing out the proper punishment. Most likely he would be LN. A soilder can commit murder. Happens ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the time. War crimes anyone? Nazies? Ect. In the best case situation, a solider is fighting to protect his/her country. If the solider goes beyond that, it is murder. And most generals (who do the most killing) are LN

And as far as Judge Death is concerned, he is applying the correct punishment for a crime. In this case "the crime is life... the ssssentence iss death."


According to his wiki, he was always a sadist. He apperenlty likes to kill and now has a justifecation to do it.

Okay. Perhaps it would help if you'd read the comics. When Death and the Dark Judges first appeared they had no backstory beyond "on their homeworld, the Judges decided that life itself was a crime, and they killed everyone." They really believed in their mission to impose perfect law and order by eliminating criminals. Questions of good or evil don't enter into the equation - we're talking about Law and Chaos. That's the point I'm making here: his motive does not indicate an evil alignment. His method does (because he's a sadistic freak), but whether you call that evidence of an evil alignment depends on whether you think he's sane enough to have made a moral choice. Without choice, there can be no morality.

The question his sanity can be answered by reading the much later Young Death story, which tells how young Sidney D'Eath became the leader of the Dark Judges. It's been a few years since I read it, so I will make no such judgment, but I'm leaning towards a verdict of not evil by virtue of insanity.


The actions is not evil. Their is nothing inheritly evil about giving money to a homeless guy. *snip* Intent is meanless. Actions arewhat have the real effect. Sure intent explains the situation, but odes not change it.

Thankyou. You've just proved my exact point. I point out that a non-evil action (giving money to a homeless guy) can have dire consequences, and you tell me that actions are what counts. Intent is far from meaningless - it is, in fact, far more important than the actual deed. There are very few actions that are inherently evil (I can think of maybe two), or even inherently good, but almost any action can alternatively described as good or evil depending on the context in which they were performed.

Not convinced?

Let's look at one of the biggies: killing. We all know it's wrong to kill. Killing is apparently evil. Unless...

(a) you kill in self-defence.
(b) you are ordered to do so by a properly constituted authority.
(c) you do so to end the suffering of a terminally-ill person at their request.
(d) you kill to protect somebody else.
(e) you kill in revenge (I personally don't subscribe to this notion, but we all know loads of people who do. Who hasn't heard a friend say something along the lines of "If anyone did that to my sister, I'd kill them.")

Do you get it now?


No, he is not like an animal because he has pretty high int. Thus he is able to be smart enough to think about his actions, and therfor remotly understand them.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is perfectly possible to have an intelligence like Albert Einstein and still have no capacity (or an impaired one) to make a moral choice. If you can't make the choice between good and evil, then you must be neutral. Again, without choice, there can be no morality.


And the joker not evil, yeah you just think that, if it will somehow help you sleep at night.

*deep breath* Look. If I could say "the Joker is evil", I would actually sleep a lot better at night. If he was genuinely evil, then the police and judiciary could execute him for his many crimes and we'd never have to worry about him again. (Unless he came back from the dead like a Marvel villain) But he isn't evil. He's sick. That means, when Batman catches him, we try to make him better. We put him in an asylum and give him pills. And, in so doing, we give him the opportunity to escape and commit more atrocities.

You want to know what does help me sleep at night? Look around you. Look at all the hundreds of people you know - colleagues, classmates, co-workers, family and friends. Some of them are thoughtless. Some are selfish, some are a little crazy. Some have a spiteful streak or a malicious sense of humour. But how many of them are actually evil?

The truth is, the forces of good are winning. And that is a very comforting thought indeed.

Awetugiw
2007-03-24, 07:09 AM
You want to know what does help me sleep at night? Look around you. Look at all the hundreds of people you know - colleagues, classmates, co-workers, family and friends. Some of them are thoughtless. Some are selfish, some are a little crazy. Some have a spiteful streak or a malicious sense of humour. But how many of them are actually evil?

The truth is, the forces of good are winning. And that is a very comforting thought indeed.

The problem is that - apart from the absence of absolute morality - that statement is conditionally true at best. If there is one thing history and psychology have shown us, it's that "good" and "evil" are but inches apart. As long as there is order, a good government, reasonable wealth... Yes, then most people are good. But only a few small changes have to be made in order to make the people "switch to evil".

There are a lot ef examples of people starting to do "evil", simply because the situation changes. And often without realising is.
The Stanford Prison Experiment. Torture of prisoners in Abu Graib, and many, many other prisons and the like. Milgrams Experiment.
Man is just another animal. One that has convinced itself that is can really make an ethical decisions. The only problem is that it can't.

Something like that can all to easily have happened to Judge Death, or Kore. Without ever stepping over the boundaries they set for themselves, they pass WAY over the boundaries others would set. Question remains: is that evil? Well, can we truly say that it is evil, if there is a very good chance that any of us would have done (approximately) the same in that situation? Because that is the problem: there is "a beast in all of us", so can we really judge the ones where the beast escapes?

Foxer
2007-03-24, 07:28 AM
Awetugiw: hello. Great post.

In many ways, sad to say, you are right. Humans can "switch to evil" (as you put it) at a moment's notice. But I would argue that my point - that most people are good - holds because in the examples you cite the people who have become evil were acting under some form of duress and did evil out of personal weakness rather than out of desire.

Mr Horse
2007-03-24, 07:44 AM
A) Death doesn't kill people because they are alive. He kills them because they are either criminals or potential criminals. He kills to end crime; definitely a Lawful intent.

B) There's a world of difference between a rationalisation and a reason.

"The crime is life, the sentence is death."
-Judge Death

Mr Horse
2007-03-24, 07:50 AM
Something like that can all to easily have happened to Judge Death, or Kore. Without ever stepping over the boundaries they set for themselves, they pass WAY over the boundaries others would set. Question remains: is that evil? Well, can we truly say that it is evil, if there is a very good chance that any of us would have done (approximately) the same in that situation? Because that is the problem: there is "a beast in all of us", so can we really judge the ones where the beast escapes?

While you're making a valid statement about the general nature of humanity, it's a bit off-topic. We're not talking about the concept of morality. If we were, I'd be reading Nietzsche or Schopenhauer and asking in a philosophical forum instead of starting a thread on this board.

We ARE, however, talking about alignment in the D&D sense. Real life doesn't really apply here. What the D&D rulebooks say about alignment does.

Mr Horse
2007-03-24, 08:00 AM
That might be true if he came from OUR plane of existence, but he doesn't--he comes from another one, and you can't be sure the rules are the same there. In any case, Judge Death did not act alone in making this decision--it was a decision made by all the Judges of his world.

But this is the D&D definition of alignment (you know, the nine alignments and all that) we're talking about here. If it were morality in general, I wouldn't have posted it in the "d20 and general RPG" forum.

If you said that me out of this context, I'd totally agree with you, but in the D&D/d20 context, this would just make the other Judges who followed his cause just as (in my opinion/understanding of the D&D alignment system) evil as him.

Mr Horse
2007-03-24, 08:18 AM
Questions of good or evil don't enter into the equation - we're talking about Law and Chaos. That's the point I'm making here: his motive does not indicate an evil alignment. His method does (because he's a sadistic freak), but whether you call that evidence of an evil alignment depends on whether you think he's sane enough to have made a moral choice. Without choice, there can be no morality.

The question his sanity can be answered by reading the much later Young Death story, which tells how young Sidney D'Eath became the leader of the Dark Judges. It's been a few years since I read it, so I will make no such judgment, but I'm leaning towards a verdict of not evil by virtue of insanity

But again, in D&D terms of alignment - how does a low wisdom score (smirk) and failing sanity affect how evil/good/neutral you are?

The alignment rules don't really seem to state anything clearly about how sanity or low wisdom effects which alignment a character has.

Foxer
2007-03-24, 08:46 AM
But again, in D&D terms of alignment - how does a low wisdom score (smirk) and failing sanity affect how evil/good/neutral you are?

Are we thinking of Mister Bitterleaf, perhaps?


The alignment rules don't really seem to state anything clearly about how sanity or low wisdom effects which alignment a character has.

And therein lies a massive flaw in the system. And it isn't a flaw that's exclusive to D&D. Psychology is a very complex subject and it's very hard to model a system to reflect it without being overly complex. The best system so far is - to my mind - Unknown Armies.

As for insanity and the alignment system, there are, I guess two approaches - both equally valid. Firstly you could rule that if your insanity prevents you from making informed moral choices, you are automatically neutral, just as an animal who is incapable of making a moral choice is neutral. Thus Judge Death would be Lawful Neutral and the Joker would be Chaotic Neutral, and would remain as such no matter how "evil" their actions are.

Alternatively, you could rule that somebody is evil (or good) by virtue of their insanity. Thus the Joker would be Chaotic Evil for purposes of alignment-based effects. Personally, I really don't like this approach, since it makes no distinction between people who make an informed choice as to their actions, and those who are compelled.

Mr Horse
2007-03-24, 09:36 AM
Are we thinking of Mister Bitterleaf, perhaps?



And therein lies a massive flaw in the system. And it isn't a flaw that's exclusive to D&D. Psychology is a very complex subject and it's very hard to model a system to reflect it without being overly complex. The best system so far is - to my mind - Unknown Armies.

As for insanity and the alignment system, there are, I guess two approaches - both equally valid. Firstly you could rule that if your insanity prevents you from making informed moral choices, you are automatically neutral, just as an animal who is incapable of making a moral choice is neutral. Thus Judge Death would be Lawful Neutral and the Joker would be Chaotic Neutral, and would remain as such no matter how "evil" their actions are.

Alternatively, you could rule that somebody is evil (or good) by virtue of their insanity. Thus the Joker would be Chaotic Evil for purposes of alignment-based effects. Personally, I really don't like this approach, since it makes no distinction between people who make an informed choice as to their actions, and those who are compelled.

A third approach could be to say that the question of sanity is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters in determining your alignment is your current outlook on life and others around you. The fact that you happen to be insane is just a character trait or quirk - or possibly even a plot point.
The issue of sanity could just mean that you're redeemable if you're evil and somehow regain your sanity, or that you'll eventually "come to your senses" if you were evil and turned good in a moment of insanity (Belkar?? haha)

In the case of Judge Death, I'd argue that he's both insane and irredeemably evil according to the D&D alignment system.
The Joker is another matter. I'm not sure whether he's chaotic neutral or chaotic evil. But I sometimes think his sanity be restored at least partially, and thus have him become a somewhat functioning member of society. Although for plot reasons, I'm pretty sure he never will.

Desaril
2007-03-25, 09:47 PM
I've been out the loop over the last two days, but jumping in the recent debate... I agree with Foxer's first point. Insanity can take away the choice and accordingly the actor is neutral. You can also look at as being compelled by mental domination- the person under mental control is not responsible for their actions. An insane person may not (see below) be in control of their moral decisions.

Is the JD evil? His malign just like a disease, but it seems he lacks the capacity for moral choice. His insanity prevents him from making moral choices and therefore he is neutral. I think people don't like this answer because it appears strips away his accountability. It bothers us to think that he is not EVIL considering all the pain he causes. Fortunately, even neutral people can be held accountable. Is JD evil? No, he's neutral. Should he be held accountable for his crimes and appropriate steps taken to protect society from him. Yes.

The Joker may be a different case. I've taken JD's alleged motivation as true, i.e. he does not see the wrong in his decisions, because his moral compass is out of whack. I'm not so sure about the Joker. I know he is insane, but not all insanities limit moral culpability. Although I'm a long-time comic fan, I can't say that Joker isn't aware of his moral choices. I'm not aware that DC has never proposed a similar explanation for Joker's behavior. Therefore, he may actually be evil.

Jayabalard
2007-03-25, 09:58 PM
Being wacky does not make you non-evil; it just makes you wacky and evil.

Alignment describes how you act; if you act in an evil fashion committing malign and vicious acts, putting no value on life and so on, then your alignment is evil. Sanity or lack thereof is not relevant.

Personally I think that's applicable even when you're not talking about D&D alignment.

Talya
2007-03-25, 10:17 PM
In real life, morality is very subjective, very relative. Even if you believe some divine being has set an objective morality, most people don't believe in it or know it or see it, so it's still subjective. Too many people approach D&D alignment like real life...trying to rationalize the value of human life or apply their own standards to it.

Let's get one thing clear right off the bat: D&D is not real life, there is an objective morality, good and evil are clearly defined. Some actions may be ambiguous, but there are clear good ideals and evil ones.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Here we go right there...life has an intrinsic value in D&D, protecting it is good.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Also very clear. And as the SRD says in it's opening description:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." One could surmise neutral characters neither kill or destroy, nor do they go out of their way to protect.

It's all very clear. And the SRD is the final authority. It's all fine and good if you get rid of D&D's rigid alignment system and make up your own (what a can of worms that is, though. Save yourself a headache and don't bother...), but then there's no point debating here. Any alignment debate has the SRD as it's final authority, because in real life, there is no such thing as alignment.

Desaril
2007-03-25, 11:01 PM
@ Tayla- D&D is not real life, but if the game setting is too far removed from our reality, we can't relate to it. It should simulate real life well enough that it is familiar.

We have two choices: We can try to adapt our thinking to the simplistic world you propose or we can adapt the game to our experience. I think it's easier to accept that alignment is complex because that's part of it's purpose. Alignment can provide a framework for dramatic confrontation. It will work wheter you want a very simple black-white morality or a complex confusing realistic setting. The answers however aren't completely in the SRD, some of them are judgment calls by the DM.


Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

I don't think the SRD is as rigid as you propose; it's as rigid as the DM makes it.


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

This passage requires the DM to determine which creatures are incapable of moral action. Many would argue that some insane people are in this category.

EvilElitest
2007-03-25, 11:37 PM
@ Tayla- D&D is not real life, but if the game setting is too far removed from our reality, we can't relate to it. It should simulate real life well enough that it is familiar.

It is very easy, simple use actions as a moral guide rather than just intnetions.


We have two choices: We can try to adapt our thinking to the simplistic world you propose or we can adapt the game to our experience. I think it's easier to accept that alignment is complex because that's part of it's purpose. Alignment can provide a framework for dramatic confrontation. It will work wheter you want a very simple black-white morality or a complex confusing realistic setting. The answers however aren't completely in the SRD, some of them are judgment calls by the DM.
No, you can also simple fit people into certain aligments based on their actions. Why not just make the judge evil? does it make him a different person? No. Does it take away anything. Only the idea that his cause is just, and what do you know, it is not.


I don't think the SRD is as rigid as you propose; it's as rigid as the DM makes it.

But you still need to follow the basics of the aligment system.
[/QUOTE]
This passage requires the DM to determine which creatures are incapable of moral action. Many would argue that some insane people are in this category.[/QUOTE]

Creaturses with no int or an int less than 3 are neutral. If your int is highter than that, they are are considered smart enough to be judged by your actions. So that would make the Judge Evil because he is smart enough to have this screwed up logic, and the Joker evil because he does what he does for sheer joy.
from,
EE

Aquillion
2007-03-26, 04:08 AM
It's all very clear. And the SRD is the final authority. It's all fine and good if you get rid of D&D's rigid alignment system and make up your own (what a can of worms that is, though. Save yourself a headache and don't bother...), but then there's no point debating here. Any alignment debate has the SRD as it's final authority, because in real life, there is no such thing as alignment.
Wrong. The SRD also says:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.Killing alone is certainly not an evil act in the D&D universe, nor is a broad respect for life necessary for a good alignment. Consider Planescape's Mercykillers. They kill anyone who breaks the laws without hesitation, remorse, or mercy (their name refers to their goal of killing any hint of mercy within themselves and society, not killing for mercy).

Mercykillers are merely lawful, and can be good, evil, or neutral (usually, though, they're shown as lawful neutral.) There are lawful good mercykillers, lawful good characters who believe in killing people who break the law without hesitation, and whose philosophy utterly rejects any concept of redemption.

Just as not every evil character has to go around killing people, not every good character has to show respect for life. A character can emphasize the concepts of altruism and personal sacrifice, and become a merciless killer in the name of good; as long as their outlook is that they're honestly doing it to help others, and that killing lawbreakers is necessary for this, they're not evil. Indeed, read the more detailed definitions of the evil alignments later in the SRD to see what it takes to qualify as evil:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple.
Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.
By comparison, let's check out what it says for, oh, say, lawful neutral:

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Now, with all that said, Judge Death is different--he gets off on destruction, and is driven by his own lust for it, not by any higher ideals (whatever the OP said aside). That's the textbook definition of chaotic evil... putting 'judge' in your name does not automatically make you a lawful character.

A character that merely believes in killing the guilty without remorse, though, without taking any pleasure or personal benefit from it, is like Planescape's mercykillers--generally Lawful Neutral. And if they believed that killing the guilty was necessary to protect others, and were willing to put themselves in danger and make sacrifices to this end, they would be lawful good. If a character like this used their own 'gut judgements' in place of law, they could be chaotic good instead.

Foxer
2007-03-26, 05:11 AM
Being wacky does not make you non-evil; it just makes you wacky and evil.

Alignment describes how you act; if you act in an evil fashion committing malign and vicious acts, putting no value on life and so on, then your alignment is evil. Sanity or lack thereof is not relevant.

Personally I think that's applicable even when you're not talking about D&D alignment.

If you insist that alignment is solely a description of a character's actions, you open the system to a whole host of contradictions and potential abuses. Consider the following character: Jimmy the Knife is a rising star in the local mob, and is especially admired for his propensity for sudden violence, having brutally beaten an enforcer from a rival outfit who slandered Jimmy's boss. Jimmy sells drugs without worrying about the consequences of his actions and orchestrated a hit on a mafia soldier who was about to turn state's evidence. Since he acts in an evil fashion and commits malign and vicious acts, Jimmy must, by your argument, be evil.

But Jimmy is a cop on a long-term deep-cover mission to trace the activities of the mob. "Jimmy" is in fact an act, and the man behind the mask is nothing like the person he seems to be. If Jimmy is subjected to alignment-detecting spells does he read as the Chaotic Evil thug he pretends to be, or as the Lawful cop he really is?

Once again, the intentions behind an action are of paramount importance. They give context and meaning to the actions.

Back to insanity. I think a lot of the reason people regard the Joker in particular as evil despite his obvious insanity is that he is sufficiently self-aware to know that he's insane. That makes it look like he's made a conscious decision to do wrong. But I do not believe that knowing how whacked he is makes him any more culpable for his actions. No amount of self-awareness will allow somebody with his pathological condition to perceive other human beings as having any value. With the exception of Batman, the other people in the Joker's world have no more reality or value than characters in a video game. In terms of morality, his actions are no worse than if he were running down pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto. If he were ignoring or disregarding the intrinsic value of human life, then he would be evil. But he isn't - he can't. Rather, he cannot perceive it at all.

Trying to kill the Batman, on the other hand, is evil, because - to the Joker - Batman is a real person.

It's interesting to contrast Mister J with the Comedian from Watchmen. He has a very similar condition, but is eventually shocked out of it, whereupon he experiences regret and guilt over his actions.

Talya
2007-03-26, 08:51 AM
Wrong. The SRD also says:
Yes, it does. And that does not contradict my point. The SRD is correct, alignment does not restrict your character's behavior like a straightjacket. Your character will do what they will do, alignment be damned.
What you're missing is that simply means your alignment is set by your behavior, rather than the other way around. If your character shows a predominantly evil mindset, they are evil, and their alignment should be changed by the DM. The alignment does not control the character, the character controls the alignment.



Killing alone is certainly not an evil act in the D&D universe,

Correct. It is sometimes necessary. When it is necessary, it is a neutral act at best. Killing the villain to save the innocent is overall a good act. Saving the innocent is good, and to do so, the villain had to be killed, which is a neutral act. Killing the villain merely for the sake of killing the villain is borderline on the evil side of Neutral...killing evil is not inherently good.
Trying to redeem him is good. Killing him as a last resort to prevent him from harming others ever again is good. (with the emphasis on preventing future harm.)



nor is a broad respect for life necessary for a good alignment.

Yes, yes it is.


Consider Planescape's Mercykillers. They kill anyone who breaks the laws without hesitation, remorse, or mercy (their name refers to their goal of killing any hint of mercy within themselves and society, not killing for mercy).

Mercykillers are merely lawful, and can be good, evil, or neutral (usually, though, they're shown as lawful neutral.) There are lawful good mercykillers, lawful good characters who believe in killing people who break the law without hesitation, and whose philosophy utterly rejects any concept of redemption.

They just emphasize the law-chaos axis over good-evil. However, any mercykiller who did their job too well would eventually lose their good alignment. Killing a good person who breaks a minor law is an evil act, regardless of whether it is lawful. Maintaining an attitude of mercy and regret that such an action was necessary, sadness that it had to be done would be difficult over the long term, and so one's alignment is likely to slip into the neutral range.


Just as not every evil character has to go around killing people,
Correct. Just because you have no respect for life doesn't mean you actively seek to end it.


not every good character has to show respect for life.
Yes, they do. A disregard for life is the primary definition of evil in D&D. If you don't show respect for life, you'd be hard pressed to maintain a neutral alignment, regardless of other "good" traits.


A character can emphasize the concepts of altruism

Altruism requires a respect for life.

a merciless killer in the name of good...

...is still generally evil. See "The Punisher."


as long as their outlook is that they're honestly doing it to help others, and that killing lawbreakers is necessary for this, they're not evil.

See above. Killing does not imply a lack of respect for life. Sometimes it is necessary, and as you point out "helping others" implies the respect for life anyway.

Aquillion
2007-03-26, 11:14 AM
What you're missing is that simply means your alignment is set by your behavior, rather than the other way around. If your character shows a predominantly evil mindset, they are evil, and their alignment should be changed by the DM. The alignment does not control the character, the character controls the alignment.This is exactly wrong. Read the section of the SRD in question again:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. Alignment represents a character's outlook; in game terms, your behavior doesn't influence it at all. Your alignment in D&D represents your outlook; in game terms, your actions are supposed to be decided by your alignment, not the other way around. If you cast 'detect evil' and a person pings, that indicates that their inner moral compass is thoroughly aligned with evil. They don't have to have actually committed a single evil act in their entire life. Likewise, a good character can have committed numerous subjectively evil acts, and if (somehow) their inner moral compass is still aligned with D&D's objective notion of good, they'll still ping for detect good.

Now, yes, if a PC, outside the game, doesn't play their character the way they've declared their alignment, the DM can tell them to either start RPing it right or agree that their alignment has been shifting over the past few sessions; but this is a kludge to get players to respect their declared alignments and make their characters act the way their inner alignments are supposed to be guiding them, not an aspect of alignment as it exists in the game world. In game terms, a genuinely good character will perform generally good actions; if they start acting evil regularly, it's a sign that their attitudes are shifting, not a cause for it.


Correct. It is sometimes necessary. When it is necessary, it is a neutral act at best. Killing the villain to save the innocent is overall a good act. Saving the innocent is good, and to do so, the villain had to be killed, which is a neutral act. Killing the villain merely for the sake of killing the villain is borderline on the evil side of Neutral...killing evil is not inherently good.
Trying to redeem him is good. Killing him as a last resort to prevent him from harming others ever again is good. (with the emphasis on preventing future harm.)We are talking about D&D morality here, not real-world morality, and D&D morality is set up to let good characters still go on mindless dungeon crawls and kill goblins et all on sight. That means killing evil is inherently good in the D&D world, as supported in the Book of Exalted Deeds. You can houserule otherwise if you want to play a more nuanced campaign, but overall D&D alignment is not supposed to be conductive to deep intellectual thought.

EvilElitest
2007-03-26, 11:34 AM
If you insist that alignment is solely a description of a character's actions, you open the system to a whole host of contradictions and potential abuses.

Compared to your idea, where a guy who kills because he thinks life is a crime is not evil? Yeah, we are the ones abusing the system.


Consider the following character: Jimmy the Knife is a rising star in the local mob, and is especially admired for his propensity for sudden violence, having brutally beaten an enforcer from a rival outfit who slandered Jimmy's boss.
Evil action against evil people for no true reason. Aligment at best would be CN. As he is undercover, i'll go with LN barely


Jimmy sells drugs without worrying about the consequences of his actions
Hurting innocent people becuase of his actions. If self serving, NE. If an undercover cop, LE (at best).


and orchestrated a hit on a mafia soldier who was about to turn state's evidence.
Obstruction of justice, murder, and likely screwing over the people who needed that evidence. If he was a basic mob memeber, he could get away with a CN, or more likely a NE. But if he is an undercover cop and he is helping these guys obstructe justice, then he is now a hypocrite and using an "ends justifies the means" manner of thinking. So i'll but him at NE or CE. No way he can get away with good. In the US undercover cops aren't even allowed to do something like that.


Since he acts in an evil fashion and commits malign and vicious acts, Jimmy must, by your argument, be evil.
Dear gods, i think a guy who does evil things is an evil person? How awful. Next thing you know i will be saying that good people try to not hurt others, which Jimmy is not doing.


But Jimmy is a cop on a long-term deep-cover mission to trace the activities of the mob. "Jimmy" is in fact an act, and the man behind the mask is nothing like the person he seems to be.
Good for him. But that does not scratch his actions. Maybe in the eyes of his boss(who sounds corrupt to me) but not in the eyes of good.


If Jimmy is subjected to alignment-detecting spells does he read as the Chaotic Evil thug he pretends to be, or as the Lawful cop he really is?
Well, apperently he is not following the law, so yes chaotic. At best you might have LE, but i really don't think so. Vigilante justice is not lawful justice.


Once again, the intentions behind an action are of paramount importance. They give context and meaning to the actions.
But that would make Mr. Bin Ladin, John Brown, Miko, and Kore good.


Back to insanity. I think a lot of the reason people regard the Joker in particular as evil despite his obvious insanity is that he is sufficiently self-aware to know that he's insane.
By D&D standards, any animals are not allowed aligments because their int. is three or less. Anyone with higher int, even if insane are considered evil becuase of their actions. Does that mean we should kill them? No, we should try to make them better, because they are sick. Does not excuse their actions, just softens the blow.


That makes it look like he's made a conscious decision to do wrong. But I do not believe that knowing how whacked he is makes him any more culpable for his actions. No amount of self-awareness will allow somebody with his pathological condition to perceive other human beings as having any value.
Do we know it is pathological or just egotistical? To me he seems to suffer from a major god complex, not pathological problems. And even if we can't cure it, his still is hurting innocent people. Can't scratch that.
Let look at Timmy. Timmy is the school bully. Timmy beats up kids, takes their lunch money, smokes, does drugs, drinks when he is underaged, he is abusive to his friends and plays mean tricks to people he does not like. But Timmy's dad is abusive and so Timmy suffers from a major inferoity complex. Does that excuse the fact Timmy is being an abusive person himself? No. All it means is that it is possible to redeem Timmy.


With the exception of Batman, the other people in the Joker's world have no more reality or value than characters in a video game. In terms of morality, his actions are no worse than if he were running down pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto.
And that way of thinking is sociapathic, and so borderline evil. Where is it not evil? I can't find any good or even neutral ideals in that thinking. Just selfish disire


If he were ignoring or disregarding the intrinsic value of human life, then he would be evil. But he isn't - he can't. Rather, he cannot perceive it at all.
That is no excuse


Trying to kill the Batman, on the other hand, is evil, because - to the Joker - Batman is a real person.

It's interesting to contrast Mister J with the Comedian from Watchmen. He has a very similar condition, but is eventually shocked out of it, whereupon he experiences regret and guilt over his actions.

Even so, it does not excuse his actions. Maybe in your world you don't have aligments. I know in the comic JD is from they don't have aligments. But if we use the D&D aligments, then good and evil are not objective.
Would you consider Jason and Freddy Kauger evil?
from,
EE

Krellen
2007-03-26, 11:36 AM
The Book of Exalted Deeds is not part of the SRD. It's arguements on alignment are the opinion of its author, not an actual statement on the system as it exists in the SRD. Not even one of the authors of the BoED worked on the core rules that make up the SRD - so really, the only reason to bring it up is because it agrees with you, not because it is a piece of Core rulings to support your stance.

In other words, taking the BoED as "gospel canon" is more a houserule than stating that killing isn't particularly Good, as the latter is far more supported by the SRD than the former.

Also, the idea that alignment defines action is antithetically opposite to what the section you quoted actually said. Specifically, "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." Your alignment is not supposed to confine your character's action - which it would if it defined your actions.

Aquillion
2007-03-26, 11:55 AM
Also, the idea that alignment defines action is antithetically opposite to what the section you quoted actually said. Specifically, "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." Your alignment is not supposed to confine your character's action - which it would if it defined your actions.No. That means that characters can take actions that are not representitive of their alignment--a fundimentally good character can have a bad day and commit an evil act, a fundimentally evil one can feel a touch of mercy for a moment. But their alignments, as written, represent the long-term sum of their outlook, not the long-term sum of their actions. No number of bad days can turn a good character into an evil one as long as their heart remains fundimentally aligned with good.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 12:02 PM
That's ridiculous. If the bad days start to outnumber the good days and the "good" person is frequently doing evil things, there is no justification in any moral system - real or imagined - you can give to keep that man "good". He is doing more evil than good - his actions are speaking of a loss of the ideals of goodliness, and he is no longer good.

Intent doesn't matter, and the SRD doesn't even pretend to say it does. In fact, is blatantly says that unless you actively go do good, you're not good:

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.

If you want to be good, you have to go do something about it. Action matters, not intent.

Talya
2007-03-26, 04:45 PM
This is exactly wrong. Read the section of the SRD in question again:

Err, I did. I also paraphrased that part you quoted when you called me exactly wrong. So if you're disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the part of the SRD you just quoted.


Alignment represents a character's outlook; in game terms, your behavior doesn't influence it at all. Your alignment in D&D represents your outlook;

Way to get technical. Your outlook affects and is affected by your behavior. So your behavior does affect your allignment. That's how people fall from grace.


Likewise, a good character can have committed numerous subjectively evil acts, and if (somehow) their inner moral compass is still aligned with D&D's objective notion of good, they'll still ping for detect good.

There is no such thing as "subjectively evil acts" in D&D. This isn't real life. Alignment in D&D is black and white. An action is good or evil. Commit enough evil acts and your alignment will change. Your actions display your outlook.



Now, yes, if a PC, outside the game, doesn't play their character the way they've declared their alignment, the DM can tell them to either start RPing it right or agree that their alignment has been shifting over the past few sessions; but this is a kludge to get players to respect their declared alignments and make their characters act the way their inner alignments are supposed to be guiding them, not an aspect of alignment as it exists in the game world. In game terms, a genuinely good character will perform generally good actions; if they start acting evil regularly, it's a sign that their attitudes are shifting, not a cause for it.

That's not really true at all. Alignment changes operate more like a grid in a video game. Each good act moves your alignment a few points further toward absolute good, each evil act moves it away. Neutral acts don't do anything at all. Different acts have different severity. Committing cold-blooded murder is enough to get a good character changed to neutral almost immediately in most cases. Most DMs keep score, either mentally just to note how players are acting, or actually tallying up actions and rating them.


We are talking about D&D morality here, not real-world morality,
That is correct, at least.


and D&D morality is set up to let good characters still go on mindless dungeon crawls and kill goblins et all on sight.

Not really. Oh, killing goblins in dungeon crawls is rarely, if ever, going to be an evil act, and neutral acts don't affect your alignment, but the game is not set up for the purpose of mindless hack and slash.



That means killing evil is inherently good in the D&D world, as supported in the Book of Exalted Deeds. You can houserule otherwise if you want to play a more nuanced campaign, but overall D&D alignment is not supposed to be conductive to deep intellectual thought.

1. BOED isn't SRD. and...
2. BOED would disagree with you. It's even more strict about alignment than the SRD, and makes it very easy to fall from grace. (And BOVD helps this even further.) Killing evil just for the sake of killing evil, is even more dangerous if you're using that sourcebook. BoED stresses the importance of mercy, forgiveness, and redemption, even more so than the SRD.


Violence in the name of good must always have a just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil...the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm...Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed.)

It goes on further, but that really sums it up nicely. Quoting BoED is not only non-SRD, but it further weakens your position. You really want to blow your mind, look at the caption and picture on page 7, where a paladin has to think twice about killing a pair of Succubi that are in love...

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-26, 04:47 PM
Question.

Why the hell is the SRD the only source allowed? If that was the case in DnD games, no one would exist because the SRD contains no method of character generation. Just because it isn't SRD doesn't mean it isn't DnD.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 05:01 PM
Mentioning non-SRD sources, especially without quoting them, is, at best, unfair debating practice because you cannot be reasonably sure all parties have access to said source. Conversely, you can be reasonably sure all parties have access to the SRD, especially on a web forum, what with the various instances of web-based SRD sources available.

It's sort of like saying "My friend Bob says...." Why does it matter to me what Bob says? I don't know Bob!

Talya
2007-03-26, 05:01 PM
Question.

Why the hell is the SRD the only source allowed? If that was the case in DnD games, no one would exist because the SRD contains no method of character generation. Just because it isn't SRD doesn't mean it isn't DnD.

Because different settings may have different alignment rules. I'm content to let him use BoED though, it agrees with me. ;)

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-26, 05:09 PM
Mentioning non-SRD sources, especially without quoting them, is, at best, unfair debating practice because you cannot be reasonably sure all parties have access to said source. Conversely, you can be reasonably sure all parties have access to the SRD, especially on a web forum, what with the various instances of web-based SRD sources available.

It's sort of like saying "My friend Bob says...." Why does it matter to me what Bob says? I don't know Bob!

And why, exactly, is it my fault that the other player is too lazy to go to his local gaming store and thumb through it? In fact, I would consider BoED and BoVD crucial to any Good vs. Evil alignment debate because they are the only books so far that focus mainly on alignment issues. It's like saying that Fiendish Codex I shouldn't be referenced when talking about demons.

Here's to hoping they release a Book of Absolute Control and a Book of Unpredictable Actions soon.

Jayabalard
2007-03-26, 05:21 PM
If you insist that alignment is solely a description of a character's actions, you open the system to a whole host of contradictions and potential abuses. Consider the following character: Jimmy the Knife is a rising star in the local mob, and is especially admired for his propensity for sudden violence, having brutally beaten an enforcer from a rival outfit who slandered Jimmy's boss. A fairly lawful and neither good nor evil since he beat him rather than killing him. Even if he did kill him, there was probably more motivation than what is apparent, so it's still probably neutral rather than evil
Jimmy sells drugs without worrying about the consequences of his actions I think you mean "Jimmy sells drugs without outwardly appearing to worrying about the consequences of his actions" which is still evil even though it is being done out of necessity; he'll probably have trouble sleeping at night because as a cop he has a really good idea what sort of evil he's causing. He'll need to seriously atone for it afterwards to get his life back on track or he'll have trouble living with himself.


And orchestrated a hit on a mafia soldier who was about to turn state's evidence. Since he acts in an evil fashion and commits malign and vicious acts, Jimmy must, by your argument, be evil.Again, an act of evil that he will need to atone for; he may or may not be able to forgive himself of this one (he'll probably have to rationalize it)


But Jimmy is a cop on a long-term deep-cover mission to trace the activities of the mob. "Jimmy" is in fact an act, and the man behind the mask is nothing like the person he seems to be. If Jimmy is subjected to alignment-detecting spells does he read as the Chaotic Evil thug he pretends to be, or as the Lawful cop he really is?it depends on how long he's undercover and how much evil he commits while doing it. He'd register as neutral at best, and over time he'll register as more and more evil.

I don't see any inconsistency; if Jimmy doesn't have a troubled soul after doing this then he started out as Lawful neutral, or even lawful evil.

IMO: it would take a long time to register as good after doing this.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 05:26 PM
And why, exactly, is it my fault that the other player is too lazy to go to his local gaming store and thumb through it?
Right, it's laziness. No chance it could be due to the "local" gaming store being in the next town (or two!) over, or said store not carrying the BoED/BoVD, or said gamer not having time between work, school, and face-to-face gaming to thumb through random books he's not going to buy. Apparently no one's allowed to read the less-than-a-page of definitions provided by the SRD that define alignments to make their judgements because some less-than-stellar books have been released claiming to do the same thing?

And why should the Fiendish Codex be referenced when talking about demons? Demons appear in the Monster Manual; you don't need the Fiendish Codex to run demons, and you don't need the BoED/BoVD to use alignment in your game.

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-26, 05:49 PM
Right, it's laziness. No chance it could be due to the "local" gaming store being in the next town (or two!) over, or said store not carrying the BoED/BoVD, or said gamer not having time between work, school, and face-to-face gaming to thumb through random books he's not going to buy. Apparently no one's allowed to read the less-than-a-page of definitions provided by the SRD that define alignments to make their judgements because some less-than-stellar books have been released claiming to do the same thing?

And why should the Fiendish Codex be referenced when talking about demons? Demons appear in the Monster Manual; you don't need the Fiendish Codex to run demons, and you don't need the BoED/BoVD to use alignment in your game.
Fine. I concede your point. Some people just don't have access to every book via legal means.

But I am going to continue to use information from every splatbook I have (and I have a lot of them) whenever I damn well please. After all, just because others don't have them doesn't mean I don't. Why should I limit myself to someone else's notion of fairness? I snake in MKDS without remorse, I spent days getting my Wavedashing in SSBM just right, I ran Ravager Affinity before it got banhammered in Magic, and when Diamond comes out, I will probably spend weeks just observing the online metagame, then make the perfect team to maximize my win ratio. Just because you aren't willing to prepare doesn't mean I'm not.

EDIT: And the Fiendish Codex should be referrenced because it is the Demon Book, plain and simple. It even says in the introduction that future books will use it as the ultimate source of Demon information.

Jayabalard
2007-03-26, 05:54 PM
Oddly enough, all of this arguing over whether the BoED is valid as a reference in the argument is pretty moot since it doesn't back up the person who was (mis)using it...

Krellen
2007-03-26, 05:56 PM
But I am going to continue to use information from every splatbook I have (and I have a lot of them) whenever I damn well please.
Fine; but if you're going to use it in a debate, you better damn well quote it; otherwise your participation is pointless, because you are not allowing anyone else access to the information you are utilising to make your point, which amounts to the same thing as saying "I know it's this way! Gary Gygax told me so!"

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-26, 05:59 PM
Fine; but if you're going to use it in a debate, you better damn well quote it; otherwise your participation is pointless, because you are not allowing anyone else access to the information you are utilising to make your point, which amounts to the same thing as saying "I know it's this way! Gary Gygax told me so!"

Well, of course I'm going to quote it. I'm still Good, after all.

After all, if it wasn't for quoting, no one would know why Pun-Pun is horribly broken, or why CPsi sucks so hard, or why Divine Metamagic is insanely broken.

Pun-Pun... ugh. There are some lines even I won't cross.

Foxer
2007-03-26, 06:58 PM
Jayabalard: You make some good points. You're absolutely right in that Jimmy the Knife (if he's a Good-aligned individual) will suffer all sorts of guilt over the actions he takes to maintain his cover, and, yes, he could well find his alignment shifting as a result of some of the things he's done. In particular his killing the other mobster may very well indicate that Jimmy has crossed the line. It might further his mission by ingratiating him with the boss he wants to bust, but "the end justifies the means" is used to excuse all sorts of stuff and can be the start of the slippery slope of moral decline. I guess that's why they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; good intentions can lead us down the wrong path. But that doesn't change the fact that this guy's intentions are consistent with a Lawful Good alignment that contradicts his Chaotic Evil behavior. In my book, the slippery slope not withstanding, intent trumps outcome, and I think I've made my reasoning clear. If you don't agree, then fair enough, let's leave it there before we end up going in circles.

EvilElitest: To be evil requires a choice. If your capacity to make that choice is impaired or non-existent, then you cannot be evil. Animals can't make that choice - they don't have the mental capacity. Neither can, as a result of their psychological problems, certain individuals, real or fictional. Being an abusive person (like Timmy the school bully) only makes you evil if you have chosen to be abusive. Timmy is not evil, just sadly misguided as a result of a destructive upbringing. Believe me, kids like Timmy don't know why they do the things they do. They haven't made a choice; the choice was made for them. With love and care, Timmy can be made to see the error of his ways, but slapping the "evil" label on the poor kid will only make matters worse.

Ignoring the rights and freedoms of another sentient being is evil, but being unable to perceive the rights and freedoms of another sentient being is not the same thing at all.

Sardia
2007-03-26, 07:02 PM
Okay, question-- let's presume that it was somehow demonstrated to a lawful good character beyond all counterargument that life was, in fact, a crime, and that everyone dying was a way of pursuing both greater lawfulness and greater good. How would he react?

Krellen
2007-03-26, 09:56 PM
Pointless hypothetical. Everyone dying cannot pursue the "Greater Good", because Good is defined as respect and dignity for life. Under the D&D system, there is no possible way to contrive a situation in which the "Greater Good" is "letting everyone die" - it's like trying to define truth as lies, or freedom as slavery.

Desaril
2007-03-26, 11:05 PM
I'm surprised how many times people refer to "detect (alignment)" as a means of determining alignment. Detect spells do not detect alignment, personality or past actions, it only detects evil. Only characters with auras, undead, evil outsiders and other creatures with the evil descriptor are detectable. It does not detect character alignment (that's a 2e spell).

Back on topic- many seem to pretend that D&D morality is supposed to differ from real world morality. I don't think it "has to" or is "supposed to", but it "can" and among a group of mature players who enjoy the drama created by complex moral roleplaying it "should". If your game is all about dungeon delving and gathering treasure, it probably doesn't matter. But if alignment matters, it should simulate the complexities of real world morality. Since I run a complex system, alignments reflect that complexity.

@tayla- according to the SRD section on alignment, there is no mechanism for changing alignment. If we do as you suggest and use the SRD as the gospel, it does not say that behavior determines alignment (or vice versa). It doesn't say that if your character starts acting evil, her alignment starts to change. That is an interpretation of DMs over time. As Aquillon said, alignment is an out of character concept (like hit points). You choose your alignment and the DM may penalize your roleplaying to encourage you to play the alignment you chose.

@EE- the neutrality of animals is not based on the lack of INT, it is based on the lack of moral decision-making. Note that the rule does not mention INT. It says animals and other creatures incapable of moral action. I'm willing to accept that some human beings are not capable of moral action and I think most people agree.

EvilElitest
2007-03-26, 11:12 PM
EvilElitest: To be evil requires a choice. If your capacity to make that choice is impaired or non-existent, then you cannot be evil. Animals can't make that choice - they don't have the mental capacity.
[/QUOTE]
Real life, yes that is true. But not in a game. In a game, you have int. higher than 3 sucks to be you i surrpose. Sure it is not their fault, but you know what that means? Tha means they should get help. If they get help, and repent they are not evil. But until they do, their insanity does not excuse them for their actions. It lightens the blow, but does not excuse it.


Neither can, as a result of their psychological problems, certain individuals, real or fictional. Being an abusive person (like Timmy the school bully) only makes you evil if you have chosen to be abusive.
No, timmy is a sociapath and is inheritly selfish and has not sense of group effort. He is simple a bully and a fool.

Timmy is not evil, just sadly misguided as a result of a destructive upbringing. Believe me, kids like Timmy don't know why they do the things they do. They haven't made a choice; the choice was made for them.
Timmy is evil. He is also misguided. But he does have a choice. Every sane human does. I know abused kids who turned out fine and abused kids who did not. Timmy made the choice and his actions cause pain to others. clearly CE. His fatehr is also CE. He is not entirley to blaime but he is stilll to blame.

With love and care, Timmy can be made to see the error of his ways, but slapping the "evil" label on the poor kid will only make matters worse.
Slapping an evil label does not work like the nazie jewish star. It just mean that their general manner and actions are evil. Yes he could see the errors of his ways, then he woudl not be evil. Good's job is to redeem evil and destroy it when nessary. Him being evil means just that, he is evil. Does not make it an excuse to kill him but pity can't excuse one of his/her actions.


Ignoring the rights and freedoms of another sentient being is evil, but being unable to perceive the rights and freedoms of another sentient being is not the same thing at all.
So Charlie Manson is not evil? Evil is actions. Intent is only a small part compared to actions.
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-26, 11:14 PM
Pointless hypothetical. Everyone dying cannot pursue the "Greater Good", because Good is defined as respect and dignity for life. Under the D&D system, there is no possible way to contrive a situation in which the "Greater Good" is "letting everyone die" - it's like trying to define truth as lies, or freedom as slavery.

Not pointless at all. Let's say that (for the sake of example) that something particular is going to be caused by the inhabitants of the prime material plane which will eventually cause the entirety of the Great Wheel and all the planes therein (prime material included) to fall apart and plummet into the Abyss, causing all the inhabitants to suffer an eternity of...well, being in the Abyss.
Presume that every inhabitant of the prime material plane is informed of this state of affairs, and understands that the only way to save the multiverse is for every soul to exit the prime material plane, departing to an outer plane most suitable to their alignment. What do you do with those who a) don't believe, or b) wish to stay anyhow?

Norsesmithy
2007-03-26, 11:52 PM
I'm surprised how many times people refer to "detect (alignment)" as a means of determining alignment. Detect spells do not detect alignment, personality or past actions, it only detects evil. Only characters with auras, undead, evil outsiders and other creatures with the evil descriptor are detectable. It does not detect character alignment (that's a 2e spell).
Actually every creature has an Aura, so Detect Good will identify the purehearted commoner lad or lass that is selling you an apple, just as Detect Evil will identify the lvl 1 Warrior thug that rapes the wives of his boss's rivals to teach them a lesson.

Foxer
2007-03-27, 03:43 AM
Okay, question-- let's presume that it was somehow demonstrated to a lawful good character beyond all counterargument that life was, in fact, a crime, and that everyone dying was a way of pursuing both greater lawfulness and greater good. How would he react?

Not a pointless hypothetical at all, and I for one am glad you asked the question. To my knowledge, there have been two real world groups who reached that exact conclusion.

Their response was the advocacy of 100% birth-control, leading to the extinction of the human race. No more people get born, and time takes care of the ones already alive.

The first group was an early church sect, who came to the conclusion that this was the only way of alleviating the massive suffering caused by human sinfulness. Thanks to them not breeding, they're not around any longer.

I believe the other group - a modern environmentalist group - are still active, so we probably shouldn't talk about them on this forum.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 07:57 AM
Okay, question-- let's presume that it was somehow demonstrated to a lawful good character beyond all counterargument that life was, in fact, a crime, and that everyone dying was a way of pursuing both greater lawfulness and greater good. How would he react?This can't exist by the definition of "good" in D&D.

Arguments of the form "assume A is true; prove that A is true" are meaningless anyways.

Foxer
2007-03-27, 08:17 AM
This can't exist by the definition of "good" in D&D.


Why the hell not?

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 08:38 AM
"respect for life" vs "life is a crime" is enough to bring a counterargument; so it's not possible to demonstrate beyond all counterargument that such a being was in fact good, as people will disagree.

Krellen
2007-03-27, 08:46 AM
Not pointless at all. Let's say that (for the sake of example) that something particular is going to be caused by the inhabitants of the prime material plane which will eventually cause the entirety of the Great Wheel and all the planes therein (prime material included) to fall apart and plummet into the Abyss, causing all the inhabitants to suffer an eternity of...well, being in the Abyss.
In that case, the solution is to prevent the action that causes the Great Wheel to collapse. "Killing everyone" is not the Lawful Good solution to this problem - it's the Lawful Evil one.

Even in the Great Wheel, remember, not everyone who dies gets a fully realised soul existance in the higher plane of their choice. Killing people more often than not ends their existance, period, full stop. It's impossible to respect and give dignity to someone's life while obliterating them from the face of creation.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 08:52 AM
In that case, the solution is to prevent the action that causes the Great Wheel to collapse. "Killing everyone" is not the Lawful Good solution to this problem - it's the Lawful Evil one. I agree; "the ends justify the means" is lawful neutral at best, not lawful good.

EvilElitest
2007-03-27, 08:54 AM
Not pointless at all. Let's say that (for the sake of example) that something particular is going to be caused by the inhabitants of the prime material plane which will eventually cause the entirety of the Great Wheel and all the planes therein (prime material included) to fall apart and plummet into the Abyss, causing all the inhabitants to suffer an eternity of...well, being in the Abyss.
Presume that every inhabitant of the prime material plane is informed of this state of affairs, and understands that the only way to save the multiverse is for every soul to exit the prime material plane, departing to an outer plane most suitable to their alignment. What do you do with those who a) don't believe, or b) wish to stay anyhow?

...
Right......................


So, bad in remotally "realistic" situations, how does this make JD not evil?
from,
EE

Foxer
2007-03-27, 10:19 AM
"respect for life" vs "life is a crime" is enough to bring a counterargument; so it's not possible to demonstrate beyond all counterargument that such a being was in fact good, as people will disagree.

Sure, "respect for life" is a defining characteristic of good (in real life and D&D). But "respect for life" doesn't mean "no killing, ever." Sometimes killing is necessary for the greater good, usually to preserve life. That doesn't make killing a "good" act, of course. A Lawful Good fighter killing an ogre to protect a village is doing good, both by intent (protecting the innocent) and by outcome (the innocent have been protected) even though the means he employs (killing the ogre) is neutral at best.

Obviously, it would be better if the ogre/village situation could be resolved without violence or death, but the option isn't always available.

And if one death is necessary for the greater good, how about six? Or sixty? Or six million? That question makes Sardia's hypothetical situation relevant.


Originally Posted by Krellen http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2267720#post2267720)
Under the D&D system, there is no possible way to contrive a situation in which the "Greater Good" is "letting everyone die" - it's like trying to define truth as lies, or freedom as slavery.
Oh yeah, wanna bet? The D&D system is a fantasy game; you can do almost anything with it, so it's perfectly possible to contrive such a situation. There's a fable of my own devising under the cut if anyone's interested, but feel free to skip it since it was written for the heck of it as much as anything else.

In the Dreamtime, before the first sunrise, Eos, the goddess of beginnings, took the Dreamstone from her heart, and into it she breathed life and magic. She placed the Dreamstone into creation, and around it she formed a world. On this world, she brought forth life, and peopled it with gentle dryads and wise elves. The people of that world listened to the song of the Dreamstone, that was the heart of their world, and from the song they learned to farm, and build and grow, and they learned that their duty was to tend their garden paradise, and bring joy to Eos.

In turn, the Dreamstone heard their thoughts and desires, and whatever the people dreamed, it brought forth. The strongest dreamers learned to draw upon the power of the Dreamstone to work great magics, and the people appointed them as their rulers whilst Eos, tired from her labours, slept.

But Eos' brother, the bitter and scornful Mocker, who hates and destroys the ordered things of creation, came at night to the world Eos had made, and whispered dark secrets into the ears of his sister's sleeping followers. And through those he touched, the Mocker twisted the power of the Dreamstone to bring forth misery and sickness.

When Eos awoke, she found that the gentle place she had dreamed was now corrupted, and that the Dreamstone she had brought forth now served her evil brother. And on that world the people cried out to her, asking why evil had been brought forth to trouble them. Eos raised her staff, thinking to unmake the world and reclaim the Dreamstone, and the people cried out in fear.

Eos paused, then. She could not reclaim the Dreamstone without unmaking the people she had created, but nor could she allow its powers to be used for evil. Nor could see bear to see her children suffer from the Mocker's malice. Not knowing how best to act, Eos sat down and wept.

Hearing her tears, her uncle Thanatos came to comfort her. Eos told him all that the Mocker had wrought, and her uncle listened. When she was done, Thanatos went to the garden world she had created, and brought forth Death, so that the people of that world would no longer live forever, but could lay down the burden of years and the load of suffering the Mocker had piled upon their backs, and Thanatos would take them into his kingdom. "One day," he told Eos, "when my servant has finished his task, the garden will be empty, and you may reclaim the Dreamstone and the Mocker may use it no more."

But the Mocker was not to be thwarted so easily. When he saw what Thanatos had done, he had his servants call forth a new song from the Dreamstone, and the people of that world became fruitful, and brought forth a new generation for Death's harvest. Then they went amongst the people, telling them that Death was a fearful thing, and that it would one day comsume even Eos, their creator. And some of the people believed, and dreamed of the death of Eos. The Dreamstone, hearing their dreams and, being of the same substance as Eos' heart, caused the goddess of beginnings to become mortal, like the people she had created. One day, the Mocker knew, she would die, and there would be no more new worlds. Without fresh beginnings, all creation would fall into chaos and decay, according to his design.

Eos grows ever weaker. Unless she can reclaim the corrupted Dreamstone from this world, she will die. When she dies the entire universe - not just this world - will succumb to entropy. The stars will go cold and die, and the Mocker will dance in their ruin. With her powers now reduced, she could not unmake the world of the Dreamstone whilst her children are living on it, for it is their dream of her death that is killing her. Only if the dream the Mocker put in their minds ends will she recover.

Okay, so Thanatos comes down to a bunch of heroes on the Dreamstone world and gives him a vision of all that has come to pass, and tells the that Eos only has a few hundred years left to live (not long in god terms, and only a generation or two for the long-lived inhabitants). What do they do?

The Lawful Neutral/Evil answer is to start killing people, to start wars to kill more people, and maybe create some magical plagues that will finish off the survivors. But, given the limited time-frame, what does a Lawful Good character do?

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 10:48 AM
so, if I'm reading you right, we agree that his highly hypothetical example is not a possible because there is always room for counterargument on whether that individual is actually lawful "good" or not?

Because even with your fable I wouldn't agree that a good individual would believe that the answer is to start killing people.

Krellen
2007-03-27, 11:01 AM
Oh yeah, wanna bet? The D&D system is a fantasy game; you can do almost anything with it, so it's perfectly possible to contrive such a situation. There's a fable of my own devising under the cut if anyone's interested, but feel free to skip it since it was written for the heck of it as much as anything else.
[Fable]
Being Good isn't easy. The Lawful Good solution is the hardest path conceivable: redeeming the Mocker. Alternatively, they can try to redeem all humanity, reversing the evils the Mocker has wraught that stole the Dreamstone from Eos. Lawful Good could also try to rework the Dreamstone itself, making it no longer the puppet of the Mocker (and, possibly, no longer the puppet of any god, preventing this from happening again.) They could spread dreams of the death of the Mocker, dreams of the eternity of Eos, or dreams of the children of Eos, who would continue on her mission. They could convince Eos to form a new Dreamstone to balance the corrupt one of the Mocker (a common thread in many mythos, mirroring the apparent balance of the Sun and the Moon in the skies.)

Lawful Good has a lot of choices that don't involve the wholesale eradication of Mankind.

Foxer
2007-03-27, 11:15 AM
Being Good isn't easy.

Got that right. Don't get me wrong, here, I like Lawful Good. I like proper heroes - give me Captain America over the Punisher any day of the week. But, as you say, it ain't always easy, and sometimes you can be left choosing between two evils, because that's all you've got.


The Lawful Good solution is the hardest path conceivable: redeeming the Mocker. Alternatively, they can try to redeem all humanity, reversing the evils the Mocker has wraught that stole the Dreamstone from Eos. Lawful Good could also try to rework the Dreamstone itself, making it no longer the puppet of the Mocker (and, possibly, no longer the puppet of any god, preventing this from happening again.) They could spread dreams of the death of the Mocker, dreams of the eternity of Eos, or dreams of the children of Eos, who would continue on her mission. They could convince Eos to form a new Dreamstone to balance the corrupt one of the Mocker (a common thread in many mythos, mirroring the apparent balance of the Sun and the Moon in the skies.)

Lawful Good has a lot of choices that don't involve the wholesale eradication of Mankind.

All true, and plans like the ones you outline would be the first resort of the Lawful Good character. But if they run out of time, they have no choice but to let everyone on their world die to serve the greatest good and save the rest of creation. So, there you go, an admittedly contrived situation where the greater good is served by letting people die.

@ Jayabalard: sorry - you lost me somewhere. What are we (dis)agreeing on?

Mr Horse
2007-03-27, 01:10 PM
um... yeah... so, i think i'm just gonna go with "neutral evil".
My understanding of the D&D alignment system is pretty much unaltered after this debate - that "alignment" is a meter that measures where on the evil/good, chaotic/lawful scales you currently stand, regardless of what your options are or how sane you are.
I don't buy that it's an "inner moral compass", because your "inner moral compass" (whatever that is supposed to be) changes depending on what your beliefs are. If it didn't, paladins, regardless of their "fallen" status couldn't turn blackguard. ever.
Neither do I buy that the notion of sanity should affect your alignment. If you go insane and start acting, percieving and thinking in different terms than you normally would, your alignment shifts until you are cured of your insanity, after which it shifts back again. That is, if you're not so shaken by your experiences that you shift towards a completely different alignment altogether in your new-found sanity.
I don't see how a character shifting alignment based on past experiences is abusing the system. In fact, I find it very flexible and I think it is exactly as open to roleplaying potential as the system should be. Which, after all, is what this is about...

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to define human nature, people! it's to get some clarification on how the alignment system in D&D works. Calling someone "chaotic evil" because they were abused by their parents and subsequently abuse others isn't "mean". It's how the D&D system works, and helps a great deal in defining who currently gets placed where on the alignment scale. Just because they're chaotic evil now, doesn't mean they can't be shown the error of their ways or even see it themselves through experience, and even end up lawful good along the way and multiclassing to paladin! Just like it's possible for a paladin to fall and eventually turn so hateful and bitter that they become blackguards...

For all the rulebooks that have been quoted and referred to, i still have not seen one single logical and well thought out argument that really offers a convincing explanation as to why my conclusion is wrong. sorry if stating that makes me seem like an ass.

EvilElitest
2007-03-27, 01:43 PM
Ok lets break this down
Judge Death's aligment

LG, Yeah no.
NG, Kills people in massive numbers, no
CG, Commits no good acts, no
LN, Close, but no. If the laws you follow are inheritly evil that makse you LE. So no
N, Kills people for his own ideals, no
CN, no, to much evil
LE Close, but no cigar. From what i gather he is willing to break his own laws to further his insane goal. And he became a "Judge" to have an excuse to killl people.
NE Maybe, he does take advantage of his system for his own needs
CE It mentions he is a sadist, so would bet CE as he takes pleasure in their actions. Also insane evil normally falls under CE

He can't be neutral
As the giant said, being neutral means ether not commiting good or evil actions, or out numbering your evil actions with good ones. Belkar is insane, belkar is EVIL. The judge seems insane, the judge is evil
from,
EE

Krellen
2007-03-27, 01:48 PM
All true, and plans like the ones you outline would be the first resort of the Lawful Good character. But if they run out of time, they have no choice but to let everyone on their world die to serve the greatest good and save the rest of creation. So, there you go, an admittedly contrived situation where the greater good is served by letting people die.
No. Even up to the last minute, the truly Good would still be trying for another way. They would never resort to letting everyone die. Sure, they might fail, but if they deserve the alignment "Good", they won't quit.

Foxer
2007-03-27, 03:09 PM
No. Even up to the last minute, the truly Good would still be trying for another way. They would never resort to letting everyone die. Sure, they might fail, but if they deserve the alignment "Good", they won't quit.

I can respect that. It's a tougher standard than I'd probably apply in one of my games, but I think we're agreed that being Lawful Good isn't meant to be easy.

Would you concede though - and I'm asking purely out of interest, not to spark fresh debate - that somebody of a different alignment might have a better practical chance at saving Eos and the Dreamstone from the Mockery?

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 03:11 PM
All true, and plans like the ones you outline would be the first resort of the Lawful Good character. But if they run out of time, they have no choice but to let everyone on their world die to serve the greatest good and save the rest of creation. So, there you go, an admittedly contrived situation where the greater good is served by letting people die.
Nope, they work the hard way up until the end, not giving into evil. They should follow the example of their goddess, who evidentially valued their lives equal to or over that of all other creation. Therefore, the "killing everyone" choice that you seem to be suggesting is the only way is indeed the greater evil.

Plus, even if we fail, I think it would be fitting for her brother to bored out of his mind for all eternity; once you have complete entropy, he doesn't really have any purpose, does he? I wonder if he'd realize that before she died or after it was too late? I figure it will be about like this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html)


@ Jayabalard: sorry - you lost me somewhere. What are we (dis)agreeing on?


Okay, question-- let's presume that it was somehow demonstrated to a lawful good character beyond all counterargument that life was, in fact, a crime, and that everyone dying was a way of pursuing both greater lawfulness and greater good. How would he react?

This can't exist by the definition of "good" in D&D.
Why the hell not?Krellen and I have both disagreed even with the example of your parable, which does kind of show why it's not not possible to demonstrate beyond all counterargument yadda yadda yadda. There's counterargument; there will be counterargument no matter what extreme hypothetical situation gets dreamed up.

You stopped commenting on that part, so I figured it was worth checking on.

Foxer
2007-03-27, 03:35 PM
Krellen and I have both disagreed even with the example of your parable, which does kind of show why it's not not possible to demonstrate beyond all counterargument yadda yadda yadda. There's counterargument; there will be counterargument no matter what extreme hypothetical situation gets dreamed up.

You stopped commenting on that part, so I figured it was worth checking on.

Ah, I see. Sorry - thought you meant something else.

Yes, I will agree that people will come up with a counterargument for any argument. That's one of the defining characteristics about people, I've found, and why people have to agree to disagree.

Nice debating with you, anyways.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 03:48 PM
sorry if that came off wrong... I wanted to get that absurd hypothetical cleared out so that it's not hanging over people discussing a less hypothetical example, such as the dreamstone world (or other non-absurd examples).

Krellen
2007-03-27, 04:10 PM
Would you concede though - and I'm asking purely out of interest, not to spark fresh debate - that somebody of a different alignment might have a better practical chance at saving Eos and the Dreamstone from the Mockery?
If the stated goal is "Saving Eos and the Dreamstone so that she may start anew" - yes, non-Good probably would accomplish that much easier than Good. Good's goal would be simply "Save Creation" - which means this Creation. If everyone died and Eos could unmake the Dreamstone, what she started over with would be a different Creation.

But honestly, I don't think Eos would be satisfied by that solution either, assuming she is also Good (which the story seems to indicate she is.)

Exarch
2007-03-27, 08:03 PM
If choice is an intergal part of the good vs. evil debate, then how are angels and demons/devils good or evil? As they are made up of the very stuff of their planes, they don't quite have choice in their actions.

Additionally for undead. There are some with free thought, but most don't possess it. Why are they automatically evil? In fact, why are Chromatic dragons, who by their nature are vile and hateful, evil? If you use choice as a measure of good or evil, you have to make so many creatures Neutral...especially Outsiders.

EvilElitest
2007-03-27, 08:32 PM
If choice is an intergal part of the good vs. evil debate, then how are angels and demons/devils good or evil? As they are made up of the very stuff of their planes, they don't quite have choice in their actions.

Additionally for undead. There are some with free thought, but most don't possess it. Why are they automatically evil? In fact, why are Chromatic dragons, who by their nature are vile and hateful, evil? If you use choice as a measure of good or evil, you have to make so many creatures Neutral...especially Outsiders.

Demon devils angle ect. are the living emboyment of whatever aligment they are. So no, they can't make a choice as they simple repsentativs of some force. for example Demons ARE Chaos and Evil.
Undead are powered by evil, but very few have the abiltiy to turn good. As for Colored dragons, i'm pretty sure they changed that rule.
from
EE

Sardia
2007-03-27, 08:47 PM
"respect for life" vs "life is a crime" is enough to bring a counterargument; so it's not possible to demonstrate beyond all counterargument that such a being was in fact good, as people will disagree.

Well, you can still have respect for the living while simultaneously punishing a crime. A Paladin doesn't automatically fail to respect life while fighting orcs on the battlefield even though he's likely the center of a big pile of orc parts he made from previously occurring orcs.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 09:27 PM
Well, you can still have respect for the living while simultaneously punishing a crime. A Paladin doesn't automatically fail to respect life while fighting orcs on the battlefield even though he's likely the center of a big pile of orc parts he made from previously occurring orcs.Which has very little to do with killing someone for the crime of living... and nothing to do with the conflict of claiming to be good (which would include respecting life, a major tenet of being good) while considering living/existence to be a crime.

A better example: a paladin stalking through an orc camp killing the orc children who were too young to take part in the battle (ie, infants to 5 years old or so) simply because they are orcs.


If choice is an intergal part of the good vs. evil debate, then how are angels and demons/devils good or evil? As they are made up of the very stuff of their planes, they don't quite have choice in their actions.Outsiders are slightly different than mortals; since they are made up of the very substance of their alignment, and they are as nearly perfect as anything short of a god, they do not choose actions that are inconsistent with that alignment. I would say that (IMO) they only appear to have no choices, but that they still do indeed make choices, and that it would be possible for one of them to fall... again, it's not covered in the rules afaik, but it's not an unknown story in some real life mythology, and I'd write it into a campaign in a heartbeat if it fit in with a good storyline, rules or no.


Additionally for undead. There are some with free thought, but most don't possess it. Why are they automatically evil?Undead are diven to commit evil; they may not have the ability to chose to do good (though some can), but they can and do choose to do evil. They do not kill in order to eat, or protect themselves ... they kill for the sake of killing.

Contrast that with animals, who lack the capacity to do either good or evil; for the most part, animals kill only for foot/survival/etc.

That seems to be enough of a difference in choice capacity to assign undead firmly to the evil side, even though they might be mindless; perhaps the rules should be more specific on the difference between mindlessly evil (undead) and mindlessly neutral (animal).


In fact, why are Chromatic dragons, who by their nature are vile and hateful, evil? They're evil because they choose to be vile and hateful; that seems pretty obvious to me. It's not like they have no capacity to make a better choice than that.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 09:50 PM
Which has very little to do with killing someone for the crime of living... and nothing to do with the conflict of claiming to be good (which would include respecting life, a major tenet of being good) while considering living/existence to be a crime.

Of course the fellow could respect it, but still take it. A gardener doesn't hate rosebuds when he prunes them off for the betterment of the rosebush.

He might consider having to kill everyone that lived to be unfortunate, unpleasant, and miserable, but if somehow having living beings results in some horrid consequence for all existance, and the people involved all know this and have stubbornly refused to kill themselves, what else is he to do?

EvilElitest
2007-03-27, 09:52 PM
Of course the fellow could respect it, but still take it. A gardener doesn't hate rosebuds when he prunes them off for the betterment of the rosebush.

He might consider having to kill everyone that lived to be unfortunate, unpleasant, and miserable, but if somehow having living beings results in some horrid consequence for all existance, and the people involved all know this and have stubbornly refused to kill themselves, what else is he to do?

Stubbornly refused to kill themselves? Oh so you are the rightous hand of good when you murder them. Now why would they not come to terms and know that your way was the only good way.

from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-27, 09:57 PM
Stubbornly refused to kill themselves? Oh so you are the rightous hand of good when you murder them. Now why would they not come to terms and know that your way was the only good way.

from,
EE

Well, yes, essentially, given the one condition: you've already explained to them, with compelling proof, that if they continue to live all existance is going to sink down into the Abyss. All of it. Everything. Eternal torment and suffering for every being that exists or has ever existed.
Or a quick hop skip and jump to the Outer Planes.
They pick item number one, not only for themselves but (as its inevitable side effect) for everyone else. Are they evil for doing so? Aren't you allowed to slay evil and be good?

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 10:01 PM
Of course the fellow could respect it, but still take it. A gardener doesn't hate rosebuds when he prunes them off for the betterment of the rosebush.

He might consider having to kill everyone that lived to be unfortunate, unpleasant, and miserable, but if somehow having living beings results in some horrid consequence for all existance, and the people involved all know this and have stubbornly refused to kill themselves, what else is he to do?The gardner doesn't have as a major tenet that the rosebuds are of sacred value in and of themselves and should be preserved.

Nor is a gardener necessarily lawful good; they tend to be very pragmatic, and that means more lawful neutral than lawful good.

If those people stubbornly refuse to kill themselves, then so be it; they are entitled to live, and you are sword to protect that. For the truly good, the ends do not justify the means. It doesn't matter if how good your intentions are... the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A paladin in such a situation should be committing themselves to finding another solution that does not involve them mass slaughtering people out of expedience.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 10:04 PM
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How literally correct given my example! You refuse to kill all living beings, and everything goes right into the Abyss.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 10:06 PM
How literally correct given my example! You refuse to kill all living beings, and everything goes right into the Abyss.Nope, because as the hero of good you find a righteous solution that does not involve doing evil. Your hands are clean, you've committed no evil, and the world is saved.

None of this really applies to the OP's question... since Judge death does not even have the thin rationalization that you're using to laud a paladin murdering children as committing an act of good.

Midnight Lurker
2007-03-27, 10:11 PM
I don't see NE as necessarily self-serving, especially when applied to supernatural creatures.

My personal interpretation of NE is of an evil not seen outside fiction: someone who does evil, not for his own sake or for that of a greater organization, but for the sake of evil itself. Someone who works to maximize suffering in the world, heedless even of his own long-term welfare, is pure evil.

To be truly evil one must understand the concept of goodness and deliberately set oneself in opposition to it... something extremely unlikely in the real world but found frequently in fantasy fiction.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 10:11 PM
Nope, because as the hero of good you find a righteous solution that does not involve doing evil. Your hands are clean, you've committed no evil, and the world is saved.

You are presuming such a solution exists. Let's assume a particularly stubborn GM has precisely constructed the situation such that only those two alternatives exist: everyone dies or everything ends.

Just popped to mind-- have you ever read "The Cold Equations"?

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 10:18 PM
You presume that a solution does not exist.

If evil can force the champions of good to do that kind of evil, then they've already won, and no amount of wanton slaughter is going to change that. If a particularly stubborn gm builds that sort of contrived situation, and I'm playing a good character (lawful, chaotic, doesn't matter) I will persist in looking for a 3rd alternative.

If the alternative truly doesn't exist, than I'll find a different game... no gaming > railroded trash gaming.

re: cold equations:I don't recall that it was anything but a choice between 2 evils. And the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

EvilElitest
2007-03-27, 10:32 PM
Well, yes, essentially, given the one condition: you've already explained to them, with compelling proof, that if they continue to live all existance is going to sink down into the Abyss. All of it. Everything. Eternal torment and suffering for every being that exists or has ever existed.
Or a quick hop skip and jump to the Outer Planes.
They pick item number one, not only for themselves but (as its inevitable side effect) for everyone else. Are they evil for doing so? Aren't you allowed to slay evil and be good?

Your alllowed to slay evil that is direcly attacking you or innocents and stay good. As for the rest of your post, it seems to be rather arrogent that YOU are the only one that gets a judgment call. People have hte right to life, you don't take it away
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-27, 10:40 PM
Your alllowed to slay evil that is direcly attacking you or innocents and stay good. As for the rest of your post, it seems to be rather arrogent that YOU are the only one that gets a judgment call. People have hte right to life, you don't take it away
from,
EE

It's not just you-- whatever lives at the top of Mt. Celestia got on the speakerphone and explained it, in detail, complete with proof to every living being. Presumably others get to make the same decisions based on the same information.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 10:44 PM
It's not just you-- whatever lives at the top of Mt. Celestia got on the speakerphone and explained it, in detail, complete with proof to every living being. Presumably others get to make the same decisions based on the same information.
Ah, but it's really a test in order to see who is willing to do evil in the name of good, to separate out the truly worthy.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 10:49 PM
Ah, but it's really a test in order to see who is willing to do evil in the name of good, to separate out the truly worthy.

I sense you're really rooting for a way to find a good-good solution here. :smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 10:51 PM
reposting since I edited and timing was bad; it's no more ridiculous than continuing to push that same absurd hypothetical situation.

Seriously, if that's the campaign, I'd tell the GM straight up that I'm not interested in playing out some sort of railroaded mortality fantasy for him. If the only options are goping to be "Commit evil A, or else evil B happens" the only proper response is "F off"

If the paragons of "good" are espousing murder as a good and righteous act then it's for the greater good for the universe and cosmos to be destroyed. It is a far better thing that the world and everything, including those beings, come to it's end than to continue down that path.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 11:01 PM
If the paragons of "good" are espousing murder as a good and righteous act then it's for the greater good for the universe and cosmos to be destroyed. It is a far better thing that the world and everything, including those beings, come to it's end than to continue down that path.

So it's better that the entire cosmos end by sinking into the Abyss than evil be espoused by good deities?
Bearing in mind that this means that countless innocents are going to sink on down into the Abyss who would otherwise enjoy eternal bliss in Celestia, Bytopia, etc, it seems to me this is six of one, half dozen of the other at best.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 11:10 PM
Yup, it's better that the cosmos to end; any deities asking for you to commit evil are not good ones, so do so wouldn't be serving good in any way.

And far better to play pinochle or guitar hero instead; less absurd hypothetical situations, more entertainment.

Desaril
2007-03-27, 11:15 PM
Clearly, I've missed a lot, but I'm incensed by the notion that some people think that undesirable actions cannot be neutral in alignment.

EE stated that low INT is the deciding factor in determining whether you are assigned a neutral alignment and moral decision making is not applicable. Neither the rules on INT or alignment support that viewpoint. Motive/intent is very important to alignment.

1) Consider a hermit who lives in a cave and never meets another living soul. But all day he plots how to kill and harm people. What's his alignment?

2) What about a captive paladin who never gets to do anything but sit in a cell? His he really lawful good?

3) What about a farmer who feeds himself and his family, usually obeys the local constable, but cheats on his taxes. He wants to preserve life and help other people, but never gets the opportunity. Is he lawful good or neutral good or what?

Intent is vital to alignment. Both real world philosophy and the rules support that.

Conversely, if we just look at actions, than a paladin who kills an innocent under mind control is evil. A demon who saves a child could be "turning good" even if his goal is to use the child as a ransom.

Lastly, many creatures are denied the choice of alignment. Technically, they are morally inculpaple as well. However, the game gives them the evil descriptor (separate from their alignment) to indicate that evil is a inherent part of their being (like being humanoid). I have to assume that other creatures do have the choice and the alignments provided are the norm for most creatures of that type. Don't forget that in the MMs don't provide stats for every single orc, elf, dragon, etc in your campaign; they provide samples for you to use in your campaign based on the game settings, supporting genre, etc.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 11:22 PM
Yup, it's better that the cosmos to end; any deities asking for you to commit evil are not good ones, so do so wouldn't be serving good in any way.

And far better to play pinochle or guitar hero instead; less absurd hypothetical situations, more entertainment.

So when picking between a cosmos where all the good deities decide to turn evil (granting your definitions of it) and people continue to exist on the prime material plane, and one where all existance sinks into the Abyss you'll pick option two?

Edit: So what would the alignment of a character be who supported that choice?

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 11:29 PM
Clearly, I've missed a lot, but I'm incensed by the notion that some people think that undesirable actions cannot be neutral in alignment.

EE stated that low INT is the deciding factor in determining whether you are assigned a neutral alignment and moral decision making is not applicable. Neither the rules on INT or alignment support that viewpoint. Motive/intent is very important to alignment.

1) Consider a hermit who lives in a cave and never meets another living soul. But all day he plots how to kill and harm people. What's his alignment?

2) What about a captive paladin who never gets to do anything but sit in a cell? His he really lawful good?

3) What about a farmer who feeds himself and his family, usually obeys the local constable, but cheats on his taxes. He wants to preserve life and help other people, but never gets the opportunity. Is he lawful good or neutral good or what?

Intent is vital to alignment. Both real world philosophy and the rules support that.

Conversely, if we just look at actions, than a paladin who kills an innocent under mind control is evil. A demon who saves a child could be "turning good" even if his goal is to use the child as a ransom.

Lastly, many creatures are denied the choice of alignment. Technically, they are morally inculpaple as well. However, the game gives them the evil descriptor (separate from their alignment) to indicate that evil is a inherent part of their being (like being humanoid). I have to assume that other creatures do have the choice and the alignments provided are the norm for most creatures of that type. Don't forget that in the MMs don't provide stats for every single orc, elf, dragon, etc in your campaign; they provide samples for you to use in your campaign based on the game settings, supporting genre, etc.
1. Probably neutral leaning towards evil, since he spends his time potting evil; not as evil as if he actually carried through with it. And all the plotting in the word doesn't mean he's actually evil if he doesn't have the guts to go through with his planned evilness.

None of the plotting would make as big of a difference as any actions he takes upon actually dealing with real people. if he carries through his evil pots, then his alignment shifts toward evil. If he holds back then he stays neutral.

2. He only remains good as long as he continues to act that way; there are bound to be easier ways to live in that prison than remaining steadfastly good, but the good way isn't the easy way.

3. Neutral to chaotic good by that description. He obeys authority when it's necessary and convenient and breaks it when not. He values helping individuals (help other people) over the state (taxes)

Intent is what you start with, but if your actions don't agree with your intent, then you shift.

A paladin under mind control isn't acting; the controlling person is acting. The paladin may still fall and have to atone according to the rules, though I doubt I would ever be that strict about the rules unless it made story sense (and it's something I'd discuss with the player first)

A demon who saves a child for ransom isn't saving the child... they're saving their property. It's no more of a good act than saving a piece of art.

Norsesmithy
2007-03-27, 11:33 PM
Obvious answer to the Prime falling into the lower planes is to go to hell your self and clean the place out.

If I was in a game where the GM was so poor to not give me a way to stop the slide in the first place, I would take a fleet to the river Styx and clean out the lower planes.

I imagine that every resident of the Prime and the Higher plains could do a decent job of wiping out the denizens of hell and the abyss.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 11:39 PM
So when picking between a cosmos where all the good deities decide to turn evil (granting your definitions of it) and people continue to exist on the prime material plane, and one where all existance sinks into the Abyss you'll pick option two?

Edit: So what would the alignment of a character be who supported that choice?Like I said in my previous posts, I'd choose option 3: the heroes of good follow their beliefs to win the day for good or die trying, or option 4: cards, video games & beer. No gaming at all is better than a game based on hypothetical railroaded trash.

Alignment would be Good; that lawful/chaotic axis isn't really important.


Obvious answer to the Prime falling into the lower planes is to go to hell your self and clean the place out.If it's not too out of place... Hell yeah!

Exarch
2007-03-27, 11:43 PM
I'd adventure to say that the hermit is still evil. Mind you, a person's intelligence isn't based on how much he can read and write, but is, more or less, his IQ. If he spends all day plotting the death of whatever, I'd say he's evil, even if he never does kill anything, he would be pleased with the deaths of others.

The other two are nailed by Jayabalard.

I suppose my earlier question of choice wasn't quite good. To clarify, if the plane itself does lend its power to its creatures (such as with Devils, Demons, and Angels), that would enforce a belief in strict black and white set of rules in which everything is to live by. Therefore, it wouldn't really matter about choice since actions themselves dictate the alignment of an individual (or the alignment dictates the actions). About the chromatic dragons, do they really have choice? They are all evil by the MM, and act quite strongly on their alignments (Blues have a hierarchy, for instance, whereas Reds will attack pretty much anything it thinks it can take that enters its territory). Also, it's in Eberron that Chromatics and Metallics have individual alignment. The undead are sort of like the Demons and such, but once more, in the Eberron campaign setting there are good-aligned undead elves. I think there was a good lich in some other monster book as well.

Sardia
2007-03-27, 11:44 PM
Like I said in my previous posts, I'd choose option 3: the heroes of good follow their beliefs to win the day for good or die trying, or option 4: cards, video games & beer. No gaming at all is better than a game based on hypothetical railroaded trash.

Alignment would be Good; that lawful/chaotic axis isn't really important.

I'd say it's no more railroading than most any other element of the game universe-- some things just exist as background.
Picture a trap that has to be disarmed to rescue a hostage. Disarm it or not, but there aren't a huge number of options to choose from if you want the hostage alive.

Jayabalard
2007-03-27, 11:53 PM
I'd adventure to say that the hermit is still evil. Mind you, a person's intelligence isn't based on how much he can read and write, but is, more or less, his IQ. If he spends all day plotting the death of whatever, I'd say he's evil, even if he never does kill anything, he would be pleased with the deaths of others.Possibly, but I think he's on the cusp. Any action either way would shift him.

He could be someone who got himself thinking about it, much how people today like watching slasher films (though I can't personally understand it). Since he takes a bit further, and maybe gets a little more enjoyment out if than is healthy, that moves him away from good into neutral; but since he doesn't actually act on it he doesn't get all the way into evil.

As soon as he acts though, his alignment shifts, either solidly into evil if he carries his plot through (or or really tries to); or solidly into neutral if he realizes that these are real lives, not imagined ones, and chooses not to carry through with it.

I mean, sure, if he's mad-scientist-in-a-bad-sci-if-film-evil, then sure, he's evil from the start, but IMO: the slightly loony hermit who dwells on death and killing, but isn't really sure in his own mind if he can bring himself to follow through is a more real character and his descent into evil or redemption from the edge would make a better story.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 12:33 AM
I'd say it's no more railroading than most any other element of the game universe-- some things just exist as background.
Picture a trap that has to be disarmed to rescue a hostage. Disarm it or not, but there aren't a huge number of options to choose from if you want the hostage alive.Ah, but there are options, though some depend on the type of trap. You can:

disarm the trap;
have the antidote ready and administer it before they die;
heal any injuries immediately;
sacrifice your own life for his;
teleport them safely out of the trap;
prevent the BBEG from taking him hostage in the first place;
have set the BBEG up with a simulacrum made of snow instead of the actual person;
put the soul of the person in the trap into a bottle, reconstruct and heal his body after the trap goes off, and return him to it;
use a wish or miracle to make the trap harmless;
shoot the hostage or otherwise trick the BBEG into letting the hostage go
etc, etc, etc


Whereas "murder these people or the world gets destroyed" does not contain any options at all; the only choice is not to play.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 12:40 AM
Ah, but there are options, though some depend on the type of trap.
Whereas "murder these people or the world gets destroyed" does not contain any options at all; the only choice is not to play.

Is the objection simply in the number of choices available to the players, or that there's no creative way to get out of the one choice?

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 01:08 AM
Is the objection simply in the number of choices available to the players, or that there's no creative way to get out of the one choice?In case you weren't aware, not giving options for the player and making thier choices meaningless in order to force them into a specific path (for example: killing all humanity in the name of good") is often referred to as "railroading". That's certainly what I meant by the term. So yes, if you don't give players options, then that would be "more railroading than most any other element of the game universe" and certainly more railroading than your example with the trap.

for contrast:

With the "Trap Scenario" the payer can do good (save the hostage, many choices) or do evil (many different ways, ex: kill the hostage) or do nothing. Players make their own choice, and they don't have a GM preaching bizarre relative morality at them.

As presented, the "Kill everyone or the universe goes to hell" can do evil (kill everyone), or do evil (ie do nothing and let the word go to hell); that's not a choice. Players may stuck with no choice other than not to play, and are stuck wit ha GM preaching bizarre relative morality where murder is a good act.

Any good hero worth his salt would say "to hell with that", and try find a real solution, even if one doesn't exist. Any GM that can't come up with a better game is likely to be playing by themselves fairly quickly.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 01:14 AM
Any GM that can't come up with a better game is likely to be playing by themselves fairly quickly.

Hey, the game doesn't end there, and it's not a railroad...more of a choke point or moment of crisis. Options branch dramatically after the decision's made- facing down souls in hell who have a grudge that the good characters didn't slay everyone to save them from their face, or recriminations from souls who agree with your position and are angry at being offed in the name of the cause.

Come to think of it, having characters who are among the most hated people in the Abyss has some potential, even if angsty potential.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 01:29 AM
Hey, the game doesn't end there, and it's not a railroad...more of a choke point or moment of crisis. Options branch dramatically after the decision's made- facing down souls in hell who have a grudge that the good characters didn't slay everyone to save them from their face, or recriminations from souls who agree with your position and are angry at being offed in the name of the cause.

Come to think of it, having characters who are among the most hated people in the Abyss has some potential, even if angsty potential.yes, absolutly a railroad. "do it my way or do nothing" which is what you repeatedly presented is is a railroad plot of the worst type. It's right up there with "no your character doesn't feel that way"

I'm not sure who would be interested in the "angsty potential"; it seems quite juvenile to me.

Foxer
2007-03-28, 01:31 AM
To be fair to Sardia here, Jayabalard, you've still got the option of sticking to your principles and suffering a heroic defeat. There's a good deal of dramatic potential in that.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 01:37 AM
To be fair to Sardia here, Jayabalard, you've still got the option of sticking to your principles and suffering a heroic defeat. There's a good deal of dramatic potential in that.Sorry, I disagree; if murder becomes "good", and refusal to murder becomes an "evil" act just because the GM wants the players to go on a murdering spree, that sounds like the GM is incapable of understanding what a roleplaying game is past the hack'n'slash level. So that leaves no dramatic potential, as a GM that juvenile can't handle a dramatic game.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 01:45 AM
yes, absolutly a railroad. "do it my way or do nothing" which is what you repeatedly presented is is a railroad plot of the worst type. It's right up there with "no your character doesn't feel that way"

I'm not sure who would be interested in the "angsty potential"; it seems quite juvenile to me.

Not in the least-- the characters can do it any way they feel like, but the world doesn't change just to give them the end they want, any more than a group of characters who are determined to conquer Mt. Celestia are likely to do so.
You size up the situation as best you can, make your decisions, and live with the consequences. And yes, the game world can give you awful, terrible, cruel and unfair decisions to make now and again, just as the real one can.
Besides, for any character who really takes his alignment seriously, a little dose of consequences is a good thing.
Picture the good character in the Abyss, who has maintained his alignment and tried up until the bitter end to find some other solution to the problem. Now picture a crowd of angry, bitter sufferers there who had previously enjoyed bliss in the upper planes and who are cursing him up and down because of what he didn't do.
Doing good when you're lauded and praised and it all ends up happy is easy. Try it when you're loathed and it all goes to...well, the Abyss... That's hard, and hard makes for good roleplaying.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 01:51 AM
Sorry, I disagree; if murder becomes "good", and refusal to murder becomes an "evil" act just because the GM wants the players to go on a murdering spree, that sounds like the GM is incapable of understanding what a roleplaying game is past the hack'n'slash level. So that leaves no dramatic potential, as a GM that juvenile can't handle a dramatic game.

Whoa there-- the powers that be on Celestia decided that the good of the many outweighed the good of the few, but that in no way mandates player actions. The players aren't going to blip over to evil alignment for refusing to go slaughtering away, either.

And if the deities that you considered the embodiment of law and goodness tell you to go do something you consider evil? Drama sandwich.

Talya
2007-03-28, 06:31 AM
And if the deities that you considered the embodiment of law and goodness tell you to go do something you consider evil? Drama sandwich.


Deities don't decide what good or evil is either. If they act in accordance with good as described in the SRD (or other material like the BoED), then they are good. If their behavior changes, so does their alignment. Good is objective in D&D...no God, mortal philosophy, or character rationalization can change it.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 06:48 AM
Deities don't decide what good or evil is either. If they act in accordance with good as described in the SRD (or other material like the BoED), then they are good. If their behavior changes, so does their alignment. Good is objective in D&D...no God, mortal philosophy, or character rationalization can change it.

That'd make it all the more notable if the LG deities posit killing everyone. They may not decide what's good or evil, but they do provide the main spells and effects which detect those concepts, which ought to muddy the waters more.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 07:21 AM
That'd make it all the more notable if the LG deities posit killing everyone. if by notable you mean absurd, then perhaps you're right. "That'd make it all the more notable absurd if the LG deities posit killing everyone. " sure, that sounds correct, since lawful good entities do not espouse "killing everyone" as a good act, ever.

The original on the other hand sounds like an incredibly juvenile campaign idea. It centers the campaign around something that is antithetical to the heroic fantasy genre, and and really there's not much reason to be playing D&D if you're not trying to fit into that genre (regardless of whether you're playing on the good side or evil side).

It's also is drifting from the topic. The absurd hypothetical is bad enough, but if you're going keep bringing it up, it should relate it to the topic, which is "the alignment of killing for the sake of killing alone" not "teen angst campaign ideas: how to get drama out of your group" or "The Kobayashi Maru for D&D: test the patience of your players while you test the character of their characters"

Krellen
2007-03-28, 09:34 AM
Motive/intent is very important to alignment.
Not as much as you think.


1) Consider a hermit who lives in a cave and never meets another living soul. But all day he plots how to kill and harm people. What's his alignment?
Schroedener's Hermit. His alignment is impossible to determine until you take him out of the cave. How he actually reacts to seeing another person would dictate this. If he attacks them, trying to play out one of his fantasies (likely), he's Neutral Evil. If he waits to determine their intent before deciding to attack or not, he's Neutral. If he invites them in, pours them some (unpoisoned) tea, and shares his food with them - having no desire to enact his fantasies in reality - he's Neutral Good.

Alignment means nothing in a vacuum.


2) What about a captive paladin who never gets to do anything but sit in a cell? His he really lawful good?
Schroedener's Paladin. If he really gets to do nothing but sit in the cell, with no contact with other people, food dispensed via machinery, no chance to steal more food, murder his way free, or so on, then his alignment also cannot be determined. Alignment still doesn't matter in a vacuum.

In a realistic dungeon situation, however, he would be able to speak with guards, likely other prisoners in other cells, and have numerous opportunities for actions. If he continues to do nothing, no, he ceases to be Lawful Good - without trying to bolter the spirits of the prisoners or sway the emotions of the guards, he isn't actively doing Good and, in time, would lose his "Good" alignment. Depending on how long he'd been a Paladin, however, it may take a very long time for his idleness to outweigh his action before his incarceration.


3) What about a farmer who feeds himself and his family, usually obeys the local constable, but cheats on his taxes. He wants to preserve life and help other people, but never gets the opportunity. Is he lawful good or neutral good or what?
He's Neutral. He in fact fits every single SRD defintion of Neutral. "Never gets the opportunity" is a false assumption; he's had every opportunity. What hasn't happened is having fate thrust into his lap to force him to pick the Good path - a stranger on his doorstep or whatnot.

But he has every opportunity in his every day life for Good: helping his neighbour repair his house after a storm, giving a few apples to the urchins while on his way to market, providing food for a feast for the poor on religious holidays (or an other occasion), etc. If he fails to do all these things - as many people would - he is Neutral.


Intent is vital to alignment. Both real world philosophy and the rules support that.
You've yet to provide evidence of this. The SRD does not support it.


Conversely, if we just look at actions, than a paladin who kills an innocent under mind control is evil.
Considering that he loses his paladinhood and has to have an atonement cast upon him for that - guess what? He is! Or, at the very least, he has done evil.


A demon who saves a child could be "turning good" even if his goal is to use the child as a ransom.
Single actions do not dictate alignment. A pattern of action does.


Lastly, many creatures are denied the choice of alignment. Technically, they are morally inculpaple as well. However, the game gives them the evil descriptor (separate from their alignment) to indicate that evil is a inherent part of their being (like being humanoid). I have to assume that other creatures do have the choice and the alignments provided are the norm for most creatures of that type.
Check the MM Glossary under 'Alignment'. You'll see that even "Always" allows exceptions. Your impressions of the alignment system are incorrect.

Foxer
2007-03-28, 10:37 AM
Sorry, I disagree; if murder becomes "good", and refusal to murder becomes an "evil" act just because the GM wants the players to go on a murdering spree, that sounds like the GM is incapable of understanding what a roleplaying game is past the hack'n'slash level. So that leaves no dramatic potential, as a GM that juvenile can't handle a dramatic game.

Hang on, who's saying that refusal to commit murder (or kill at all) is an evil act? By your argument, if faced with the choice between two evils, the truly "good" person would choose neither, and opt for a third path, no matter how futile it might seem (or actually be). That surely cannot be evil. Whilst I, personally, would allow a Good-aligned character to choose the lesser of two evils when all else seems futile, I wouldn't call a highly principled refusal to do so evil. Heck, my hat's off to that character (and his player).

To have a Lawful Good character, in apparent moral checkmate, like the characters at the end of Watchmen, take a stand and declare "no compromise, never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon" as Rorschach does would be brilliant drama.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 01:09 PM
I think that was Sardia was the one saying that; perhaps not so much as a few pages ago, but that did seem to be the implication.

I personally can't really see a situation where a paladin would not fall; either they follow the orders of gods of "good" and commit evil in the name of good and fall, or they refuse to follow the commands of gods of "good" turning their backs on their gods, and fall. The supposition that a good deity would ever take such a stance, is part of the reason that I reject the hypothetical situation as so absurd.

Of course, that's what the hypothetical situation kind of hinges on; without it, it really doesn't have any relevance to the alignment of Judge Death.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 08:38 PM
I personally can't really see a situation where a paladin would not fall; either they follow the orders of gods of "good" and commit evil in the name of good and fall, or they refuse to follow the commands of gods of "good" turning their backs on their gods, and fall. The supposition that a good deity would ever take such a stance, is part of the reason that I reject the hypothetical situation as so absurd.

Of course, that's what the hypothetical situation kind of hinges on; without it, it really doesn't have any relevance to the alignment of Judge Death.

I suppose the first question there is whether the Paladin is granted his abilities by his deity, or by the moral structure of the universe or whatever you'd like to call it. If you're a Paladin as long as Heironeous or whoever says you are, obedience would trump anything else, and no fall ensues.

EvilElitest
2007-03-28, 08:40 PM
I sense you're really rooting for a way to find a good-good solution here. :smallbiggrin:

Funny, i think that is the point of "Good". Not cowardly justfication and 'ends justfies the means" ideal


EE stated that low INT is the deciding factor in determining whether you are assigned a neutral alignment and moral decision making is not applicable. Neither the rules on INT or alignment support that viewpoint. Motive/intent is very important to alignment.
Oozes are not evil, because their int is lower than three.


1) Consider a hermit who lives in a cave and never meets another living soul. But all day he plots how to kill and harm people. What's his alignment?
He has commited no actions of evil or good, so i'd put him at neutral evil. He has noting BUT intent. Evil, unlike good does use intent. A CE person who saves a million people for a selfish reason is still CE, but a LG person who kills a million to "save" twice that number is LE.


2) What about a captive paladin who never gets to do anything but sit in a cell? His he really lawful good?
Yes. Lack of action works just like actions to an extent. But if the same paladin escaped and say a baby being kicked for no reason and did not try to stop it would LG


3) What about a farmer who feeds himself and his family, usually obeys the local constable, but cheats on his taxes. He wants to preserve life and help other people, but never gets the opportunity. Is he lawful good or neutral good or what?
Oh he wants to help people but does not do it? To bad. I'd say CN, as cheating on his taxes is a Chaotic act and self serving. If he used the money for a good cause, maybe CG.


Intent is vital to alignment. Both real world philosophy and the rules support that.
But actions counter it.

Conversely, if we just look at actions, than a paladin who kills an innocent under mind control is evil. A demon who saves a child could be "turning good" even if his goal is to use the child as a ransom.
Not the paladin's actions, it is the actions of the guy controling him.


from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-28, 08:43 PM
To have a Lawful Good character, in apparent moral checkmate, like the characters at the end of Watchmen, take a stand and declare "no compromise, never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon" as Rorschach does would be brilliant drama.

I mainly like the awful choice because it throws up a challenge to some of the basic assumptions under lawful good-- that if you're lawful and good everything will turn out for the best, that lawful good deities always act in a manner you expect, and that by pursuing law and goodness you will enjoy the respect and esteem of other good and lawful types.

What if doing the lawful and good thing meant that you were loathed by almost everyone who met you, that it caused things to actually become worse, and it gets even your deity peeved at you? That's a rough moral quandry. Of course, if you didn't like rough moral quandries, why play Lawful Good in the first place?

EvilElitest
2007-03-28, 09:26 PM
I mainly like the awful choice because it throws up a challenge to some of the basic assumptions under lawful good-- that if you're lawful and good everything will turn out for the best, that lawful good deities always act in a manner you expect, and that by pursuing law and goodness you will enjoy the respect and esteem of other good and lawful types.

What if doing the lawful and good thing meant that you were loathed by almost everyone who met you, that it caused things to actually become worse, and it gets even your deity peeved at you? That's a rough moral quandry. Of course, if you didn't like rough moral quandries, why play Lawful Good in the first place?

There is a difference between rough moral quandries and "My way or not way" situations.
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-28, 09:39 PM
There is a difference between rough moral quandries and "My way or not way" situations.
from,
EE

True enough, but if the character had infinite measures at his disposal to attend to the problem, there's no real quandry.

EvilElitest
2007-03-28, 10:09 PM
True enough, but if the character had infinite measures at his disposal to attend to the problem, there's no real quandry.

Nor much of a debat for that matter. limiting option is possible but their is Always a differnt way. Their is never just two solutions to a problem
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-28, 10:49 PM
Nor much of a debat for that matter. limiting option is possible but their is Always a differnt way. Their is never just two solutions to a problem
from,
EE

Five guys in a boat in the middle of a large and desolate ocean. No material to fish, and a fish-poor area generally. No birds. No magic. No food. No medical items available. No prospect of rescue for a long, long time.
The obvious solutions are cannibalism or everyone starving to death, but I can't see a third.

Exarch
2007-03-28, 11:35 PM
There's always drowning.

Norsesmithy
2007-03-28, 11:58 PM
Five guys in a boat in the middle of a large and desolate ocean. No material to fish, and a fish-poor area generally. No birds. No magic. No food. No medical items available. No prospect of rescue for a long, long time.
The obvious solutions are cannibalism or everyone starving to death, but I can't see a third.
Prepare to discover the power of prayer.

In real life instances of that situation, people have reported being saved by a sudden flux of fish not native to the area, finding a turtle to tie their raft to the pull them closer to shore and to fertile water, sudden rain showers when everyone is dieing of thirst, and they are in the storm less doldrums, all after sessions of deep and desperate prayer.

Now in our real world, where God is somewhat of a non interventionist, this can and does happen (not saying to go out and test this, that is a bad idea). Imagine what interventionists gods in a typical (non-eberon) setting would do.

In many of the Schrodinger's Paladin situations I have come across on the boards, I have to wonder, Why isn't the interventionist god he worships, umm, INTERVEINING?

I think many of the situations where a false choice is presented can be escaped by smart PC thinking, but the ones that are so contrived that the only resources the victim has are his soul and his willingness to compromise his ethics are solved by the very nature of Divinity in D&D. Perhaps you pledge in a desperate prayer to Kord, Pelor, Heronious, whom ever, to become one of his disciples, or the multiclass to a paladin, or cleric or something, devoted to him. The prayer should be answered because the gods as presented in D&D have little to lose and much to gain in that sort of situation.

If the gods themselves are despairing (because of a wisdom of like 3 on their part apparently), Go to AO. He is concerned with the fate of his creation, even if he lets the others handle the millenia to millenia drudgery, but an event that rocks the core of creation so badly that the "good" gods abandon their positions, leaves AO with a few job openings in middle management, say Divine Rank 12-15, type positions.

Even if you don't apply, you may find yourself accepted anyways, because you remained true to your alignment in the face of a crisis that caused Heronious to act like Hextor.

Sure AO may give you and your friends a decades (or centuries) long quest to unlock and learn to manipulate that power, but hey, adventure hook.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 07:50 AM
Five guys in a boat in the middle of a large and desolate ocean. No material to fish, and a fish-poor area generally. No birds. No magic. No food. No medical items available. No prospect of rescue for a long, long time.
The obvious solutions are cannibalism or everyone starving to death, but I can't see a third.Actually, you'll die of exposure and dehydration much faster than starvation, so having to resort to cannibalism under such circumstances probably won't even come up.

But the obvious solution for a paladin is the same as any other gentleman; when given the choice of being either a dead lion or a live jackal, you chose to be the dead lion.

I prefer to be a live lion, and in heroic fantasy there's usually a way to make that work.

Foxer
2007-03-29, 08:22 AM
Actually, you'll die of exposure and dehydration much faster than starvation, so having to resort to cannibalism under such circumstances probably won't even come up.

Actually, such situations can and have occurred, which is why maritime law covers the issue.


But the obvious solution for a paladin is the same as any other gentleman; when given the choice of being either a dead lion or a live jackal, you chose to be the dead lion.

"I am just going outside and may be some time." - Lawrence Oates

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 08:59 AM
Actually, such situations can and have occurred, which is why maritime law covers the issue.oh, I'm sure they have; but the human body can survive without food for far longer than it can without water, which is why I said "probably". Without water you'll be dead in about 3 days, while some people have lasted 3 weeks or longer without food.

Nice example by the way; I couldn't think of one off the top of my head.

Foxer
2007-03-29, 09:10 AM
I've got a quick question based on the five men in a boat scenario.

One of the ill-famed mariners, a paladin of the 3rd Level, is returning from a vital mission for the head of his order. He needs to get information back to his lord regarding the movements of a number of evil-aligned buccaneers. He is sworn to secrecy and cannot share his secret with the other survivors of the wreck. Which do you think is more important to him: his Lawful duty to survive and pass on the information he had gathered, or his duty to preserve the lives of his fellow survivors?

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 09:20 AM
1. The lives of the survivors.
2. Pass on the information to his lord.
3. Oath of secrecy.

I know you said "vital information" but "movements of buccaneers" doesn't really sound that important or time-critical, nor does it make much sense why it would be of utmost importance to keep it secret (other than his oath).

Foxer
2007-03-29, 09:50 AM
So the marooned Paladin will attempt all three actions, but will not risk the lives of his fellow survivors over his mission. No cannibalism for him then, but he'd be unlikely to pull an Oates and commit suicide to give the others a better chance, unless there was no other option.

Thinking a little more about alignments and the priorities of individuals, I think religion would be a factor that further muddies the waters.

A cleric of the God of Truth would be Lawful Good, as is his deity, but might place "honesty" higher than preserving life in his list of priorities than a Lawful Good Cleric of the God of Compassion. He wouldn't lie to preserve a life (although he could refuse to answer a question that would lead to somebody dying).

I think that next time I run D&D I'll ask the players to record their alignment description in order of priority. Thus a cleric of the God of Truth will be Lawful Good, whilst a cleric of Compassion might be Good Lawful.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 10:53 AM
Thinking a little more about alignments and the priorities of individuals, I think religion would be a factor that further muddies the waters.That's the main problem with the sort of hypothetical that generally get tossed around in alignment/morality discussions; they usually either in such a vacuum that the situation is too ambiguous to really be worth anything, or they're so far fetched and over simplified that people's suspension of belief fails them (or both).

Recording alignment in order priority may help, but really, using alignment is one of the worst ways of deciding your character's motivations; and as far off the original topic as we are, that's a very different thread.

EvilElitest
2007-03-29, 02:02 PM
Five guys in a boat in the middle of a large and desolate ocean. No material to fish, and a fish-poor area generally. No birds.

Foolish situation. Yet one more of your railroad plots. I'll presume this is some kind of magic destroyed region.


No magic. No food. No medical items available. No prospect of rescue for a long, long time.
The obvious solutions are cannibalism or everyone starving to death, but I can't see a third.

Here i a third. Row. Row until you find a ship. Use a mirror or dagger to reflect the sun to see if anyone can see you. Look for land. Swim under water for a bit to see what is down their. Humans can last about three weeks without food. Do we have fresh water. If we don't, then resoting to cannibalism is meanenless as we will just die of thirst. If we do have water, we have three weeks to find land or a boat. Now if worst comes to worst, I has the paladin will tell everyone that one of will need to be eaten. I will offer to sacerfice myself. If no body else steps forth, i will tell them my vital infomation and commite Sebbku (sounds fun). Sure i swore and oath of secercy, but i also swore an oath not to hurt innocents. So what do i chose? I'll rather pass the infomation along rather than be arrogent and assume my life is better than others and commit murder. Hopefully my flesh will allow them to live for three more weeks.
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-29, 09:39 PM
Foolish situation. Yet one more of your railroad plots. I'll presume this is some kind of magic destroyed region.


Actually, this situation's taken from real life. Check out the unfortunate story of the Essex - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaleship_Essex

If they don't have a cleric (died when the ship sank, perhaps) or a spellcaster capable of transporting the lot of them out of there (low-level, perhaps), the characters find themselves in quite a pickle.

Sardia
2007-03-29, 09:43 PM
I prefer to be a live lion, and in heroic fantasy there's usually a way to make that work.

This could be the crux of the issue-- what if you're not playing D&D as heroic fantasy? At least not shiny-heroic. The Dark Sun setting pops to mind as one like that.

EvilElitest
2007-03-29, 10:16 PM
Actually, this situation's taken from real life. Check out the unfortunate story of the Essex - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaleship_Essex

So? Aligments don't exist in real life. Nether do paladin.
Sure one boat could not find food, but according to you i will NEVER find food no matter what i do. Or birds.


If they don't have a cleric (died when the ship sank, perhaps) or a spellcaster capable of transporting the lot of them out of there (low-level, perhaps), the characters find themselves in quite a pickle.
Do we have fresh water. If we don't, well then their is nothing we can do about that we are going to dye in three days. if we do, we can last for three weeks before having to eat eachother and then only if one person chooses to sacerfice themselves. I as the paladin will do it, hoping that my body will allow them a few more days before it goes bad. Mabye they can use my flesh as bait. Anyways, even after i am dead, then they have about three more weeks to find land.
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-29, 10:52 PM
So? Aligments don't exist in real life. Nether do paladin.
Sure one boat could not find food, but according to you i will NEVER find food no matter what i do. Or birds.

Let's just say the characters are about as likely to reach food as the Essex crew were-- we'll give 'em a 5% chance per day, say, and they just keep being unlucky. (92...crud. 6...so close. Drat. 19...darn... Say, the halfling looks kinda plump...)
In any case, the situation is unknowable from the perspective of the players. Food might come tomorrow or never, but it hasn't so far.

Is the main objection the notion that the fantasy might wind up being very, very unheroic indeed?

Foxer
2007-03-30, 05:48 AM
Is the main objection the notion that the fantasy might wind up being very, very unheroic indeed?

I think so. Perhaps it would be fair to say that because being good isn't easy, it's reasonable - in a fantasy game - to present good-aligned heroes with tough choices from time to time, but not constantly. After all, nothing says good always triumphs (if it did, we wouldn't be talking about heroic fantasy - we'd be talking about Saturday morning cartoons), but, equally, if good can't triumph, what's the point of playing? If you want to play the sort of dark fantasy in which good is ultimately futile, you've got Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer FRP that do the job better than D&D.

In other words, it's okay if the BBEG is trying to get the paladin to fall. If the GM is trying to get the paladin to fall, that's bad GMing and contrary to the spirit of the game.

Sardia
2007-03-30, 06:07 AM
In other words, it's okay if the BBEG is trying to get the paladin to fall. If the GM is trying to get the paladin to fall, that's bad GMing and contrary to the spirit of the game.

Okay, what if the GM doesn't have the Paladin fall, as long as the character or player puts a lot of thought into the ramifications of what he's doing and is convinced that whatever action he takes is the best route?

"You have maintained your duty to obey your deity. You don't fall."
"You have maintained your course based on moral principles you hold inviolate. You don't fall."
"You decided it was too much trouble to think about, flipped a coin, and went with it. You fall."

Not that the player knows this, unless you have two or more paladins in the party who pick opposite courses of action.

Foxer
2007-03-30, 06:22 AM
Okay, what if the GM doesn't have the Paladin fall, as long as the character or player puts a lot of thought into the ramifications of what he's doing and is convinced that whatever action he takes is the best route?

"You have maintained your duty to obey your deity. You don't fall."
"You have maintained your course based on moral principles you hold inviolate. You don't fall."
"You decided it was too much trouble to think about, flipped a coin, and went with it. You fall."

Not that the player knows this, unless you have two or more paladins in the party who pick opposite courses of action.

Yes, that's pretty much how I'd run "sadistic choice" scenarios, because I judge morality by intent. "You chose what you perceived as the lesser of two evils out of a desire to do good? Well, maybe you have committed an evil act, but your motives were pure, so you don't fall."

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 07:58 AM
This could be the crux of the issue-- what if you're not playing D&D as heroic fantasy? At least not shiny-heroic. The Dark Sun setting pops to mind as one like that./shrug ... like foxer said, if you want a dark fantasy where good is futile, Call of Cthullu and Warhammer do a better job of that than D&D; do either of them include paladins?

Sardia
2007-03-30, 09:25 PM
/shrug ... like foxer said, if you want a dark fantasy where good is futile, Call of Cthullu and Warhammer do a better job of that than D&D; do either of them include paladins?

Warhammer does after a fashion-- church-allied knights with strong morals. Then again, killing someone who might be innocent because there's a chance he's guilty is high virtue in the Old World, and also probably the safest, sanest, thing to do.
Could be because Warhammer traditionally considered Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, and Chaotic to be five entirely separate alignments.

In any case, some of this probably does just comes down to the style of game the DM's running.
If a player insists that the Paladin's moral code must be interpreted in his own fashion, and the DM errs if he disagrees with that...yeah, someone's going to leave the game.

Edit: As for Dark Fantasy and D&D, Ravenloft and Dark Sun both did their share, and did it well.

EvilElitest
2007-03-30, 09:32 PM
Okay, what if the GM doesn't have the Paladin fall, as long as the character or player puts a lot of thought into the ramifications of what he's doing and is convinced that whatever action he takes is the best route?

He can use all the justfication and thought into the ramifications he wants but taht does not change the actions. And miko was convinced that the action she took was the best route and she was wronge


"You have maintained your duty to obey your deity. You don't fall."
1. Deities don't decied paladins powers.
2. If your deity says don't kill innocents, then yes you have fallen


"You have maintained your course based on moral principles you hold inviolate. You don't fall."
No you didn't, you freaken broke them in an "Ends justfies the means" ideal


"You decided it was too much trouble to think about, flipped a coin, and went with it. You fall."
That player would not last long as a paladin i would imagine.


Not that the player knows this, unless you have two or more paladins in the party who pick opposite courses of action.
If they both commited "lesser evils" for the "greater good" then they would both fall .
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-30, 09:50 PM
He can use all the justfication and thought into the ramifications he wants but taht does not change the actions. And miko was convinced that the action she took was the best route and she was wronge

And you know why she lost her powers? Because Rich Burlew said she did. If he chose differently, she'd be walking around in a blue cloak right now. But it's his comic, so it's his set of morals.

Try this-- pick any other topic that's intrinsic to your game world (as a player), from elven sexuality to dwarven drinking customs, and tell the GM that his interpretation is wrong, that yours is right, and there's no way you're changing your view.

EvilElitest
2007-03-30, 09:53 PM
And you know why she lost her powers? Because Rich Burlew said she did. If he chose differently, she'd be walking around in a blue cloak right now. But it's his comic, so it's his set of morals.

Wait, are you calling Rich a fake? Dude, Rich is following the D&D idea of the code, as in
DON'T FREAKING BREAK IT
Not that damn hard, why do you need to find all these dam justifications and try to wigle out of it.


Try this-- pick any other topic that's intrinsic to your game world (as a player), from elven sexuality to dwarven drinking customs, and tell the GM that his interpretation is wrong, that yours is right, and there's no way you're changing your view.
Good for you. Now its relevence on proving Judge Death good works HOW?
from
EE

Sardia
2007-03-30, 09:57 PM
Wait, are you calling Rich a fake? Dude, Rich is following the D&D idea of the code, as in
DON'T FREAKING BREAK IT
Not that damn hard, why do you need to find all these dam justifications and try to wigle out of it.

Good for you. Now its relevence on proving Judge Death good works HOW?
from
EE

Not a bit-- but since he's running the world, the questions of interpretation of good and evil and the Paladin's code are his to make.

And I've never claimed that Judge Death was Good-- I think my first take on it was Lawful Neutral, actually.

EvilElitest
2007-03-30, 10:08 PM
Not a bit-- but since he's running the world, the questions of interpretation of good and evil and the Paladin's code are his to make.

But he is still following the rules for paladins and falling.



And I've never claimed that Judge Death was Good-- I think my first take on it was Lawful Neutral, actually.
Killing people simple because they exist is LN? What they hell is evil in your book?
from,
EE

Sardia
2007-03-30, 10:30 PM
But he is still following the rules for paladins and falling.


Killing people simple because they exist is LN? What they hell is evil in your book?
from,
EE

True. But in questions of what qualifies as falling or not, it's his call.

Evil would be enslaving or killing them all for no better reason than your personal gain or entertainment. Also, if you have no particular concept of what good or evil are, by my take on it you aren't either one. That leaves neutral.

Norsesmithy
2007-03-31, 02:07 PM
I think killing for personal gain is less psycotic than killing "Just Because."

At least the man killing for personal gain has a -1, 1 situation, Judge Death has a -1,0 situation. Therefore, someone killing for their own gain is better, morally, than someone who just decides that all life must be exterminated.

Who is the worse person? One who fishes in a lake at an unsustainable rate, causing the trout population to crash, because he loves fish? Or one who just dumps a barrel of poison into the lake and kills all the fish?