PDA

View Full Version : Good and Evil, and the stupid versions thereof



Inevitability
2014-11-26, 12:02 PM
I've seen people here state multiple times that people do not do evil for the sake of doing evil. If you are doing evil for evil's sake, you're stupid evil and unrealistic. I agree with these people.

However, how does this apply to good? Many D&D characters do good for the sake of doing good. In which way is this not unrealistic?

PersonMan
2014-11-26, 12:27 PM
Well, in some cases both exist.

But 'I do it because it's the right thing' [and I would feel guilty if I didn't due to my upbringing and/or beliefs] is something that happens. On the other hand, 'I do it because it's the wrong thing' isn't really seen in reality, apart from some situations where one is rebelling against a social order or similar - and in these cases, one generally doesn't turn to killing/destroying to do so, but tends to stick to more harmless things.

jedipotter
2014-11-26, 02:26 PM
Well ''realistic''.....

There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.

Gnoman
2014-11-26, 02:39 PM
All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

Stupid Good is things like charging the warlord's army alone instead of waiting for reinforcements, honoring a deal you made after you learn that the artifact you retrieved is really the power source of a doomsday weapon instead of the harmless table lamp you thought you were retrieving because "I promised to get it for him, even though I didn't know what it was", or agreeing to serve an evil computer that will use your null-magic powers to take over the world because your father promised that when he was still evil.

Fiery Diamond
2014-11-26, 04:13 PM
All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

Stupid Good is things like charging the warlord's army alone instead of waiting for reinforcements, honoring a deal you made after you learn that the artifact you retrieved is really the power source of a doomsday weapon instead of the harmless table lamp you thought you were retrieving because "I promised to get it for him, even though I didn't know what it was", or agreeing to serve an evil computer that will use your null-magic powers to take over the world because your father promised that when he was still evil.

What story does that last one come from?

Yora
2014-11-26, 04:43 PM
Good and Evil are artificial constructions that basically mean what whatever the person who uses them considers to be "right" or "wrong". You can't just mirror them, as one is at least in theory always "correct" and the other always "incorrect".

If we say someone does something evil, we don't say that it doesn't work, but simply that it works in a way we don't agree with.

Characters can mean well and act dumb, but good for the sake of good is not the same as evil for the sake of evil.

Seto
2014-11-26, 04:49 PM
All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

Stupid Good is things like charging the warlord's army alone instead of waiting for reinforcements, honoring a deal you made after you learn that the artifact you retrieved is really the power source of a doomsday weapon instead of the harmless table lamp you thought you were retrieving because "I promised to get it for him, even though I didn't know what it was", or agreeing to serve an evil computer that will use your null-magic powers to take over the world because your father promised that when he was still evil.

Well, I completely agree with you on the fact that jedipotter's examples were Good and in no way Stupid Good. However, ironically enough, all three of your examples scream of Lawful Stupid to me.

Stupid Good is : - being blind to the fact that Evil exists (that's where Elan started). Refusing to kill a rampaging Demon because "killing is wrong and the poor thing can be redeemed thanks to the power of love", etc. Note that I'm not discarding redemption, that's one of the most Good things to do. But there are cases where it's stupid to try it.
- Self-sacrifice when there's absolutely no point. Jedipotter's bomb example was out of line because there were no other solutions (that the characters know of) that would help them save the villagers, and deciding to save their own skins is Neutral. If however, you're a Fighter who insists on taking the bomb with you and jump with it to another dimension, when your Wizard buddy could defuse it without a risk, you're being Stupid Good.

Lanaya
2014-11-26, 04:52 PM
There's also the Miko version of Stupid Good where you kill people for littering because that is a selfish and evil act and it is the duty of all good-aligned individuals to purge evil wherever they see it.

SiuiS
2014-11-26, 04:56 PM
I've seen people here state multiple times that people do not do evil for the sake of doing evil. If you are doing evil for evil's sake, you're stupid evil and unrealistic. I agree with these people.

However, how does this apply to good? Many D&D characters do good for the sake of doing good. In which way is this not unrealistic?

Yora wins this one.


Well ''realistic''.....

There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

I do this. Complacency and tacit approval motivate people to do more bad things.


2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.

This isn't good. This is lawful.


3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.

This isn't good. This is entirely unrelated to alignment in any way.


Good and Evil are artificial constructions that basically mean what whatever the person who uses them considers to be "right" or "wrong". You can't just mirror them, as one is at least in theory always "correct" and the other always "incorrect".

If we say someone does something evil, we don't say that it doesn't work, but simply that it works in a way we don't agree with.

Characters can mean well and act dumb, but good for the sake of good is not the same as evil for the sake of evil.

Well spoke.

Seto
2014-11-26, 05:11 PM
There's also the Miko version of Stupid Good where you kill people for littering because that is a selfish and evil act and it is the duty of all good-aligned individuals to purge evil wherever they see it.

Once again, Lawful Stupid. Key-word here ? "Duty". Trying to create unified and coherent behavior in society, according to one's own values, is Lawful.

Gnoman
2014-11-26, 05:18 PM
What story does that last one come from?

Man From Mundania, book 12 in Piers Anthony's Xanth Trilogy. To elaborate:

Evil Magician Murphy, a former King of the magical land of Xanth and his future wife (an evil sorceress) were released from magical imprisonment during a brief time when the magic of the land of Xanth went away. During his escape, he made the acquaintance of the evil Com-Pewter, who attempted to imprison them, but Murphy's magical talent of making things go wrong foiled the machine. They made a bargain to transport the outlaws to the magicless land of Mundania (otherwise known as Earth) in exchange for their firstborn son (which seemed rather unlikely, as they hated each other at the time), who will be as Good as they are Evil becoming a servant of Com-Pewter in the event he enters Xanth. They stuck together because they were the only ones from Xanth in the entire world, learned to speak Mundane (English), and eventually married and had a kid. Although by this point they had become nonevil, they never spoke of the bargain (or Xanth, or magic in general) because little Grey had virtually no chance of ever entering Xanth. Naturally, as an adult he met up with a Princess of Xanth who took him home with her, where he learned first of his incredibly powerful magic talent for getting rid of magic and then of the bargain, which he felt honor-bound to honor. Until by accident he entered into the service of the Magician of Information and learned that service to that wizard took precedence over any agreement, contract, or service with any other entity.

Broken Twin
2014-11-26, 05:39 PM
I dunno, the vast majority of my Good characters didn't do good for the sake of Good, they did it because they wanted to help people. You don't do things for Good or for Evil, you do things either for yourself or for others. Whether or not your actions are moral or not depends on the situation.

McBars
2014-11-26, 05:42 PM
If I wanted reality I wouldn't play D&D. Besides, stupid can be a lot of fun sometimes.

veti
2014-11-26, 05:55 PM
There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.

(1): Obsession with "truth" is more Lawful than Good. (Witness Tarquin vs Haley.) And it's not necessarily "stupid" to tell the truth in that scenario, even though quite a few (basically, chaotic) people might describe it as such. Because if you're willing to lie in that situation, what else are you willing to lie about? More importantly, others who saw you do it may start thinking you'll lie about certain other things, and before you know it, your credibility is shot every which way. Particularly if you personally gained from this crime.
(2): It may (or may not) be the superior's job to ensure that "grey" acts don't go unchallenged. If the superior "just lets it go" in that case, then she's doing something worse than the original "grey" act - she's covering up. If she's, say, a police commissioner - then a cover-up will corrode the community's faith in the police. Do that just a few times, and before you know it your cops are no longer strolling about cheerfully greeting neighbours, they're cowering in cars and behind riot shields.
(3): If the town has been evacuated, then "continuing to hunt for the bomb until 11:59" is not Good at all, just Stupid. If for some reason it can't be evacuated, then quitting the hunt before then means abandoning innocents to their fate.

I would pin "stupid good" as:
(a) Doesn't save a persecuted slave, but instead persists in trying to free all the slaves in one go, thereby triggering a general revolt that gets most of them killed.
(b) Refuses to do a deal with a mildly evil party, even on advantageous terms, to suppress a much more evil party.
(c) Criticises Measure X as worthless because it only fixes part of a problem. For instance, "there's no point in trying to evacuate, we'd never get everyone out in time".

Examples of "stupid evil" would be:
(x) Killing the rich merchant, instead of just moderately taxing her so that she can come back with more money later.
(y) Kicking the little old lady just because she's nobody special, without considering that others who are someone special can see you doing it.
(z) Refusing point-blank when your superior tries to send you on a dangerous mission. The smart choice is, obviously, to play along until you get the chance to skip out or shirk without losing credit. (Read the Flashman Papers for lessons, if you need them.)

Sartharina
2014-11-26, 06:46 PM
Evil for the sake of Evil is only "stupid" in a world without a patron of Evil. But in fantasy worlds that patron usually exists, and is totally awesome and lucrative as well.

Megalomania is also fun. And if you have power... why not use it?

Tengu_temp
2014-11-26, 07:50 PM
I see a lot of examples of the "too strict and inflexible" variant of Stupid Good here, but not the "too wide-eyed and trusting" type. The most typical behaviour of such characters is taking mercy and redemption too far and simply letting go captured bad guys, even violent murderers and evil cultists, without even making sure they won't repeat their evil deeds.

jedipotter
2014-11-26, 08:54 PM
All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

Star Trek gives a great example: Evil Cardassian does horrible evil experiments in life forms and builds up a huge library of knowledge. A bit later an alien attaches itself to a human. A quick search shows that only the Cardassian's knowledge can help save the life of the human. So what do you do? Ignore the knowledge gain using utter evil? Just ''hope and pray'' that you can find another way? Or is it ok to say ''we can use the knowledge for good'' and just not worry where it came from?

How about the classic Demon Kickstart. At one time Slog was a nobody, but then he sold his soul to a deman and the demon jump started his carrier. So, now, after Slog has spent 20 years ''doing good all on his own'' is it ok to ruin his life by digging up the dirt that he got help from a demon 20 years ago?

Or the Robin Hood twist: A person Robs the Mob, and then take that money to pay off the debt of a church, day care center or foodbank. Does that place refuse the ''blood money'' and close down?




2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

Yea, this is like if someone is badly hurt you rush them to the nearest hospital...and ignore things like stop signs and red lights. You can make it to the hospital and save the persons life, but idiot Robocop will still give you 15 tickets for all the traffic laws you broke.





3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

It's only hero good if it's direct.




Stupid Good is : - being blind to the fact that Evil exists (that's where Elan started). Refusing to kill a rampaging Demon because "killing is wrong and the poor thing can be redeemed thanks to the power of love", etc. Note that I'm not discarding redemption, that's one of the most Good things to do. But there are cases where it's stupid to try it.

Yea, stupid good is so the ''we only use violence as a last resort and we never get to the last resort''. They are the fools that even when people are dying around them, they are still trying to talk peace.

The Doctor is a great example here. The Master has killed tons of people and done all sorts of evil. The only way to stop him is to kill him. But the Doctor wimps out time after time and lets the Master go. And the Doctor often gets tons of people killed too. After the first 15 minutes when the Doctor ''thinks he is on to something'', he just lets the other humans blunder around an be killed by the monster of the week.

Any good person who says the Stupid ''if we do anything we will stood to their level'' is showing themselves to be Stupid Good.

You see Stupid Good with things like ''if we just give everyone free money the world will be a perfect place'' or ''We accept everyone'' or ''everyone has good in them''.

Lanaya
2014-11-26, 09:20 PM
Once again, Lawful Stupid. Key-word here ? "Duty".

No it isn't, that was a random word I happened to shove in there because it seemed to fit. "I kill evil stuff because killing evil stuff is a Good act" is not Lawful Stupid, it is by definition Stupid Good.

Sartharina
2014-11-26, 10:12 PM
No it isn't, that was a random word I happened to shove in there because it seemed to fit. "I kill evil stuff because killing evil stuff is a Good act" is not Lawful Stupid, it is by definition Stupid Good.I'd rather use "Chronic Drunk Drivers intoxicated to the point of being a danger to everyone else" as an example of 'Minorly' Evil People Being Killed On Sight over Litterers (Who don't ping as evil). Then again, after the death of too many good people (Some close to me) from drunk drivers, killing people for driving drunk is definitely something I'd consider a Good Act. It's stupid Good if you kill them when they're driving and the loss of control would kill more innocents. It becomes Lawful Stupid if you just kill drunks regardless of ability to handle their intoxication or awareness of their drunk driving problem. (I can't be too judgemental of all drunk drivers, though, since I only barely avoided a DUI once after friends who should have known better talked me into driving home after they let me have too many mixed drinks I didn't know the potency of. Never doing that ever again.)


What makes killing Evil things "Stupid" Good (While still Good), is the social repercussions... especially with Paladins and their Evildar. For some reason, not everyone trusts the word and judgement of a paladin (They really should), and cannot see what a Paladin sees. When people see a Paladin cut down a man simply for pinging 'evil', they ignore what that alignment actually means, do not see the Evil for themselves, and do not trust the Paladin's word on it - instead, they see someone cut down a man who's probably seeming to be minding his own business, even if his own business is actually something that results in the death and suffering of innocent people. And, then there's also the "Power Vaccuum" issue of killing Evil - While it may be "Good" in the short run, the loss of services provided by that evil person can lead to long-term suffering as other forces move in and fill the void, many worse than the original evil.

Jay R
2014-11-26, 10:29 PM
One of the problems with the D&D alignment system is that it presents goo and evil as equal, independent things. It's just not so.

There are things I want to do. There are things I'm supposed to do. When they don't conflict, there is no moral choice - I do what I want, which is also what I'm supposed to do.

But they often conflict. An evil act is doing what I want when it conflicts with what I'm supposed to do. A good act is doing what I'm supposed to do when it conflicts with what I want to do.

A moral choice isn't choosing between being evil and being good. It's choosing between doing what I want and doing what I'm supposed to.

If I find a wallet with $100 and ID, I might:
1. Keep it. I don't do this to be evil. I do it to have $100.
2. Give it back to the owner. I do this because it's the right thing to do, not because I don't want $100.

Therefore, nobody does something because it's evil. They do it for selfish reasons. But they refrain from doing it because it's good.

Talakeal
2014-11-26, 11:02 PM
One of the problems with the D&D alignment system is that it presents goo and evil as equal, independent things. It's just not so.

There are things I want to do. There are things I'm supposed to do. When they don't conflict, there is no moral choice - I do what I want, which is also what I'm supposed to do.

But they often conflict. An evil act is doing what I want when it conflicts with what I'm supposed to do. A good act is doing what I'm supposed to do when it conflicts with what I want to do.

A moral choice isn't choosing between being evil and being good. It's choosing between doing what I want and doing what I'm supposed to.

If I find a wallet with $100 and ID, I might:
1. Keep it. I don't do this to be evil. I do it to have $100.
2. Give it back to the owner. I do this because it's the right thing to do, not because I don't want $100.

Therefore, nobody does something because it's evil. They do it for selfish reasons. But they refrain from doing it because it's good.

What about spite? I don't need 100 dollars, but I will take it simply to deprive you because I don't like you?

Sith_Happens
2014-11-26, 11:03 PM
On the other hand, 'I do it because it's the wrong thing' isn't really seen in reality

It's often seen quite believably in fiction, though. Case in point: the Joker in The Dark Knight. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" indeed.

SiuiS
2014-11-26, 11:05 PM
It's often seen quite believably in fiction, though. Case in point: the Joker in The Dark Knight. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" indeed.

The problem is, the idea you're supporting there (even diabolus advocati) propsed that these people are rational actors. The joker was specifically supposed to be insane.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-26, 11:12 PM
Then again, after the death of too many good people (Some close to me) from drunk drivers, killing people for driving drunk is definitely something I'd consider a Good Act.

So edgy I cut myself.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-26, 11:25 PM
The problem is, the idea you're supporting there (even diabolus advocati) propsed that these people are rational actors. The joker was specifically supposed to be insane.

I see no such proposition.:smallconfused:

Sartharina
2014-11-26, 11:35 PM
The problem is, the idea you're supporting there (even diabolus advocati) propsed that these people are rational actors. The joker was specifically supposed to be insane.He's a rationalizing actor. And even then - the Joker was someone who had a worldview he wanted to demonstrate. And believe it or not, there are people who commit atrocities just to 'make noise' and assert themselves in the world, and are as sane as everyone else. I think there's merit to the idea that Sanity is just the most commonly-accepted form of Insanity.


... and threadjumping in response to the subject.

Sure. That doesn't make it any less psychotic. The universe happens to label people semi-arbitrarily. That does not give anyone the right to wipe out a people group they deem unworthy to live.Not semi-arbitrarily. People who are Evil or Good earn those labels, or are made of those labels. And they do have the right to wipe out a group they are in absolute opposition to.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 12:09 AM
Not semi-arbitrarily. People who are Evil or Good earn those labels, or are made of those labels. And they do have the right to wipe out a group they are in absolute opposition to.

That's a very absolutist, black and white view on good and evil. Even at its most morally simplistic DND is canonically more complex than that.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 12:28 AM
That's a very absolutist, black and white view on good and evil. Even at its most morally simplistic DND is canonically more complex than that.

This is a cosmic war we're talking about. There's a reason Neutrality is embraced as a moral stance, seeing both Good and Evil as hostile-to-human-life-as-we-know-it. Evil loves to see people suffer. Good has no room for mortal foibles.

Slipperychicken
2014-11-27, 12:37 AM
people are rational actors.

If by "Rational", we mean to refer to the rational decision process (one expression of which is detailed in this picture), then no. Human decision-making, however accurate it can be, heavily relies on heuristics (basically, cognitive shortcuts or rules-of-thumb) which serve to minimize cognitive resource expenditure while still achieving an acceptable result. That means our brains are wired to get us a "good-enough" outcome with the least thought possible, and our decision process has little to do with rationality.

Peoples' irrationality is not only well-known and documented, but it's also consistent and predictable. Plenty of studies have demonstrated this idea, and innumerable people throughout history have learned to exploit (and profit from) flaws in human reasoning.

Also, I've heard it argued that rationality itself is impossible in practice because it requires perfect information.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/TE-Systems-RationalPlanningAndDecisionMaking.png


However, if we take the layperson's definition of rationality, which essentially boils down to good decision-making and objectivity, then the "good decision-making" part is certainly possible, although the objectivity part isn't as likely.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 12:42 AM
This is a cosmic war we're talking about. There's a reason Neutrality is embraced as a moral stance, seeing both Good and Evil as hostile-to-human-life-as-we-know-it. Evil loves to see people suffer. Good has no room for mortal foibles.

Almost nobody is good or evil because they consciously side with the cosmic forces of good or evil. For neutrality, that's even rarer - most neutral people are simply normal folk who don't do enough good or evil to count as either, the people who are consciously neutral-aligned are mostly some druids and other crazies.

Also, "killing someone just because they ping on your evildar is still murder and an evil act" is an official rule for both AD&D and DND 3e, while in 4e you have no way of detecting someone else's alignment. Like I said, even at its most morally simplistic DND is more complex than your interpretation.

In fact, defining the forces of good as seeing everything in black and white absolutes and giving free pass to mercilessly slaughtering everyone they see as evil is a rather scary perspective for me. That doesn't sound good at all! LN taken to the extreme, perhaps, but good has to realize life is rarely simple, people's morality is usually way more complex than pure good/pure evil/everything in between, and finally, justice needs room for redemption.

Prince Raven
2014-11-27, 12:48 AM
And you think weakening the enemy by any means necessary is something a Good god would accept as justification for mass murder?

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 01:13 AM
Almost nobody is good or evil because they consciously side with the cosmic forces of good or evil. For neutrality, that's even rarer - most neutral people are simply normal folk who don't do enough good or evil to count as either, the people who are consciously neutral-aligned are mostly some druids and other crazies.

Also, "killing someone just because they ping on your evildar is still murder and an evil act" is an official rule for both AD&D and DND 3e, while in 4e you have no way of detecting someone else's alignment. Like I said, even at its most morally simplistic DND is more complex than your interpretation.

In fact, defining the forces of good as seeing everything in black and white absolutes and giving free pass to mercilessly slaughtering everyone they see as evil is a rather scary perspective for me. That doesn't sound good at all! LN taken to the extreme, perhaps, but good has to realize life is rarely simple, people's morality is usually way more complex than pure good/pure evil/everything in between, and finally, justice needs room for redemption.Yes, the alignments are scary - but Room for Redemption does not equal Tolerance for Evil. Most people are ignorant of the Cosmic Wars between Good and Evil and Law and Chaos. But ignorance doesn't make them go away, and their actions and lifestyles continue to feed the machines of war, no matter how much they may wish otherwise.


And you think weakening the enemy by any means necessary is something a Good god would accept as justification for mass murder?When that enemy is Evil Itself, and this is a war... then yes. But care needs to be taken to not strengthen and galvanize the enemy instead of weaken it.

enderlord99
2014-11-27, 01:16 AM
Any good person who says the Stupid ''if we do anything we will stoop to their level'' is showing themselves to be Stupid Good.Bad example: they're actually showing themselves to be Lawful Stupid, not necessarily Stupid Good. They're probably both, but only one is proven there.


You see Stupid Good with things like ''if we just give everyone free money the world will be a perfect place'' or ''We accept everyone'' or ''everyone has good in them''.
These are, indeed, decent examples of "stupid good."

:smallsmile:

jedipotter
2014-11-27, 01:17 AM
Almost nobody is good or evil because they consciously side with the cosmic forces of good or evil. For neutrality, that's even rarer - most neutral people are simply normal folk who don't do enough good or evil to count as either, the people who are consciously neutral-aligned are mostly some druids and other crazies.

I don't think most people would be neutral though. Most people side with good or evil not just by choice, but by life style.

If you find a 100 gold bag and keep it for any reason, you have done an evil act. After all a good person would turn the money in and/or try to find the owner.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 01:54 AM
Yes, the alignments are scary - but Room for Redemption does not equal Tolerance for Evil. Most people are ignorant of the Cosmic Wars between Good and Evil and Law and Chaos. But ignorance doesn't make them go away, and their actions and lifestyles continue to feed the machines of war, no matter how much they may wish otherwise.

When that enemy is Evil Itself, and this is a war... then yes. But care needs to be taken to not strengthen and galvanize the enemy instead of weaken it.

I think you're going with your own headcanon here. There are many settings where there's a constant cosmic war between celestial and demonic forces, and where both sides are dogmatic, scary and don't really care much about mortals (or care about them in creepy ways), but DND is not one of those settings. And in those settings the celestial forces aren't really good - they're usually extremely lawful, but not good.


I don't think most people would be neutral though. Most people side with good or evil not just by choice, but by life style.

If you find a 100 gold bag and keep it for any reason, you have done an evil act. After all a good person would turn the money in and/or try to find the owner.

I think most people are neutral, but good and evil people are decently common - say, if 60% of the population is neutral, then 20% is good and 20% is evil. A typical person will commit both acts of good and of evil, and none of them will be very big, alignment-deciding acts; and while doing many small acts of good and no or very few acts of evil is enough to be good, most people don't do enough of either of them to go either way.

Seto
2014-11-27, 03:05 AM
I'll add that, interestingly enough, if we look at TV Tropes' definitions, there's a discrepancy between stupidity on the two axis (axes ? axises ? Oh my God I feel a Buffy reference coming on) :
- Lawful Stupid ("You violated the traffic laws ! Taste steel, fiend !") and Chaotic Stupid (A puppy ? Will I kick it, pet it, or paint it purple ? Oh but I have to jump off that bridge first, because that's unpredictable) are personalities taken so far they hurt others (especially Lawful Stupid) and maybe you.
- Stupid Good ("Don't kill that poor, adorable Balor, I'm sure it has reasons for being so mean") and Stupid Evil ("haha ! There's a bomb in my bag ! Now we're both screwed, but at long as YOU'RE screwed it's so worth it !') are personalities taken so far that they hurt YOU and maybe others. What I mean is, there's no problem hurting others for Evil, so their way of being Stupid is hurting themselves in the process. And there's such a problem hurting others for Good (I thoroughly disagree with anyone painting "oh, an Evil creature, let's kill it and all its family" as Stupid Good) that if you do, your act can't be Stupid Good because it's not Good at all.

The point being that doing Evil for Evil's sake, being the Joker ? IMO that's caricatural, not that interesting to roleplay and verging on stupid, but that's not Stupid Evil as a (false) alignment with capital letters.

McBars
2014-11-27, 03:26 AM
So edgy I cut myself.

Hope you went down the tracks, not across the street!


Almost nobody is good or evil because they consciously side with the cosmic forces of good or evil. For neutrality, that's even rarer - most neutral people are simply normal folk who don't do enough good or evil to count as either, the people who are consciously neutral-aligned are mostly some druids and other crazies.

Also, "killing someone just because they ping on your evildar is still murder and an evil act" is an official rule for both AD&D and DND 3e, while in 4e you have no way of detecting someone else's alignment. Like I said, even at its most morally simplistic DND is more complex than your interpretation.

In fact, defining the forces of good as seeing everything in black and white absolutes and giving free pass to mercilessly slaughtering everyone they see as evil is a rather scary perspective for me. That doesn't sound good at all! LN taken to the extreme, perhaps, but good has to realize life is rarely simple, people's morality is usually way more complex than pure good/pure evil/everything in between, and finally, justice needs room for redemption.

Plenty of people side with the cosmic forces of good/evil in D&D.

Why do you care so much about how simple or complex another person's idea of in-game morality is? The only views that should matter to you are those of the DM and your fellow players....and guess what? Those will be different at every table.

Yes moral absolutes are scary...away from the table...but you'll find them all over many beloved fantasy video games, ttrpgs, and literature. Good/evil are free to be as stupid or intelligent as the table agrees for them to be.

McBars
2014-11-27, 03:30 AM
If you find a 100 gold bag and keep it for any reason, you have done an evil act. After all a good person would turn the money in and/or try to find the owner.

Maybe the most ridiculous and dogmatic statement in the thread.

hamishspence
2014-11-27, 07:55 AM
I'd rather use "Chronic Drunk Drivers intoxicated to the point of being a danger to everyone else" as an example of 'Minorly' Evil People Being Killed On Sight over Litterers (Who don't ping as evil). Then again, after the death of too many good people (Some close to me) from drunk drivers, killing people for driving drunk is definitely something I'd consider a Good Act.

I prefer the Eberron approach:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

Eberron is a place where alignments are blurred, but the paladin is held to a higher standard. A paladin embodies good, and the Flame itself calls her to serve as a champion of the light. A paladin's powers are the result of her faith, her purity, and her destiny. If a player wants to be a corrupt warrior with divine powers or a holy warrior who doubts her cause, she shouldn't be a paladin -- she should play a fighter/cleric, or something similar. With that said, the moral ambiguity of Eberron makes life challenging for the paladin who expects everything to be black and white. In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

The Church does not define evil as "that which can be detected with detect evil"; as noted earlier, someone with an evil alignment may serve the greater good. Furthermore, a cleric of a good deity always possesses a good aura, regardless of her personal alignment. Rank within the church hierarchy is another complication: a pilgrim can't kill a cardinal and expect to get away with it because "he was evil." She will need proof of actions that went against church doctrine and harmed the innocent. Thus, a paladin's ability to detect evil allows her to judge the character of those around her -- but it's in no way a license to kill.

Prince Raven
2014-11-27, 09:28 AM
When that enemy is Evil Itself, and this is a war... then yes. But care needs to be taken to not strengthen and galvanize the enemy instead of weaken it.

I would argue that an "ends justifies the means" approach to war is Evil, especially when it involves mass murder, thus any character (and even god) that took such an approach would inevitably fall to Evil. Though a character could very well end up imprisoned/executed for his crimes before their alignment shifted completely.

mephnick
2014-11-27, 09:48 AM
I would argue that an "ends justifies the means" approach to war is Evil, especially when it involves mass murder, thus any character (and even god) that took such an approach would inevitably fall to Evil. Though a character could very well end up imprisoned/executed for his crimes before their alignment shifted completely.

But in a world where there is objective evil, destroying evil is objectively good. This isn't Philosophy 101, where everything is shades of gray.

Jay R
2014-11-27, 10:03 AM
What about spite? I don't need 100 dollars, but I will take it simply to deprive you because I don't like you?

Same thing. If you enjoy hurting me, then it doesn't matter whether I'm hurt by a good act (you reported a crime I committed) or an evil act (you took my money). The spite is the same either way.

But I give back somebody else's money, even if I don't like her, because it's the right thing to do.


It's often seen quite believably in fiction, though. Case in point: the Joker in The Dark Knight. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" indeed.

Right. Not because it's the evil thing to do, but to enjoy watching the world burn. He might enjoy a natural catastrophe like an earthquake or a flood just as much.

But I risk my life trying to stop the Joker, or to help people out during the disaster, because it's the right thing to do.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 10:20 AM
Why do you care so much about how simple or complex another person's idea of in-game morality is? The only views that should matter to you are those of the DM and your fellow players....and guess what? Those will be different at every table.


You know this is a point you can make about pretty much anything on this forum, right? "Why do you care so much about what someone else says, shouldn't only the way you do things at your table matter to you?"

It's not a valid point.


But in a world where there is objective evil, destroying evil is objectively good. This isn't Philosophy 101, where everything is shades of gray.

Destroying things that are pure evil, maybe - like, you know, demons and devils. But not all evil is pure evil. For example, a selfish thief who steals for a living, never helps anyone but never kills anyone either, and doesn't care who he steals from as long as he gets rich, is evil - but does that mean it's good to kill him? I think not, and neither does DND - it's an official statement that killing someone just for being evil is an evil act.

Also, there are other views on morality than "everything is shades of grey, nobody is really good or evil" and "simplistic black and white absolutes".

Prince Raven
2014-11-27, 10:52 AM
But in a world where there is objective evil, destroying evil is objectively good. This isn't Philosophy 101, where everything is shades of gray.

I disagree, redeeming Evil is good. Destroying Evil is, at best, neutral. Disproportionately extreme destruction of minor Evil is evil.

Broken Twin
2014-11-27, 10:54 AM
I would argue that a universe with literal objective Good and Evil is be so far divorced from our modern interpretation of morality that the words themselves have almost entirely different meanings. Arguing a literal morality from a subjective perspective is always going to cause arguments.

"Good" and "Evil" in base 3.5 D&D is whatever the gods decide it is. If the pantheon got together and decided that kicking puppies is the epitome of Goodness, then it is. What the mortals think of the situation literally doesn't matter. It's completely divorced from mortal morality. Detect Evil pings on what the gods have decided is evil. Worshipers kill those their deity doesn't like, and help the ones they do.

mephnick
2014-11-27, 11:00 AM
I disagree, redeeming Evil is good. Destroying Evil is, at best, neutral. Disproportionately extreme destruction of minor Evil is evil.

You're not making the rules. The Gods of the setting are.

What you think is evil is meaningless, unless you've created your own world. Then you can have all the moral quandaries you like.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 11:02 AM
Destroying things that are pure evil, maybe - like, you know, demons and devils. But not all evil is pure evil. For example, a selfish thief who steals for a living, never helps anyone but never kills anyone either, and doesn't care who he steals from as long as he gets rich, is evil - but does that mean it's good to kill him? I think not, and neither does DND - it's an official statement that killing someone just for being evil is an evil act.Why not? He inflicts suffering on others, depriving them of their livelihoods, and hastening their deaths. He provides no services or redeeming qualities to offset his villainy. It's easy to overvalue the lives of scum when you don't think about what the repercussions of their actions are. And, if in response to being killed, his friends and family and other scum looking for an excuse decide to burn down the city his presence blighted, the suffering from their actions is on them, not the guy who put the thief down.

And...:

“Do you understand what I'm saying?"
shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"
"Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.
"What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"
"I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

Frozen_Feet
2014-11-27, 11:09 AM
I would argue that a universe with literal objective Good and Evil is be so far divorced from our modern interpretation of morality that the words themselves have almost entirely different meanings.

I could ask you "which modern interpretation of morality?", but rather I'll just be a jerk and say "you're wrong".

Not the least because the way D&D sets up Good and Evil is based on human and natural rights, themselves modern moral concepts.

mephnick's jab about RPGs not being Philosophy 101 is fairly ironic, because more often than not the problem is that people don't understand philosophy well enough.

mephnick
2014-11-27, 11:23 AM
I could ask you "which modern interpretation of morality?", but rather I'll just be a jerk and say "you're wrong".

Not the least because the way D&D sets up Good and Evil is based on human and natural rights, themselves modern moral concepts.

They're not concepts in D&D. They're universal law.

Seto
2014-11-27, 12:32 PM
They're not concepts in D&D. They're universal law.

That's it. Both you and Frozen Feet are right on different levels. They are based on modern standards (slavery is always evil, people have fundamental rights etc.), but these standards, in the game, have objective grounds written in the fabric of the universe. So, while their content is based on moral values and distinctions commonly accepted in modernity, their status is more akin to pre-Kantian morals, where God and not the subject was the criterium for morality. (Well, to be precise, Kant maintains morals' objectivity, but he's the one who really made the point of subjectivism, and proved that the existence of God was a matter of belief rather than demonstration. Which is very much not the case in D&D).

hamishspence
2014-11-27, 12:39 PM
Why not? He inflicts suffering on others, depriving them of their livelihoods, and hastening their deaths. He provides no services or redeeming qualities to offset his villainy. It's easy to overvalue the lives of scum when you don't think about what the repercussions of their actions are.

To see human beings as "scum" when all you know about them is their evil alignment - seems to me to be lacking in "respect for life".

To quote Savage Species (page 102):


An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way - this merely reflects the way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups - brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

So- a character who considers "anyone who does not ping my Evildar" to be peers, and treats them well, but also considers "anyone who pings my Evildar" to be beneath them, and brutalizes that group - is acting exactly as many Evil characters do.

awa
2014-11-27, 01:52 PM
Why not? He inflicts suffering on others, depriving them of their livelihoods, and hastening their deaths. He provides no services or redeeming qualities to offset his villainy. It's easy to overvalue the lives of scum when you don't think about what the repercussions of their actions are. And, if in response to being killed, his friends and family and other scum looking for an excuse decide to burn down the city his presence blighted, the suffering from their actions is on them, not the guy who put the thief down.

And...:

by that logic the good people cant kill him unless they do deep interview of the economic impacts of the thieves death. If he is responsible for the indirect damage caused by his action the "hero" needs to be responsible for his actions as well. Is that thief supporting the children of a prostitute by visiting her are you killing them by killing him? Heck what about his own children and family?
If the thieves crime of theft is punishable by death because it indirectly harms others. Why is your crime of murder justified even it hurts others more.

Theft is far less likely to have unforeseen consequences then unprovoked murdure.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 02:11 PM
To see human beings as "scum" when all you know about them is their evil alignment - seems to me to be lacking in "respect for life".You can respect life while still taking it. Just minimize the suffering of those you remove from the world.


So- a character who considers "anyone who does not ping my Evildar" to be peers, and treats them well, but also considers "anyone who pings my Evildar" to be beneath them, and brutalizes that group - is acting exactly as many Evil characters do.Except not, because they discriminate against only those that are actually evil. Evil characters brutalize groups based on morality-independent traits. The difference is significant.

awa
2014-11-27, 02:22 PM
actually some creatures ping as being evil despite their alignment so mr smite happy if he kills based on nothing but detect evil is going to lose that ability to smite because evil is not black and white in d&d
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 02:29 PM
actually some creatures ping as being evil despite their alignment so mr smite happy if he kills based on nothing but detect evil is going to lose that ability to smite because evil is not black and white in d&d
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtypeCreatures with the [Evil] subtype are always Fiends, and killing Fiends is Always a Good act. And outside of 3e, it is impossible for something that's inherently Evil to not be Evil - A "Good" Fiend stops being a Fiend in 5e.

veti
2014-11-27, 02:32 PM
You can respect life while still taking it. Just minimize the suffering of those you remove from the world.

"Life" != "Lack of suffering". Killing people, however humanely, is not "respecting life" unless you take all feasible steps to verify that killing them would, in the overwhelming balance of probability, result in saving more lives elsewhere.


Except not, because they discriminate against only those that are actually evil. Evil characters brutalize groups based on morality-independent traits. The difference is significant.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. The "dignity of sentient beings" entitles them to a choice. Killing them for getting that choice wrong is, again, not exactly "respectful".

You quoted from 'Going Postal' earlier. I'd just point out that, for all his big talk and his actuarial precision, Mr Pump Does Not Kill Mr Lipwig.

The response to your actions is also important. If the bad guys take revenge on innocents for the death of their own - yes, sure, that's on them. But if an innocent sees you committing one of your executions, and concludes that you're a ruthless bastard and they want nothing to do with you or your cause, that's on you. Or if a mildly-evil person who's thinking about defecting to your side takes one look and realises it'd be suicide - that, too, is entirely on you.

awa
2014-11-27, 02:43 PM
Creatures with the [Evil] subtype are always Fiends, and killing Fiends is Always a Good act. And outside of 3e, it is impossible for something that's inherently Evil to not be Evil - A "Good" Fiend stops being a Fiend in 5e.

this is actually not true in second edition as well there were non-evil fiends as well (perhaps earlier editions as well i don't know one way or the other.

actually where does it say killing fiend is always a good act with no qualifiers of any kind.

hamishspence
2014-11-27, 02:59 PM
this is actually not true in second edition as well there were non-evil fiends as well (perhaps earlier editions as well i don't know one way or the other.

actually where does it say killing fiend is always a good act with no qualifiers of any kind.

Book of Vile Darkness.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 03:08 PM
"Life" != "Lack of suffering". Killing people, however humanely, is not "respecting life" unless you take all feasible steps to verify that killing them would, in the overwhelming balance of probability, result in saving more lives elsewhere.As someone who takes lives regularly (Only 'animal' life, but humans aren't special or non-animals either), I have to say that yes, taking lives and respecting life are not mutually exclusive. Unless you're saying all Farmers and Hunters everywhere are Evil.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. The "dignity of sentient beings" entitles them to a choice. Killing them for getting that choice wrong is, again, not exactly "respectful".No, 'dignity of sentient beings' does NOT entitle them to a choice - or at least not the freedom from the repercussions of that choice. If they choose to align themselves against a Cosmic Force, him getting bumped off by the Cosmic Force and its champions he has chosen to oppose is a natural consequence of that action, and he has the right to deal with such consequence. Good =/= Human Maximization.


You quoted from 'Going Postal' earlier. I'd just point out that, for all his big talk and his actuarial precision, Mr Pump Does Not Kill Mr Lipwig.But Mr. Lipwig was on a suspended death sentence. The social repercussions of killing someone unlawfully are a Lawful, not Good, issue. Lawful Good has to balance the integrity of law with the removal of Evil, and its perception in the eyes of others.

hamishspence
2014-11-27, 03:12 PM
We may be operating using different "alignment models" here.

Quintessential Paladin II (a third party book) actually discusses the various campaign models-

one of which has Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.
one of which has Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.
and in one Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Another alternative is that Evil is essentially a supernatural quality, a spiritual taint that comes only from dark powers. Merely human evil would not be detected by the paladin's power - only monsters, undead, outsiders, and those who traffic with dark powers are Evil on this scale.

A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on a divine level. However, if this murderer were killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefore detectable by the paladin.

In this campaign, a positive result on detect evil means that the paladin should immediately take action. This is a morally black-and-white set-up - anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.
Suffice to say that this last does not fit "standard 3.5 D&D" at least (maybe other editions) - though the other two could both be argued as valid interpretations of 3.5 alignment.

The point being- in neither of the first two, is Detecting as Evil considered sufficient to justify immediate attack.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 03:40 PM
Why not? He inflicts suffering on others, depriving them of their livelihoods, and hastening their deaths. He provides no services or redeeming qualities to offset his villainy. It's easy to overvalue the lives of scum when you don't think about what the repercussions of their actions are. And, if in response to being killed, his friends and family and other scum looking for an excuse decide to burn down the city his presence blighted, the suffering from their actions is on them, not the guy who put the thief down.


That's a very judgemental, harsh, uncompromising view on morality.

I don't see that as "good". I see it as "LN, maybe even LE, deluding itself into thinking it's good". A good material for a BBEG to take down by the actually good protagonists.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 03:52 PM
That's a very judgemental, harsh, uncompromising view on morality.Good does not compromise or bend to Evil. Judgement is mandatory, and is passed onto everyone of non-neutral alignments. Judgement is not Evil, nor is harshness. Good is not Nice.

I don't see that as "good". I see it as "LN, maybe even LE, deluding itself into thinking it's good". A good material for a BBEG to take down by the actually good protagonists.I take it you have very little experience with actual Evil?

tensai_oni
2014-11-27, 03:57 PM
Good does not compromise or bend to Evil. Judgement is mandatory, and is passed onto everyone of non-neutral alignments. Judgement is not Evil, nor is harshness. Good is not Nice.
I take it you have very little experience with actual Evil?

Wow.

Oh wow.

I'll let mr Tyson sum up my thoughts on this.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 04:08 PM
Or if a mildly-evil person who's thinking about defecting to your side takes one look and realises it'd be suicide - that, too, is entirely on you.Or he can realize it's NOT suicide if he stops being Evil. Alignment is not like skin color, family, facial features, cultural upbringing, age, or any other of those qualities. Alignment can be changed. Alignment can be chosen.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 04:14 PM
Wasn't a character who sees the world in black and white and goes around killing everything it perceives as evil given several times as an example of Stupid Good behaviour? On the first page?

mephnick
2014-11-27, 04:18 PM
Wasn't a character who sees the world in black and white and goes around killing everything it perceives as evil given several times as an example of Stupid Good behaviour? On the first page?

It is Stupid Good.

It's still Good. That doesn't make it a good choice of character to play in a social group.

And it's not "perceived as evil", it is evil.

hamishspence
2014-11-27, 04:19 PM
Wasn't a character who sees the world in black and white and goes around killing everything it perceives as evil given several times as an example of Stupid Good behaviour? On the first page?

TV Tropes tends to peg it as "Lawful Stupid" (though a CG Paladin of Freedom who kills everything that pings, fits the trope despite not actually being Lawful):

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

"Stupid Good" by contrast - is excessively merciful and pacifistic:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidGood

Tengu_temp
2014-11-27, 04:27 PM
It is Stupid Good.

It's still Good. That doesn't make it a good choice of character to play in a social group.

The thing is, I don't consider that behaviour to be good - Stupid Good characters who act like that either consider themselves to be good but really aren't, or are on their way of falling from the good alignment. And DND thinks about it the same way as I do (see: BoVD, "killing someone just because they have an evil alignment is murder and an evil act") - I know we're not talking about DND specifically here, but it's pretty much the only game that uses alignments these days, so nyeh.


And it's not "perceived as evil", it is evil.

Well yeah. But evil has to be punished as appropriate. And "as appropriate" is not the same as "always by death".
Also, not every character who acts this way has an evildar at hand. Some of them just strike as what they see as evil, and their perspectives are often skewed so the punishment they give is not just excessive, but even completely unwarranted!

hamishspence
2014-11-27, 04:35 PM
(see: BoVD, "killing someone just because they have an evil alignment is murder and an evil act")

Actually it's from BoED - and is "Violence in the name of Good must have Just Cause - the mere existence of Evil orcs is not a justification for war on them".


BoVD, while calling out Murder as Evil, is somewhat vague on what constitutes murder -

but it does say that "such a justification only works for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil" when it discusses the "killing an evil being, even for profit, prevents it from harming others, so it's not an evil act, though it's not a good act" excuse.



Well yeah. But evil has to be punished as appropriate. And "as appropriate" is not the same as "always by death".
"Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil" (BoED) - but it's quite reasonable for a being to be Evil and yet never have committed a serious crime.

Seto
2014-11-27, 04:53 PM
Allow me to once again try to make my point on the distinction of the ethical and the moral axis :
- What is a right or a wrong thing to do is a Good/Evil question.
- Whether and in what way wrong things should be punished is a Lawful/Chaotic question.

So I maintain that killing everyone Evil on sight, by systematic discrimination as Sartharina advocates it, in an attempt to impose your views, is heavily Lawful (I'd say Lawful Stupid). I'm leaving aside the question of whether it is Lawful Stupid and also Good (I firmly think not but that's open to discussion). Suffice to say taking Lawfulness up to twenty-two makes for a Lawful Stupid act, regardless of the Good/Evil qualification that could be also attributed to that act. Similarly, Stupid Good is not merely to be Good and stupid ; it's to always uphold Good to the point where it becomes Stupid. And the only way I can conceive of is by emphasizing internal values of Good (not antagonistic values such as opposing Evil) such as mercy or self-sacrifice in a situation where it is pointless, out of line and will get you killed without achieving anything.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 05:11 PM
I agree that 'Kill Everything that's Evil" is Stupid, and, while Good, probably self-destructive in the long run to Good (Just conventional "Never concede to Evil" Stupid Good can be stupid and destructive to Good in the long run). Offers and chances of redemption are much better... but it is NOT Good to respect someone's decision to remain Evil. (The BoED has something against forced conversions... but the author fumbles there by conflating redemption and religious conversion. There is a difference between "Worship Lord Helix or Die" and "If you continue down your path of wickedness, I will be forced to destroy you")


Actually it's from BoED - and is "Violence in the name of Good must have Just Cause - the mere existence of Evil orcs is not a justification for war on them".Declaring War on orcs for being Evil is not the same as mass-murderhoboing the orcs for being Evil - by declaring War, not only are you provoking the orcs to counterattack, but you're also condemning your own soldiers (Most of whom are Good creatures) to die against them, and you tax and strain the resources of the Good people needed to fund such a war. And... if there is so much as a single Non-Evil orc among them, if you kill him, you lose your just cause, and that is Evil. You also have to be discriminate enough to confirm that it is a person that's evil, and not something around them infused with evil.


Well yeah. But evil has to be punished as appropriate. And "as appropriate" is not the same as "always by death".
Also, not every character who acts this way has an evildar at hand. Some of them just strike as what they see as evil, and their perspectives are often skewed so the punishment they give is not just excessive, but even completely unwarranted!In which case they are usually Neutral (Their Good and Evil tend to balance out, locking them out of Good, but not letting them fall to Evil, though they can still be Villains), because they are not working with proper judgement and discretion.

veti
2014-11-27, 05:13 PM
As someone who takes lives regularly (Only 'animal' life, but humans aren't special or non-animals either), I have to say that yes, taking lives and respecting life are not mutually exclusive. Unless you're saying all Farmers and Hunters everywhere are Evil.

The current vegetarianism thread is over on General Banter.

I'm not arguing for a moment that taking lives is incompatible with respecting life. If it were, then good characters would have to be (essentially) pacifists, and while that might make for an interesting game, I suspect it's not one that most people want to play. I'm arguing that if you respect life, you will only "take" it (actually, the word "take" here is euphemistic - a more accurate term would be "destroy") under exceptional circumstances and with exceptional justification. (What that implies for farmers and hunters, is really a question that should be addressed to whoever wrote that bit of the SRD.)

Killing someone for doing evil may be justice, but killing someone for being evil is just murder.

McBars
2014-11-27, 05:21 PM
The current vegetarianism thread is over on General Banter.

I'm not arguing for a moment that taking lives is incompatible with respecting life. If it were, then good characters would have to be (essentially) pacifists, and while that might make for an interesting game, I suspect it's not one that most people want to play. I'm arguing that if you respect life, you will only "take" it (actually, the word "take" here is euphemistic - a more accurate term would be "destroy") under exceptional circumstances and with exceptional justification. (What that implies for farmers and hunters, is really a question that should be addressed to whoever wrote that bit of the SRD.)

Killing someone for doing evil may be justice, but killing someone for being evil is just murder.

Think we can all agree that vegetarianism is the clearest & most dangerous form of Stupid Evil in the history of D&D & real life.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 05:21 PM
Killing someone for doing evil may be justice, but killing someone for being evil is just murder.You cannot Be Evil without Doing Evil.

Lanaya
2014-11-27, 06:34 PM
TV Tropes tends to peg it as "Lawful Stupid" (though a CG Paladin of Freedom who kills everything that pings, fits the trope despite not actually being Lawful):

Tvtropes is an amusing website, but I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source on anything.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-11-27, 06:36 PM
Tvtropes is an amusing website, but I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source on anything.

Even if it can be considered an authority on some things, the extremely nebulous nature of alignment debates means that that's just what a few people on the internet think.

Ehcks
2014-11-27, 06:40 PM
You cannot Be Evil without Doing Evil.

Zombies in many games are Always Evil, even if they do nothing more than what any wild animal does.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-11-27, 06:57 PM
Zombies in many games are Always Evil, even if they do nothing more than what any wild animal does.

In addition, anyone with the [Evil] subtype, regardless of alignment, will show up as Evil under magical detection. Although very rare for said things not to be evil, if you kill one that isn't, that's someone who you attacked with the intent of killing, in cold blood, who isn't evil.

Many Evil people should also be able to be reformed or put in positions where they can exercise their skills for good, unless only the absolute most despicable, destructive people are Evil in your campaigns and you expect others to think the same. Not every villain is The Joker.

Sartharina
2014-11-27, 07:04 PM
Zombies in many games are Always Evil, even if they do nothing more than what any wild animal does.They're made of Evil and Black Magic. And Not People.


In addition, anyone with the [Evil] subtype, regardless of alignment, will show up as Evil under magical detection. Although very rare for said things not to be evil, if you kill one that isn't, that's someone who you attacked with the intent of killing, in cold blood, who isn't evil.Fiends (anyone with the [Evil] template) are made of pure, cosmic Evil, and destroying them actively reduces the amount of Evil in the world.


Many Evil people should also be able to be reformed or put in positions where they can exercise their skills for good, unless only the absolute most despicable, destructive people are Evil in your campaigns and you expect others to think the same. Not every villain is The Joker.Can/Should Be =/= Will be. And not everyone ha to be The Joker levels of wickedness to be irredeemable.

Fiery Diamond
2014-11-27, 10:17 PM
They're made of Evil and Black Magic. And Not People.

Fiends (anyone with the [Evil] template) are made of pure, cosmic Evil, and destroying them actively reduces the amount of Evil in the world.

Can/Should Be =/= Will be. And not everyone ha to be The Joker levels of wickedness to be irredeemable.

First bit: True.

Second bit: That depends on whether you think "reducing Evil" or "not reducing Good" is the better moral decision. A Good [Evil] creature is, in equal measure, Good and cosmic Evil. Is reducing the metaphysical cosmic Evil of actual importance to a mortal? To a Good God or celestial, sure. To a worshiper of such, probably. But to other Good characters? Why should it be? Sparing the actual Good of that creature and respecting the life of that being could be argued (and I would argue) to be infinitely more important than the cosmic mumbo-jumbo.

Third bit: Well, it certainly won't be if you kill them first just because they're evil. And for a paladin? I think redemption ranks higher than instant execution, especially for lesser evils. You have to try to redeem them or direct them for Good before offing them unless they are a) reaaaally terrible or b) an immediate threat.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-27, 10:53 PM
I prefer the Eberron approach:

Heck, even Dragonlance, the undisputed most black-and-white Good vs. Evil setting in all of D&D (to the point that Law and Chaos are an afterthought and the entire world is Color-Coded for Your Convenience), had a Good empire get wiped out by its own gods for growing so zealous and intolerant of Evil that it screen-wrapped to being Evil (or at least Lawful Stupid) itself.


But in a world where there is objective evil, destroying evil is objectively good. This isn't Philosophy 101, where everything is shades of gray.

"Objective evil" has brackets or parentheses around it, anything without such is merely the metaphysical result of a behavior trend that may or may not be destruction-worthy.


Right. Not because it's the evil thing to do, but to enjoy watching the world burn. He might enjoy a natural catastrophe like an earthquake or a flood just as much.

I don't see how "Because it causes you pain and suffering" is functionally different from "Because it's the evil thing to do."

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 02:09 AM
Tvtropes is an amusing website, but I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source on anything.
True - it's more a general guide to what people tend to think about certain things.


You cannot Be Evil without Doing Evil.

But you can be Evil without ever having committed a serious crime or serious moral offence - just many "minor" ones.

In fact, by RAW, a newborn "Always Evil" nonfiend creature (like a chromatic dragon for example) is Evil despite not having had time to do anything Evil.

An evil alignment can be as much to do with personality, as acts.



Fiends (anyone with the [Evil] template) are made of pure, cosmic Evil, and destroying them actively reduces the amount of Evil in the world.

A LN cleric of a LE deity (or a CN cleric of a CN deity) will also ping a paladin's evildar. So, for that matter, will a low-level person with a planar mote from the relevant plane on their person.

There's lots of ways in which Detect Evil can be fooled to produce a positive (or negative) result.

SiuiS
2014-11-28, 02:29 AM
I see no such proposition.:smallconfused:

So you admit people who just want the world to burn aren't same and this should not be considered models of rational and acceptible behavior?


That's a very absolutist, black and white view on good and evil. Even at its most morally simplistic DND is canonically more complex than that.

Only barely. The reason alignment languages exist is because All of Good and All of Evil formed factions and warred. The languages split into the chaotic/neutral/lawful versions over centuries and the only reason the factions are no longer around is because after Good cut stomped evil into paste and the few survivors fled to literal holes in the ground, some wanted complete and utter genocide of evil and others thought "there is no way genocide can be Good, man".

Other than that edgy "maybe one side is right! Maybe it's not! Who knows?", D&D doesn't have any moral depth. Not as written.


If by "Rational", we mean to refer to the rational decision process (one expression of which is detailed in this picture), then no.

First, my point was very much that the people in question were irrational.

Second, rational means able to think clearly, sensibly and logically. Rational thought is thought that is cleR, sensible and logical (you'll find examples throughout life of people not hitting all those, such as the nonsense but logical RAW or the sensible but illogical magical tea party stuff). A rational actor is someone cognizant enough to think clearly, logically and sensibly about their position, action, and understandable outcomes.

The idea that this would require perfect data is not itself rational; it's logical but also nonsense to think that a term designed to apply to human thought can't technically apply to human thought.


Almost nobody is good or evil because they consciously side with the cosmic forces of good or evil. For neutrality, that's even rarer

I dunno man, that's kind of the entire point of the alignments. Do you value life? Well being? Ten you've chosen good, even if only because you've rejected evil.

That may not be the game you like to play but it is part of the inertia of the system. Whether it should be is a different matter though.

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 03:16 AM
Only barely. The reason alignment languages exist is because All of Good and All of Evil formed factions and warred. The languages split into the chaotic/neutral/lawful versions over centuries and the only reason the factions are no longer around is because after Good cut stomped evil into paste and the few survivors fled to literal holes in the ground, some wanted complete and utter genocide of evil and others thought "there is no way genocide can be Good, man".

That's true in the 1st edition "prehistoric era". Not necessarily the 3rd ed one (which doesn't have alignment languages in any case).

Forgotten Realms (as described in Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms) is a world where Neutral towns have Good churches and Evil churches - both of which contribute to the community in various ways, except for the most insane of evil churches) and both of which accept that if they fight openly, the local authorities will crack down hard on them.

Heroes of Horror points out that local authorities practically anywhere are going to treat Detect spells as circumstantial evidence of anything - and reject them as evidence of wrongdoing (since A: not all Evil characters are criminals, and B: such spells are easy to fool anyway)

Drow of the Underdark says that, just as characters should not be killing everything that pings as evil in settlements on the surface - so they should be tempering their reactions in cities in the Underdark - reserving their violence for situations where it's absolutely necessary.

And so on.

Sartharina
2014-11-28, 10:47 AM
A LN cleric of a LE deity (or a CN cleric of a CN deity) will also ping a paladin's evildar. So, for that matter, will a low-level person with a planar mote from the relevant plane on their person.

There's lots of ways in which Detect Evil can be fooled to produce a positive (or negative) result.A Neutral Cleric of an Evil Deity is still spreading the influence and power of that Evil deity - but you have a point in that's not enough because they're Neutral, not Evil, and Detect Evil is not completely foolproof. It's the planar mote, not person, that radiates evil, and the planar mote is bringing Cosmic Evil into the Material Plane.

There are three Good ways to handle Evil: Redeem it, Contain it (Most dangerous), and Slay it. Tolerate it is NOT an option.
"Objective evil" has brackets or parentheses around it, anything without such is merely the metaphysical result of a behavior trend that may or may not be destruction-worthy.No, "Objective Evil" is anything accurately labeled as Evil. A person who's alignment is Evil is Objectively Evil.
That's true in the 1st edition "prehistoric era". Not necessarily the 3rd ed one (which doesn't have alignment languages in any case).

Forgotten Realms (as described in Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms) is a world where Neutral towns have Good churches and Evil churches - both of which contribute to the community in various ways, except for the most insane of evil churches) and both of which accept that if they fight openly, the local authorities will crack down hard on them.

Heroes of Horror points out that local authorities practically anywhere are going to treat Detect spells as circumstantial evidence of anything - and reject them as evidence of wrongdoing (since A: not all Evil characters are criminals, and B: such spells are easy to fool anyway)

Drow of the Underdark says that, just as characters should not be killing everything that pings as evil in settlements on the surface - so they should be tempering their reactions in cities in the Underdark - reserving their violence for situations where it's absolutely necessary.

And so on.The books are written with Neutral Morality, recognizing that both Good and Evil are moral extremes that are ultimately harmful for everyone that's Not Good or Not Evil. After all - Good is the alignment that says it's better to let a population die than commit an Evil Act to save it - taking that to its logical extreme leads to stupidly-preventable deaths... which assumes the Neutrally-Aligned Material Plane is worth saving in the first place. People are not their meat bodies - they are immortal souls that ascend to the outer planes, and dying, cosmically speaking, is just a phase of life, like Puberty. True Good unbalanced is bad for the Material Plane as we know it. Fortunately, Minor Good alignment is good for the material plane, and it's easy for Evil to be constantly unbalancing it toward Evil.

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 10:55 AM
There are three Good ways to handle Evil: Redeem it, Contain it (Most dangerous), and Slay it. Tolerate it is NOT an option.

In the Forgotten Realms - the Gods of Good accept that the Gods of Evil play a necessary role in the world. That doesn't stop them from countering various Evil Schemes - but they have no interest in "destroying all evil"

In a Neutral city like Waterdeep, the Open Lord (a Paladin, in the present day) simply has to accept the existence of churches of evil openly practicing in his city. He can preach against their activities - but he can't just send the Watch in to exterminate them all.

And so forth.

Sartharina
2014-11-28, 11:00 AM
In the Forgotten Realms - the Gods of Good accept that the Gods of Evil play a necessary role in the world. That doesn't stop them from countering various Evil Schemes - but they have no interest in "destroying all evil"

In a Neutral city like Waterdeep, the Open Lord (a Paladin, in the present day) simply has to accept the existence of churches of evil openly practicing in his city. He can preach against their activities - but he can't just send the Watch in to exterminate them all.

And so forth.

The books are written with Neutral Morality, recognizing that both Good and Evil are moral extremes that are ultimately harmful for everyone that's Not Good or Not Evil. After all - Good is the alignment that says it's better to let a population die than commit an Evil Act to save it - taking that to its logical extreme leads to stupidly-preventable deaths... which assumes the Neutrally-Aligned Material Plane is worth saving in the first place. People are not their meat bodies - they are immortal souls that ascend to the outer planes, and dying, cosmically speaking, is just a phase of life, like Puberty. True Good unbalanced is bad for the Material Plane as we know it and would lead to its extermination. Fortunately, Minor Good alignment is good for the material plane, and it's easy for Evil to be constantly unbalancing it toward Evil, allowing Good to act in more rational, non Stupid Genocidal Good ways to keep the balance.

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 11:43 AM
BoVD "an act of genocide" is one of the most tainting acts possible - warping a large area of the land toward Evil.

Thus - if a Good character ever acts in a genocidal fashion - that's Evil.

Sartharina
2014-11-28, 11:48 AM
BoVD "an act of genocide" is one of the most tainting acts possible - warping a large area of the land toward Evil.

Thus - if a Good character ever acts in a genocidal fashion - that's Evil.Genocide is the wrong word (It's not racially/culturally motivated, and it doesn't have the systemic abuse that comes with genocide).

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 11:52 AM
Genocide is the wrong word (It's not racially/culturally motivated, and it doesn't have the systemic abuse that comes with genocide).
Doesn't matter - if it's the word that the rulebook uses for that kind of act:


The reason alignment languages exist is because All of Good and All of Evil formed factions and warred. The languages split into the chaotic/neutral/lawful versions over centuries and the only reason the factions are no longer around is because after Good cut stomped evil into paste and the few survivors fled to literal holes in the ground, some wanted complete and utter genocide of evil and others thought "there is no way genocide can be Good, man".

Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (AD&D 1st ed)

page 69: A brief history of underground cultures:


Then came the great Alignment Wars. These were actually all a part of a single great conflict that spanned centuries, with occasional truces that lasted a few decades. The Alignment Wars were characterized by great interracial cooperation and intraracial combat The sides were not determined by race, but by alignment. Thus, elves, dwarves, and man of good alignment united to fight elves, dwarves, and men of evil alignment. The wars extended to the seas, where the flourishing race of kuo-toa chose to align with the forces of evil and fight against the marine creatures of good.

Over the centuries, the forces of good slowly drove back their evil foes. Hatred and slaughter prevailed as evil creatures were slain solely on the basis of their alignment. Great battles were fought, and eventually the remanants of the forces of evil had to acknowledge complete defeat. Bitterly, these survivors sought shelter underground and prepared for a final battle. The drow elves and gray dwarves (or duergar) moved underground in great numbers. The skills they had developed through centuries of warfare helped them overcome the prior inhabitants of the underground.

Likewise, the kuo-toa moved under the surfaces of the seas and into subterranean waterways to escape the genocide of the Alignment Wars. Tired of the unceasing conflict, the victors abandoned their pursuit of the vanquished. Soon, the grand alliance faded, and once again new sources of evil appeared on the surface. Today, little evidence remains that the forces of good once held sway over the entire surface world.

An act can be genocidal even without any "systemic abuse" - V's Familicide spell for example.

Sartharina
2014-11-28, 12:04 PM
Doesn't matter - if it's the word that the rulebook uses for that kind of act:I misused the word. Should have used "Stupid CLEANSE PURGE KILL Good"

An act can be genocidal even without any "systemic abuse" - V's Familicide spell for example.Familicide is genocidal (Quite literally), and it targets innocents. Swording Evil people is not Genocidal, even if it racks up a similar bodycount.


... actually, the Perfect Fireman Axe is better for the task. And a Tyrannosaurus Rex with robot machinegun arms also helps.

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 12:07 PM
Swording Evil people is not Genocidal, even if it racks up a similar bodycount.

It can, however, qualify as Murder, when there is not "Just Cause".

The forces of Good are obliged to place certain limitations on their violence - in order for that violence to qualify as "Good" or "not Evil".

This is because Good is concerned with life - if the world was destroyed, and the Lower Planes were destroyed, and all that was left was souls (Good ones) rather than living beings - this would be a huge failure for the powers of Good.

Sartharina
2014-11-28, 12:21 PM
This is because Good is concerned with life - if the world was destroyed, and the Lower Planes were destroyed, and all that was left was souls (Good ones) rather than living beings - this would be a huge failure for the powers of Good.You seem to have gotten Good and Positive Energy mixed up. And you're also speaking as though the souls aren't alive, when they very much are.

hamishspence
2014-11-28, 12:28 PM
And you're also speaking as though the souls aren't alive, when they very much are.Not going by Complete Divine - a soul isn't the same thing as a low level outsider.


You seem to have gotten Good and Positive Energy mixed up.
"Good implies respect for life".

To strongly Good beings - killing is always a tragedy - and it takes fairly extreme circumstances for it to be excusable. The same sort of circumstances that turn Murder into Justifiable Homicide.

Ettina
2014-11-28, 03:24 PM
There's also the Miko version of Stupid Good where you kill people for littering because that is a selfish and evil act and it is the duty of all good-aligned individuals to purge evil wherever they see it.

That's not stupid good, that's stupid lawful. Miko at her best barely skates by as good, but throughout her entire character arc, she's consistently lawful stupid.

Ettina
2014-11-28, 03:41 PM
Zombies in many games are Always Evil, even if they do nothing more than what any wild animal does.

Similarly, according to the rules, a Lawful Good Necropolitan would still ping on detect evil, purely because they're undead.

Sartharina
2014-11-28, 04:27 PM
That's not stupid good, that's stupid lawful. Miko at her best barely skates by as good, but throughout her entire character arc, she's consistently lawful stupid.Are we reading the same Miko? The one I read did not kill evil Bandits on sight (only after they insulted and attacked her), went out of her way to help civilians in trouble, and not only confirmed that Roy and his party were guilty of crimes through investigation (Though she did get the Linear Guild's crime pinned on the OotS, one of their 'evils' was their typical disregard for NPCs, and another, and another exaggerated the effects), but also confirmed that Roy detected as Evil before attacking - and she was willing to hold up her attack once Durkon managed to convince her that Roy wasn't Evil (And she verified).

Miko isn't a "Smite-Happy" paladin outside of a single gag. Instead, she's the "Stupid Good" type of Paladin acting on partial/incomplete information and leaping to conclusions. She's a deconstruction of the "If the law is wrong/corrupt, it's the Paladin's duty to rebel against it" paladin and "Party Police" paladins ("We WILL do things my way, which is the Right and Just way. Help the peasants! Don't Impersonate Royalty! Live an aescetic life!")

Wardog
2014-11-28, 05:52 PM
Well ''realistic''.....

There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

I can't think of anything that would reasonably fit that description. Why would people's lives be "ruined forever" by revealing that you/others have benefitted from something "very evil, wrong and illegal"?

I don't think the examples you gave explain that, or even have anything much to do with that point:


Star Trek gives a great example: Evil Cardassian does horrible evil experiments in life forms and builds up a huge library of knowledge. A bit later an alien attaches itself to a human. A quick search shows that only the Cardassian's knowledge can help save the life of the human. So what do you do? Ignore the knowledge gain using utter evil? Just ''hope and pray'' that you can find another way? Or is it ok to say ''we can use the knowledge for good'' and just not worry where it came from?

How about the classic Demon Kickstart. At one time Slog was a nobody, but then he sold his soul to a deman and the demon jump started his carrier. So, now, after Slog has spent 20 years ''doing good all on his own'' is it ok to ruin his life by digging up the dirt that he got help from a demon 20 years ago?

Or the Robin Hood twist: A person Robs the Mob, and then take that money to pay off the debt of a church, day care center or foodbank. Does that place refuse the ''blood money'' and close down?

1) Is Stupid Good, but doesn't have anything to do with the original point. Noone is having their lives ruined by you telling the truth about the Cardassian. (They are being Stupid Good by refusing treatment).

2) If selling your soul is "very evil, wrong and illegal", that presumably means doing so causes a lot of harm (or will lead to a lot of harm in the future). If the demon is going to come back one day and turn Slog into a horrible monster (for example), people need to be aware. If the demon is going to come back and drag Slog down to Hell, people probably ought to know to. On the other hand, if nothing is bad is going to happen, then why was this act "very evil, wrong and illegal"?

3) Either the church/food-bank/etc has a good reason for refusing the money, or it doesn't. If it does, letting them know where it came from is Good (and concealing it from them could cause all sorts of other problems in the future). If it doesn't, then it is the recipient that is being "Stupid Good", not the person telling them the truth about the money.

(Besides, I haven't seen that moral dilemma come up much. "Should I take blood money?" is more often about when the bad guy is offering them some of their ill-gotten gains, and you have to decide whether taking it would help legitimize the evil acts, or put you in their debt. "Robin Hood stole the money from the bad guys" is only somewhat different from "the courts fined the bad guy, and the government uses some of that money for social programmes". (And the difference is more about Law vs. Chaos).




2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.


Yea, this is like if someone is badly hurt you rush them to the nearest hospital...and ignore things like stop signs and red lights. You can make it to the hospital and save the persons life, but idiot Robocop will still give you 15 tickets for all the traffic laws you broke.
That's Lawful Stupid, not Stupid Good.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.[/QUOTE]
As others have said - if there are still people in the blast area, that's not "Stupid Good" - that's "beyond-the-call-of-duty heroism". If everyone has evacuated, that <I>might</I> be Stupid Good, but that depends on how important whatever would get destroyed is. And I'mnot even sure what


It's only hero good if it's direct.
means.

Talakeal
2014-11-28, 06:33 PM
Same thing. If you enjoy hurting me, then it doesn't matter whether I'm hurt by a good act (you reported a crime I committed) or an evil act (you took my money). The spite is the same either way.

But I give back somebody else's money, even if I don't like her, because it's the right thing to do.
.

I am not sure if we are talking on quite the same frequency.

What I was trying to say is that some people do try and hurt people simply out of spite. Regardless of what act they are actually performing, I would say that if you are doing something purely because it will hurt someone else regardless of whether or not it benefits you, then you are acting out of spite or malice which is pretty close evil for evil's sake. Likewise a sadist who simply wants to hurt others is more or less evil for evil's sake.

Now, I guess you could use it as some sort of reverse "psychological egoism" in which case people are hurting others not because it is evil but because they feel good when they inflict pain, but I would say that it comes close enough to evil for evil's sake in either case.

Prince Raven
2014-11-28, 08:35 PM
While you certainly have an interesting take on alignment, Sartharina, I think we've established that according to the base rules and how most people play that a paladin can't go around killing everyone who detects as evil and remain Good.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-29, 06:18 PM
So you admit people who just want the world to burn aren't same and this should not be considered models of rational and acceptible behavior?

...No? You claimed that the posters talking about the idea of "evil for evil's sake" on the first page were assuming rational actors. I pointed out that there is no actual evidence of that in their posts.

Talakeal
2014-11-29, 06:24 PM
...No? You claimed that the posters talking about the idea of "evil for evil's sake" on the first page were assuming rational actors. I pointed out that there is no actual evidence of that in their posts.

Rational is really a sliding scale. Philosophically, all motivations boil down to "because I put value in it" rather than any universal concept of rationality*. Someone can be clearly insane, but someone can also be sadistic or disturbed without being "irrational". Loving someone and wanting what is best for them is really no more rational than hating them and wanting to hurt them, they are both goals based on social constructs and human feelings. Also, in a world where there are tangible manifestations of evil in the form of gods and demons it might actually be perfectly rationale to assist them by performing evil for evil's sake.


*: This always bugged me about the Vulcans in Star Trek. They always talk about putting logic above desire, but without emotional desires to guide it you can't have any sort of goal or motivation.

Grim Portent
2014-11-29, 06:47 PM
*: This always bugged me about the Vulcans in Star Trek. They always talk about putting logic above desire, but without emotional desires to guide it you can't have any sort of goal or motivation.

You kind of can, but the only realistic goal you can have is to propagate on general principles (think ants, bees or termites). So all they should realistically be doing is making more of themselves and improving their lifespans. Pretty dull really.


The stupid versions of good include things like trusting the captured bad guy when they say they want to reform, right before they jam a sword in your spine, saving monsters from falling to their death and so on.

Careless trust, misplaced mercy, misguided charity, excess honesty, these are the failings of good. (Prior list may or may not contain all the failings of good.)

Lanaya
2014-11-29, 07:21 PM
You kind of can, but the only realistic goal you can have is to propagate on general principles (think ants, bees or termites). So all they should realistically be doing is making more of themselves and improving their lifespans. Pretty dull really.

Still no. Without emotion, why would you have any reason to pursue the propagation of your species? People only want to do that because they like their own species, which is an irrational response. You could say that it's the purpose of your existence to produce more of your species, but why do you care about your purpose in life if you don't have emotions? A purely logical being does nothing, because it has no reason to do anything.

Grim Portent
2014-11-29, 08:00 PM
Still no. Without emotion, why would you have any reason to pursue the propagation of your species? People only want to do that because they like their own species, which is an irrational response. You could say that it's the purpose of your existence to produce more of your species, but why do you care about your purpose in life if you don't have emotions? A purely logical being does nothing, because it has no reason to do anything.

Well in the Vulkans case they embraced logic and forsook emotion to preserve their race, so their logic is slanted towards that goal, with a side order of utilitarian ethics. But the logical purpose of life is to make more life, emotion doesn't enter into it. Tons of species that are essentially mindless reproduce, and even species that eat their own kind reproduce. It's not about liking your own species, it's about your body being programmed to make you breed, hell emotion is one of the things that prevents people from breeding since it applies so much circumstantial baggage to children.

Lanaya
2014-11-30, 12:14 AM
But the logical purpose of life is to make more life

No it's not. Life doesn't have a purpose. It isn't the purpose of fire to burn, or stars to give off light, or water to make things wet. It's just what they do. Trying to assign very human concepts such as a purpose to such phenomena is a rather anthropocentric way of looking at things. And again, why does it matter if you have a purpose? There's no logical reason to fulfill that purpose, it's just something that some people might do because it makes them feel good about themselves and gives them some sense of accomplishment.

SiuiS
2014-11-30, 12:51 AM
I don't think most people would be neutral though. Most people side with good or evil not just by choice, but by life style.

If you find a 100 gold bag and keep it for any reason, you have done an evil act. After all a good person would turn the money in and/or try to find the owner.

I agree with the first part. The second part is confusing law for good. Ownership is not good. You don't need to return the gold to be good. You need due diligence on returning the gold. If it's not feasible then you can keep it. Or you can keep it and when someone comes along and lays out how they're 100 gold poorer and you're certain it was theirs, redeem it then.


I think you're going with your own headcanon here. There are many settings where there's a constant cosmic war between celestial and demonic forces, and where both sides are dogmatic, scary and don't really care much about mortals (or care about them in creepy ways), but DND is not one of those settings.

It very much is. It tries not to be, nowadays, but the roots are still there and are taken by accident by people who don't know what they're replicating.

A living D&D world maybe should not be, but this hypothetical "as it is in the books" game? Definitely. I prefer your game to this hypothetical one though.


I prefer the Eberron approach:

Problem: that's an exception what proves the rule; it has to be called out that this setting does not operate like normal D&D. This setting has actual morality and not alignment. That means alignment is not inherently what Eberron has, but the other option.


Same thing. If you enjoy hurting me, then it doesn't matter whether I'm hurt by a good act (you reported a crime I committed) or an evil act (you took my money). The spite is the same either way.

Yes and no. Alignment is not a debit system where you balance it and get the Net Alignment Points. It is fully possible to perform an act that is simultaneously good, evil, neutral and lawful. Because action, immediate outcome, intention, and reasonable responsibility all play a part in it. A good act done for evil ends is both; but you end up more evil even as you put good in the world. It's, quite frankly, a terrible system for anything other than mortals caught in an immortals war.


I would argue that a universe with literal objective Good and Evil is be so far divorced from our modern interpretation of morality that the words themselves have almost entirely different meanings. Arguing a literal morality from a subjective perspective is always going to cause arguments.

Well spoke.


Why not? He inflicts suffering on others, depriving them of their livelihoods, and hastening their deaths. He provides no services or redeeming qualities to offset his villainy. It's easy to overvalue the lives of scum when you don't think about what the repercussions of their actions are. And, if in response to being killed, his friends and family and other scum looking for an excuse decide to burn down the city his presence blighted, the suffering from their actions is on them, not the guy who put the thief down.

And...:

Eh. It's not that simple, still. He's evil, but killing him isn't the only recourse. As you said, if you can make him not evil, you still win.


That's it. Both you and Frozen Feet are right on different levels. They are based on modern standards (slavery is always evil, people have fundamental rights etc.), .

3e has slavery as Lawful, not evil. Chattel slavery is evil due to the injustices committed against the sovereignty of the slaves, Viking era slavery (where war survivors get into Viking society as the lowest social caste and are told to climb the ladder) and fomorians (lawful neutral, nothing evil about their continent wide mind control slavery rings) are all lawful.


this is actually not true in second edition as well there were non-evil fiends as well (perhaps earlier editions as well i don't know one way or the other.

actually where does it say killing fiend is always a good act with no qualifiers of any kind.

In planescape perhaps, but by default "fiend" was a term specifically for evil outsiders from the lower planes.


Heck, even Dragonlance, the undisputed most black-and-white Good vs. Evil setting in all of D&D (to the point that Law and Chaos are an afterthought and the entire world is Color-Coded for Your Convenience), had a Good empire get wiped out by its own gods for growing so zealous and intolerant of Evil that it screen-wrapped to being Evil (or at least Lawful Stupid) itself.


That's a factor of D&D in general, really. See prior thing about how drow happened.



I don't see how "Because it causes you pain and suffering" is functionally different from "Because it's the evil thing to do."

Intention. Pain is a catalyst for growth. The drill instructor at paladin academy does not gain evil points when he whomp a a student in combat training. This is because he does it so the pain can help him instruct; he does not relish it for the pain but the lesson, and his heart feels compassion and a bit of remorse.

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 12:55 AM
No it's not. Life doesn't have a purpose. It isn't the purpose of fire to burn, or stars to give off light, or water to make things wet. It's just what they do. Trying to assign very human concepts such as a purpose to such phenomena is a rather anthropocentric way of looking at things. And again, why does it matter if you have a purpose? There's no logical reason to fulfill that purpose, it's just something that some people might do because it makes them feel good about themselves and gives them some sense of accomplishment.

That kind of reminds me of Charles Forte's criticism of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as a sort of tautology. To paraphrase "Things that are good at surviving survive. Those that aren't are dead. Therefore all surviving life has been able to survive."


Intention. Pain is a catalyst for growth. The drill instructor at paladin academy does not gain evil points when he whomp a a student in combat training. This is because he does it so the pain can help him instruct; he does not relish it for the pain but the lesson, and his heart feels compassion and a bit of remorse.

And if your intention is to cause pain for the sake of causing pain because you are a sadist / malicious / spiteful / hateful and get pleasure from seeing other people suffer?

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 02:57 AM
"Because I enjoy it" is a different motivation from "Because it is the [Alignment[/i] thing to do."

hamishspence
2014-11-30, 03:55 AM
3e has slavery as Lawful, not evil. Chattel slavery is evil due to the injustices committed against the sovereignty of the slaves, Viking era slavery (where war survivors get into Viking society as the lowest social caste and are told to climb the ladder) and fomorians (lawful neutral, nothing evil about their continent wide mind control slavery rings) are all lawful.

BoED at least calls it Evil rather than Lawful. Which raises the question of what kind of slavery they're calling Evil - all kinds - or only a subset.

Synar
2014-11-30, 04:31 AM
I can't think of anything that would reasonably fit that description. Why would people's lives be "ruined forever" by revealing that you/others have benefitted from something "very evil, wrong and illegal"?

I don't think the examples you gave explain that, or even have anything much to do with that point:


1) Is Stupid Good, but doesn't have anything to do with the original point. Noone is having their lives ruined by you telling the truth about the Cardassian. (They are being Stupid Good by refusing treatment).

2) If selling your soul is "very evil, wrong and illegal", that presumably means doing so causes a lot of harm (or will lead to a lot of harm in the future). If the demon is going to come back one day and turn Slog into a horrible monster (for example), people need to be aware. If the demon is going to come back and drag Slog down to Hell, people probably ought to know to. On the other hand, if nothing is bad is going to happen, then why was this act "very evil, wrong and illegal"?

3) Either the church/food-bank/etc has a good reason for refusing the money, or it doesn't. If it does, letting them know where it came from is Good (and concealing it from them could cause all sorts of other problems in the future). If it doesn't, then it is the recipient that is being "Stupid Good", not the person telling them the truth about the money.

(Besides, I haven't seen that moral dilemma come up much. "Should I take blood money?" is more often about when the bad guy is offering them some of their ill-gotten gains, and you have to decide whether taking it would help legitimize the evil acts, or put you in their debt. "Robin Hood stole the money from the bad guys" is only somewhat different from "the courts fined the bad guy, and the government uses some of that money for social programmes". (And the difference is more about Law vs. Chaos).




That's Lawful Stupid, not Stupid Good.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.
As others have said - if there are still people in the blast area, that's not "Stupid Good" - that's "beyond-the-call-of-duty heroism". If everyone has evacuated, that <I>might</I> be Stupid Good, but that depends on how important whatever would get destroyed is. And I'mnot even sure what

means.

I see your stupid good and raise you a Kantian Paladin (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23).


He may not lie. No, not even then.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-30, 05:26 AM
Intention. Pain is a catalyst for growth. The drill instructor at paladin academy does not gain evil points when he whomp a a student in combat training. This is because he does it so the pain can help him instruct; he does not relish it for the pain but the lesson, and his heart feels compassion and a bit of remorse.

You're twisting the context on its head. I was talking about "Because it causes you pain and suffering" as the intention behind an act, not about "Causing pain and suffering" as the act itself.


BoED at least calls it Evil rather than Lawful. Which raises the question of what kind of slavery they're calling Evil - all kinds - or only a subset.

Presumably only a subset, otherwise the Formians have some 'splaining to do.

hamishspence
2014-11-30, 05:33 AM
Or it's just that they've been "grandfathered in" - being portrayed exactly as they were in older editions - without taking into account that morality's gotten stricter.

Quite a lot of 3.0-3.5 monsters act in a fashion that DMs would probably call evil if it was the players doing it.

One could go with "Slavery is evil - but formians commit enough Good overall that they're Neutral rather than Evil" - but there's no evidence of such Good behaviour on their part.

Wardog
2014-11-30, 07:32 AM
I agree with the first part. The second part is confusing law for good. Ownership is not good. You don't need to return the gold to be good. You need due diligence on returning the gold. If it's not feasible then you can keep it. Or you can keep it and when someone comes along and lays out how they're 100 gold poorer and you're certain it was theirs, redeem it then.


I would say that both Good and Lawful people would want to try to return the gold to its rightful owner. However, keeping it for yourself would not generally be Evil.

Although this probably also depends on circumstances - if you see a charity collector accidently drop their collection, and snatch it up before they realise its missing, that would tend to evil. But you find the gold in the middle of the desert, outside any lawful jurisdiction and with no possible way to determine who it belonged to (or how many years its been lying there), then I'm sure even a paladin could take it without any criticism.

hamishspence
2014-11-30, 08:34 AM
I would say that both Good and Lawful people would want to try to return the gold to its rightful owner. However, keeping it for yourself would not generally be Evil.

Although this probably also depends on circumstances - if you see a charity collector accidently drop their collection, and snatch it up before they realise its missing, that would tend to evil. But you find the gold in the middle of the desert, outside any lawful jurisdiction and with no possible way to determine who it belonged to (or how many years its been lying there), then I'm sure even a paladin could take it without any criticism.

Yup - the code says a paladin may not steal - nothing there about finding, salvaging, etc.

Frozen_Feet
2014-11-30, 01:23 PM
That kind of reminds me of Charles Forte's criticism of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as a sort of tautology. To paraphrase "Things that are good at surviving survive. Those that aren't are dead. Therefore all surviving life has been able to survive."

That's not a real criticism. Natural selection is a feedback loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback), and all feedback loops give appearance of tautology because the causes and effects are interlinked.

The nature of evolution as a feedback loop also means that yes, propagating is the purpose of human life. Evolution leads to beings capable of choosing a purpose, and those who choose a purpose antithetical to propagating will remove themselves from nature. Repeat this a few hundred, or a few million, times and you will end up with a population with self-chosen purpose to primarily propagate.

Purposes don't need to be intrinsic, they can be emergent.


I see your stupid good and raise you a Kantian Paladin (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23).


He may not lie. No, not even then.

This is not as much of a handicap as it's often portrayed as.

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 03:13 PM
That's not a real criticism. Natural selection is a feedback loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback), and all feedback loops give appearance of tautology because the causes and effects are interlinked.

The nature of evolution as a feedback loop also means that yes, propagating is the purpose of human life. Evolution leads to beings capable of choosing a purpose, and those who choose a purpose antithetical to propagating will remove themselves from nature. Repeat this a few hundred, or a few million, times and you will end up with a population with self-chosen purpose to primarily propagate.

Purposes don't need to be intrinsic, they can be emergent.



This is not as much of a handicap as it's often portrayed as.

It isnt a criticisizim in that he is Saying the theory is wrong. He is saying that the theory just states the painfully obvious and he doesnt see why it is such a revolutinary idea.

Also, I really dont think that you can assign purposes to natural phenomenon like that. If I randomly throw a basket of eggs into the air, and those that land on concrete smash while those that land in the grass remain intact, would you say "the purpose of eggs is to find grass"? Or how about I have a bunch of tools, and those I use regularly tend to break and get thrown out while those that sit on my shelf collecting dust linger for decades, so therefore is the purpose of tools to not get used?

I guess this is just a natter of philosophy with no right answer, but I dont think that just because something is more long lasting in certain condtions means that its sole purpose is to seek those conditions.

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 03:16 PM
It isnt a criticisizim in that he is Saying the theory is wrong. He is saying that the theory just states the painfully obvious and he doesnt see why it is such a revolutinary idea.It seems obvious to us now, in hindsight. But it wasn't. Most scientific theories tend to be incredibly obvious.

Frozen_Feet
2014-11-30, 03:18 PM
I don't think you grasped my argument. I'm not arguing the eggs landing on grass landed there on purposes. I'm arguing that after a few hundred generations, when the chickens that lay those eggs have begun to purposefully lay their eggs on grass, you will see chickens arguing that it is, indeed, purposeful to lay the eggs on grass. :smalltongue:

As for your tool metaphor, it's not the tools that have evolved to choose their purpose; instead, we would see the human saying that the tools he uses frequently "have a purpose", while those he doesn't use are "purposeless".

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 04:12 PM
I don't think you grasped my argument. I'm not arguing the eggs landing on grass landed there on purposes. I'm arguing that after a few hundred generations, when the chickens that lay those eggs have begun to purposefully lay their eggs on grass, you will see chickens arguing that it is, indeed, purposeful to lay the eggs on grass. :smalltongue:

As for your tool metaphor, it's not the tools that have evolved to choose their purpose; instead, we would see the human saying that the tools he uses frequently "have a purpose", while those he doesn't use are "purposeless".

Of course they would; but they would be doing so because they are driven by hormones rather than pure logic. I would think that the Vulcans, or those like them, would be smart enough to tell the difference.

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 04:16 PM
Of course they would; but they would be doing so because they are driven by hormones rather than pure logic. I would think that the Vulcans, or those like them, would be smart enough to tell the difference.Vulcans are not completely without emotion. They just have it very suppressed, and have used logic to 'contain' it, using their emotional state as a postulate in their logical paths, and think 'around' their emotions.

Frozen_Feet
2014-11-30, 04:27 PM
Of course they would; but they would be doing so because they are driven by hormones rather than pure logic. I would think that the Vulcans, or those like them, would be smart enough to tell the difference.

You cannot, through natural selection, get a lasting entity of "pure logic" who does not accept propagation of life as one of its central premises, because all such entities will remove themselves in one generation. Keep in mind that longevity (and its logical extreme, immortality) are just different ways of propagation.

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 04:34 PM
You cannot, through natural selection, get a lasting entity of "pure logic" who does not accept propagation of life as one of its central premises, because all such entities will remove themselves in one generation. Keep in mind that longevity (and its logical extreme, immortality) are just different ways of propagation.

Which is exactly my point. I don't think Vulcans make sense, as they claim that they strive for "pure log and the purging of all emotions," which would in turn cause them to lose any sense of purpose and cause their extinction.

Frozen_Feet
2014-11-30, 04:42 PM
The key here is that they were biological beings first. Vulcans are an example of a "Friendly Strong AI", or rather, just "Strong I" if they came to beign through evolution. Even if they're "friendly" only by virtue of random determination. In absence of premises, a logical intelligence could always choose a set randomly; they could've literally just flipped a coin on whether to exist and not, and everything else would logically follow from the result.

Grim Portent
2014-11-30, 05:01 PM
Which is exactly my point. I don't think Vulcans make sense, as they claim that they strive for "pure log and the purging of all emotions," which would in turn cause them to lose any sense of purpose and cause their extinction.

Propagation doesn't result from emotion. It's a more base impulse than emotions, otherwise things like bacteria and plants wouldn't do it. Purpose was probably not the right word for me to use, basic biological imperative is more accurate.

Logic is a methodology to achieve something, not an end in itself. Logic is a 'how' that is used to achieve a 'what', the 'why' was determined prior to the decision to be logical.

The Vulkans needed to preserve their species, that's the why, they decided to use logic, that's the how, they survived, that's the what. After that they just carry on because they determined a purpose to pursue in the why stage, any deviations or alterations in what they do after that result from new information changing their perceptions of the most logical way to benefit their species as a whole.

Lanaya
2014-11-30, 05:49 PM
Propagation doesn't result from emotion. It's a more base impulse than emotions, otherwise things like bacteria and plants wouldn't do it.

It's simple programming for mindless organisms which aren't capable of emotion. It's chemical carrots and sticks for more complex organisms that have minds and emotions rather than relying entirely on hardwired responses. Otherwise we humans would have no control over our reproductive instincts, which we certainly do.

Frozen_Feet
2014-11-30, 06:12 PM
It's simple programming for mindless organisms which aren't capable of emotion. It's chemical carrots and sticks for more complex organisms that have minds and emotions rather than relying entirely on hardwired responses. Otherwise we humans would have no control over our reproductive instincts, which we certainly do.

Even more importantly, a sufficiently "strong" logical intelligence can completely rewrite its coding; it can decide whether to have any of that crap hardwired in, or not.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-30, 07:44 PM
Which is exactly my point. I don't think Vulcans make sense, as they claim that they strive for "pure log and the purging of all emotions," which would in turn cause them to lose any sense of purpose and cause their extinction.

Actually, I think the converse of the anthropic principle applies here. If your species goes extinct then it will have no members left to determine whether allowing that to happen was the logical(ly correct) course of action, therefore ensuring the survival of your species must in fact be the logical(ly correct) thing to do.:smalltongue:

Jay R
2014-11-30, 08:30 PM
The mistake people are making is the premise that a logical creature is emotionless. This is simply untrue. A logical creature is one who treats his emotions logically.

"I enjoy being with this person. She understands my emotional needs, and I understand hers. It would serve her needs and mine best if we were to make a lifelong commitment to each other. It is therefore logical for me to merry her."

"I am getting extremely angry with this person, and he will not listen. It is therefore logical to walk away from the discussion."

"This food tastes horrible. I have plenty of money. It is more logical to buy another meal than to continue eating this one."

All of these are logical responses to emotions. Remember why Sarek married his wife? "At the time, it seemed like the logical thing to do."

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 10:28 PM
I guess I should clarify my stance on Evil - The thing about killing being an Evil act in D&D... it's not the act of killing an individual that's evil. Instead, it's the effect that killing has on others. It's not evil to kill the man who steals from the poor and hastens the deaths and increases the suffering of others, such as a cruel employer like some accounts of Ebeneezer Scrooge. The evil act would not be killing him... but what makes it potentially evil is the effect it has on the innocent Bob Cratchet. If the death of Scrooge deprives Bob of his income and lets Tiny Tim die, then indirectly letting Tiny Tim die in that way and Bob and his family starve is the evil act... however, if Scrooge was keeping Bob employed through cruel means - ability to hurt him if he tried leaving his employ, heavy fake debts, blackmail, etc, and his death allowed Bob to get better employment elsewhere (No other effects), then killing Scrooge is a Good thing to do (Same as if doing so otherwise improves Bob's situation, such as him inheriting the business)

Prince Raven
2014-12-01, 12:30 AM
I definitely would consider the cold-blooded murder of Scrooge an Evil act regardless of his death's effect on other, especially if its the first option the character resorts to. It is a punishment disproportionate to the evil he has committed.

Sartharina
2014-12-01, 01:02 AM
I definitely would consider the cold-blooded murder of Scrooge an Evil act regardless of his death's effect on other, especially if its the first option the character resorts to. It is a punishment disproportionate to the evil he has committed.Only because you fail to recognize the extent of the evil he has committed.

Talakeal
2014-12-01, 01:37 AM
The mistake people are making is the premise that a logical creature is emotionless. This is simply untrue. A logical creature is one who treats his emotions logically.

"I enjoy being with this person. She understands my emotional needs, and I understand hers. It would serve her needs and mine best if we were to make a lifelong commitment to each other. It is therefore logical for me to merry her."

"I am getting extremely angry with this person, and he will not listen. It is therefore logical to walk away from the discussion."

"This food tastes horrible. I have plenty of money. It is more logical to buy another meal than to continue eating this one."

All of these are logical responses to emotions. Remember why Sarek married his wife? "At the time, it seemed like the logical thing to do."

Absolutely. I 100% agree with this.

The problem is that the Vulcans actually aspire to an emotionless state, and some of them actually believe they have attained it.

Talakeal
2014-12-01, 01:39 AM
Only because you fail to recognize the extent of the evil he has committed.

This reminds me of Gandalf's take on the subject. Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and no one knows the full ramifications of their (or anyone else's) past actions, let alone the future consequences of their actions in the present.

Gnoman
2014-12-01, 02:07 AM
This reminds me of Gandalf's take on the subject. Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and no one knows the full ramifications of their (or anyone else's) past actions, let alone the future consequences of their actions in the present.

The full quote to which you refer:


"I am sorry," said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum."

"You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in.

"No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

hamishspence
2014-12-01, 02:20 AM
. It's not evil to kill the man who steals from the poor and hastens the deaths and increases the suffering of others, such as a cruel employer like some accounts of Ebeneezer Scrooge. The evil act would not be killing him... but what makes it potentially evil is the effect it has on the innocent Bob Cratchet.

"Hastening deaths" is not the same thing as "committing murder". One is a serious crime - the other, depending on the circumstance, may not be.

"Execution for serious (moral) crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil" - in BoED. But execution for petty (moral) crimes - even if the person is guilty of a vast number of them - could qualify as Evil.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-01, 03:54 AM
The mistake people are making is the premise that a logical creature is emotionless. This is simply untrue. A logical creature is one who treats his emotions logically.

This doesn't involve nearly enough Converse Anthropic Principle for me to accept it as a reasonable answer.:smalltongue:


The thing about killing being an Evil act in D&D... it's not the act of killing an individual that's evil. Instead, it's the effect that killing has on others.

...There is not a single edition of D&D in which this is not the exact opposite of correct. Alignment is neither consequentialist nor utilitarian, if the universe says that killing someone who's not themselves a murderer or comparably serious criminal is Evil then killing that person is Evil, end of story.

Wardog
2014-12-01, 05:33 PM
Which is exactly my point. I don't think Vulcans make sense, as they claim that they strive for "pure log and the purging of all emotions," which would in turn cause them to lose any sense of purpose and cause their extinction.

I think everything about Vulcans and Vulcan culture makes sense (includingespecially all the stupid and contradictory bits)when you remember that "logic" and "denial of emotions" is essentially their "religion" (rather than being an inherent part of their nature).

The problem with Trek is that everyone else (including the script writers) seem to forget that, and act as though they really are perfectly logical. (Leading to cases of, e.g. McCoy criticising the concept of logic, rather than just criticising Spock for being an idiot, or the plot being about the resident Vulcan realising logic isn't appropriate in all situations - except that the solution they decide on is actually logical, it just doesn't meet the bizarre Vulcan definition of "logic").

Gnoman
2014-12-01, 07:11 PM
I think everything about Vulcans and Vulcan culture makes sense (includingespecially all the stupid and contradictory bits)when you remember that "logic" and "denial of emotions" is essentially their "religion" (rather than being an inherent part of their nature).

The problem with Trek is that everyone else (including the script writers) seem to forget that, and act as though they really are perfectly logical. (Leading to cases of, e.g. McCoy criticising the concept of logic, rather than just criticising Spock for being an idiot, or the plot being about the resident Vulcan realising logic isn't appropriate in all situations - except that the solution they decide on is actually logical, it just doesn't meet the bizarre Vulcan definition of "logic").

That's one thing that's handled much better in the Star Trek EU (or at least parts of it). In Spock's World, it is explained that "logic" is a bad translation of the Vulcan philosophical concept of "reality-truth", which refers to looking at the world the way it is rather than the way you want it to be, and the entire Surakian philosophy boils down to rejection of fear, which was the root of all other negative emotions as well as the negative aspect of positive ones. In this retelling, total emotional control was merely a result of following the two principles rather than an end in itself, which later generations of Vulcan philosophers expanded upon.

Synar
2014-12-02, 07:14 AM
It isnt a criticisizim in that he is Saying the theory is wrong. He is saying that the theory just states the painfully obvious and he doesnt see why it is such a revolutinary idea.

Also, I really dont think that you can assign purposes to natural phenomenon like that. If I randomly throw a basket of eggs into the air, and those that land on concrete smash while those that land in the grass remain intact, would you say "the purpose of eggs is to find grass"? Or how about I have a bunch of tools, and those I use regularly tend to break and get thrown out while those that sit on my shelf collecting dust linger for decades, so therefore is the purpose of tools to not get used?

I guess this is just a natter of philosophy with no right answer, but I dont think that just because something is more long lasting in certain condtions means that its sole purpose is to seek those conditions.

What was revolutionnary was the concept that things CAN evolve and transmit those evolutions, not just how those evolutions are selected, and that long-lasting and radical divergences can appear and be transmitted.

Then again saying that it is painfully obvious that selection throught survivability is what guides evolution is a bit strange since reality is a bit more comples : you have reproduction parameters, sex selection (and even reproductive handicaps), or even indirect selection (such as genes that favorise reproduction of siblings rather than of the given individual).

So yes that such mechanisms exist and contribute may be obvious, but only in retrospect, as one would not necesarrily think of them in the first place - and that evolution is actually possible is was certainly not.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

On the current subject : why are you saying that killing such an evil people is a good act? Is it to prevent him from harming others? Then shouldn't trying to prevent him from doing so by other means be a better act? Or even better, show miserichord, try to redeem him, and maybe even try to make repair his faults? Isnt'it what good is all about? And wouldn't evil acts for good results be at best neutral, just ike choosing the lesser of two evils?

To elaborate : would you still advocate as good the act of killing an evil guy if he was already prevented from commiting evil acts or was redemeed? For example an hypothetical Scrooge in jail?


(You are starting to make me think of the Punisher by the way.)

Prince Raven
2014-12-02, 07:46 AM
I actually really like the whole character concept of an unnecessarily harsh crusader going around slaughtering petty criminals "FOR JUSTICE!", I've even had a few NPCs built around the concept. I just don't see how that character could, in any way, be a Lawful Good Paladin, as their actions are neither Lawful nor Good.

SiuiS
2014-12-02, 08:16 AM
...No? You claimed that the posters talking about the idea of "evil for evil's sake" on the first page were assuming rational actors. I pointed out that there is no actual evidence of that in their posts.

Let me see if I can break it down. It's clear enough to me that I might slip up and do a half job.

The posters said that some people choose evil because they just want to see the world burn.
These people are akin to the joker.
Choice is only valid when one is rational; rather, we reject irrational decisions as a valid basis for action and decision.
The joker is insane.
Insane people are not rational actors.

We then get that no one ever just wants to as the world burn. Anyone who 'just wants to see the world burn' is insane. This means they are irrational and would likely not want to see the world burn were they actually sane. Since they are irrational and their choices are not valid lifestyle choices, they are not a valid example of someone choosing to live life in a certain way – because that choice is by it's nature not a valid one.


Also, in a world where there are tangible manifestations of evil in the form of gods and demons it might actually be perfectly rationale to assist them by performing evil for evil's sake.

Perhaps. It is always irrational to throw yourself to extinction without gain though, aye? For purposes of this discussion at least.

This stuff really only works from a painfully humanocentric worldview. We no longer view demons and angels as actors in a world who are designed to guide and fight over human thought. Once they become their own thing, then everything we know about them falls apart. Alignment and outsiders were originally set up from this viewpoint, hence why I argue from it. But if you remove that, you get an entirely different system.


That kind of reminds me of Charles Forte's criticism of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as a sort of tautology. To paraphrase "Things that are good at surviving survive. Those that aren't are dead. Therefore all surviving life has been able to survive."


Ha.



And if your intention is to cause pain for the sake of causing pain because you are a sadist / malicious / spiteful / hateful and get pleasure from seeing other people suffer?

I don't understand why you're asking me this.
"Causing pain is only not evil when intentional, if the reason and the reasonable outcome is positive growth."
"And what of your reasons and reasonable outcomes are not positive growth?"

Then the exception is not there and it's evil.


BoED at least calls it Evil rather than Lawful. Which raises the question of what kind of slavery they're calling Evil - all kinds - or only a subset.

Interesting but noncontradictory. Fomorians are normal alignment. Slavery as lawful is perfectly logical for alignment. BoED introduces the exalted good, which folds morality into the alignment. Much like a paladin's code is not indicative of but beyond their alignment, this too is beyond standard scales. The book itself even goes out of it's way to say "the rest of the universe thinks you're barmy". It's a purposeful juxtaposition of modern ethics against the anachronistic ethics of alignment behaviors.


You're twisting the context on its head. I was talking about "Because it causes you pain and suffering" as the intention behind an act, not about "Causing pain and suffering" as the act itself.


I've intentionally caused pain and suffering. It was callous, but not evil, sometimes. This is why. Alignment, morality, is not so easy to distill. I didn't turn it on it's head. I accept and used the fact that there will always be more informing the situation than most people will let on.


Which is exactly my point. I don't think Vulcans make sense, as they claim that they strive for "pure log and the purging of all emotions," which would in turn cause them to lose any sense of purpose and cause their extinction.

Yeah. Vulcans do have emotions, though. They train extensively to suppress them but they are never gone. They just have the same sense of smugness as people who are rationalizing or arguing from preference online, who insist they aren't being emotional at all.


Only because you fail to recognize the extent of the evil he has committed.

No, because there is a difference between the stated cold blooded murder and an rightful execution. One is only responsible alignment wise for what they can reasonably be expected to know and take into account. This is why high level clerics and wizards are usually extremely aligned; divination greatly expands your moral burden.


That's one thing that's handled much better in the Star Trek EU (or at least parts of it). In Spock's World, it is explained that "logic" is a bad translation of the Vulcan philosophical concept of "reality-truth", which refers to looking at the world the way it is rather than the way you want it to be, and the entire Surakian philosophy boils down to rejection of fear, which was the root of all other negative emotions as well as the negative aspect of positive ones. In this retelling, total emotional control was merely a result of following the two principles rather than an end in itself, which later generations of Vulcan philosophers expanded upon.

Oh neat.

ReaderAt2046
2014-12-02, 08:36 AM
I've seen people here state multiple times that people do not do evil for the sake of doing evil. If you are doing evil for evil's sake, you're stupid evil and unrealistic. I agree with these people.

However, how does this apply to good? Many D&D characters do good for the sake of doing good. In which way is this not unrealistic?

That's why good and evil can't really be opposites in the way D&D depicts them. Good is itself, but evil is only corrupted or spoiled good. The fact that people do good for the sake of doing good, but nobody ever does evil for the sake of doing evil, is one of the more obvious proofs of this.

Prince Raven
2014-12-02, 09:02 AM
I would argue that no one truly does good just because its good either.

Sartharina
2014-12-02, 11:25 AM
In D&D, life has a purpose, and it's really damn easy to figure out what that purpose is, since 'life' is nothing more than a really complex tool. The way to get that purpose, of course, is to ask the creator. Orcs are made to conquer the world. Elves are made to protect and preserve nature. The purpose of dwarves is to shape the world and everything in it. Kobolds are made to protect and serve dragons, and gather their hoards. The purpose of humans is to make all the other races obsolete by doing everything they do, but better.

And, by looking at the tool analogy, the purpose of humans is to reproduce as much as the purpose of a hammer is to hang on a wall and never be used. It's just as logical to deduce that the purpose of life is to provide the resources and power to build massive monuments and wage war (Why? We don't know.)


"Hastening deaths" is not the same thing as "committing murder". One is a serious crime - the other, depending on the circumstance, may not be.

"Execution for serious (moral) crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil" - in BoED. But execution for petty (moral) crimes - even if the person is guilty of a vast number of them - could qualify as Evil.Actually, "Hastening Deaths" isn't the moral crime 'making life a living hell' is the moral crime. The effects of multiple petty crimes add up to form a major moral offense..


This reminds me of Gandalf's take on the subject. Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and no one knows the full ramifications of their (or anyone else's) past actions, let alone the future consequences of their actions in the present.But with that quote... just because you can't do everything doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can!

Burner28
2014-12-02, 12:24 PM
I'll add that, interestingly enough, if we look at TV Tropes' definitions, there's a discrepancy between stupidity on the two axis (axes ? axises ? Oh my God I feel a Buffy reference coming on) :
- Lawful Stupid ("You violated the traffic laws ! Taste steel, fiend !") and Chaotic Stupid (A puppy ? Will I kick it, pet it, or paint it purple ? Oh but I have to jump off that bridge first, because that's unpredictable) are personalities taken so far they hurt others (especially Lawful Stupid) and maybe you.
- Stupid Good ("Don't kill that poor, adorable Balor, I'm sure it has reasons for being so mean") and Stupid Evil ("haha ! There's a bomb in my bag ! Now we're both screwed, but at long as YOU'RE screwed it's so worth it !') are personalities taken so far that they hurt YOU and maybe others. What I mean is, there's no problem hurting others for Evil, so their way of being Stupid is hurting themselves in the process. And there's such a problem hurting others for Good (I thoroughly disagree with anyone painting "oh, an Evil creature, let's kill it and all its family" as Stupid Good) that if you do, your act can't be Stupid Good because it's not Good at all.

The point being that doing Evil for Evil's sake, being the Joker ? IMO that's caricatural, not that interesting to roleplay and verging on stupid, but that's not Stupid Evil as a (false) alignment with capital letters.

I never thought of the contrast between Lawful/Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Good/Evil. That's pretty interesting.

hamishspence
2014-12-02, 12:41 PM
The effects of multiple petty crimes add up to form a major moral offense..

Not really. Justice demands that punishment be in proportion to an offence - executing a person for many minor offences, is not justice.

Raine_Sage
2014-12-02, 03:57 PM
In D&D, life has a purpose, and it's really damn easy to figure out what that purpose is, since 'life' is nothing more than a really complex tool. The way to get that purpose, of course, is to ask the creator. Orcs are made to conquer the world. Elves are made to protect and preserve nature. The purpose of dwarves is to shape the world and everything in it. Kobolds are made to protect and serve dragons, and gather their hoards. The purpose of humans is to make all the other races obsolete by doing everything they do, but better.

And, by looking at the tool analogy, the purpose of humans is to reproduce as much as the purpose of a hammer is to hang on a wall and never be used. It's just as logical to deduce that the purpose of life is to provide the resources and power to build massive monuments and wage war (Why? We don't know.)

Actually, "Hastening Deaths" isn't the moral crime 'making life a living hell' is the moral crime. The effects of multiple petty crimes add up to form a major moral offense..

But with that quote... just because you can't do everything doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can!

The point of that quote isn't to say "You don't know everything so you shouldn't do anything." It's outlining the fact that you will never have a complete picture of the situation, and that morally it's better to er on the side of mercy and be wrong than it is to er on the side of vengeance and be wrong. At the very least erring on the side of mercy can still mean you lock a potentially dangerous man up, rather than killing someone who hasn't really done anything worth being killed over.

Sartharina
2014-12-02, 04:09 PM
The point of that quote isn't to say "You don't know everything so you shouldn't do anything." It's outlining the fact that you will never have a complete picture of the situation, and that morally it's better to er on the side of mercy and be wrong than it is to er on the side of vengeance and be wrong. At the very least erring on the side of mercy can still mean you lock a potentially dangerous man up, rather than killing someone who hasn't really done anything worth being killed over.Gandalf does not have the benefit of an omnipresent Cosmic Force covering everything.

And "Good" is about what's best for the Upper Planes and what will bring about merging the material plane with the Upper Planes. It's not about what's best for the material plane on its own.

The purpose of Life is ultimately to provide and recycle Souls for the cosmic struggle of Good Vs. Evil vs. Law vs. Chaos.

Talakeal
2014-12-02, 05:06 PM
What was revolutionnary was the concept that things CAN evolve and transmit those evolutions, not just how those evolutions are selected, and that long-lasting and radical divergences can appear and be transmitted.

Then again saying that it is painfully obvious that selection throught survivability is what guides evolution is a bit strange since reality is a bit more comples : you have reproduction parameters, sex selection (and even reproductive handicaps), or even indirect selection (such as genes that favorise reproduction of siblings rather than of the given individual).

So yes that such mechanisms exist and contribute may be obvious, but only in retrospect, as one would not necesarrily think of them in the first place - and that evolution is actually possible is was certainly not.



I found the full quote:



The fittest survive.
What is meant by the fittest?
Not the strongest; not the cleverest--
Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.
There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.
"Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival."
Darwinism:
That survivors survive.

Vrock_Summoner
2014-12-02, 05:50 PM
I'm with Sartharina on premise, but not on conclusion. To quote OOTS (and I know OOTS isn't perfectly or even mostly accurate to D&D, but the point stands), Good does "not penalize people for ineffectiveness." The fact that you aren't an Int 30 wizard capable of considering every single possible negative extended consequence for your actions is not your fault. However, her bigger point holds, due to something a lot of people (not calling out anyone in specific, as multiple people in this very thread are exceptions) don't realize that D&D alignment =/= morality in any way, shape, or form. Like, at all, not a single tad bit. Good and Evil are cosmic, and pre-determined, forces in D&D. You can be the best moral philosopher in the world and convince everybody who plays D&D that something you considered Good is morally reprehensible and evil, but that doesn't change how the universe works in D&D (unless, of course, you're actively changing the universe and its alignment system, which is something you should definitely tell your players to avoid confusion and misunderstandings). Good and Evil (with capital letters) aren't truly tied at all to good and evil (lower-case), though they might often line up with non-D&D moral sensibilities. That's coincidence, though, not how the game really works; alignment is objective because the universe is objective. Hell, I've always considered the fact that the cosmic energies were called Good and Evil is cosmic propoganda or something similar. No amount of moral proof that something is actually right or wrong changes which type of energy the universe assigns to certain actions and people, because the universe doesn't think. It doesn't differentiate between right and wrong, or even consciously make decisions on a person's alignment; people just gather certain types of energy, which oppose one another, when they act and feel a certain way. And whichever god or social group has the advantage at the moment (moment being a relative word, as several thousand years could be a moment for a god, though it's not for people) can simply say (and, in many cases, believe; it's not like they're usually lying) that their ideology is "good and right" or "lawful and structured and safe" while the other side is "horrible and Evil" or "chaotic and irrational." Flip it on its head, just based on the things believed in by Evil and Chaos, and you don't get "bwahaha we're Evil" or "lol I'm taking ur stuf cuz i feelz like it but wait puppy kick lol", you get something more like "we live in freedom, success, and self-realization by not restraining ourselves based on outdated concepts"... Y'know, I could've listed two examples, but that one alone works for both Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral, so I'll go with it.

Anyway, the point is that the names are all subjective, the universe isn't. And in a world like D&D, I really wouldn't want to live in a world with pure Good overlords. Not one bit. I might even prefer Evil ones.

Sartharina
2014-12-02, 06:49 PM
There's a reason the cosmic war used to be between Order and Chaos.

As for "Who'd want to be willingly evil?" The answer is "My dark masters give me power beyond your puny comprehension! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Also - Lawful Evil tends to have utterly kickass music to march to. "Yes, I'm going to die and go to hell... but I'll be sent off to the beat of an awesome drumline and driving fanfare!" And they get snazzy uniforms.

As an Evil Overlord, you get the pleasure of having expendable armies wear snazzy uniforms and march to their deaths or victory in your name to awesome music. Seriously - Evil's awesome because of the art.

Prince Raven
2014-12-02, 07:14 PM
The Nazis certainly were very snappy dressers.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-02, 09:52 PM
Let me see if I can break it down. It's clear enough to me that I might slip up and do a half job.

Okey-doke.


The posters said that some people choose evil because they just want to see the world burn.
These people are akin to the joker.

I was actually the first one to make that specific comparison in the first place, but at this point that's a nitpick. Carry on.


Choice is only valid when one is rational; rather, we reject irrational decisions as a valid basis for action and decision.
The joker is insane.
Insane people are not rational actors.

Basic moral philosophy, although I'm actually not sure whether it applies to alignment (and in fact there's quite a few monsters and published NPCs whose existence implies that it doesn't).


We then get that no one ever just wants to as the world burn. Anyone who 'just wants to see the world burn' is insane.

Aaaaaaaaaand stop right there (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). A sharing one quality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) with B does not automatically mean that it shares any other qualities with B. Do not pass "Go," do not collect $200.


As for "Who'd want to be willingly evil?" The answer is "My dark masters give me power beyond your puny comprehension! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

As for the original question asked in the OP, this. In a world where predominantly evil societies are things that actually exist, it's perfectly plausible for there to be people who think of "the wrong thing to do" in the same light that others think of "the right thing to do."

Hiro Protagonest
2014-12-02, 09:58 PM
As for "Who'd want to be willingly evil?"... And they get snazzy uniforms.

You mean like these guys?
http://www.timetravelcostumes.com/images/sci-fi-monarch-henchamn/monarch00.jpg

veti
2014-12-02, 11:00 PM
Basic moral philosophy, although I'm actually not sure whether it applies to alignment (and in fact there's quite a few monsters and published NPCs whose existence implies that it doesn't).

It's worse than that, because "sane/insane" - in so far as the terms can be defined objectively - is a spectrum, not a binary switch. Almost nobody is "completely sane" or "- insane", we're all somewhere in between.

The same can be said for "rational". You can't know whether a given actor is being rational or not, unless you know not only their stated motives, but also their values and goals, and the background that led to that actor holding those values. All of which may be quite literally un-knowable - even the actor herself may well have forgotten, suppressed or sublimated a lot of the relevant data.

(Example of irrational? Arguing with strangers on the Internet (http://xkcd.com/386/).)

Is the Joker "insane"? We label him as such, because it excuses us from trying to understand him. But writers have come up with stories that go a long way to explaining why he does the things he does, in a light that makes them seem not irrational at all. If we accept (1) that his goal in life is to humiliate and torment the Batman, and (2) that he doesn't accept any constraints on what he'll do to achieve that aim, then many of his more... outstanding actions seem pretty well judged.

And if he is "insane"... what follows from that? That his choices are "invalid"? Seems to me that "valid" is just another poorly-defined concept that obscures more than it reveals in this discussion.


As for the original question asked in the OP, this. In a world where predominantly evil societies are things that actually exist, it's perfectly plausible for there to be people who think of "the wrong thing to do" in the same light that others think of "the right thing to do."

With or without "evil" societies, isn't that going to happen in any world where there exists a plurality of moral views? If one country thinks bigamy is a crime, while another thinks it's OK, it follows that at least one of these is going to be full of people who firmly and earnestly believe in "the wrong thing". (Quite possibly, both of them.)

Sith_Happens
2014-12-03, 12:08 AM
If one country thinks bigamy is a crime, while another thinks it's OK, it follows that at least one of these is going to be full of people who firmly and earnestly believe in "the wrong thing". (Quite possibly, both of them.)

Exactly this, the only difference is that it (hopefully) takes the transition to fiction before you can replace "bigamy" with "disemboweling people who insult you" in that sentence.

hamishspence
2014-12-03, 03:08 AM
"Good" is about what's best for the Upper Planes and what will bring about merging the material plane with the Upper Planes. It's not about what's best for the material plane on its own.

Which books say that? I've never seen anything like that in any 3.0 or 3.5 book as the "goal of the Upper Planes".

Sartharina
2014-12-03, 03:06 PM
It's the goal of Cosmic Good. Just as the Goal of Cosmic Evil is to bring the material plane and entire multiverse into the lower planes, and goal of Cosmic Law to bring Absolute Order to the multiverse, and goal of Cosmic Chaos to turn the entire multiverse into Chaos.
Exactly this, the only difference is that it (hopefully) takes the transition to fiction before you can replace "bigamy" with "disemboweling people who insult you" in that sentence.Insults can be serious business, and cause more harm than death - After all, being killed merely hurts your most transient stage of life. Being insulted can hurt your entire legacy for generations to come.

Whether this applies to the real world is a Forbidden Subject on these boards, though. (But do you think Civil Rights would have made it so far had, instead of being personally assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. had been character assassinated?)

hydroplatypus
2014-12-03, 11:23 PM
Exactly this, the only difference is that it (hopefully) takes the transition to fiction before you can replace "bigamy" with "disemboweling people who insult you" in that sentence.

I'm fairly sure there were several historic cultures in which that sort of thing was acceptable. Particularly if the one that was insulted was of higher social status than the one who gave the insult.

hamishspence
2014-12-04, 02:09 AM
It's the goal of Cosmic Good. Just as the Goal of Cosmic Evil is to bring the material plane and entire multiverse into the lower planes, and goal of Cosmic Law to bring Absolute Order to the multiverse, and goal of Cosmic Chaos to turn the entire multiverse into Chaos.

Where did you read that, though?

Good and Evil behave very differently going by MoTP, BoVD, and BOED - Evil is constantly attacking other evil (even of the same alignment) - Good is not.

So why should Good (and Law and Chaos for that matter) be expansionistic like Evil is?

(Formians might be - but they're not really exemplars of law the way modrons and inevitables are. Slaadi, the counterparts of modrons, don't seem especially expansionistic.)

Frozen_Feet
2014-12-04, 09:45 AM
"Assimilation to the upper planes" is actually just the logical conclusion of the rules pertaining to petitioners of gods, as written in Deities and Demigods. People who follow ethos of some specific alignment to its end fuse with gods on said plane, or perhaps the plane itself, and become Outsiders.

What differs for the alignments, is not the "end goal", but rather, the means to get there.

hamishspence
2014-12-04, 09:51 AM
"Assimilation to the upper planes" is actually just the logical conclusion of the rules pertaining to petitioners of gods, as written in Deities and Demigods. People who follow ethos of some specific alignment to its end fuse with gods on said plane, or perhaps the plane itself, and become Outsiders.

What differs for the alignments, is not the "end goal", but rather, the means to get there.
Souls assimilating, is a rather different thing from entire planes assimilating.

The idea that Elysium (plane of Neutral Good) seeks to merge every single plane, including the material one, into it - so there's only one plane in the entire multiverse - that seems a huge stretch - and I've never read anything suggesting it.

mangosta71
2014-12-04, 10:19 AM
Evil's awesome because of the art.
Sigging (unless you object).

hamishspence
2014-12-04, 10:24 AM
Is there anyone who actually plays "the forces of cosmic good" (angels etc) as slaughtering all mortal beings from the Material Plane, of evil alignment, on sight, without further information?

golentan
2014-12-04, 12:11 PM
Is there anyone who actually plays "the forces of cosmic good" (angels etc) as slaughtering all mortal beings from the Material Plane, of evil alignment, on sight, without further information?

Even if you go with soul or planar assimilation as your working theory, this makes no sense. An evil mortal, killed, goes to the lower planes, empowering them.

An evil mortal, alive, has the rest of their natural life to be guided to redemption, finding their way to the upper planes and empowering them.

Basically, anyone using the "kill all evil for the greater good" framework is not someone I would want to play with, not only because I would find their alignment decisions horrifying and distasteful but also because it's not even internally consistent.

Seto
2014-12-04, 12:48 PM
Alignment objectivism

I second that, but I'll add a caveat. I tend to push things towards the side of alignments as cosmic Energies myself, because I think that's the best way to make it make sense. The caveat is : it's not actually written that way. Or rather, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. The designers seem not to have completely renounced the idea of alignments as subjective indicators of morality. It looks like their ambition was to make Good and right, Evil and wrong, coincide. Hence the confusion with the words - as you have pointed out -, the change of which is the basis for several excellent homebrew rewriting of alignments (see easydamus). Hence the damn blurry line where Good and Evil are objective forces but are characterized by subjective characteristics and expressed through personal choices.

Point is, it's never made clear that alignment and morality are separate things, because they're not. Or else we would be able to quote a manual and resolve once and for all the deontology/consequentialism question in D&D, which is at the heart of most of the alignment threads here. Alignment by RAW is objective, but with just the (respectable) amount of subjectivity our spontaneous conceptions and the designers' fancies gave it.
In other words, you can't play alignment by RAW because it doesn't work. It's self-contradictory.

Mind you, for most games alignment as written is fine, and that's a relief. But for those who really want to delve into roleplaying-heavy, morally ambiguous games, and explore alignment and its ramifications, then the system needs to be modified. I recommend the objective interpretation. Materialistic, even. (Basically, the way I represent it is : there are such things as Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic atoms. They are created by certain kinds of act. They stick to the one who performed that act. Outsiders, auras, etc. are made of them. They react chemically with a soul in different ways. The sum of all occurrences and effect of one of these kinds of matter in the Multiverse at any given time gives you the influence and the advancement of the corresponding cosmic force).

Sith_Happens
2014-12-04, 02:22 PM
It's the goal of Cosmic Good. Just as the Goal of Cosmic Evil is to bring the material plane and entire multiverse into the lower planes, and goal of Cosmic Law to bring Absolute Order to the multiverse, and goal of Cosmic Chaos to turn the entire multiverse into Chaos.

Besides the fact that this is observably not true in the general case, the structure of the planes is a product of alignment, not the other way around. The fact that planes absorbing each other is a thing in the first place is itself evidence of this (see: Arcadia).


(But do you think Civil Rights would have made it so far had, instead of being personally assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. had been character assassinated?)

Given the absurd number of character assassination attempts that were in fact attempted on him and all failed, I'm going to say yes.


I'm fairly sure there were several historic cultures in which that sort of thing was acceptable. Particularly if the one that was insulted was of higher social status than the one who gave the insult.

That just supports my argument.

Sartharina
2014-12-04, 02:32 PM
Souls assimilating, is a rather different thing from entire planes assimilating.

The idea that Elysium (plane of Neutral Good) seeks to merge every single plane, including the material one, into it - so there's only one plane in the entire multiverse - that seems a huge stretch - and I've never read anything suggesting it.Not merging itself per se... more like rewriting the other planes. The upper planes want to bring their peace, tranquillity, and justice to the material and lower planes. Redeem the souls of the fallen, raid hell+the abyss and destroy the demons and devils. Bring Peace to Acheron. Bring liberation and exoneration to Carceri.

The Evil Apocalypse is full of Death, Destruction, and Despair. The Good apocalypse is full of Resurrections, Redemption, and Rejoicing. But, in order to bring that around, they need to destroy the hold Cosmic Evil and its ideals has over the world... just as Cosmic Evil needs to destroy the hold of Cosmic Good and its ideals over the world.

The cosmic forces are expansionistic not because of an inherent need to be expansionistic, but because they are intolerant of the opposing force existing in the same multiverse. Or are you saying it's "Good" to stand by idly and do nothing as innocent people are tortured, murdered, robbed, betrayed, sentenced to punishments they do not deserve for crimes they did not commit? Good wants to take over the multiverse because it's Evil to let Evil remain in the multiverse. Law wants to take over the multiverse because Chaos in the same multiverse throws the universe into chaos. Chaos wants to take over the universe because... well, it already has.
Given the absurd number of character assassination attempts that were in fact attempted on him and all failed, I'm going to say yes.That's because they failed.

hamishspence
2014-12-04, 03:08 PM
The Forces of Good stop Evil acts on an individual basis - not by "launching an invasion of the whole multiverse."

Every time a powerful celestial faction has tried to invade the lower planes, it's been a short-term thing - not an attempt to conquer that plane entirely.

And when mortals try and "destroy all evil" - historically, it's turned out very badly:


Heck, even Dragonlance, the undisputed most black-and-white Good vs. Evil setting in all of D&D (to the point that Law and Chaos are an afterthought and the entire world is Color-Coded for Your Convenience), had a Good empire get wiped out by its own gods for growing so zealous and intolerant of Evil that it screen-wrapped to being Evil (or at least Lawful Stupid) itself.

Sartharina
2014-12-04, 03:37 PM
And when mortals try and "destroy all evil" - historically, it's turned out very badly:
That's because Mortals are flawed, and the more that congregate, the more those flaws propagate.

hamishspence
2014-12-04, 03:45 PM
And Celestials are also flawed - hence so many becoming Fallen celestials.

"Cosmic Good" and "Cosmic Evil" are forces like gravity and electromagnetism are forces - they're intrinsic to the universe - and not intelligent. They don't have goals - only intelligent beings can - some realistic - some not so.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-04, 04:42 PM
That's because they failed.

Considering how hard they tried and still failed, asking "Well what if they succeeded" is an exercise in pointless distraction.

SiuiS
2014-12-07, 07:18 PM
Did some thinking, about the opposite end of the scale. About why children can be Good and not have this cynicism but as adults we qualify everything and insist on subjectivity. I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.

Why do we believe as youths that a powerful wizard of Good can be equally powerful or even stronger than, say, the gods of Good but still give them their due respect as gods? Why do we as adults fall into the 'you're just a high hD outsider' camp? I believe the answer is love. Good is qualified by love and the respect, care and empathy that brings. We remove that and reduce the moral stance to a bit of calculus and then wonder what's missing.
This is why all the logical stuff doesn't seem to jive with, well, anything ever. The good guys don't meekly accept their place, they care for and respect those who should be above them and try to keep them there, power be darned. Evil isn't judged as bad because it's not a valid intellectual choice, it's judged as bad because it's a literally sickened/perverse emotional choice.

hydroplatypus
2014-12-07, 08:43 PM
Did some thinking, about the opposite end of the scale. About why children can be Good and not have this cynicism but as adults we qualify everything and insist on subjectivity. I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.



I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Basing your ethics and/or morality around emotional responses makes it even more subjective than rationally debating things. Mainly because what's horrifying to one may be perfectly fine to another. It would make it almost inherently tied to the culture (or personal preferences) of the person in question to make emotions the centerpiece of morality.

As to the examples you give, here are my responses




Why do we believe as youths that a powerful wizard of Good can be equally powerful or even stronger than, say, the gods of Good but still give them their due respect as gods? Why do we as adults fall into the 'you're just a high hD outsider' camp?


Out of curiosity what culture/religion were you raised in that you thought a wizard could be more powerful than a deity, at a young age? I was raised Christian, so I feel I'm probably missing something cultural here. I'll refrain from further response until you clarify.



I believe the answer is love. Good is qualified by love and the respect, care and empathy that brings. We remove that and reduce the moral stance to a bit of calculus and then wonder what's missing.


I can think about morality without adding emotions into the mix and not come away feeling like there's something missing. I might not have the answer to every moral dilemma, but adding in emotions wouldn't fix that either.



This is why all the logical stuff doesn't seem to jive with, well, anything ever.


Speak for yourself. It works perfectly fine for me.



The good guys don't meekly accept their place, they care for and respect those who should be above them and try to keep them there, power be darned.


How is any of this incompatible with logical thinking? If you think you can do more good by not meekly accepting your place, than it is perfectly logical to do something to change the situation. It can also be logical for the good guys to support the existing power structure. The new one has no guarantee of being better after all, and the transition will likely get a lot of people killed/harmed.


Evil isn't judged as bad because it's not a valid intellectual choice, it's judged as bad because it's a literally sickened/perverse emotional choice.

Evil (in the moral sense, not the D&D alignment sense) and bad are basically synonyms. The only difference is that Evil generally refers to a far larger amount of immoral actions, and/or actions of greater severity than bad.

Also, who gets to decide what is a "healthy" emotional response, and what is a "sickened" one? I would think it would change significantly based on who's assigning the labels.

Although now that I think about it, I think we mean different things when talking about morality. I'm using the following definition: "Whatever gives the best outcome for the largest number of sapient beings". Do you mean something different perhaps? If so please provide your definition, and it might clear up the misunderstanding

Sartharina
2014-12-07, 10:01 PM
Did some thinking, about the opposite end of the scale. About why children can be Good and not have this cynicism but as adults we qualify everything and insist on subjectivity. I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.Axe Cop is Lawful Good!

Bob of Mage
2014-12-08, 01:54 AM
I see your stupid good and raise you a Kantian Paladin (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23).


He may not lie. No, not even then.

Just wonderful, I love it.

I find it funny that only the LG player in that link saw attacking Orcs as an outright Good act. I guess I just feel that it's really hard for most mortal races to be any thing beside N. I mean really what do most of them do beside what a human might. Yes I can understand a few of them favouring something beside N, but even then many of them would be all over the place.

See it seems to me what alot of you would call good is acting in the best interests of the group, or others in it, and evil is acting against those interests. Many self-serving acts hurt the group so that is why we would call them evil. For example if I were to eat all the group's food myself it would be an evil act (a minor one but still evil), but if I were to find food to give to the group it would be a good act. Eating all the group's food myself before it would go bad and no other person could make it in time to eat any food themselves (say you get trapped somewhere long enough for the food to spoil) would not be an evil act.

The best reason why slavery is wrong is that it gives awful results. It gives awful results because mistreated workers work poorly. How are they mistreated? They are not allowed to be in full control, which is a state that results in the best outcomes or most work done.

The reason why beating the answer out of someone is wrong is becasue it gets bad results. If it always give up the name of the bad guy 100% of the time then it would be a good action. Instead it just gives you what the victim thinks wants you to hear so you will stop hurting them. The key issue is what they think you want to hear, not what is the true answer. If they think you want to hear that there are WMDs in Iraq, at some point pretty much anyone would say that. They might also say the sky if red on one side and brown on the other if you push them far enough.

In the case of Outsider things get a bit weird. They don't follow the same rules as mortals in all regards. An Outsider seems to be compelled to follow what ever their typing right from the outset. In this way they seem to be slaves to it. However we must remember that while being slaves they do indeed have a chance to break free. Those who become "impure" to their nature are a sort of freak and those seem to go against the order of things (thus a STRONGLY Lawful outsider would likely kill such a being while a Chaoitc one would take joy just knowing of such of being).

Sith_Happens
2014-12-08, 02:46 AM
I find it funny that only the LG player in that link saw attacking Orcs as an outright Good act.

He explained it himself, it says "Evil" in the Monster Manual therefore it must be true.:smallwink: I guess his version left out the word "often."

Prince Raven
2014-12-08, 08:06 AM
He explained it himself, it says "Evil" in the Monster Manual therefore it must be true.:smallwink: I guess his version left out the word "often."

I was unaware adventurers could reach through the 4th wall to gain access to the Monster Manual.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-08, 06:22 PM
I was unaware adventurers could reach through the 4th wall to gain access to the Monster Manual.

Maybe he Detected between panels.:smalltongue:

SiuiS
2014-12-09, 04:16 AM
I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Basing your ethics and/or morality around emotional responses

Full stop.

I didn't say base moral responses on emotion. I said basing morality solely on logic and specifically excluding emotion was probably why adult morality does not jive with young adult morality.



Out of curiosity what culture/religion were you raised in that you thought a wizard could be more powerful than a deity, at a young age? I was raised Christian, so I feel I'm probably missing something cultural here. I'll refrain from further response until you clarify.

We cannot discuss religion on the Giant in the Playground forums, and yes, telling you my own is a violation. I've checked.

I don't need to answer that question to answer the broader question, however. In dungeons and dragons it has always been possible to be stronger than gods. It's also still expected to treat them with reverence. This is an issue for some people because, I believe, they have excised their emotional understanding of divinity.



Speak for yourself. It works perfectly fine for me.


I'm not speaking for myself, actually. I'm addressing years of passive data collection.



How is any of this incompatible with logical thinking?

Nitpick. Logical thinking is a handicap. Logic is a tool. Logic is only one component of rational thought, however. Trying to be rational is good, and generates a generally sympathetic and compassionate individual, within bounds. Trying to be strictly logical ends up with all sorts of false starts, like the vulcans.

An example of those false starts: examining a transsexual woman's body post-Mortem. Exoning bone structure would logically show her as male. Examining blood and tissue would show her as female. Rationally, we would look for more data and get their medical histories.



Also, who gets to decide what is a "healthy" emotional response, and what is a "sickened" one? I would think it would change significantly based on who's assigning the labels.

That's a good question. There are many answers. In this case, I am using societal inertia. The sum total of human understanding on a topic when evaluated for rationality is usually a good rubric. Although sometimes, only because people understand in the general case that the general action is bad, even though they insist in the specific that their doing it when they did was justified.


Although now that I think about it, I think we mean different things when talking about morality. I'm using the following definition: "Whatever gives the best outcome for the largest number of sapient beings". Do you mean something different perhaps? If so please provide your definition, and it might clear up the misunderstanding

I can't discuss religion. Sorry.


Just wonderful, I love it.

I find it funny that only the LG player in that link saw attacking Orcs as an outright Good act. I guess I just feel that it's really hard for most mortal races to be any thing beside N. I mean really what do most of them do beside what a human might. Yes I can understand a few of them favouring something beside N, but even then many of them would be all over the place.


Orcs were originally not that sentient. They were born from wicked soulstuff moulded in fouled clay, and their minds and souls were aligned with forces of chaos, entropy and destruction. It was as accurate to say orcs spontaneously arose from hate and war-urge that accumulated in underground cavern systems and triggered spontaneous generation, as it is to say they are a tribal society of asshats who just don't have a moral system we relate to.

Nowadays, it's different. Kant would be old enough to have grown up with the "orcs are literally evil to the core and cannot be redeemed" system.


I was unaware adventurers could reach through the 4th wall to gain access to the Monster Manual.

Paladin, mate. Paladin.

hamishspence
2014-12-09, 11:05 AM
Orcs were originally not that sentient. They were born from wicked soulstuff moulded in fouled clay, and their minds and souls were aligned with forces of chaos, entropy and destruction.

That was one of Tolkien's early concepts - but it never made it into the main LOTR book - which emphasises that they were not created - only twisted from existing life.

hydroplatypus
2014-12-09, 01:10 PM
Full stop.

I didn't say base moral responses on emotion. I said basing morality solely on logic and specifically excluding emotion was probably why adult morality does not jive with young adult morality.

Evidently I misunderstood. Likely due to the use of the following phrase


I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.



I don't need to answer that question to answer the broader question, however. In dungeons and dragons it has always been possible to be stronger than gods. It's also still expected to treat them with reverence. This is an issue for some people because, I believe, they have excised their emotional understanding of divinity.

Treat them like any other authority figure. In the same way that a soldier might respect his king, even though he could kill that king in single combat with ease. I don't see how the situations are different.

And of course, if the gods act in such a way that they are not deserving of respect/reverence then give them none. The same way you shouldn't respect a leader who is blatantly evil in real life.


I'm not speaking for myself, actually. I'm addressing years of passive data collection.

In my experience logical thinking gives perfectly reasonable conclusions in almost all situations. Evidently we've had different experiences. Please give some examples.


Nitpick. Logical thinking is a handicap. Logic is a tool. Logic is only one component of rational thought, however. Trying to be rational is good, and generates a generally sympathetic and compassionate individual, within bounds. Trying to be strictly logical ends up with all sorts of false starts, like the vulcans.

I think we're using different definitions of logical and rational. I use the two terms interchangeably, so please clarify how you're using them.

Also, the Vulcans are not at all logical. They behave illogically all the time. They just claim to be logical.



That's a good question. There are many answers. In this case, I am using societal inertia. The sum total of human understanding on a topic when evaluated for rationality is usually a good rubric. Although sometimes, only because people understand in the general case that the general action is bad, even though they insist in the specific that their doing it when they did was justified.

the problem is that in many cases the sum total of human understanding changes based on culture. The sum total of human understanding taken across Canada is that gay marriage is perfectly OK. The sum total taken across Saudi Arabia is that it is not. You see how this only makes things more subjective? And if you take it across all humanity as a whole you end up with so many grey areas that it becomes very hard to make any moral statement but the most blatantly obvious.

Sartharina
2014-12-09, 01:54 PM
That was one of Tolkien's early concepts - but it never made it into the main LOTR book - which emphasises that they were not created - only twisted from existing life.But that twisting still moved them beyond 'redepmtion'.

... of course, I've always thought Orcs were giant, malevolent fungus driven by a love of war and carnage, and to deny them that pleasure is a violation of their essence on the highest level.

hamishspence
2014-12-09, 02:00 PM
But that twisting still moved them beyond 'redemption'.
Tolkien said that they "might be irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men) but still remain within the Law."

Which meant that torturing them for info, wasn't excusable, and mercy, if asked for, had to be granted:


They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.)~Letter #153

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.~HoME X, Morgoth's Ring

Sartharina
2014-12-09, 02:43 PM
Tolkien said that they "might be irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men) but still remain within the Law."

Which meant that torturing them for info, wasn't excusable, and mercy, if asked for, had to be granted:Torture is never acceptable. Mercy depends on the situation.

veti
2014-12-09, 03:29 PM
The good guys don't meekly accept their place, they care for and respect those who should be above them and try to keep them there, power be darned. Evil isn't judged as bad because it's not a valid intellectual choice, it's judged as bad because it's a literally sickened/perverse emotional choice.

At first glance I found the first half of that persuasive and insightful. But the more I think about it, the less convincing it becomes. As always, there's that problematic word "should", which basically prejudges all moral questions and makes everything else redundant.

The second half - well, I saw the problem with that straight away...


That's a good question. There are many answers. In this case, I am using societal inertia. The sum total of human understanding on a topic when evaluated for rationality is usually a good rubric. Although sometimes, only because people understand in the general case that the general action is bad, even though they insist in the specific that their doing it when they did was justified.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers the question. Are you saying that a "healthy" response is one that jives with societal consensus? But then we're talking about subjective morality based on (changing) social norms. I don't have a problem with that premise, but it's one that D&D explicitly and vehemently rejects.


Nowadays, it's different. Kant would be old enough to have grown up with the "orcs are literally evil to the core and cannot be redeemed" system.

It seems to me the author of that strip has a very shaky grasp of Kantian ethics...

Sartharina
2014-12-09, 03:33 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers the question. Are you saying that a "healthy" response is one that jives with societal consensus? But then we're talking about subjective morality based on (changing) social norms. I don't have a problem with that premise, but it's one that D&D explicitly and vehemently rejects.Not quite. D&D embraces the morality that is in vogue with the culture it is written in.

SiuiS
2014-12-10, 03:30 PM
That was one of Tolkien's early concepts - but it never made it into the main LOTR book - which emphasises that they were not created - only twisted from existing life.

I was talking about early D&D. It was written with what ican only call a simple and anachronistic 'morality' to to facilitate conflict without moral issue unless you wanted moral issue.



Treat them like any other authority figure. In the same way that a soldier might respect his king, even though he could kill that king in single combat with ease. I don't see how the situations are different.

And of course, if the gods act in such a way that they are not deserving of respect/reverence then give them none. The same way you shouldn't respect a leader who is blatantly evil in real life.

That's how I would approach it, but I've recently had a conversation wherein someone said that to an ethos cleric, the gods aren't gods and deserve no more respect than a random songbird. I said the king of England is still a king – and all that entails – even if I'm American, and his response led me to believe he just has a different set of baggage attached to the word god than I do. It was enlightening.



In my experience logical thinking gives perfectly reasonable conclusions in almost all situations. Evidently we've had different experiences. Please give some examples.


Logic is not capable of handling black swan events. Logic is often used to argue against black swan events.

Logic is a tool for inputting data and getting conclusions. What data you put in and how much weight is attached to it, and what use you get out of it, are dictated by emotion more often than not. See any argument about transsexuality, for example. A woman can be logically deduced to be make from bone structure even if logically deduced to be female from every other marker. Which is correct? Both.


I think we're using different definitions of logical and rational. I use the two terms interchangeably, so please clarify how you're using them.

Logic is a process, yes? "If all rocks are brown, and I have a rock, my rock is brown." Rational means "(of a person): able to think clearly, sensibly and logically". Logic is one tool of rational thought. Logic is by it's nature very binary, however, and relying on it exclusively leads to blind spots and disregarding alternate but equally viable answers. This is usually because rationalization takes over, as the truly logical answer is 'I can't say for sure'.


Also, the Vulcans are not at all logical. They behave illogically all the time. They just claim to be logical.


That's my point. They use logic, often quite flawlessly, but are just as susceptible to bad use of a good tool – using the wrong inputs and for the wrong reasons – as anyone else.

They are also a valid and frustrating parallel for many Internet folk. Seemingly calm and directly logical on the surface, emotions, biases and mis/conceptions roiling beneath the surface and rarely acknowledged as actually affecting their process.

[quoye]the problem is that in many cases the sum total of human understanding changes based on culture. The sum total of human understanding taken across Canada is that gay marriage is perfectly OK. The sum total taken across Saudi Arabia is that it is not. You see how this only makes things more subjective? And if you take it across all humanity as a whole you end up with so many grey areas that it becomes very hard to make any moral statement but the most blatantly obvious.[/QUOTE]

At the broadest levels everyone agrees. Don't murder. Don't rape. Don't steal. Don't be a wad. Much like probography, everyone knows the broad strokes but can't niggle down the specifics without something slipping by on a technicality.



... of course, I've always thought Orcs were giant, malevolent fungus driven by a love of war and carnage, and to deny them that pleasure is a violation of their essence on the highest level.

That's pretty much how they work in D&D usually too.



I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers the question.

'there are many possible valid answers based on a number of factors' is as close to 100% correct as you'll ever get. If that doesn't answer the question sufficiently for you, that's unfortunate, but it still answers the question.

I think you're expecting me to give my personal answer and then defend it as the One True Answer. I try very hard not to do that, and it makes a lot of the assumptions and the default processes based on them fall apart. I figure that's a good thing, as it means we aren't going to follow the default Internet argument template. :smallsmile:



It seems to me the author of that strip has a very shaky grasp of Kantian ethics...

I do not disagree. I suspect it was thrown under the bus for humor.

Angelalex242
2014-12-10, 04:20 PM
...what, really, is Stupid Good?

If an Emissary of Barachiel decides to convert an orc tribe to goodness...is he an idiot? Particularly because the Emissary has the powers to pull it off.

veti
2014-12-10, 05:28 PM
'there are many possible valid answers based on a number of factors' is as close to 100% correct as you'll ever get. If that doesn't answer the question sufficiently for you, that's unfortunate, but it still answers the question.

It's only "correct" in the sense that a statement that has no meaning can't be called "incorrect" - in the same way as "somewhere or other" would be a correct answer to the question "where do you live?" You wouldn't get away with writing that in a term paper, would you? At the very least, you'd be expected to give some examples of those "possible valid answers".


I think you're expecting me to give my personal answer and then defend it as the One True Answer. I try very hard not to do that, and it makes a lot of the assumptions and the default processes based on them fall apart. I figure that's a good thing, as it means we aren't going to follow the default Internet argument template. :smallsmile:

You may have a point about the "default internet argument template", I may be trapped by my own expectations here.

hydroplatypus
2014-12-10, 06:38 PM
Logic is not capable of handling black swan events. Logic is often used to argue against black swan events.

How would logic be used to argue against black swan events? If you are using logic correctly then you either acknowledge the possibility of black swan events.


Logic is a tool for inputting data and getting conclusions. What data you put in and how much weight is attached to it, and what use you get out of it, are dictated by emotion more often than not. See any argument about transsexuality, for example. A woman can be logically deduced to be make from bone structure even if logically deduced to be female from every other marker. Which is correct? Both.


Your logic appears to go like this:

P1: everyone with bone structure X is male
P2: everyone with other feature Y is female
P3: person A has characteristics X and Y
C1: The person is both male and female
P4: No one can be both male and female at the same time
C2: ERROR: contradiction detected.

The person in question is actually female, thus premise P1 was false. There is no logical problem here, just a faulty premise.






Logic is a process, yes? "If all rocks are brown, and I have a rock, my rock is brown." Rational means "(of a person): able to think clearly, sensibly and logically". Logic is one tool of rational thought. Logic is by it's nature very binary, however, and relying on it exclusively leads to blind spots and disregarding alternate but equally viable answers. This is usually because rationalization takes over, as the truly logical answer is 'I can't say for sure'.


Used properly logic can tackle grey areas similar things. It just takes more effort than the analysis of black and white problems. And yes, in many cases the truly logical answer is "I don't know". Or possibly something like the following: "there is a 92% chance that X is correct". The fact that the average person doesn't say I don't know very often is because a) we generally round high probabilities to yes, and low probabilities to no because it is easier to say. b) because we don't like being uncertain so we claim unjustifiable certainty.

The first is an acceptable distortion of the truth in order to carry on conversation at a reasonable pace. The second is a bias. Neither indicate problems with logic itself.


At the broadest levels everyone agrees. Don't murder. Don't rape. Don't steal. Don't be a wad. Much like probography, everyone knows the broad strokes but can't niggle down the specifics without something slipping by on a technicality.



The problem is that everyone DOESN'T agree on the broad strokes. a few centuries ago lots of people thought it was OK to keep people as slaves. Now we don't. In parts of the middle east, it is seen as highly immoral to not be islamic. The western world disagrees. Homosexuality is another really big point of contention. A century or two ago it was almost universally seen as despicable, while large chunks of the Western world now find it acceptable. Sex before marriage is another thing that has changed recently.

Even look at murder. Entire societies have existed where it was seen as the right of someone of high status to kill people of lower status with absolutely no consequence.

Jenerix525
2014-12-10, 08:19 PM
An example of those false starts: examining a transsexual woman's body post-Mortem. Exoning bone structure would logically show her as male. Examining blood and tissue would show her as female. Rationally, we would look for more data and get their medical histories.



P1: everyone with bone structure X is male
P2: everyone with other feature Y is female
P3: person A has characteristics X and Y
C1: The person is both male and female
P4: No one can be both male and female at the same time
C2: ERROR: contradiction detected.

The person in question is actually female, thus premise P1 was false. There is no logical problem here, just a faulty premise.

When deconstructing logic, I find it better to look for contradictory premises, rather than faulty ones.

Personally, I would choose to attack P4, not P1. Or rather, the underlying concept between P(1,2,4), that a person's sex is always internally consistent across all measures. Removing this axiom means that C1 becomes more to the effect of "Person A has both male and female (indicators/traits)." There remain two steps to take to reach the same contradiction as before. Good old P4, and a new P6: "carrying both male and female traits makes one both male and female."

By accepting P6, you accept that it's possible to be both male and female, thereby denying P4.
How an individual defines the boundaries between male and female is none of my business. Accept P4 or P6, I don't care. As long as that or stays exclusive.


Unfortunately, I am somewhat less equipped for the more direct topic of the thread. I have always been driven by cowardice and conformity more than any D&D alignment. Also, having an irrational personality, it's hard to say 'I did good thing because...'.
It's a shame no-one can agree on the 'broad strokes', though. It would be nice to have some sort of standard for 'human rights' or something. Yes, I am aware that that is a relatively new invention, socially speaking, but it seems to me that the general concept of good has been consistent through a lot of cultures. Equality on the other hand, boy is that new. Treat people outside our culture the same as those inside? Why would we do that?

hydroplatypus
2014-12-10, 10:28 PM
Personally, I would choose to attack P4, not P1. Or rather, the underlying concept between P(1,2,4), that a person's sex is always internally consistent across all measures. Removing this axiom means that C1 becomes more to the effect of "Person A has both male and female (indicators/traits)." There remain two steps to take to reach the same contradiction as before. Good old P4, and a new P6: "carrying both male and female traits makes one both male and female."

Evidently my brain stopped working for a second, and I forgot that gender is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Usually I try to remember things like that.

Personally I would phrase P6 something like this: "If someone has both male and female traits, they are the gender they identify as. If they do not identify as either they are of indeterminate gender."


Regardless, thanks for reminding me of that.

Sartharina
2014-12-10, 11:00 PM
I was always under the impression that the brain was not only the largest but also most important sex organ. Transsexual people have brains of a different sex than much of their body, leading to the dysphoria.

Angelalex242
2014-12-11, 12:59 AM
How does any of this have to do with the concept of good or evil? You're pretty badly sidetracked.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-11, 02:40 PM
...what, really, is Stupid Good?

If an Emissary of Barachiel decides to convert an orc tribe to goodness...is he an idiot? Particularly because the Emissary has the powers to pull it off.

Stupid Good would be if he tried to use the same ability on a fiend (which it doesn't work on).

Talakeal
2014-12-12, 02:39 AM
...what, really, is Stupid Good?

If an Emissary of Barachiel decides to convert an orc tribe to goodness...is he an idiot? Particularly because the Emissary has the powers to pull it off.

Imo all good in D&D is stupid good. By RAW purity is the most important thing, and an action is only as good as its darkest component. Thus anyone who is effective or willing to compromise even slightly is labelled evil by RAW. The only people who are truly "good" are ineffectual holy icons who sit in ivory towers refusing to take any action while the world goes to hell around them.

hamishspence
2014-12-12, 03:10 AM
Imo all good in D&D is stupid good. By RAW purity is the most important thing, and an action is only as good as its darkest component. Thus anyone who is effective or willing to compromise even slightly is labelled evil by RAW.

Their acts, maybe. Their alignment, not so much. Champions of Ruin states that even Good characters can be "driven to evil" from time to time, the PHB states that good characters can do dubious things now and again (alignment is not a straitjacket) and Heroes of Horror suggests that the character who does Evil deeds for Good ends, is "probably neither good nor evil but a flexible Neutral".

And BOED states that even Good characters can cooperate with Evil ones in fighting a greater evil - as long as they don't simply turn a blind eye to the acts of their allies.

SangoProduction
2014-12-12, 12:46 PM
In response to Sartharina

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3214413312/hC1B0E46D/

Sartharina
2014-12-12, 06:47 PM
Sideous may have been Lawful Evil, but Vader certainly wasn't. He was too chaotic, and his actions fostered and strengthened a rebellion that fractured order.

hamishspence
2014-12-12, 07:18 PM
Lawful Evil villains can certainly (through repression) end up unintentionally fostering Chaos.

Angelalex242
2014-12-13, 02:31 AM
Nah. Sidious was NE. As the true embodiment of the Dark Side, he could hardly be anything else. Vader, for his part...followed his master's orders. Usually. Except when the Rule of 2 told him not to. It was, after all, his ostensible job to kill his master and replace him as Darth Bane ordained.

SiuiS
2014-12-13, 02:57 AM
It's only "correct" in the sense that a statement that has no meaning can't be called "incorrect" - in the same way as "somewhere or other" would be a correct answer to the question "where do you live?" You wouldn't get away with writing that in a term paper, would you? At the very least, you'd be expected to give some examples of those "possible valid answers".

The statement has meaning. It's just not one you like.

If I were writing a term paper I would be committing to a specific concrete concept and selling it. That is neither necessary not worthwhile in this discussion. I am not going to commit to saying X is wrong, Y is right, when that is not true.


If you are using logic correctly

Okay. There's a problem here.

You are right. If one is using logic correctly, then one acknowledges that further variables may exist, that one may need to expand the magnitude of criteria or look one or more degrees distal the core of the system to account for expected chaos, and that one can say with certainty "I don't know".

But that's not how logic is frequently (mis)used. People apply their emotional rationalizations I the template of logical thought and produce ideas that are follow able and seem logical but end up in crazy or just plain wrong places. The reason I do not say "logic when used incorrectly" is because technical definition is not necessarily superior to colloquial definition – that is, how the word is actually used and what it means to a majority of the populace – and also because it opens the way to rationalizing me away. It begins the no true Scotsman fallacy.

If I start with admitting that my premise – which is sound and worth considering – is based on a conditional that requires poor application of a tool, it will not be considered sound and worth considering. One would say "oh, just don't use logic wrong then". This isn't really a problem; no true logistician would make such a mistake!

Except they do. Frequently. Either through blindness, hubris or simple poor communication. The idea that trying to be a human computer will impede your reasoning abilities is sound. In order to transmit that idea I need to package it in a way that gets through the easy defenses of people who are hard wired instinctively to literally reduce new ideas into "like it, accept as true" and "don't like, obviously false, come up with reasons why".



P1: everyone with bone structure X is male
P2: everyone with other feature Y is female
P3: person A has characteristics X and Y
C1: The person is both male and female
P4: No one can be both male and female at the same time
C2: ERROR: contradiction detected.

The person in question is actually female, thus premise P1 was false. There is no logical problem here, just a faulty premise.


It is an example taken from elsewhere (skeptics world or something, actually! You'd expect better...) and not my own. I am gladdened by your end response though.

That a subset of people who define themselves by their capacity to objectively criticize and judge something rather than taking it as given fall prey to rationalizing a personal belief just further highlights my point.



Used properly logic can tackle grey areas similar things. It just takes more effort than the analysis of black and white problems. And yes, in many cases the truly logical answer is "I don't know". Or possibly something like the following: "there is a 92% chance that X is correct".

It's worse than that. Schooling nowadays tends to actually suppress the concept. It's part of why America has issues with math. Sometimes the answer is just a reduced equation but kids are conditioned to look for single integer solutions when they don't exist.



The problem is that everyone DOESN'T agree on the broad strokes.

You didn't list any broad strokes. Those are all pretty specific. And eventually fell by the wayside/are falling by the wayside because the broad strokes are more universal.

Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal is the level of abstraction I'm talking about, not do not eat meat on Tuesdays, do not wear green, do not allow social class A to do Action B.


Even look at murder. Entire societies have existed where it was seen as the right of someone of high status to kill people of lower status with absolutely no consequence.

The existence of a single data point does not make the entire rest of the chart wrong, though. The fact that Rome was a logistical power house does not mean that thinking ancient armies were poorly managed is wrong, but you will still see people say "nuh uh! Look at Rome!" As if it were proof.


Note: highly grosse simplification.


When deconstructing logic, I find it better to look for contradictory premises, rather than faulty ones.

Bravo!

I personally like alignment as is because it allows exploring those mindsets and mentalities without actual travesty. I've had entire campaign arcs suddenly become about the act that elves don't have souls and so aren't much better than goblins. As long as you can come back to reality after, that's fine. Unless the game is about something that doesn't gel with that, of course.


Evidently my brain stopped working for a second, and I forgot that gender is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Usually I try to remember things like that.

That sort of unquestioned premise is what I mean by "logic can be wrong". There's always a point where we make assumptions. We don't always make the best assumptions or even for the best reasons. But sometimes those assumptions are so easy and so acceptible at the Socratic dialogue level we don't even consider challenging them.

It gets worse when both prescriptive and descriptive are correct. Och.


How does any of this have to do with the concept of good or evil? You're pretty badly sidetracked.

Being able to look at the sum argument behind logic as sometimes misleading and say, "I understand what you mean" (even if followed by "I disagree") allows a fuller discussion from which one can take a more deep insight. We learn that most models are true and learn to discern which ones to pick as True Now and why.


Imo all good in D&D is stupid good.

I do believe you are correct. No stupid good exists, but as outliers. It's part of the tunnel vision of getting so caught up in the good/evil war you forget basic grey level kindnesses.


Nah. Sidious was NE. As the true embodiment of the Dark Side, he could hardly be anything else. Vader, for his part...followed his master's orders. Usually. Except when the Rule of 2 told him not to. It was, after all, his ostensible job to kill his master and replace him as Darth Bane ordained.

Wouldn't that be chaotic evil? The force is order and harmony and goodness. The dark side is subjugating harmony for personal empowerment and freedom at the expense of others.

Angelalex242
2014-12-13, 04:10 AM
Sidious had to be orderly enough to handle the practical matters of running an Empire, and the Dark Side, powerful as he was in it, could only compensate for so much. The Empire was fundamentally successful...as a malevolent dictatorship...but successful nonetheless. He had to delegate much of the actual running of the Empire to others, and that indicate a certain amount of law.

However, he had no respect for the law whatever, except for the fact that he made the law.

Hence, NE.

Wardog
2014-12-13, 05:32 AM
Sideous may have been Lawful Evil, but Vader certainly wasn't. He was too chaotic, and his actions fostered and strengthened a rebellion that fractured order.

Anakin/Vader was pretty erratic and chaotic when he was becoming Vader.

And at the end of his life he repudiated everything he stood for and killed his master (and not in the manner Sith are expected to).

But between those two point, he seems to have been pretty consistently "lawful evil", showing loyalty to his master, belief in the Empire, ruthlessly meritocratic in his treatment of Imperial officers, etc.

The only possible exception was his (claimed) desire to replace the Emperor with a father/son duumvirate. But I would say that is the sort of rebellion ("overthrow the government and replace it with a better government") that is compatible with a Lawful alignment. (I've argued that the Rebel Alliance was Lawful for the same reason).

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 05:35 AM
It's also the standard operating procedure of devils - scheme against one's superior - undermine them - overthrow them.