Yet Another Alignment Discussion (YAAD)

[Jormund]

From what i've seen about alignment discussion so far, i have seen very different opinions about morality and how to react to alignment. i've seen discussion where many think that one act out alignment will change your alignment in either of the axises(sp?) of the nine alignments. I've also seen opinions that state that alignment is just used for character introductions and should not used further on without very (very very* n times) good character development.

this is just my two cents thought, but i think the whole alignment debate can be put into one question which has been asked thorough the times. That is "Will the end justify the means?"

I think that every DM should take this question into consideration when considering players actions when it comes to alignment. Does the players actions (As in means, where the said action will be socially accepted [lawful], grey area [neutral] or totally not how things should be done in this community [chaotic]) ultimately take it to what end (good for others and maybe (or maybe not) for the party in the end [good], for the good of the one without giving anything in return [neutrals] or the zero gain model with from someone else to me (or the party) [evil])

as for the harshness of any one action, i think that means mean a little less as than the end, but thats just my opinion. but i don't think that just any one action can sway one from an alignment... it's more like one acts for a longer perioid of time (week? month? rest of her life?) with one purpose, with one methods, until the alignment can be changed...

well, now let me embarrass myself with the fact that i have never played with any group any kind of D20, but i've been lurking on these boards enough to have seen enough of these threads to make my own opinion.

[the_tick_rules]

the ends justify the means. That's a slippery slope to use. Not that I don't believe someone who isn't the epitomomy of selflessness and virtue can't claim to be LG, but also remember how many evil people have said it's worth it.

[Jormund]

well, you know, it's a twisted world.... if killing an innocent child will save a whole country of people, what is right at that point? it goes to philosophics at that point and no one has a definite answer. what i said i think DMs should use for their alignment guideline in regular games.

[Dhavaer]

A thought: Would that question be better put as 'Do the positive ends justify/outweigh the negative ends'?

[Jormund]

A thought: Would that question be better put as 'Do the positive ends justify/outweigh the negative ends'?

You speak of both ends, which confuses me. where do the means come in?

And from what i think every NPC is made with an alignment. are you Robin Hood?
rich for the poor, Chaotic Good.

Edit: for not from :P

[TheOOB]

For the record, alignment does have a purpose in the game that is easy to figure out, your alignment is how good/evil/chaotic/lawful magic affects you. An evil person takes full damage from a holy smite spell, and a good person recieves negative levels when handling that +1 unholy longsword.

Anyways, the philosophic camps of "ends justify the means" and "means justify the ends" mostly concerns the law/chaos axis. A lawful person is more likely to care more about the means, while a chaotic person is more likely to care about the ends, that said that is not what either "law" or "chaos" is about. They are traits characters with those alignments often have, but they are hardly defining.

Good and Evil are acually really easy to define for the purposes of the game, a good person takes risks/makes sacrifices to help others, while an evil person hurts innocents to meet their objectives. Law and Chaos are a little harder to define, but generally a Lawful person values the universal and the established, while a chaotic person values the local and spontaneous.

A persons alignment is basically just an indicator of what type of actions the person will usually take. Instead of saying "A chaotic good person does this this and this", say "This character usually does good things, and acts in a chaotic manner, thus they are chaotic good". Just keep two things in mind. First is, unless your a paladin, the morality of any one action is largly insignificant compared to the overall course with which someone leads their life. Evil people have been known to have altristic tendancies (especially when dealing with friends and family), and even a honorable and good knight can be mean and dishonest at times. The second thing to consider is that alignment is objective, and not subjective, alignment is the quality someone has that determines how magic affects them, not the sum of their personal beliefs. It doesn't matter what a characters personal philosophies are, or how they justify their actions. A person who does good is good, a person who does evil is evil, period.

[Jorkens]

the ends justify the means. That's a slippery slope to use. Not that I don't believe someone who isn't the epitomomy of selflessness and virtue can't claim to be LG, but also remember how many evil people have said it's worth it.
Once you've accepted that it's worth harming a BBEG in order to prevent them from destroying the world, you're already on that slippery slope, though.

My instinct would be to say that as long as you're doing a lesser evil to bring about a greater good you're within the broad scope of Good, and when you start justifying a greater evil by the lesser good it will bring about you're Evil. Precisely how you compare greater or lesser amounts of good and evil is heavily open to interpretation, though.

[Jormund]

the ends justify the means.

Uh i have to quote this part though, I didn't specifically ask if about this very question, i just wanted to bring out the parts of it to be dissected into the gaming world. That is, if this makes any sense at all.

[Jormund]

Actually what i hate about the alignment system is the characterisation:

chaotic stupid? can be said for both good and evil.
chaotic insane? i thougth WOTC said that she isn't as likely to jump the bridge as to cross it.


Edit: fixed some typos
Edit:2 lawful good: the overzealous bastard that sees only her justice and takes no one elses into jurisdiction.

[Dhavaer]

You speak of both ends, which confuses me. where do the means come in?

They don't, except that the means bring about the ends. If you do something in two different ways; but both have the same results (the ends), how you did it (the means) are completely irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of what you did.

[Koga]

well, you know, it's a twisted world.... if killing an innocent child will save a whole country of people,
Dead baby onboard!

Well... really it depended on who's baby, if it was The Koga's, no, screw the whole country. Or what if it was The Koga as a baby?! Oh the irony! To kill himself! As a baby! For the sake of the country! Roll sanity!


What people need to do is stop complaining and just roleplay. You'll figure it out.

[Ulzgoroth]

What people need to do is stop complaining and just roleplay. You'll figure it out.
That only helps when you've house-ruled out all the alignment-based effects in the game. Otherwise, it actually matters where a character falls on that little nine-box chart.

[Koga]

Bleh, sortof but not really. Regardless of thier alignment they get equaly screwed don't they?

They'res just as many pro-chaos/law/good/evil spells and crapola as anti.


It's all the same crap in the end.

[Jormund]

They don't, except that the means bring about the ends. If you do something in two different ways; but both have the same results (the ends), how you did it (the means) are completely irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of what you did.

oh really? how about getting a plot centric NPC out of jail?

way 1: when the night falls break out the guy...

way 2: appeal for him in the court, pay the bail

now i think there is difference in ways of getting the same results.

of course the ends here is getting the npc out of jail, which to me seems on the good/evil axis rather neutral. Of course the ends could be taking a revenge on him, because he stole a candy from you when you were a child, and using either of these means.

[Inyssius Tor]

...except that one solution leads to a trail of bodies, a poisoned city, and a country-wide "kill on sight" notice.

"Dis iz turnink into vun of dose plans... hyu know, de kind vere we keel everybody dot notices ve's killin' people?"

"It is?"

"Uh huh. And how do dose alvays end?"

"De dirigible's in flames, everyboddyz dead an' I've lost my hat."

"Dot's right. Und any plan vere you lose you hat iz?"

"A... bad plan?"

"Right again!"

EDIT: Ah, you've edited your post.
...one solution still involves a warrant for his arrest. Money can be procured easily, but a jailbreak is harder to cover-up.

[Jormund]

yeah, sorry about that, i thought i'd be fast enough for no one to notice :>

but the point remains the same, though, a jailbreak could be a bad plan as for the arrest warrant, but let's say that you're heading to the underdark anyway so that wouldn't matter at that point, the guy is out nevertheless.

[Jormund]

yeah, sorry about that, i thought i'd be fast enough for no one to notice :>

but the point remains the same, though, a jailbreak could be a bad plan as for the arrest warrant, but let's say that you're heading to the underdark anyway so that wouldn't matter at that point, the guy is out nevertheless.

[Jormund]

yeah, sorry about that, i thought i'd be fast enough for no one to notice :>

but the point remains the same, though, a jailbreak could be a bad plan as for the arrest warrant, but let's say that you're heading to the underdark anyway so that wouldn't matter at that point, the guy is out nevertheless.

EDIT: oh crap, a triple post! sorry, my internet was acting up

[Dhavaer]

but the point remains the same, though, a jailbreak could be a bad plan as for the arrest warrant, but let's say that you're heading to the underdark anyway so that wouldn't matter at that point, the guy is out nevertheless.

I'm not seeing what your point is. Are you saying that breaking someone out of jail has exactly the same results as paying their bail, but is still somehow worse?

[PaladinBoy]

I generally don't worry about whether something is Good or Evil; I use the BoED and BoVD to determine that. Generally, helping others is good, provided they don't use the help to achive evil ends, hurting others for no good reason is evil, some methods and actions are evil no matter how much good you get out of them, some things even done for the wrong reasons can be borderline good.

As for law and chaos, I generally count respect for authority and obedience to authority as lawful, and free-spiritedness (is that even a word?) and ignoring authority as chaotic.

I also use the alignment as summary view. To me, the alignments represent in general what a person is; it is possible to have a Good character who isn't as merciful as he should be, or an Evil character that is kind to orphans.

[Murongo]

I have a character whose alignment I can't determine. He's definitely not good, but thats about all I know.

Hes a sorc, level 11, the party face and often the leader. He is extremely arrogant, but not in an in-your-face way, he just chuckles when anyone suggests they could defeat him. 98% of the time hes being candid, because hes easily the most powerful character in the group. Its an irregular campaign where each member's goals may not be in line with each other's, and may even be in direct conflict and hes been in numerous fights with good-aligned party members over questions of morality versus pragmatism.

He is extremely ruthless, and doesn't see a problem with firebombing an ally if it damages the enemies more than his friends. He uses a lot of AoEs (its a very war-centric campaign), and has a fancy fear aura to scare away basic enemy troops. Despite that chaotic bit, hes usually very logical and orderly and throughout most of the campaign has been a major political/military leader at some point, which implies lawfulness.

He worships no god, though he is in the employ of one. Meaning he can subvert himself if it suits him, but he can't bring himself to acknowledge another being as inherently superior.

Theres also a lot of superstition in the campaign, and certain ignorant organizations blame magic on demons (which it sometimes does stem from in the campaign) and go around killing all spellcasters. My character has no qualms butchering those people, even if they are otherwise good.

I'm thinking true neutral, leaning towards evil. But I could almost see Lawful Neutral... I dunno

[martyboy74]

...one solution still involves a warrant for his arrest. Money can be procured easily, but a jailbreak is harder to cover-up.
Actually, for adventurers, aquiration of wealth and murder are, more or less, the same thing.

[TheOOB]

I have a character whose alignment I can't determine. He's definitely not good, but thats about all I know.

Hes a sorc, level 11, the party face and often the leader. He is extremely arrogant, but not in an in-your-face way, he just chuckles when anyone suggests they could defeat him. 98% of the time hes being candid, because hes easily the most powerful character in the group. Its an irregular campaign where each member's goals may not be in line with each other's, and may even be in direct conflict and hes been in numerous fights with good-aligned party members over questions of morality versus pragmatism.

He is extremely ruthless, and doesn't see a problem with firebombing an ally if it damages the enemies more than his friends. He uses a lot of AoEs (its a very war-centric campaign), and has a fancy fear aura to scare away basic enemy troops. Despite that chaotic bit, hes usually very logical and orderly and throughout most of the campaign has been a major political/military leader at some point, which implies lawfulness.

He worships no god, though he is in the employ of one. Meaning he can subvert himself if it suits him, but he can't bring himself to acknowledge another being as inherently superior.

Theres also a lot of superstition in the campaign, and certain ignorant organizations blame magic on demons (which it sometimes does stem from in the campaign) and go around killing all spellcasters. My character has no qualms butchering those people, even if they are otherwise good.

I'm thinking true neutral, leaning towards evil. But I could almost see Lawful Neutral... I dunno

Well, the fact that the character is willing to harm allies in order to hurt their enemies is a definate evil trait, but other then that I see no other evidence of being evil, he's definatly not good, but he might be neutral. Killing people who want to kill you isn't any alignment, it's self defense. The character sounds very chaotic, organization and leadership are not lawful traits, they appear more often on lawful characters, but chaotic people can have them too. The character seems to have a very self-centered world view, he sounds like the kind of person who doesn't care about a problum that doesn't affect themself, and chooses their actions based on what they think is best at the moment, rather then any pre-established code of morals or ethics.

[EvilElitest]

I have a character whose alignment I can't determine. He's definitely not good, but thats about all I know.

Hes a sorc, level 11, the party face and often the leader. He is extremely arrogant, but not in an in-your-face way, he just chuckles when anyone suggests they could defeat him. 98% of the time hes being candid, because hes easily the most powerful character in the group. Its an irregular campaign where each member's goals may not be in line with each other's, and may even be in direct conflict and hes been in numerous fights with good-aligned party members over questions of morality versus pragmatism.

He is extremely ruthless, and doesn't see a problem with firebombing an ally if it damages the enemies more than his friends. He uses a lot of AoEs (its a very war-centric campaign), and has a fancy fear aura to scare away basic enemy troops. Despite that chaotic bit, hes usually very logical and orderly and throughout most of the campaign has been a major political/military leader at some point, which implies lawfulness.

He worships no god, though he is in the employ of one. Meaning he can subvert himself if it suits him, but he can't bring himself to acknowledge another being as inherently superior.

Theres also a lot of superstition in the campaign, and certain ignorant organizations blame magic on demons (which it sometimes does stem from in the campaign) and go around killing all spellcasters. My character has no qualms butchering those people, even if they are otherwise good.

I'm thinking true neutral, leaning towards evil. But I could almost see Lawful Neutral... I dunno

LN or LE
from,
EE

[Stephen_E]

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_tick_rules http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2521752#post2521752)
the ends justify the means. That's a slippery slope to use. Not that I don't believe someone who isn't the epitomomy of selflessness and virtue can't claim to be LG, but also remember how many evil people have said it's worth it.


Once you've accepted that it's worth harming a BBEG in order to prevent them from destroying the world, you're already on that slippery slope, though.



As I pointed out when you suggested this in another thread, No, you're wrong.

"The ends justifies the means" is when you're doing something you consider wrong or unacceptable, but are justifying in this case because you consider the end result you're aiming for important/good enough to make those unsavoury means acceptable.

He's the BBEG. Who here has a problem with harming the BBEG?......
No one. Right. So no "The ends justifies the means" here.

Stephen

[Jorkens]

As I pointed out when you suggested this in another thread, No, you're wrong.

"The ends justifies the means" is when you're doing something you consider wrong or unacceptable, but are justifying in this case because you consider the end result you're aiming for important/good enough to make those unsavoury means acceptable.

He's the BBEG. Who here has a problem with harming the BBEG?......
No one. Right. So no "The ends justifies the means" here.
Noone has a problem with harming the BBEG because thwarting the BBEG is a good end and almost always justifies the means of thwarting them, which is hurting or killing them.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings... "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Ie killing people is a Bad Thing whether they're BBEGs or innocent children. But in the case of BBEGs it's often justified because the end result is good or important enough to make the unsavoury means acceptable. Ie the end justifies the means.

[EvilElitest]

Ie killing people is a Bad Thing whether they're BBEGs or innocent children. But in the case of BBEGs it's often justified because the end result is good or important enough to make the unsavoury means acceptable. Ie the end justifies the means
Well killing the BBEG when he is going shoping for no reason is still evil
from,
EE

[Viscount Einstrauss]

After all these alignment arguments, I've come up with this simple credo-

"It is your actions that prove what sort of person you are."

Fighting to save the world? That's well and good, but if you murder innocents in the interim you're an evil person. A truly good person would never rationalize an evil action.

[Stephen_E]

Noone has a problem with harming the BBEG because thwarting the BBEG is a good end and almost always justifies the means of thwarting them, which is hurting or killing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The d20 SRD
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings... "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.


Ie killing people is a Bad Thing whether they're BBEGs or innocent children. But in the case of BBEGs it's often justified because the end result is good or important enough to make the unsavoury means acceptable. Ie the end justifies the means.

No. You're saying "Implies"="is". It doesn't. "Implies"="suggests".
So killing per se isn't evil, and if you read the full description it makes that clear. Neutral people "have compunctions against killing the innocent".

Good people have respect for life. This doesn't mean they can't kill, but it should mean they don't do it for fun or casually. Have you ever heard the term "I respectively disagree".

Thus your evil person can kill the BBEG for a laugh, without using "Ends justifies the means".
Your Neutral person can kill the BBEG because he isn't innocent, without using EJtM.
And your Good person can respectfully kill the BBEG because he's has already broken numerous laws, killed or tormented people, and is actively trying to destroy the world, without using EJtM. Note: If the BBEG has done none of these things, and isn't actively trying to destroy the world, then killing him wouldn't be a good deed. But then he also isn't been much of a BBEG.

Stephen

[EvilElitest]

Note: If the BBEG has done none of these things, and isn't actively trying to destroy the world, then killing him wouldn't be a good deed. But then he also isn't been much of a BBEG.

Stephen

Does being a lawyer count?:smallsmile:
from,
EE

[Jorkens]

Good people have respect for life. This doesn't mean they can't kill, but it should mean they don't do it for fun or casually.
Yes. It means they should only do it if they have a very good reason to do so.

Ie if the end justifies the means.

[EvilElitest]

Yes. It means they should only do it if they have a very good reason to do so.

Ie if the end justifies the means.

Nope, even with a good reason, then need to use good means, quote book of exalted deeds

"Ends and Means
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torure and evil captice in order to extract vital infomation that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at teh thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventinjg thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtous one, and a nuetral character might easily consider the use of torture in such circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtous characters can find themselves tmpted to just agree that a very good end jusifies a mildly evil means."
"In the D&D univers, the fundamental answer is no, and evil acdt is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil actin in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladin hood."
"Whether or not good ends can justify the means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil
"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of Martyrdom: 'I can save thousands innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some ,that sacerfice is worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cuase. After all, it would simple be selfish to let innocents die so charcacter can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this views is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats purity of good as a comidity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacricfice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character deciedes to commit and evil act, the effects are larger than the individueal characeter. What that character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing hte deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscinable.
Good ends something demand ev il means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted staus cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need
from,
EE

[Stephen_E]

Yes. It means they should only do it if they have a very good reason to do so.

Ie if the end justifies the means.

Or because of the things that have already happened.

EJtM is generally a poor reason because it presupposes you know the future with certainty. "I'll kill the child because I beleive he'll grow up into a BBEG" is EJtM, and by many (most?) peoples books a lousy reason. It has a long history of been roundly abused as an excuse for doing evil, as you've made clear you yourself use it that way. Indeed you provided a perfect example as to why EJtM is so corrupting. You're not only willing to do "evil" but redefine it as "good".

"I'll kill the BBeG because of actions he's done" IS a good reason, so long as the actions are suitably "bad". No foreknowledge required.

Stephen

[PaladinBoy]

Yes. It means they should only do it if they have a very good reason to do so.

Ie if the end justifies the means.

I only call it "ends justify the means" when there is something about the means that needs justifying. For example, killing a villian in combat to prevent him from doing more evil would not be EJtM becasue there is nothing intrinsically evil about killing someone to prevent him from harming more people. Change kill to torture........ now that seems like something that you would want to justify.

This is also why I don't ever think that "ends justify the means" is a valid reason. I only think it applies to means that are always evil anyway, and is simply used as an excuse to say "well, I'm not really evil, I'm just doing evil things".

[Karma Guard]

(As in means, where the said action will be socially accepted [lawful], grey area [neutral] or totally not how things should be done in this community [chaotic]) ultimately take it to what end (good for others and maybe (or maybe not) for the party in the end [good], for the good of the one without giving anything in return [neutrals] or the zero gain model with from someone else to me (or the party) [evil])

I'm going to just take on this part, because 'ends justify the means or not' is another topic. The alignments in D&D aren't subjective, they're objective. There's beings of raw goodness and evilness and lawfulness and chaotic...ness. You can't define Lawfulness by how acceptable it is to a certain culture, because then it becomes a giant nut-cluster when you have people differing cultures together.

For example: I have a Githyanki Paladin of Tyr. He was called to the Prime Material with a (cool and what he now feels was deceptive B|) semi-prophetic dream and everything. So this LG Githyanki shows up, he's trained, outfitted, and then tossed out on the road. But, he does a lot of things that are simply socially unacceptable to that community, such as actively seek out women to be trained as Paladins or other martial positions in that Church, he's loud and brash (go go 8 WIS!), as well as kinda a jerk, because he is a Githyanki, after all. He has odd positions on how parents should raise children that don't make any sense to the people that live in this community, that are considered extreme and unfair.

Under what you've just said, he's Chaotic. But, he's not. He's Lawful. He's orderly and follows the laws either the ones set out by Tyr when he agrees with them, or his own (large and nitpicky) set of personal rules.

Next topic, Good. Which is more just for the thread in general instead of just the OP. :smallsmile:

I've always had the Good/Evil/Neutral alignments like so:
Evil is working towards your own (Or your Evil God/Boss's) benefit to the detriment of others. You're actively seeking out people to harm.
Neutral is working towards your own benefit/another's benefit without much care about anyone else, but you're not actively seeking out people to harm.
Good is working towards another's (A specific person, belief, or whatever) benefit with extreme care about other people.

For Example (again): This Paladin, Nyss, is LG. He works for the benefit of Tyr, and for the benefit of whatever town he's currently in, and his own benefit (that is, glory and fame and money to buy new shiny armor and stuff), is secondary. He actively seeks to keep from hurting people unnecessarily, unless it is to protect Tyr's interests or the safety of the town he's in.

Some Cleric of St. Cuthbert, is LN. He works for the benefit of St. Cuthbert and only St. Cuthbert. He doesn't really care about other people in a meaningful way, but he'll save them because the law, or his personal ethics says so. (Which is a lawful thing). He doesn't actively seek out people to hurt, but he doesn't avoid it either.

Some Cleric of Generic LE Deity, is LE. He works for the benefit of his god, and only his god. He doesn't care about other people, and will actively use and harm them to advance his god's agenda. He'll save them only if they might be useful to him, or if he'll get in trouble if he doesn't. He actively seeks out people to hurt, especially if it's in his deity's interests.

LONGPOST IS LONG sorry guys. :smallsigh:

[Jormund]

For example: I have a Githyanki Paladin of Tyr. He was called to the Prime Material with a (cool and what he now feels was deceptive B|) semi-prophetic dream and everything. So this LG Githyanki shows up, he's trained, outfitted, and then tossed out on the road. But, he does a lot of things that are simply socially unacceptable to that community, such as actively seek out women to be trained as Paladins or other martial positions in that Church, he's loud and brash (go go 8 WIS!), as well as kinda a jerk, because he is a Githyanki, after all. He has odd positions on how parents should raise children that don't make any sense to the people that live in this community, that are considered extreme and unfair.

Under what you've just said, he's Chaotic. But, he's not. He's Lawful. He's orderly and follows the laws either the ones set out by Tyr when he agrees with them, or his own (large and nitpicky) set of personal rules.

Hmm, there's some things that I don't quite understand here.. He's actively seeking women to be trained as paladins or other martial positions at the church, which i don't see to be chaotic at all. Unless he's dragging them from their homes and actively undermining any local authority, i can say this is perfectly lawful. Again, the methods he uses to gain the goal of recruiting paladins counts. Being chaotic means to intentionally ignore and break the socially accepted rules or laws, even after being informed of them.

As for the second part as well, actions speak louder than words, i mean, it's known fact that paladins can be jerks if they want to. He can think that every child is to be trained to be an epitomy of goodness and sent to train as a paladin even in the danger of causing the town or city to die of starvation and still not be considered chaotic, or even neutral.

[Jormund]

I'm not seeing what your point is. Are you saying that breaking someone out of jail has exactly the same results as paying their bail, but is still somehow worse?

I'm saying that by paying the bail, you're leaving the town in relatively good terms, but by breaking the guy out might have some undesired attention to the guy if he ever decides to return there, but that's not the point.



They don't, except that the means bring about the ends. If you do something in two different ways; but both have the same results (the ends), how you did it (the means) are completely irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of what you did.

the point was, that while both actions can be viewed as neutral, bailing tends to lean to the lawful side, while breaking out tends to lean to the chaotic side. So one character who inherently leans to either side shouldn't be doing the other especially when there's alternatives. This of course is a quite weak example, but i think it's clear enough.
EDIT: long story short, i don't think it's completely irrelevant how to get to a same end

[Murongo]

There wouldn't be enough evil characters if evil meant the active pursuit of harming others. No one short of the emotionally disturbed think that hurting another is in itself fun (unless they get something out of it). I think anyone who puts themselves before any other person is evil.

Neutral is someone who chases their own interests but doesn't harm others in doing so.

Good is someone who puts others before him/herself.

[Dhavaer]

I'm saying that by paying the bail, you're leaving the town in relatively good terms, but by breaking the guy out might have some undesired attention to the guy if he ever decides to return there, but that's not the point.

So the ends are different, and the two situations should be judged in that way. The means by themselves are irrelevant.

[Jorkens]

EJtM is generally a poor reason because it presupposes you know the future with certainty. "I'll kill the child because I beleive he'll grow up into a BBEG" is EJtM, and by many (most?) peoples books a lousy reason.

Yes, and in that case it's pretty clear that the end doesn't justify the means, and that if people think it does then they're a) wrong and b) evil. I'm not talking about doing what you want to do and then claiming that the ends justify the means. I'm talking about the ends actually justifying the means.

It has a long history of been roundly abused as an excuse for doing evil,
Abused is the key word, though. Claiming people are evil and must be stopped has also been used as an excuse to do bad stuff, but that doesn't mean that stopping evil is a bad thing.

as you've made clear you yourself use it that way. Indeed you provided a perfect example as to why EJtM is so corrupting. You're not only willing to do "evil" but redefine it as "good".
Erm, sort of. I'm willing to say that actions which taken by themselves would be evil (eg killing someone, or even knocking them over the head with a sap) can, under certain circumstances actually be good (eg if by doing so you save the lives of a city full of innocent people).


"I'll kill the BBeG because of actions he's done" IS a good reason, so long as the actions are suitably "bad". No foreknowledge required.
This veering towards a real world death penalty argument isn't it. "He's done bad stuff so he deserved to die." Not that that one hasn't been used to justify some pretty nasty stuff just like EJtM.

But to sidestep that, what if you're in a situation where you have no evidence that someone actually has done any bad stuff yet, but you know that they're in the process of casting a 'kill everyone' spell and the only way to stop them is to kill them? (The practicalities of how this situation would arise are irrelevant to the moral point - just assume it has done somehow.) In that case, I don't think many people would say that it's evil to kill them, and I'd argue that in that case you're using EJtM.

[Funkyodor]

I view D&D alignment as a very minor aspect of the game, unless it's a character or prestege class that has alignment restrictions. Most other characters I feel can make sudden changes in their attitude and not be penalized in it because there shoudn't be any. Most people bring up the alignment damage or restrictions on items. I feel these should only apply to supernatural existance of these alignment poles (I.E. Celestial/Demonic/'whatever the neutral one is'). It would be annoying before your BBEG fight, "Nope this guys True Neutral, he's trying to re-make civilization into a new golden age for the betterment of mankind, not himself. The anti-evil stuff you just bought won't work."

There are all kinds of ways for different people to get someone else out of prison. The LG Paladin might hire a great attorney and research into legal matters to get his friend out of prison if he believed he was not guilty. The Lawful Monk might hire a slime ball attorney to get a usefull ally out of prison on a technicality. The Chaotic Barbarian might stage a breakout in such a way as to convince the guards that he is transferring his bud to another location. A CE Cleric might hire mercenaries to raid the prison. Etc...

[PaladinBoy]

Erm, sort of. I'm willing to say that actions which taken by themselves would be evil (eg killing someone, or even knocking them over the head with a sap) can, under certain circumstances actually be good (eg if by doing so you save the lives of a city full of innocent people).

How do you take an action by itself? I'm of the opinion that any action relies on it's circumstances. I don't believe that it is possible to say that an action is evil without considering the intent of the person doing it.

I'll grant that there are some things which are always evil, like torture. For those that aren't, like killing (in D&D), then there's nothing to justify if the intent and results are good. I wouldn't call that a case of "ends justify the means", I would call that a case of "impossible to determine the morality of the means without considering other factors".


But to sidestep that, what if you're in a situation where you have no evidence that someone actually has done any bad stuff yet, but you know that they're in the process of casting a 'kill everyone' spell and the only way to stop them is to kill them? (The practicalities of how this situation would arise are irrelevant to the moral point - just assume it has done somehow.) In that case, I don't think many people would say that it's evil to kill them, and I'd argue that in that case you're using EJtM.

This actually isn't that difficult. Attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder is just as wrong as murder. I would hesitate to kill him if he hadn't done anything else wrong and hadn't actually committed mass murder (yet), but if it was the only way, and I knew it to be the only way, then I would do it. Calling in a high level mage to use antimagic field would be preferable, though.

Again, I think this is more of a case where it isn't possible to determine the morality of killing him without considering the intent and results. That's not ends justify the means, that's ends define the means. It's not even entirely that, because intent has to be considered too.

[Advance Strat..]

I've always assumed that the "means" would equal your lawful/chaotic etc. and the "ends" would be your good, neutral, evil allignment.

Seems like the easiest way to do it.

[Renegade Paladin]

Well killing the BBEG when he is going shoping for no reason is still evil
from,
EE
If he's the BBEG, then you have a reason.

By the way, learn to spell.

[Jorkens]

How do you take an action by itself? I'm of the opinion that any action relies on it's circumstances. I don't believe that it is possible to say that an action is evil without considering the intent of the person doing it.

I'll grant that there are some things which are always evil, like torture. For those that aren't, like killing (in D&D), then there's nothing to justify if the intent and results are good. I wouldn't call that a case of "ends justify the means", I would call that a case of "impossible to determine the morality of the means without considering other factors".
I guess it depends on how you define morality / alignment - whether you have a bunch of absolute rules (killing is bad, letting thousands of innocents die through your inaction is bad, letting someone steal an apple from a market stall is bad etc) and some "rules of precedence" - so preventing the BBEG from killing thousands of innocents takes precedence over not killing the BBEG if killing the BBEG is absolutely the only way to save the innocent lives, but preventing a random street urchin from stealing an apple doesn't take precedence over not killing them, so killing someone to get the stallholder's apple back would be bad. In that case, deciding whether or not the ends justify the means is an essential part of deciding whether or not something is Good.

Alternatively, as you put it, you could view the action and results as one thing whose morality stands to be determined, and which can't be broken down into 'ends' and 'means.' In which case, obviously, EJtM is meaningless.

I think these two approaches are funtionally equivalent though, so we're arguing semantics, really.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
EJtM is generally a poor reason because it presupposes you know the future with certainty. "I'll kill the child because I beleive he'll grow up into a BBEG" is EJtM, and by many (most?) peoples books a lousy reason.


Yes, and in that case it's pretty clear that the end doesn't justify the means, and that if people think it does then they're a) wrong and b) evil. I'm not talking about doing what you want to do and then claiming that the ends justify the means. I'm talking about the ends actually justifying the means.

So how do you tell when the ends actually justifies the means? If I have good reason to beleive that child is going to grow up to do heinous crimes, why isn't it justified to kill her to stop the crimes. At what point will killing her be good under EJtM.

Quote:It has a long history of been roundly abused as an excuse for doing evil,


Abused is the key word, though. Claiming people are evil and must be stopped has also been used as an excuse to do bad stuff, but that doesn't mean that stopping evil is a bad thing.

The problem is that EJtM is so easy to abuse, indeed it's almost hard not to abuse it.


Erm, sort of. I'm willing to say that actions which taken by themselves would be evil (eg killing someone, or even knocking them over the head with a sap) can, under certain circumstances actually be good (eg if by doing so you save the lives of a city full of innocent people).

OK. I think I see where you're coming from morally. You see certain categorys of acts as been "evil", but that these can be modified to been "good" if the intended ends/achieved result are sufficiently more "good" than the evil acts.

My problem with this is that I can't think of any category of act I consider evil in all circumstances (note: this doesn't mean I think they're "good" either). The category of act "killing" isn't evil, although killing often is. Killing someone for kicks is evil. Killing someone who is trying to kill you isn't. Basically the circumstances define the act. Note for Paladin Boy: I don't see torture as automatically "evil" either, although I never heard of a situation that I'd define as "good". The "ticking bomb" scenarios, while generally incredibly unlikely, would tend to fall in my "neutral" territory.

Additional note: By "circumstances" I mean the current situation concerning the act, and reasonable estimates of the next few seconds.

Quote:"I'll kill the BBeG because of actions he's done" IS a good reason, so long as the actions are suitably "bad". No foreknowledge required.


This veering towards a real world death penalty argument isn't it. "He's done bad stuff so he deserved to die." Not that that one hasn't been used to justify some pretty nasty stuff just like EJtM.

That depends on whether you're saying "He's done bad stuff so he deserves to die as punshiment", or "He's done bad stuff so he must be killed to stop him doing more bad stuff, since we have no other way of stopping him", when talking about death penalty debates. Then you have to decide whether your society focuses on prevention, rehabilitation or Punishment, and the morality of these various approaches is anoth argument again, which isn't suitable for DnD.

In general I'd say "He's done bad stuff so he deserved to die." has been used to justify that much nastiness, but possibly you could give some examples. Of course if you combine it with EJtM you have lots of abuse possible. "We'll execute him horribly so that future people think twice about doing it" been an example.


But to sidestep that, what if you're in a situation where you have no evidence that someone actually has done any bad stuff yet, but you know that they're in the process of casting a 'kill everyone' spell and the only way to stop them is to kill them? (The practicalities of how this situation would arise are irrelevant to the moral point - just assume it has done somehow.) In that case, I don't think many people would say that it's evil to kill them, and I'd argue that in that case you're using EJtM.

As someone has already pointed out, you kill them for the act they doing. Casting a "kill everyone spell". No EJtM required.
You keep putting forward scenarios where the justification is from past and/or present acts. EJtM requires that the justification requires the future (and I don't mean the reasonably forseeable next few seconds, since you're then talking about ongoing acts). That there is nothing current or past to justify the actions you saying need to be taken. EJtM is where you say "I'm doing evil act "a" that I wouldn't normaly consider acceptable because I beleive that doing so will bring about the good result "b" in the future." It then gets worse if the person says "and this makes evil act "a" a good act" as you have in a previous post.

Stephen