Is this character necessarily Evil?

[Conradine]

Let's say a character does these things. These are in no way Good actions, but they are for the most in the grey area.
None of these actions is included in the Corruption Acts list of Fiendish Codex, but they are at least morally questionable.

My question is: in a standard classical D&D cosmology, could that character be a True Neutral, or a Chaotic Neutral; or he is undoubtedly Evil?


Fraud: the character uses mind-influencing magic ( Eagle's Splendor, Hypnosis ) to "persuade" moderately rich artisians and merchants to make small donations to his ( fictional ) temple / charity / pilgrimage in order to collect funds for his project.

- mitigating factor: he never takes enough money to really damage the defrauded, never fraud an indigend or poor person, never fraud someone that could be punished or lose his work ( like a worker that must answer a superior ).


Theft: the character visit countless small-temples in villages and small towns. He uses furtive / divination magic ( Invisibility, Zone of Silence, Clarvoyance ) in order to get access to an huge number of tomes and writings without paying for them; then he copy them using Amanuensis or Copy Tome spells ( basically, he's illegally downloading books ).

- mitigating factor: he isn't damaging any goods. It's a victimless crime ( although he's "virtually stealing" thousands of gp ).


Slavery: the character uses mind control and magic deception to conquest a tribe of goblins, kobolds or similar evil, low-power creatures. He uses them as slaves to tend crops, cut wood, build his fortress ecc.

- mitigating factor 1: he never beat, abuse, torture, starve or terrify in any way his slaves. Even the most violent or unobedient are dealt with mind control magic, without hurting them. Also, he uses mind-control magic that do not give the controlled the psychological trauma of feeling himself as a puppet ( he uses Charm, Hypnosis and Suggestion instead of Dominate Person ).

- mitigating factor 2: these creatures, left to themselves, would routinely beat, abuse, torture, starve and terrify their weaker fellows and every other creature unlucky enough to be captured by them. The charcter has first-hand evidence of their natural attitudes.


So, is that character necessarily Evil?

[Red Fel]

Let's say a character does these things. These are in no way Good actions, but they are for the most in the grey area.
None of these actions is included in the Corruption Acts list of Fiendish Codex, but they are at least morally questionable.

My question is: in a standard classical D&D cosmology, could that character be a True Neutral, or a Chaotic Neutral; or he is undoubtedly Evil?

Let's have a look.


Fraud: the character uses mind-influencing magic ( Eagle's Splendor, Hypnosis ) to "persuade" moderately rich artisians and merchants to make small donations to his ( fictional ) temple / charity / pilgrimage in order to collect funds for his project.


Theft: the character visit countless small-temples in villages and small towns. He uses furtive / divination magic ( Invisibility, Zone of Silence, Clarvoyance ) in order to get access to an huge number of tomes and writings without paying for them; then he copy them using Amanuensis or Copy Tome spells ( basically, he's illegally downloading books ).

These are both similar offenses. He lies and he takes things. With respect to the Fraud, if his project is heroic, then he's kind of Neutral; he's not causing suffering, he's just taking what he needs to do good things. With respect to the Theft, it's hard to call this truly Evil, because all that's happening is a loss of anticipated profits; it's not like he's taking money.

So far, not particularly Evil. Certainly non-Good, likely Chaotic, but not Evil.


Slavery: the character uses mind control and magic deception to conquest a tribe of goblins, kobolds or similar evil, low-power creatures. He uses them as slaves to tend crops, cut wood, build his fortress ecc.

Evil. D&D is explicit on this point. Slavery is a big, nasty Evil.


- mitigating factor 1: he never beat, abuse, torture, starve or terrify in any way his slaves.

Doesn't matter how well you treat them. Slavery is Evil.


- mitigating factor 2: these creatures, left to themselves, would routinely beat, abuse, torture, starve and terrify their weaker fellows and every other creature unlucky enough to be captured by them.

In D&D, it would be a non-Evil act to kill these creatures. It might even be heroic. Enslaving them, however, is explicitly Evil.


So, is that character necessarily Evil?

Based on the slavery? Yup.

[Gildedragon]

Fraud: the character uses mind-influencing magic ( Eagle's Splendor, Hypnosis ) to "persuade" moderately rich artisians and merchants to make small donations to his ( fictional ) temple / charity / pilgrimage in order to collect funds for his project. Chaotic, mildly Evil but mostly neutral... Would be CG if he was putting that money into the hands of the poor


Theft: the character visit countless small-temples in villages and small towns. He uses furtive / divination magic ( Invisibility, Zone of Silence, Clarvoyance ) in order to get access to an huge number of tomes and writings without paying for them; then he copy them using Amanuensis or Copy Tome spells ( basically, he's illegally downloading books ).
CN to TN/Unaligned Action: not harming anyone. Flaunting the law, perhaps, but it is a victimless crime.

Slavery: the character uses mind control and magic deception to conquest a tribe of goblins, kobolds or similar evil, low-power creatures. He uses them as slaves to tend crops, cut wood, build his fortress ecc.

- mitigating factor 1: he never beat, abuse, torture, starve or terrify in any way his slaves. Even the most violent or unobedient are dealt with mind control magic, without hurting them. Also, he uses mind-control magic that do not give the controlled the psychological trauma of feeling himself as a puppet ( he uses Charm, Hypnosis and Suggestion instead of Dominate Person ).

- mitigating factor 2: these creatures, left to themselves, would routinely beat, abuse, torture, starve and terrify their weaker fellows and every other creature unlucky enough to be captured by them. The charcter has first-hand evidence of their natural attitudes.
Evil; the mitigating factors seem to push towards LE with a tendency towards LN, rather than Vile Evil...



So, is that character necessarily Evil?

so far: yes
Is the character redeemable: definitely!
The big push towards evil here is the enslavement of the goblins and kobolds, but it can be fixed
1) remember they are not uniformly Evil, but have a society that rewards self-interest and cruelty; as a conqueror you can step in and fix that
2) be their overlord not their owner; this is a big one. Show them that serving you is preferable to... Well their old life: pay them wages, protect them, care for them. You might be something of an autocrat but a benevolent one. Noblesse Oblige, and all that. And for the love of the Dragon Gods don't adopt the custom of the First Night.
3) have some of your pilfering be philanthropic: give to the poor, teach the illiterate to read, etc...

[ExLibrisMortis]

I agree with Red Fel. 1 and 2 are not always evil - I could see 2 flying for a CG cleric of Freedom and Knowledge, or something (edit: provided you distribute what you learn, of course) - but 3 is just evil. Denying your opponents their well-deserved afterlives? Not good neutral.

[Geddy2112]

Theft and fraud are generally chaotic, and their morality depends on the who/what/when/where/why/how. An employee who steals extra food from a restraunt that would otherwise be thrown out and gives it to the poor and needy is very good. A well to do tyrant who steals what little food a peasant has is very evil.

In regards to theft, he has lines he won't cross and ensures the theft won't cause any major damages or harm. So it is not evil.

Taking away a creatures free will is evil, full stop. If he used this power to rise the kobolds/goblins out of their monsterous tendencies, to the point they could self govern, it might even be considered good. But since he uses a creatures free agency and body for personal gain, it is evil.

But it is certainly a believable, necessary" evil. Without you being evil, these monsters would kill themselves and others. What is to say you can't profit from your management? You need the things you took to help manage and rehabilitate these monstrous savages...

[denthor]

RED FEL I a--agree with you this done without much surprise to me in D&D slavery is Evil. Your thoughts are there are correct. Just dealing with evil races even if you pay for there services is considered a morally grey area.

Using magic to bend there freewill pushes to solid Evil.

Theft /fraud even to those that can afford it by magical means is unlawful and an abuse of power that ups the penalties I see this as Evil as well. Red Fel sees this, it seems as a cost of doing business. Then you openly state you use for personal gain. Motivation is selfish thereby evil.

Mostly redeemable return the gold become Chaotic Neutral.

[Red Fel]

Using magic to bend there freewill pushes to solid Evil.

Actually, no.

Free will isn't a Good value, and mind control isn't necessarily Evil. If anything, it's more Law and Chaos, but even then not so much.

As always, let's point to the Exalted spell Sanctify the Wicked, which forcibly alters a creature on a fundamental level and warps its brain over to Good, and the Emissary of Barachiel PrC, which can preach at people until they become LG. Both are forms of mind control. Both are forcing a person's mind to be something other than it is. Both remove free will. Both are considered Exalted.

[Conradine]

be their overlord not their owner; this is a big one. Show them that serving you is preferable to... Well their old life: pay them wages, protect them, care for them. You might be something of an autocrat but a benevolent one.


That's an intersting point.

It raises an equally intersting question: if a powerful-enough character uses a mix of magic influence ( magically enached Charisma and diplomacy ), deception ( illusions and Suggestions to make people believe he's kind of a Savior ) and bribe ( food, magic healing, well being ) to persuade people / creatures to follow him "voluntarily"...

is that really different from explicit slavery?


Also, what define slavery:

1) hunger, violence, fear, abuse
2) lack of personal freedom


I know that many would disagree with me, but I would find being hungry, scared and wounded, and unable to fix it, a worst kind of slavery than having to obey a benevolent master.

[AnimeTheCat]

now... hear me out here ok. What IF he stole the money and resold the information from the tome in other areas at a premium and then used that money to IN TURN pay the Kobolds and Goblins? Keep them from fighting with spells like Calm Emotions and the like. So he's not mind controlling them, he's just keeping fighting to a minimum and he is employing them. Now is it evil?

[Conradine]

What IF he stole the money and resold the information from the tome in other areas at a premium and then used that money to IN TURN pay the Kobolds and Goblins?


My personal opinion is that paying wages to evil-aligned, uneducated creatures would be doing harm to them.

One thing is to give money to a person that got an education, know how to read and write and hasn't a genetic tendency toward sadism and violence.

But if you give money to an illiterate, Evil little monster what could you expect him to do, beside boozing up and /or buying a weapon to do nasty things.



Keep them from fighting with spells like Calm Emotions and the like. So he's not mind controlling them, he's just keeping fighting to a minimum and he is employing them. Now is it evil?

Well, good-aligned clerics uses much heavier measures, like Sigil of Justice, that bestow atrocious suffering upon transgressors.
In my opinion there is some value dissonance in that.

[denthor]

Actually, no.

Free will isn't a Good value, and mind control isn't necessarily Evil. If anything, it's more Law and Chaos, but even then not so much.

As always, let's point to the Exalted spell Sanctify the Wicked, which forcibly alters a creature on a fundamental level and warps its brain over to Good, and the Emissary of Barachiel PrC, which can preach at people until they become LG. Both are forms of mind control. Both are forcing a person's mind to be something other than it is. Both remove free will. Both are considered Exalted.


Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel anyone who uses that spell or that PrC is really your friends.

Pride is there vice and they are ready to fall to your lawful plane. All you need is a helpful neutral to explain how much more good they could do by exalting themselves to ruler then inspire hatred of the peasants they are leading by showing where they all fall short.

Step 2 get them to install harsh laws and penalties.

Evil accomplished .

[Gildedragon]

That's an intersting point.

It raises an equally intersting question: if a powerful-enough character uses a mix of magic influence ( magically enached Charisma and diplomacy ), deception ( illusions and Suggestions to make people believe he's kind of a Savior ) and bribe ( food, magic healing, well being ) to persuade people / creatures to follow him "voluntarily"...

is that really different from explicit slavery?
they can always opt to leave, the power exerted on them isn't directly coercive, it poses no threat to their bodily autonomy. Yeah it is cultish, but cultishness isn't explicitly evil... Just sketch.


Also, what define slavery:

1) hunger, violence, fear, abuse
2) lack of personal freedom
and you know... Being turned into an object that can be sold. Even if the master never beats or kills their slaves, the possibility, the threat of it, is always there.
It is imperative that the gobolds one has conquered have the freedom to leave... Just make it that they have it so much better with you that they opt not to.


My personal opinion is that paying wages to evil-aligned, uneducated creatures would be doing harm to them.

One thing is to give money to a person that got an education, know how to read and write and hasn't a genetic tendency toward sadism and violence.

But if you give money to an illiterate, Evil little monster what could you expect him to do, beside boozing up and /or buying a weapon to do nasty things. This is classic LE-splaining "I enslave them for their own good"
Let them make mistakes, educate them, and promote the ones that show good leadership qualities and low backstabbing-ness. After all kobolds are as lawful as they're evil; present them with a new set of rules and laws and yourself as a lawful ruler and you're set.
Gobs tend towards chaotic but as long as you make sure their needs are met they will probably follow you

[Conradine]

and you know... Being turned into an object that can be sold. Even if the master never beats or kills their slaves, the possibility, the threat of it, is always there.
It is imperative that the gobolds one has conquered have the freedom to leave... Just make it that they have it so much better with you that they opt not to.


What about "they can't leave but they will never be sold" ?

The spellcaster wants not his secret fortress and activities to be revealed, and he wants not the moral responsibility of leaving them wander away ( they would probably turn to banditry ) nor to sell them to slavers which could mistreat them and / or recruit them as soldiers or worst.

Basically, it's using the goblins as serfs instead as slaves.




This is classic LE-splaining "I enslave them for their own good"

I thought that Lawful Evil characters care not for the good of their subordinates. They can say that but they don't really act that way. They oppress, beat, umiliate and enjoy it.

Basically, my reasoning is that, to do an Evil act in a classical D&D setting, one of the prerequisite is to cause suffering to someone.

Obviously, if the rare 16 Intelligence gobiln is born, and he pleads for his personal freedom, it would be an Evil act to keep him as a slave ( psychological cruelty ).

[Honest Tiefling]

As always, let's point to the Exalted spell Sanctify the Wicked, which forcibly alters a creature on a fundamental level and warps its brain over to Good, and the Emissary of Barachiel PrC, which can preach at people until they become LG. Both are forms of mind control. Both are forcing a person's mind to be something other than it is. Both remove free will. Both are considered Exalted.

Ah, yes, the Book of Exalted Deeds. Or as I like to think of it, Book of Justifying Evil. Let us not forget, it is also the book that pushes the idea that beauty = goodness, because that one's never backfired before.

Anyway, I would also rule that the later action is evil. You're not benefiting them. They expend energy for your benefit, not theirs. Also if the mind control is ever known to them, suddenly they have a lot of reasons to light the nearest church on fire and eat everyone inside. They now have motivations to never turn good.

As for the theft, I would rule to neutral, possibly evil, depending on the motives. If he needs information to save the world, he's fine, I could see good aligned folks doing this. If he's avoiding paying because he's a lazybutt, he's a jerk and probably falls more into neutral territory. If he's avoiding paying while having an army of slaves, dude, just cough up the cash already, and it's falling more and more into evil territory.

I'd also like to point out that upkeeping books in a low technology world is expensive. Depriving that library of knowledge is not a vitcimless crime, because books are so rare. Once a library is destroyed, it could take out unique copies of tomes of knowledge. Books can take YEARS to copy, and often copies come with flaws and are quite expensive, especially if this particular temple has other things to fund (such as healing the sick and poor).

Also, why can a spellcaster of this power not pay? Even if the character doesn't have gold, unless there's a time limit you could just trade some arcane spells instead.

[Conradine]

I'd also like to point out that upkeeping books in a low technology world is expensive. Depriving that library of knowledge is not a vitcimless crime, because books are so rare.


The character in the exemple do not physically steals the books, he "virtually steal the informations inside the books by copying them by magic ( Amanuensis or Copy Tome ). He actually creates new copies of the books without paying them.

The originals are left intact where they were.



Books can take YEARS to copy, and often copies come with flaws and are quite expensive, especially if this particular temple has other things to fund (such as healing the sick and poor).
Also, why can a spellcaster of this power not pay? Even if the character doesn't have gold, unless there's a time limit you could just trade some arcane spells instead.



Spells exist, like Amanuensis ( Magic of Faerun, lv 3 cleric ) or Copy Tome ( Legends & Lairs, lv 2 Wizard / Sorcerer ) that makes creating new copies unexpensive for mid-low level spellcasters.

Clerics and Mages owning libraries keeps them closed to the public in order to mantain the population ignorant and controllable, charging unreasonable fees over scholars unless they belong to their religion.

[Honest Tiefling]

The character in the exemple do not physically steals the books, he "virtually steal the informations inside the books by copying them by magic ( Amanuensis or Copy Tome ). He actually creates new copies of the books without paying them.

The originals are left intact where they were.

But he didn't exactly pay for their upkeep, and the funds to do such might come from other areas. Basically, he benefited from a service without a thought as to how hard that service is to maintain, which leads to the situation of if no one pays for it, how does it continue to function?

[Conradine]

Basically, he benefited from a service without a thought as to how hard that service is to maintain, which leads to the situation of if no one pays for it, how does it continue to function?

It isn't a service. Libraries are few, closed to public and guarded by the temples. Commoners are for the most forbidden even to learn how to read and burned at the stake if found possessing a book without permission from the local church - even if that book is not stolen. Which is unlikely because most of the population is poor, unliterate and unable to afford a book.



Also, why can a spellcaster of this power not pay? Even if the character doesn't have gold, unless there's a time limit you could just trade some arcane spells instead.


In the - few - locations where he can do that safely, he does that. However, in most locations paranoid nobles and temple inquisitions hunt down every independent spellcaster which is not a subordinate of the local powers.

[Gildedragon]

What about "they can't leave but they will never be sold" ?

The spellcaster wants not his secret fortress and activities to be revealed, and he wants not the moral responsibility of leaving them wander away ( they would probably turn to banditry ) nor to sell them to slavers which could mistreat them and / or recruit them as soldiers or worst.

Basically, it's using the goblins as serfs instead as slaves.
serfdom is... Not explicitly called out as evil, and depending of how much quid-pro-quo the landlord engages in... It wouldn't be Evil.

As to the spellcaster: are these minions allowed to quit their job? If not: they're essentially captives you force into labor: ie slaves.
If this spellcaster offers them stability and prosperity they will take that; they're not stupid.


I thought that Lawful Evil characters care not for the good of their subordinates. They can say that but they don't really act that way. They oppress, beat, umiliate and enjoy it. No no no no; it isn't that they deliberately oppress, humiliate, and mistreat their underlings for the pleasure of it (though some do); they mistreat their underlings because it is the most expedient means to their goal; harm comes to their underlings because they never care to prevent it if there is nothing to gain.

Hence, yes, having an LE overlord is bound to be soul crushing... Unless the overlord realizes that a high morale increases productivity and is cheaper than paying for the taskmaster to whip the underlings into place.
An "enlightened" LE layer is full of saccharine inspirational posters, bi-monthly morale exercises, and an all pervading sense of doom and surveillance and a deadly fear of not meeting quotas.


Obviously, if the rare 16 Intelligence gobiln is born, and he pleads for his personal freedom, it would be an Evil act to keep him as a slave ( psychological cruelty ). any character over int 0 will value being treated well; and all chaotic sorts will chafe hard at being enslaved; it doesn't need extraordinary intelligence to value freedom and being treated mercifully and without cruelty.


Ah, yes, the Book of Exalted Deeds. Or as I like to think of it, Book of Justifying Evil. Let us not forget, it is also the book that pushes the idea that beauty = goodness, because that one's never backfired before. can we all agree that sections of the BoED were written by Evil-Outsiders with the intent of derailing Good beings from the path of Good and Righteousness?


I'd also like to point out that upkeeping books in a low technology world is expensive. Depriving that library of knowledge is not a vitcimless crime, because books are so rare. Once a library is destroyed, it could take out unique copies of tomes of knowledge. Books can take YEARS to copy, and often copies come with flaws and are quite expensive, especially if this particular temple has other things to fund (such as healing the sick and poor).

On the flipside this spellcaster is producing more (perfect) copies of the texts (though lacking in illustrations (once Amanuesis reaches common use I would expect for ASCII style art to become very common in mundane texts) ) reducing the impact if a library is destroyed.

[Red Fel]

It raises an equally intersting question: if a powerful-enough character uses a mix of magic influence ( magically enached Charisma and diplomacy ), deception ( illusions and Suggestions to make people believe he's kind of a Savior ) and bribe ( food, magic healing, well being ) to persuade people / creatures to follow him "voluntarily"...

is that really different from explicit slavery?

Simple question: If the character wanted to leave, could it? Ignoring the tricks he's pursued to keep it from wanting to leave - if one of his Diplomanced minions said, "I'm done, I want to go home," would it be allowed to go home?

If the answer is yes, it's just very good Diplomancy. If the answer is no, slavery.



Also, what define slavery:

1) hunger, violence, fear, abuse

Nope, those define poverty, or living in a war-torn nation.


2) lack of personal freedom

That would be the definition of slavery, yes.



I know that many would disagree with me, but I would find being hungry, scared and wounded, and unable to fix it, a worst kind of slavery than having to obey a benevolent master.

Your personal, subjective feelings have nothing to do with the arbitrary alignment definitions of D&D.


My personal opinion is that paying wages to evil-aligned, uneducated creatures would be doing harm to them.

Funny, that justification has been used for slavery throughout centuries. Doesn't make it less Evil.


Well, good-aligned clerics uses much heavier measures, like Sigil of Justice, that bestow atrocious suffering upon transgressors.
In my opinion there is some value dissonance in that.

Welcome to D&D. Arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.


What about "they can't leave but they will never be sold" ?

So, "You're still my slaves, but you won't be anyone else's slaves?"

They're still slaves.


The spellcaster wants not his secret fortress and activities to be revealed, and he wants not the moral responsibility of leaving them wander away ( they would probably turn to banditry ) nor to sell them to slavers which could mistreat them and / or recruit them as soldiers or worst.

Basically, it's using the goblins as serfs instead as slaves.

No, serfs enjoy an exchange. Yes, they're lower-class bootlicking peons, but they have certain rights (namely, to enjoy the benefits of the land) in exchange for their services.

Slaves get no exchange. "You get to live, if I feel like it," is the extent of a slave's entitlement. Given your position of, "If I didn't do this, I'd probably kill them," they barely get that.


I thought that Lawful Evil characters care not for the good of their subordinates. They can say that but they don't really act that way. They oppress, beat, umiliate and enjoy it.

Words hurt too.


Basically, my reasoning is that, to do an Evil act in a classical D&D setting, one of the prerequisite is to cause suffering to someone.

Let's clarify. When you're not sure, "Does it cause needless suffering" is a good metric for whether something is Evil. However, sometimes you are sure, because the game says so. Slavery is one of those times. Whether it causes suffering or not, it's Evil.


Obviously, if the rare 16 Intelligence gobiln is born, and he pleads for his personal freedom, it would be an Evil act to keep him as a slave ( psychological cruelty ).

Or if the dim-witted 4 Intelligence Goblin is born, it would still be Evil to keep him as a slave, because slavery is explicitly Evil.


Clerics and Mages owning libraries keeps them closed to the public in order to mantain the population ignorant and controllable, charging unreasonable fees over scholars unless they belong to their religion.

Or, they do so to pay for the maintenance of the library facilities, as buildings can age and decay, and the contents, which may erode with years of reading and handling.

Just a thought. Not all revenue collection is Evil. I would know.

[Gildedragon]

It isn't a service. Libraries are few, closed to public and guarded by the temples. Commoners are for the most forbidden even to learn how to read and burned at the stake if found possessing a book without permission from the local church - even if that book is not stolen. Which is unlikely because most of the population is poor, unliterate and unable to afford a book.

In the - few - locations where he can do that safely, he does that. However, in most locations paranoid nobles and temple inquisitions hunt down every independent spellcaster which is not a subordinate of the local powers.
so the local churches are strongly LE. With this context the theft of texts goes from TN to possibly CG. by reducing the uniqueness of their holdings one erodes their power.

[denthor]

Commoners are for the most forbidden even to learn how to read and burned at the stake if found possessing a book without permission from the local church - even if that book is not stolen. Which is unlikely because most of the population is poor, unliterate and unable to afford a book.


I disagree with your last sentence most people are illiterate because of choice. How many of us truly wanted to spend our days in school? When offered a more and less studious offer? I believe we In the playground are more inclined than others to want an education.






In the - few - locations where he can do that safely, he does that. However, in most locations paranoid nobles and temple inquisitions hunt down every independent spellcaster which is not a subordinate of the local powers.

Somehow my phone managed to put my response in the middle of your quote

[Conradine]

any character over int 0 will value being treated well; and all chaotic sorts will chafe hard at being enslaved; it doesn't need extraordinary intelligence to value freedom and being treated mercifully and without cruelty.


A low intelligence character which is treated well and gets foods, shelter and some booze would probably not even realize to be a slave ( or a serf ). Or, even if he realizes it, he would probably not care much.

The desire for personal freedom is for the refined minds. And even they will start think to freedom only if their bellies are full.

Personal experience: my grandfather was an highly intelligent and cultured person. Yet he told me that the thing that made him suffer more in his youth was not lacking an education or opportuities, but being hungry and having nothing to eat ( he was born few years after World War 2 ).




Simple question: If the character wanted to leave, could it? Ignoring the tricks he's pursued to keep it from wanting to leave - if one of his Diplomanced minions said, "I'm done, I want to go home," would it be allowed to go home?


Mhh...
if the minion looks inoffensive, yes.

But a necessary question: if that minion is clearly violent and / or insane, releasing him would be an evil action?

[Red Fel]

A low intelligence character which is treated well and gets foods, shelter and some booze would probably not even realize to be a slave ( or a serf ). Or, even if he realizes it, he would probably not care much.

The desire for personal freedom is for the refined minds. And even they will start think to freedom only if their bellies are full.

Translation: If you don't realize you're a slave, you're not a slave!

Fire doesn't know that it's hot. Will it still burn me?

Slavery is slavery. If a creature is capable of intelligent thought - that is, above animal (3) Intelligence - to enslave it is slavery. This is true even if you can trick it into thinking it's not a slave. If a thing is capable of thought, even if not uniquely bright, and it does not have the freedom to leave your service or disobey you, it is a slave and you are the slaver.

[Honest Tiefling]

so the local churches are strongly LE. With this context the theft of texts goes from TN to possibly CG. by reducing the uniqueness of their holdings one erodes their power.

I uh, think this is something that should have been mentioned before. Like the fact he's an apparent criminal because he's pursuing paths of power others have. That does change the situation a great deal. Does he ever distribute this information to others, so that they might benefit from the knowledge?

Through I must ask...What is he doing that's so good? If it's the enslaving of kobolds and goblins thing, then maybe they have a point in keeping the magical tomes to themselves. I mean, serfdom might not be mentioned in DnD, but that's usually because it gets lumped into slavery because it forces people under the penalty of death to work for a lord. The only real difference is that it's often harder to make serfs go into dangerous mines or fight for your amusement.

...And enslaving the mentally impaired really ought to be evil. So enslaving a intelligence 4 goblin seems more like the exploitation of the mentally impaired. I didn't think I would ever type that sentiment out.

As for the point that people prefer stability over freedom, some do. Others are willing to wage war, get hunted down like animals (or with animals, your choice), get branded, and be tortured just for the chance to be free.

[Gildedragon]

A low intelligence character which is treated well and gets foods, shelter and some booze would probably not even realize to be a slave ( or a serf ). Or, even if he realizes it, he would probably not care much.

The desire for personal freedom is for the refined minds. Easy there buckaroo... That "Freedom/Rights is/are for the Cultured/Civilized" is evilsplaining of the highest caliber (and a historical excuse for all manner of injustices and general-awfulness).
Freedom and rights and basic decency are for all (at least from the Good PoV).

Yes you can treat them in such a way they never think to ask for freedom; but your reaction to that request, should it arise, is what defines the situation.

What does the spellcaster do when the goblins/kobolds send a representative to ask for their collective freedom?

Evil: denies it
Neutral: allows it, casts them out of the base for them to fend for themselves
Good: allows it, lets them stay the base they have come to call home OR helps them settle (if they want)

[Segev]

A low intelligence character which is treated well and gets foods, shelter and some booze would probably not even realize to be a slave ( or a serf ). Or, even if he realizes it, he would probably not care much.

The desire for personal freedom is for the refined minds. And even they will start think to freedom only if their bellies are full.

Personal experience: my grandfather was an highly intelligent and cultured person. Yet he told me that the thing that made him suffer more in his youth was not lacking an education or opportuities, but being hungry and having nothing to eat ( he was born few years after World War 2 ).


Translation: If you don't realize you're a slave, you're not a slave!This actually is an interesting philosophical point.

If Bob claims that George is his slave, on the basis that George does whatever Bob tells him to and that Bob is responsible for keeping George well-fed and housed and clothed, etc., but George laughs at that and says that Bob's just his very generous housemate, and that Bob is grateful for the generosity so willingly does what Bob asks him to...

...who is right?

Until we get to the point where this is tested by one of them trying to breech the roles they have established (Bob tries to FORCE George to do something George's gratitude won't get him to willingly do, or George tries to leave or otherwise decide to stop doing things for Bob), it's really impossible to tell.

If Bob can and does force George to do what Bob wants, no matter what, or George tries to leave and Bob manages to use force (his own or that of external threats, such as law enforcement in a slavery-legal civilization), then Bob is right, and George is in for a rude surprise.

If George says "no," or leaves, and the most Bob can do is get physically violent (which, in a slavery-not-legal civilization, might well get law enforcement called on him), then Bob is wrong.

But if it's "a stupid person who is fed and clothed and treated as a servant, and doesn't consider himself enslaved," it's hard to tell until that "slavery" state is tested.




Slavery is slavery. If a creature is capable of intelligent thought - that is, above animal (3) Intelligence - to enslave it is slavery. This is true even if you can trick it into thinking it's not a slave. If a thing is capable of thought, even if not uniquely bright, and it does not have the freedom to leave your service or disobey you, it is a slave and you are the slaver.There you go: the question is whether the "slave" is free to leave your service.

Of course, that also opens the question as to whether somebody who is only held there by lack of alternatives is a slave or not. But that's probably a whole nother thread.



To the OP: If you want to bill your guy as Neutral Skeevy rather than out-and-out Evil, don't enslave the goblins. Convince them to work for you. You're already doing it, really; just stop considering them slaves. You Charm and Suggest and the like to get them to work for you, and it's skeevy, but it's not evil. They technically can leave your service, but you've made it so they don't really want to. Given the soft nature of this control, you still have to maintain a level of equanimity with them, anyway, as-is. They're employees. Minions. Henchmen.

I know it's semantic, but we are talking gray areas, where semantics start to rule.

Consider the question: if a goblin said, "Hey, boss, I'm quitting, 'cause it's no fun farming and me and some buddies wanna try our hand at adventuring," would you force him to stay, or only try to persuade him to do so and watch him leave if he was unpersuaded?

[Telonius]

As always, let's point to the Exalted spell Sanctify the Wicked

... and mock it mercilessly. :smallbiggrin:



Regarding Slavery, it's always Evil. Hurting or oppressing people is pretty much in the job description of a chattel slaveholder. Things might get a tiny bit less clear when you talk about serfdom, or varying definitions of slavery ("owned persons" with rights, dignity, and legal recourse, rather than the usual definition of property; or a ruling caste of "slaves" something like the Mamluks), but those would be kind of exceptional cases.

[Conradine]

Funny, that justification has been used for slavery throughout centuries. Doesn't make it less Evil.


But these enslaved populations had their culture and the justification was blathantly false.

Goblins are ( for the most ) objectively evil. They are not a pacific - yet - primitive tribe. They beat, abuse, torture and kill each other for no reason. It's enough to spy them a few to get first hand evidence of that.



So, "You're still my slaves, but you won't be anyone else's slaves?"

They're still slaves.


There is a difference. Knowing you can build an home and a family, and you will never teared away from them. It's not a little thing.



Translation: If you don't realize you're a slave, you're not a slave!


Mh... actually, if you don't realize you are a slave and you are not getting harm from your slavery...
yes, you aren't truly a slave.



Or, they do so to pay for the maintenance of the library facilities, as buildings can age and decay, and the contents, which may erode with years of reading and handling.

Just a thought. Not all revenue collection is Evil. I would know.


I correct myself.

In that specific region, most libraries does that.
Some others does not. When he can trade spells for access to the library without risking persecution, the character does that. When he can't, he steals knowledge.

[Gildedragon]

Goblins are ( for the most ) objectively evil. They are not a pacific - yet - primitive tribe. They beat, abuse, torture and kill each other for no reason. It's enough to spy them a few to get first hand evidence of that.
No they are just usually evil, unlike say, Demons (who are made of Evil... And even then can sometimes be Good, even Exalted).

And note: Evil doesn't mean depraved and bloodthirsty... or morally bankrupt. An Evil baker takes adds a bit of sawdust into their loaves to make a few extra, and sells them all for standard (unsawdusted) price; an evil judge passes excessively harsh sentences, or seizes on any small thing to make the defendant's trial more uncomfortable, and never ever lets someone off with a warning or just the minimum sentence; and an evil ruler may look for peace and prosperity of the land and its people, but blatantly denies their citizens any rights, enacts harsh justice meant to keep order and stability, eg forbids people from moving or ceasing to work their lands (so as to maintain food surpluses). The people are well off, but the government is not a Good-aligned one; the judge is just but not merciful or looking out for the wellbeing of the people of his court, or to see the law bettering lives; and the baker does no big harm, wouldn't ever even think of committing murder or enslaving anyone... But they are all still Evil

And even if all goblins were irredeemable vile evil monsters with an incapacity for mercy, kindness or any sort of goodness... enslaving them is still Evil. Best to helm of opposite alignment them and then release this horde of impossibly good goblins into the world. Or dip them in quintessence.

[Conradine]

To the OP: If you want to bill your guy as Neutral Skeevy rather than out-and-out Evil, don't enslave the goblins. Convince them to work for you. You're already doing it, really; just stop considering them slaves. You Charm and Suggest and the like to get them to work for you, and it's skeevy, but it's not evil. They technically can leave your service, but you've made it so they don't really want to. Given the soft nature of this control, you still have to maintain a level of equanimity with them, anyway, as-is. They're employees. Minions. Henchmen.



Thanks. That was, more or less, my starting idea.
Mabye I misused the word "enslave".

But there is a problem.



Consider the question: if a goblin said, "Hey, boss, I'm quitting, 'cause it's no fun farming and me and some buddies wanna try our hand at adventuring," would you force him to stay, or only try to persuade him to do so and watch him leave if he was unpersuaded?


If they were human, elves, halfling, dwarves, or even Neutral aligned goblin, the spellcaster would say "ok, good luck".

But what if they are Evil aligned ( light up on Detect Evil ) goblins? What would be the right thing to do?

1) Denying them freedom, which is actually enslaving them?
2) Killing them in cold blood, which is murder of defenseless creaures for crimes yet to be committed?
3) Letting them go, fully knowing they will kill and raze at first opportunity?
4) Telling them " You have two choices: you can stay here, or you can accept a Geas / Sigil / Contingency Curse that forbids you from killing exept in self defence" ?


If possible, I guess 4 is the solution.

[Gildedragon]

If they were human, elves, halfling, dwarves, or even Neutral aligned goblin, the spellcaster would say "ok, good luck".

But what if they are Evil aligned ( light up on Detect Evil ) goblins? What would be the right thing to do? What is the elf, human, or halfling pinged as evil? Why would they get to leave but not the evil goblin?

Also "Evil Is Not Murderous-Psychopaths"; small petty things are evil; one can be Evil and still be decent enough to function in society (one can be chaotic evil and function in society).

Also also: there are ways to turn people to good that are, essentially, talking with them about the nature of good and evil and showing them mercy and kindness and all that stuff.



1) Denying them freedom, which is actually enslaving them?
2) Killing them in cold blood, which is murder of defenseless creaures for crimes yet to be committed?
3) Letting them go, fully knowing they will kill and raze at first opportunity?
4) Telling them " You have two choices: you can stay here, or you can accept a Geas / Sigil / Contingency Curse that forbids you from killing exept in self defence" ?

1&2 are evil, yeah
3 is wholly neutral
4 is okayish
I venture 5: while they work under you, subtly change their alignment; know that the world might treat them wrong, and tell them they always have a home should they chose to return. Saccharine I know, but what am I to do? I have those fuzzy wuzzy leanings.

[Conradine]

What is the elf, human, or halfling pinged as evil? Why would they get to leave but not the evil goblin?

You have a point.
I guess that, unless they already killed someone, to release them would be a Neutral act.

Although, if they already killed travellers and razed farms, a legit option would also be " You can choose: you stay here, or I give you to the authorities where you will face judgement for your actions".
But that would be Evil because ( Book of Exalted Deeds ) giving a prisoner to an authority that you know will torture him is an evil act ( in that settings, most autorities are LE ).

Well, I guess the spellcaster can simply release those minions who ask for that and wash his hands.

[Gildedragon]

Although, if they already killed travellers and razed farms, a legit option would also be " You can choose: you stay here, or I give you to the authorities where you will face judgement for your actions".
But that would be Evil because ( Book of Exalted Deeds ) giving a prisoner to an authority that you know will torture him is an evil act ( in that settings, most autorities are LE ). Nope. Sending them to local-law-enforcement when they ask to be free is not letting them free: it's a means to threaten and coerce them into service.


Well, I guess the spellcaster can simply release those minions who ask for that and wash his hands.
Yeap. This is the Neutral thing to do (even if they have killed).

[Segev]

Regarding Slavery, it's always Evil. Hurting or oppressing people is pretty much in the job description of a chattel slaveholder. Things might get a tiny bit less clear when you talk about serfdom, or varying definitions of slavery ("owned persons" with rights, dignity, and legal recourse, rather than the usual definition of property; or a ruling caste of "slaves" something like the Mamluks), but those would be kind of exceptional cases.Notably, that's "chattel slavery," which is quite different than what the OP described.


Thanks. That was, more or less, my starting idea.
Mabye I misused the word "enslave".

But there is a problem.





If they were human, elves, halfling, dwarves, or even Neutral aligned goblin, the spellcaster would say "ok, good luck".

But what if they are Evil aligned ( light up on Detect Evil ) goblins? What would be the right thing to do?

1) Denying them freedom, which is actually enslaving them?
2) Killing them in cold blood, which is murder of defenseless creaures for crimes yet to be committed?
3) Letting them go, fully knowing they will kill and raze at first opportunity?
4) Telling them " You have two choices: you can stay here, or you can accept a Geas / Sigil / Contingency Curse that forbids you from killing exept in self defence" ?


If possible, I guess 4 is the solution.

I think this is stepping a little outside the basic question: are they slaves?

Whether the slavery/imprisonment/whatever is justified by their evil is a separate question.

[Red Fel]

Whether the slavery/imprisonment/whatever is justified by their evil is a separate question.

This. At this point, we're moved away from "Is slavery Evil" (it is) and into exceptions. Basically, these hypotheticals ask the following.
If the slaves are Evil, does that make it wrong? Answer: Yes. Slavery is Evil, under D&D arbitrary morality, full stop.
If I were to release them after enslaving them, they'd go out and do Evil. So don't I have an obligation to keep them contained? Answer: That doesn't change the fact that you enslaved them in the first place. You put them in the situation where your options are either (1) keep them enslaved, which is Evil; (2) kill them all, which is probably Evil; (3) release them into the hands of law enforcers, which borders on Evil since it's basically indirect execution; or (4) let them go, with the knowledge that they'll probably commit Evil, which is Neutral. There is no Good outcome from what you've done by enslaving them.
And that's the point. Irrespective of what the victim was or did before they were enslaved, or what they might be or do after their slavery ends, in the present, they are slaves. The act of keeping them as slaves is an Evil act, full stop.

[Segev]

You put them in the situation where your options are either (1) keep them enslaved, which is Evil; (2) kill them all, which is probably Evil; (3) release them into the hands of law enforcers, which borders on Evil since it's basically indirect execution; or (4) let them go, with the knowledge that they'll probably commit Evil, which is Neutral. There is no Good outcome from what you've done by enslaving them.

You're conflating things here in a way that is coloring your analysis...and making it less than accurate. "Kill them all" and "release them to a lawful authority, which borders on indirect execution" are not inherently evil, if they truly warrant death.

Replace "I enslaved them" with "I took and held them prisoner," and you don't change the outcomes of the choices. And I doubt D&D's arbitrary morality claims that a Good person taking an Evil bunch of monsters prisoner is inherently an evil act.

Unless the Lawful authority is LE, if you're right that releasing them to the authority would be "indirect execution," then execution is probably not evil in this case. Whether you take it upon yourself or go through a legal process says more about your L/C alignment than your G/E alignment.

[LTwerewolf]

Until you've actually stated that they've committed evil in the past, it's impossible to say. However from the op's posts, it sounds like the justification is "they're creatures that are typically evil" and not "I know these creatures have committed acts of evil. In which case they haven't actually done anything wrong to be killed by you or law enforcement. This is the slaughter of helpless innocents.

It's not just slavery, it's racist slavery. Woo! Two for one!

[Conradine]

Until you've actually stated that they've committed evil in the past, it's impossible to say. However from the op's posts, it sounds like the justification is "they're creatures that are typically evil" and not "I know these creatures have committed acts of evil. In which case they haven't actually done anything wrong to be killed by you or law enforcement. This is the slaughter of helpless innocents.

It's not just slavery, it's racist slavery. Woo! Two for one!



To enslave a goblin that never hurted anyone ( as far as you know ) and then threaten him to give him to LE authorities that would torture and kill him for no reason, would be Evil.


If the goblin ( or the bandit / rogue / whatever ) already committed crimes, I guess that offering him the alternative between execution or forced labor ( in non-cruel conditions ) is more or less Neutral.

Also because if that is Evil, we then should conclude that the vast majority of human governments in D&D are Evil ( which is a possible interpretation ).

[Honest Tiefling]

As an odd question, is there any mechanical or story reason you need to not be evil? Because I would say that if you force a goblin criminal into forced labor to benefit yourself, you're still straddling that line.

Also, if all human (and presumed demihuman) goverments are evil in this region...Did the goblin bandit really have a choice in not resorting to banditry? There is a good chance that they have been pushed into starvation and possibly physically threatened. If their choices are starve or kill, well...

[Deadline]

If the goblin ( or the bandit / rogue / whatever ) already committed crimes, I guess that offering him the alternative between execution or forced labor ( in non-cruel conditions ) is more or less Neutral.

Do you have legal authority to sentence the goblin? If not, you are still plenty far from being Neutral when forcing them into labor (because that sort of action is the definition of the word enslave).

[Segev]

Do you have legal authority to sentence the goblin? If not, you are still plenty far from being Neutral when forcing them into labor (because that sort of action is the definition of the word enslave).

Once again, please do not confuse "lawful" with "good," and "chaotic" with "evil."

Lacking lawful authority but doing something anyway is chaotic. This is independent of whether it is good or evil.

[Deadline]

Once again, please do not confuse "lawful" with "good," and "chaotic" with "evil."

Lacking lawful authority but doing something anyway is chaotic. This is independent of whether it is good or evil.

*shrug* Ok, it's better to not muddy the waters anyway. Enslaving someone is an evil act according to D&D arbitrary alignment rules. It's largely irrelevant as to why you've enslaved them. As others have pointed out, if you aren't allowing them the freedom of choice, you are pretty squarely in Evil territory, alignment wise.

[Conradine]

Lacking lawful authority but doing something anyway is chaotic. This is independent of whether it is good or evil.

I agree.


Back to the evil / non evil issue: following the guidelines of D&D, expecially the Book of Exalted Deeds ( which, although in my opinion quite arbitrary, is also canon ), both death penalty and forced labor are Evil. So is giving a prisoner to a legal system that wold execute, enslave or torture him.
So, for the rules, I think offering the alternative between being given to said authorities and being forced into labor is a slighly Caotic action, and fully Evil if the prisoners are innocent and the work conditions are harsh, non extreme Evil if the prisoners are guilty and the work conditions are human.




As others have pointed out, if you aren't allowing them the freedom of choice, you are pretty squarely in Evil territory, alignment wise.

A government that imprison murderers and terrorists is not allowing them the freedom of choice.

[Conradine]

As an odd question, is there any mechanical or story reason you need to not be evil? Because I would say that if you force a goblin criminal into forced labor to benefit yourself, you're still straddling that line.


In short: there is a moderately powerful characters who wants to build his fortress and be served and revered, much as a slave owner would be.
But he wants not to dirty his hands or feel too guilty about.

So he submits evil creatures and makes them work for him. He treats them well and tells himself " Any legit authority would have them quarted, I treat them better than their precedent tribe chief did, I prevent them to hurt themselves or other people... everybody wins ".

But, mechanically speaking, I'm not sure if he's a dark grey Neutral or a light black Evil.


PS Could it be the behiavour of an Evil character with the feat "Touch of Benevolence"? ( Champions of Ruin )

[Honest Tiefling]

In short: there is a moderately powerful characters who wants to build his fortress and be served and revered, much as a slave owner would be.
But he wants not to dirty his hands or feel to guilty about...


But, mechanically speaking, I'm not sure if he's a dark grey Neutral or a light black Evil.

Yeah, I'm siding to the idea of Diet Evil. He has good intentions, and really...Odd ways to go about it. (Also, I assume he's not sharing his information he stole from the temples with anyone else, so he's not being a hero there either.)

He doesn't care about what he does to the goblins for their own good, he wants to revered as an object of admiration, he wants them to worship him. He doesn't care about the impact he will leave on this tribe, he cares about if it makes him feel bad and make it hard to sleep at night. He's not exactly Mr. Empathy here.

In this case, I suggest owning the Well Intentioned Extremist Trope. Perhaps a violin and an air of culture to go with your questionably evil tactics?

[Gildedragon]

In short: there is a moderately powerful characters who wants to build his fortress and be served and revered, much as a slave owner would be.
But he wants not to dirty his hands or feel too guilty about.

So he submits evil creatures and makes them work for him. He treats them well and tells himself " Any legit authority would have them quarted, I treat them better than their precedent tribe chief did, I prevent them to hurt themselves or other people... everybody wins ".

But, mechanically speaking, I'm not sure if he's a dark grey Neutral or a light black Evil.


PS Could it be the behiavour of an Evil character with the feat "Touch of Benevolence"? ( Champions of Ruin )

In reverse order: yes, your good deeds need only be sporadic

Neutral Grey->Light Grey until he is confronted with their desire for freedom. Overall philanthropic but somewhat misguided in their justification (ie assuming all goblins are evil and are a danger to others).



A government that imprison murderers and terrorists is not allowing them the freedom of choice.
Imprisonment isn't evil per-se, neither is the death penalty, necessarily, in DnDethics.
The point is how much mercy the courts show, how willing the society is to give the criminal a fighting chance during the trial/with the laws (kangaroo courts are very legal but evil; purposefully appointing overworked/understaffed/underfunded public defenders is likewise evil), and how proportional the punishment is to the crime.

[Conradine]

He has good intentions,

He doesn't care about what he does to the goblins for their own good,


Hey, hey... no , it isn't exactly that. Quite the opposite.

He hasn't good intenctions. He's an egoist that wants knowledge, power and his own micro kingdom.
But he cares about what he does to the goblin ( if he didn't care he would overwork them to death, or even sacrifice them for Dark Craft or farm Liquid Pain ). He cares for them, he even cure them if they get ill or wounded, he doesn't overwork them or make them do dangerous things.

Basically, a morally lax character that justifies himself by comparing with eviler characters.



Ah.... one last idea, from Book of Evil Darkness.
There is a first level spell , called Extract Drug, that allows to create several kind of substances from basic elements.

What if he gets those would-be rebel hooked on magical Vapor Mordayn?
They would feel happy and no more want to leave.
No need to whip , kill or chain them. No nasty beatings. After a while, they would beg to be allowed to stay.
Everybody wins.

[Gildedragon]

Hey, hey... no , it isn't exactly that. Quite the opposite.

He hasn't good intenctions. He's an egoist that wants knowledge, power and his own micro kingdom.
But he cares about what he does to the goblin (if he didn't care he would overwork them to death, or even sacrifice them for Dark Craft or farm Liquid Pain ). He cares for them, he even cure them if they get ill or wounded, he doesn't overwork them or make them do dangerous things. Neutral. Is very selfish but has scrupules.


Ah.... one last idea, from Book of Evil Darkness.
There is a first level spell , called Extract Drug, that allows to create several kind of substances from basic elements.

What if he gets those would-be rebel hooked on magical Vapor Mordayn?
They would feel happy and no more want to leave.
No need to whip , kill or chain them. No nasty beatings. After a while, they would beg to be allowed to stay.
Everybody wins. oh that is straight up Evil. Very very evil.

[Elkad]

Mind control, even the minor "these aren't the droids you are looking for" Suggestion spell is always a bit evil. You directly interfered with a thinking being's free will. In my book that's always Evil.

Slavery needs to be carefully defined to be "always evil". Enslaving someone solely for personal gain would be Evil.
But if you give someone life in prison, even at hard labor, for a crime (even a made-up one like telling poor jokes about the king), it's just Law.

[tomandtish]

Your personal, subjective feelings have nothing to do with the arbitrary alignment definitions of D&D.

Welcome to D&D. Arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.



Red Fel hit some good points (as always), but this needs a little clarification.

In the D&D world, good and evil are absolutes. But the interpretations of them outside the game (as evidenced by this discussion) are extremely subjective. While you can use information/opinions gained here to try and bolster an argument for or against a certain point of view, in the end the decision that matters is that of the DM (hopefully with player input).

Every DM is going to have their own idea of what is and isn't evil. Hopefully there's enough discussion before gaming starts that they and the players are on the same general page. But if this is your character concept, it's best to ask your DM what THEY think, and to do so before play starts. Because in the end they are the only opinion that is truly going to matter.

[hamishspence]

I agree.


Back to the evil / non evil issue: following the guidelines of D&D, expecially the Book of Exalted Deeds ( which, although in my opinion quite arbitrary, is also canon ), both death penalty and forced labor are Evil.

Actually BOED specifically says that the death penalty for serious crimes does not qualify as evil.

[Conradine]

Actually, the Book of Vile Darkness, on the "execution" chapter, describe death penalty as revenge, and misguided at best. It says "even more enlightened societies sometimes thinks that revenge is more important than prisoner's redemption".

That means, quite clearly, that cold blooded execution of a defenseless prisoner is Evil, no matter what he did.

In the BOED they talk about character which are both evil and powerful enough to escape and / or kill their jailer. In that situation, it's more self defense than execution ( and it's the situation I was talking about when I talked abut Belkar ).



But if you give someone life in prison, even at hard labor, for a crime (even a made-up one like telling poor jokes about the king), it's just Law.

Disproportionate Retribution is Evil ( Lawful Evil if law ).

[Mystral]

Fraud: the character uses mind-influencing magic ( Eagle's Splendor, Hypnosis ) to "persuade" moderately rich artisians and merchants to make small donations to his ( fictional ) temple / charity / pilgrimage in order to collect funds for his project.

- mitigating factor: he never takes enough money to really damage the defrauded, never fraud an indigend or poor person, never fraud someone that could be punished or lose his work ( like a worker that must answer a superior ).

He's stealing without a concrete need. If he has access to this kind of magic, he could easily make money for himself. That he only takes from a certain group of people might make him lawfull, but no less evil.



Theft: the character visit countless small-temples in villages and small towns. He uses furtive / divination magic ( Invisibility, Zone of Silence, Clarvoyance ) in order to get access to an huge number of tomes and writings without paying for them; then he copy them using Amanuensis or Copy Tome spells ( basically, he's illegally downloading books ).

- mitigating factor: he isn't damaging any goods. It's a victimless crime ( although he's "virtually stealing" thousands of gp ).

This isn't evil, he is obtaining information. What he does with this information is another question. Also, why does he do this? If only to cheat the temples out of their due money, it's more iffy than if the temples are just unwilling to provide the information.



Slavery: the character uses mind control and magic deception to conquest a tribe of goblins, kobolds or similar evil, low-power creatures. He uses them as slaves to tend crops, cut wood, build his fortress ecc.

- mitigating factor 1: he never beat, abuse, torture, starve or terrify in any way his slaves. Even the most violent or unobedient are dealt with mind control magic, without hurting them. Also, he uses mind-control magic that do not give the controlled the psychological trauma of feeling himself as a puppet ( he uses Charm, Hypnosis and Suggestion instead of Dominate Person ).

- mitigating factor 2: these creatures, left to themselves, would routinely beat, abuse, torture, starve and terrify their weaker fellows and every other creature unlucky enough to be captured by them. The charcter has first-hand evidence of their natural attitudes.


So, is that character necessarily Evil?

Slavery is always evil, even if the slaves are treated well and of evil alignment themselves.

He's lawfull evil.

[Florian]

The fascinating thing with the old "Great Wheel" cosmology is that it actually does not know or accept "grey areas" when it comes to alignment.
Each alignments represents one cosmic truth and all others are simply wrong and must be eradicated. Like the movie says: There can only be one.

That´s fascinating because it sees "free will" as being able to understand that and make a choice based on it, but does discount things like circumstances or the liberal rights we got used to have.
Those simply do not matter because what circumstances would be relevant enough for a "mere mortal" when the final fate lies in an eternity in the upper planes?

Going back to the OP, this system of absolut alignment never asks why and will never ask about the circumstances. Instead of long explanations, drill down the actions to their most common meaning.

Fraud: NE. Your decision above others.
Theft: NE. Your decision above others.
Slavery: LE. Forced control.

The "Cause justifies the Means" simply does not exist.

[Clistenes]

On average, I would say that character is Chaotic Neutral, with some Evil tendencies.

He is breaking the law and he isn't even doing it as part of an organized group like a Thieves' Guild. That puts him in the Chaotic side (but not too Chaotic, since he isn't random).

When he steals from people, he is hurting them for his own benefit, which is Evil, but he sets himself limits, trying to not hurt them seriously, so it isn't enough to make him fully evil.

Copying spells without permission is, as you say, a victimless crime (he's not hurting anybody), but he is still breaking the law and defrauding people money they are entitled to. This is Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral with Chaotic tendencies.

Enslaving the Goblins and Kobolds is an Evil act, but "Good" adventurers would just kill or at least drive them away using a lot of violence and bloodshed, so he can easily rationalize his actions as a merciful act that minimizes the suffering for all parties.

[hamishspence]

Actually, the Book of Vile Darkness, on the "execution" chapter, describe death penalty as revenge, and misguided at best. It says "even more enlightened societies sometimes thinks that revenge is more important than prisoner's redemption".

Yup - but redemption is exalted good - whereas revenge is something that "does not have to be evil - but the evil mindset usually redefines it as revenge at any price"

As such - a paladin (or even a character with an exalted feat or two) judge, will not necessarily Fall for sentencing a serious criminal to death after they have been convicted.

As for slavery - the degree to which it is evil may vary. A strongly good character might get away with enslaving somebody with magic, not for an indefinite period, but for a few days - without that possibly minor evil act pushing them out of Good alignment.

[Florian]

Yup - but redemption is exalted good - whereas revenge is something that "does not have to be evil - but the evil mindset usually redefines it as revenge at any price"


If you might have noticed. Both, BoED and BoVD only cover part of the spectrum and pretty much reflect only the authors thoughts on the overall topics, contain a rather huge amount of contractions and stay unfinished as the last port of the alignment-trilogy, "balance" is missing.

That´s why it´s mostly better and more productive to fall back on older "Great Wheel"-focused stuff than deal with those two abominations.

You know, because those mostly are really honest with themselves. "Redemption" is nothing less than full-blown conversion and each side prefers that. "Killing" in itself is pretty neutral, rather, it is unaligned at all because it is not about the act itself but rather about the target, and so on.

Again, fascination how handling that stuff has evolved, or rather devolved over time.

[Hamste]

Just skimmed through. Here are my thoughts on the acts (I should note I'm generally very harsh on thievery so unsurprisingly those will be biased towards evil).

For the fraud there are a few circumstances. Does he actually know they don't need the money. I don't mean looking around their house and seeing dwarven craft admantanine fittings and elven wood workings sculpted using magic. I mean does he actually know their finances to the point that he can say definitively that there would be no harm to taking the money. Say an artisan got a large commission from the king recently but was only paid enough for materials upfront and most of their other money is tied up in other materials, goods ans upkeep. You come along and convince the merchant to give you money resulting in him having to skimp on the King's request and ultimately the king finds out and had him jailed. The chances of this happening is very small of course but it is still a concern and it isn't that uncommon for merchants to appear to have more wealth then they actually do thanks to liquid wealth vs actual wealth. There is also the question of what you are actually doing with the money. If the project helps others then it might be argued this is good if it is self benefiting it might be evil or neutral.

I would say if you don't know their finances and it is self benefiting it is evil, if you don't know their finances and it helps other then it is neutral and if you actually know their finances and it helps others it is between good and neutral.


The theft it again depends on what they are doing with the books and what is in the books. Say the books hold important economic numbers, secrets to crafting items or arcane research. Taking such knowledge has very real repercussions because even if you are just reading it yourself you are spreading knowledge that makes you a competitor to them. Even if it is just random fictional stories or non-economic related texts such as religious books if you then sell or give away those books to others it goes from a victimless crime to a crime with a very real victim.

If the books are not economic in nature and you don't spread it I would argue it is CN. If you need those books to stop a great evil then it might be Good. Most other scenarios it is evil as you are quite literally stealing from a church.


The slave one reminds me a bit of a joke from existential comics (106 in case people are curious). It is evil.


There are a few interesting other ways to look at these. Kant would say all of these would be evil because if everyone did it it, then society would break down. There is also the veil of ignorance concept where you imagine a social contract but you do not know your place in such a world which while not really helpful for the books or fraud but has interesting implications for the slavery one (basically, say your society is the goblins, you and any other followers you had and there was a chance you could be anyone...would your character be happy with the odds?). There is also utilitarianism which if every thing you said is true then all your acts are moral as they all raise happiness (Keeping the goblins from razing and killing while making them "happy" because you magic makes them happy, and the other two raise your happiness and go unnoticed by the victim).

[Efrate]

Fraud: chaotic, neutral probably. Getting something out of someone through diplomacy, convincing them to part with stuff, all of this is neutral. If they are bloated merchants who got their gains at the expense of others it could be a CG act. Talking someone into doing you a favor isn't evil. They make the choice, you push them in a direction, Hypnosis is very grey but I would rule neutral. If you make you make yourself better through eagle's splendor or whatnot however that is totally neutral.

Theft: In this scenario, you just are copying information. Neutral. What you do or to do with it is generally irrelevant, releasing captivated knowledge keep from the populace to help the public is good. Otherwise, self serving is NOT evil. Totally neutral. Unless you have a very LE DM who says even talking a merchant down is cheating them of funds and therefore evil. If a meal is one silver and you talk the place serving it down to 9 copper you are not being evil and stealing from them. This is a huge fallacy. Its neutral.

Slavery: Evil, definitively. Forced labor, however, because of actual crime, is merely lawful. If no crime is known or made up, evil. Turning them into the law if they want to leave isn't in and itself evil, its lawful. Turning them into an authority who will kill them for no reason other than being goblins, and you know this, is probably evil. Assuming forced labor for crime though, this is merely lawful. For actual slaves it doesn't matter, your are already evil. Threatening the slaves with punishment from the law and using it to coerce obedience is evil. Oddly enough, killing known evil creatures is good as long as they are not helpless.

To get around this, go capture a tribe of goblin warriors. A good/neutral act. Take them to a court whereas they are judged for their crimes. This is lawful and possibly good. Offer to rehabilitate them, provide for their families, and teach them a better way. This is good. Convince the court to let you, this is also good. They are on probation. If they escape or hurt people, punish them. This is lawful. If they turn against you, and cannot be brought into line, punish them or turn them into the law. This is lawful. If they refuse to be rehabilitated and get violent, eliminate them, or let the courts do it. This is lawful and/or good.

[Conradine]

Thanks Efrate! A very good, articulate answer.

( I got several good answers, but this is particularly good in my opinion )

[Genth]

So the Slavery=automatically evil.

Lets start with IRL disclaimer. I'm actually a little extreme on this issue as I do actually think prisons and the justice system are evil, forced labour doubly so.

In D&D, is imprisonment by legitimate authority Evil? Presumably not. How about if you make prisoners work while in prison? Is this fundamentally different top slavery?

I once had a setting where an empire had institutionalised slavery. Only criminals were enslaved, and the laws protecting slave wellbeing were strict. In addition each slave had the opportunity every 5 years to prove their reformed good nature to the authorities and would be freed.

I pegged this empire as Lawful Neutral, largely seen as being Lawful Good by it's inhabitants, to the extent that they had Paladins. The upper echelons of society were by and large LE, since this slavery was to their benefit in the end. There were some true believers who were LN however.

Thoughts on this scenario?

[Gildedragon]

@Genth
Regarding your proposed society: what checks are there to prevent folk from being framed? Or keep people from giving harsher penalties to lesser crimes (in order to gain more free labor)?
Which is more common/which does the system regard as more favorable: guilty walking free OR the innocent getting punished?
Also what sorts of protections; if the criminal is injured while serving their sentence (I assume they are made work the least pleasant, most unsafe jobs; mining and sewer cleaning and great works of public infrastructure) are they redeemed for their injury? If they are crippled, do they receive some sort of reparation for their loss of laboral capacity?

[Genth]

@Genth
Regarding your proposed society: what checks are there to prevent folk from being framed? Or keep people from giving harsher penalties to lesser crimes (in order to gain more free labor)?

The usual checks you would find in a lawful society. The punishments for crimes are explicitly laid out its not at the whim of the justice


Which is more common/which does the system regard as more favorable: guilty walking free OR the innocent getting punished? It is more favourable for the guilty to walk free. For example if someone is probably guilty but the city guards botched their job, they would likely go free.


Also what sorts of protections; if the criminal is injured while serving their sentence (I assume they are made work the least pleasant, most unsafe jobs; mining and sewer cleaning and great works of public infrastructure) are they redeemed for their injury? If they are crippled, do they receive some sort of reparation for their loss of laboral capacity?

Yes. Very high protections: and likely higher than for non slave workers. The principle is that the owner is responsible for their slaves wellbeing as a parent is for their child. This includes morality as well (an owner forcing a slave to harm other slaves for no good cause for example would be harshly dealt with)

[nyjastul69]

In regards to stealing spells being a 'victimless' crime, it is not. The owner of the material that was stolen has lost a potential buyer to theft. He is the victim. There is always a victim when things are stolen, and yes, even on the internet.

[Efrate]

Arguing victim is semantics at best, its still not an evil act. Its chaotic neutral. Nothing and no one was harmed or made to suffer. No property actually disappeared. He exploited a loophole but it works in every sense, not an evil act. Causing someone to "lose" potential future income is not evil. There is also no indication that he ever would have been a customer if it was not free. And you cannot judge actions based on one day this might be relevant. Doesn't matter. The actions NOW matter.

If I kill a goblin that one day might save someone's life, I am NOT harming that potential future outcome unless I have absolute foreknowledge and the intent to hurt said person in the future, and that is even super duper gray.

There is no victim. If I don't buy an item from someone I am most definitively NOT hurting them. A potential is just that. If I loot a body of an orc and therefore some one else in the future possibly could I am not in any way shape or form being evil.

[nyjastul69]

Arguing victim is semantics at best, its still not an evil act. Its chaotic neutral. Nothing and no one was harmed or made to suffer. No property actually disappeared. He exploited a loophole but it works in every sense, not an evil act. Causing someone to "lose" potential future income is not evil. There is also no indication that he ever would have been a customer if it was not free. And you cannot judge actions based on one day this might be relevant. Doesn't matter. The actions NOW matter.

If I kill a goblin that one day might save someone's life, I am NOT harming that potential future outcome unless I have absolute foreknowledge and the intent to hurt said person in the future, and that is even super duper gray.

There is no victim. If I don't buy an item from someone I am most definitively NOT hurting them. A potential is just that. If I loot a body of an orc and therefore some one else in the future possibly could I am not in any way shape or form being evil.

I thank you for your disagreeable opinion. You have an odd definition of theft. We will agree to disagree.

[Efrate]

The downloading music example was bad because its a real world thing, and in the real world I may be inclined to agree with you, but in D&D that doesn't matter. Nothing about it in game is evil.

[nyjastul69]

The downloading music example was bad because its a real world thing, and in the real world I may be inclined to agree with you, but in D&D that doesn't matter. Nothing about it in game is evil.

Now I'm just confused. There would be a victim in RL, and not in D&D world? I don't follow your logic here.

[Efrate]

The way the rules work in DnD its in no way an evil act. There is no victim. There is no stated harm caused to a person, no destruction of property. You cannot be a victim if nothing was done to you or your possession that caused harm/loss. Its is not directly hurtful. Ergo, not evil.

Definitely chaotic, but not evil. Not following the law is not evil. Its chaotic. Depending on the law it might be evil, ie murder, but if no one and nothing is hurt or lost its is NOT in any way evil, nor could it be construed in any way to be Evil. Just because someone doesn't like something you do doesn't make it evil.

He read a book and remembered it. Not evil. He essentially took notes. Not evil. He left the book as he found it in the exact same state. Not evil. No one was hurt. Nothing lost or damaged. Not evil. That the owner wanted to charge for the privilege and he didn't get it has no bearing in game terms or rules as evil. He was tricked at no cost to him (and likely with no knowledge FWIW). That is not evil. Chaotic potentially but not evil.

[nyjastul69]

The way the rules work in DnD its in no way an evil act. There is no victim. There is no stated harm caused to a person, no destruction of property. You cannot be a victim if nothing was done to you or your possession that caused harm/loss. Its is not directly hurtful. Ergo, not evil.

Definitely chaotic, but not evil. Not following the law is not evil. Its chaotic. Depending on the law it might be evil, ie murder, but if no one and nothing is hurt or lost its is NOT in any way evil, nor could it be construed in any way to be Evil. Just because someone doesn't like something you do doesn't make it evil.

He read a book and remembered it. Not evil. He essentially took notes. Not evil. He left the book as he found it in the exact same state. Not evil. No one was hurt. Nothing lost or damaged. Not evil. That the owner wanted to charge for the privilege and he didn't get it has no bearing in game terms or rules as evil. He was tricked at no cost to him (and likely with no knowledge FWIW). That is not evil. Chaotic potentially but not evil.

I agree, not evil. There is still a victim. I never spoke about good or evil. Those are not relevant to whether there is a victim. Stealing intellectual property is not a victimless crime.

[Conradine]

In my opinion, knowledge shouldn't be a thing that can be lucred.

The physical item ( the book, the paper, the DVD ) is a property, sure. But knowledg itself is humanity's patrimony and to keep it from the public is inherently illecit.

I'm not talking about films, videogames or music; I'm talking about real knowledge: chemistry, medicine, herbalism, history ecc.



Stealing intellectual property is not a victimless crime.

I agree. But I could argue that, in the specific situation of the OP, a church / aristocratic that keeps knowledge from the public in order to limit people access to knowledge and / or to profit from it has no intellectual rights over that knowledge.

If the thief stole knowledge directly from the person that made the discovery, I would agree that person would be a victim.

[Florian]

But knowledg itself is humanity's patrimony and to keep it from the public is inherently illecit.

The logical conclusion to that is that anything that could be deemed to be "humanity's patrimony" should only ever be created by non-profit organizations and for-profit organizations should strictly stay away from engaging in those activities.

[Conradine]

Yes, it's more or less what I think.

Music, art, films, pornography, reality shows? No problem.
But medical research isn't something that private corporations should own rights about.

Because, hypotetical situation, one day a businessman could buy production rights of an effective medicine and raise his cost x100 or more, just for profit.

[Kelvarius]

In my opinion, knowledge shouldn't be a thing that can be lucred.

The physical item ( the book, the paper, the DVD ) is a property, sure. But knowledg itself is humanity's patrimony and to keep it from the public is inherently illecit.

I'm not talking about films, videogames or music; I'm talking about real knowledge: chemistry, medicine, herbalism, history ecc.

That is pretty much textbook Chaotic thinking. Freedom (In this case of knowledge) to the people, regardless of what anyone else says.

That being said, the Theft and Fraud examples are both of the Chaotic nature, and the L/N/C axis is independent of G/N/E. They are not inherently good or evil because they are not on that axis. What you do with it is what would determine that.

However, as pointed out, slavery is evil.

[nyjastul69]

Yes, it's more or less what I think.

Music, art, films, pornography, reality shows? No problem.
But medical research isn't something that private corporations should own rights about.

Because, hypotetical situation, one day a businessman could buy production rights of an effective medicine and raise his cost x100 or more, just for profit.

Slippery slope arguments are slippery slopes. Rights are rights. Those rights include ownership of intellectual properties. Stealing those things is a crime and it produces victims. Every single element of intellectual property ever stolen has left at least one victim.

[LudicSavant]

Evil. D&D is explicit on this point.


The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them

:smallfrown:

[Gildedragon]

@LudicSavant the ethos of each alignment has changed with each edition.

[LudicSavant]

@LudicSavant the ethos of each alignment has changed with each edition.

Gygax said that in 2005, not 1974. And the ethos has been grandfathered into future editions, such as with enslaving magic items being Good.

Shall we look at 3.5e, then? Let's go through the art in the Monster Manual 1 and see if we can guess the alignments of all of the creatures accurately based on some cynical criteria.

Int <=3: Neutral, unless Undead (then it's Evil).
Int 3-5 = Neutral, unless it's black or has a humanlike appearance. Then it's Evil.
Undead = Evil, unless it's a ghost. Then it's Any.
Construct = Neutral, unless of fiendish origin. Then it's Evil.
Really alien looking = Neutral (tojanda, phasms, arrowhawks, chaos beasts, etc)
Is the descendant of an aligned creature = alignment of that creature (ex: Planetouched, Half-Dragons).

If not in any of those categories...

Whiteness doesn't count as a factor if it's an ice or cold themed creature (ex: Winter Wolves, Ice Devils).

Caucasian = Usually Good (such as Centaurs, Pixies, Nymphs, Gnomes, Elves, Dwarves, etc), occasionally neutral (Halflings, Merfolk). Evil if it's a "deceiver archetype" who is tricking you with their pretty whiteness to lure you to your doom (Lamia, Succubus, Will-o-Wisp). They're supposed to deceive you because you're supposed to buy into the visual cues!

Pretty or "noble" countenance, white skin, shininess or white-tinted colored skin (such as celestials or metallic dragons) = Good. This is especially true if the fluff description talks about their beauty, noble countenance, or glowing radiance (e.g. it's pretty in the author's opinion).

Ugly (such as being deformed or inhuman), primitive or tribal look, dull (non-shiny, can be colorful), dark, and/or "dirty" colors = Evil. None of the Evil humanoids are white people, of course, with the sole exception of the Hill Giant, which makes up for it by looking like a deformed hunchback. None of the Good humanoids have the Evil colors.

Tie breaker for some combination of the Pretty and Ugly qualifiers = Neutral. For example, if it's inhuman and ugly but largely white in the picture, it's Neutral (ex: Cloakers, Lizardfolk, Chaos Beast, etc).

So, for example, you can immediately tell that the Caucasian genie is Good, while the ethnic genie is Evil. Or that the blue-tinted white and Caucasian sprites are Good, while the green one is Neutral.

You know how many exceptions I came up with when doing this exercise? Werebears.

[Conradine]

Did really Gary Gigax ( the creator of Dungeons & Dragons ) wrote that a LG party could slaughter non combatants???

[LudicSavant]

Did really Gary Gigax ( the creator of Dungeons & Dragons ) wrote that a LG party could slaughter non combatants???

Yes. He also said that LG paladins could slaughter folks who had denounced Evil in favor of Lawful Good, so that they could "go on to their reward before they could backslide."


The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :D

[Conradine]

Err...

you are talking about an user that chosen the nickname "Gary Gygax" or the Gary Gygax?

[LudicSavant]

Err...

you are talking about an user that chosen the nickname "Gary Gygax" or the Gary Gygax?

The second one. The source of the quotes is a Gygax Q&A session where he clarified player questions about alignment.

[Conradine]

I checked and I found it.

Well, I am a bit shocked.

To advocate things like "enached interrogation" for kidnappers or terrorists, or to refuse to spare evil doers that surrounded, well, these are the kind of things that can be debated for hours.

But to hear Gary Gygax seriously arguing that slaughering children ( although goblins or orcs ) can be a Lawful Good act is something that leaves me wordless.

[Red Fel]

But to hear Gary Gygax seriously arguing that slaughering children ( although goblins or orcs ) can be a Lawful Good act is something that leaves me wordless.

As with so many other forms of art, once the game was released into the wild, its values were defined not by its creator, but by those viewing (and playing) it.

Gygax was a visionary in many ways, and he deserves much credit, but his voice is not quite gospel when it comes to D&D.

[LudicSavant]

I checked and I found it.

Well, I am a bit shocked.

To advocate things like "enached interrogation" for kidnappers or terrorists, or to refuse to spare evil doers that surrounded, well, these are the kind of things that can be debated for hours.

But to hear Gary Gygax seriously arguing that slaughering children ( although goblins or orcs ) can be a Lawful Good act is something that leaves me wordless.

Yeah. :smallfrown:

To make it even worse, that "old adage" was a saying coined and used specifically to justify the slaughter of native American noncombatants (especially children). That's the historical context.


As with so many other forms of art, once the game was released into the wild, its values were defined not by its creator, but by those viewing (and playing) it.

That's quite a flip flop from "Evil. D&D is explicit on this point." And, I might add, those viewing and playing it, taken as a whole, aren't any more explicit on the point. A quick look through some of the other GitP threads on this topic would reveal that in short order.

[Segev]

Yes, it's more or less what I think.

Music, art, films, pornography, reality shows? No problem.
But medical research isn't something that private corporations should own rights about.

Because, hypotetical situation, one day a businessman could buy production rights of an effective medicine and raise his cost x100 or more, just for profit.

Actually, that would be awful business; they make way more money selling it to many customers for a reasonable price than to a few for a high one. And at x100 cost? Nobody buys it because they can't afford it. Otherwise, you'd see every supermarket selling food for a 900% mark-up, because without food, people starve!

And the counter-argument to not owning medical research results is that you won't GET the medical research without ownership.

Imagine if, say, you applied that rule to films (which you say you are okay with private ownership of the copyrights to, but let's hypothetically apply the rule equally to film as to medical research that nobody can own the rights to them).

Under this regime, as soon as a film is made and anybody has access to copies of it, anybody can legally distribute them. The initial sales will be relativley high-priced for those who are willing to shell out for early copies. But as soon as there's copies anybody can download, theaters don't buy them from the producers. They download them from the internet, and pocket the ticket proceeds. The bootleg industry immediately makes DVDs of them, and sells them for tiny amounts above the price of actually producing the physical boxes and disks and doing distribution, because all they don't have to pay the studio and its legal to put them out there. Prices are really low! It's great!

...except that the studio has no rights to enforce. They can only sell the DVDs and movie distributions on equal footing with all the competitors who produce the same thing. But the movie production company spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the movie's creation. Their competition spent pennies (comparatively) on the production of their distributions. The originating studio CANNOT sell competitively priced copies and make a profit.

Because of this, making a movie stops being profitable. It in fact becomes something that costs a lot of money, reducing the overall wealth of all who fund it.

Movies, therefore, don't get made except as really low-budget efforts, or as acts of supreme love of the art. Which means only movies catering to those wealthy enough to be independent patrons get made. Screw what the general public likes.

Now consider that for medical research. The pool of investment resources gets a lot smaller, because only those who are so desperate for cures they'll shell out for the research, and those motivated by pure goodwill, will contribute. There's no way to say, "there are millions who suffer from this plight, and we could get them to pay us for it to cover these costs of R&D," because as soon as you develop it your competitors just execute it for much lower costs, and you're behind them now because you spent money developing it while they ... didn't.

The end result of denying intellectual property rights is less progress and production of the goods and services created and enabled by the fruits of the research and development which would otherwise have been "intellectual property." So, if you say "medical technology shouldn't be patented" - or any similar sentiment - the net result of your demand for goodwill sharing is that the very advances you want spread around...are not ever invented in the first place.

(The usual counter-argument to this is "government research grants," but think about this: if you're so scared of an evil businessman denying you access to treatment because he can charge a fortune for it, why do you trust a lazy or greedy bureaucrat to fund legitimate research over what is politically expedient and likely to get him a kickback?)

[tomandtish]

As with so many other forms of art, once the game was released into the wild, its values were defined not by its creator, but by those viewing (and playing) it.

Gygax was a visionary in many ways, and he deserves much credit, but his voice is not quite gospel when it comes to D&D.

Yeah. Remember, this is the guy who felt that it was normal that one to two players would have to create new characters each SESSION, and who designed the original Tomb of Horrors back in first edition. And who also gave us this gem when asked about his handling of female characters both in games and in his Greyhawk novels (later named Gord the Rogue)...


As I have often said, I am a biological determinist, and there is no question that male and female brains are different. It is apparent to me that by and large females do not derive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do. It isn't that females can't play games well, it is just that it isn't a compelling activity to them as is the case for males.

[Florian]

I checked and I found it.

Well, I am a bit shocked.

To advocate things like "enached interrogation" for kidnappers or terrorists, or to refuse to spare evil doers that surrounded, well, these are the kind of things that can be debated for hours.

But to hear Gary Gygax seriously arguing that slaughering children ( although goblins or orcs ) can be a Lawful Good act is something that leaves me wordless.

The game was always envisioned as being part of a cosmic conflict with clear sides that already have evolved way beyond the need to justify things. That cuts out the dilemma of looking at the small fry and trying to decide every single action.

That mentality was what inspired the warhammer background and even sharpened it by directly contradicting our modern sensibilities with cosmic truths.

[Conradine]

(The usual counter-argument to this is "government research grants," but think about this: if you're so scared of an evil businessman denying you access to treatment because he can charge a fortune for it, why do you trust a lazy or greedy bureaucrat to fund legitimate research over what is politically expedient and likely to get him a kickback?)

Wanna know a thing? You are right.
There are probably many problems that are without clean solution. I wrote into my profile, I'm a pessimist ( I define myself "realist" ).

PS the evil buisinessman example... was not an hypotetical example. It really happened not much time ago.




Imagine if, say, you applied that rule to films (which you say you are okay with private ownership of the copyrights to, but let's hypothetically apply the rule equally to film as to medical research that nobody can own the rights to them).

It wasn't an arbitrary rule. One thing is to not be allowed to view a film or listen a song without paying. Much different thing is to be left to die of a curable disease. That would be unacceptable for any person or group that retain any amount of respect for human life.

But, as I wrote on my profile, I lost any hope about human governments long time ago.

[Florian]

@Conradine:

Rather a bit misguided. You can change a lot, but never human nature.

If greed motivates people to do a thing, be it monetary or prestige, accept that as a fact.
What you have to do instead is find out to act for the greater good in spite of human nature, like installing free public healthcare.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You can change a lot, but never human nature.
Well, technically, if you're very (inhumanly!) patient... still I get your point, and I do agree that you should work 'with the grain' of human nature, so to speak.

[Segev]

Wanna know a thing? You are right.
There are probably many problems that are without clean solution. I wrote into my profile, I'm a pessimist ( I define myself "realist" ).

PS the evil buisinessman example... was not an hypotetical example. It really happened not much time ago.Citation needed, I'm afraid. It is an idiotic move, because you make more money selling to larger numbers of people for less than to smaller numbers for more.


It wasn't an arbitrary rule. One thing is to not be allowed to view a film or listen a song without paying. Much different thing is to be left to die of a curable disease. That would be unacceptable for any person or group that retain any amount of respect for human life.You have missed the point entirely. It's not that you won't be "allowed" to see that film. It's that that film will never be created, because the people who create it will not be able to afford the costs of doing so when they cannot recoup them, since their competitors will be able to sell for much cheaper and make a profit (because they never spent the money creating the film, only copying and distributing it).

Likewise, those people you want to see saved from a curable disease won't be, because the disease will never be rendered curable. Or, if it is, it will happen much slower, and much later, because it depends on a hyper-wealthy Patron having an interest in it, rather than the ability to expect that there will be people with less-than-obscene wealth who will, as an aggregate, pay for it after it's developed. So, for the same reason that the film is never produced (not merely kept from people; never made), the medicine or treatment is never developed (not merely kept from people who cannot pay for it).

The truth is that the more you leave people free to find ways to make money off of their efforts and creativity, the more they will find ways to make their products available to as many people as possible, because that makes them more money.



@Conradine:

Rather a bit misguided. You can change a lot, but never human nature.

If greed motivates people to do a thing, be it monetary or prestige, accept that as a fact.
What you have to do instead is find out to act for the greater good in spite of human nature, like installing free public healthcare.

Free public health care only results in more expensive, rationed care as bureaucracy takes over to "manage costs" rather than allowing intelligent agents on the ground to locally manage them. It doesn't work because humans are self-interested, and the system attempts to fight that aspect of human nature. It encourages people to get "their share" of medical care, even if they don't need it, clogging it for those who do. And so the people who want "their share" will insist they're in dire need, tying up whoever makes the judgment of what those needs are. Meanwhile, those who make the judgment of those needs are, themselves, self-interested human beings who are largely unaccountable (because they're faceless members of an entrenched bureaucracy with more interest in preserving and expanding its reach than actually cutting costs or providing service). They will manipulate the system - intentionally or not - according to their whims.

Pick a position you approve of, politically. PRo-life, pro-abortion, gay-rights-activist, anti-gay, pro tax cuts, pro tax hikes, tea party, occupy wall street... pick one.

Now, imagine somebody who disapproves of that political position being in charge of the "who really needs health care?" decision.

[Segev]

Man, we've diverged a lot from the original topic. It's funny how discussing the evils of slavery and what constitutes slavery seems to inevitably get into intellectual property rights and discussions of capitalism vs. other systems.

[Florian]

Pick a position you approve of, politically. PRo-life, pro-abortion, gay-rights-activist, anti-gay, pro tax cuts, pro tax hikes, tea party, occupy wall street... pick one.

Now, imagine somebody who disapproves of that political position being in charge of the "who really needs health care?" decision.

Growing up in post-war germany teaches you one thing: Everyone who wants a clear yes or no answer or bases his case on an ideology is wrong and should be ignored. Only thing we can find is a working compromise and that´s all we can hope for.

Sadly, we live (again) in times where everyone wants to find certainty by having clear-cut right/wrong presented.

[Conradine]

Now, imagine somebody who disapproves of that political position being in charge of the "who really needs health care?" decision.


I disapprove many ideologies and political position, but to deprive a person from healthcare for that reason would be a monstrous act.

Although, human beings did many monstrous things over history.




Free public health care only results in more expensive, rationed care as bureaucracy takes over to "manage costs" rather than allowing intelligent agents on the ground to locally manage them.


Western-european free health care is not that bad.

[Kelvarius]

It is an idiotic move, because you make more money selling to larger numbers of people for less than to smaller numbers for more.

That's only partially true. There comes another tipping point where you lower the prices too much and you make less money despite the additional buyers.

The trick is finding the sweet spot where the price is just right for the majority of the population.

[Segev]

Growing up in post-war germany teaches you one thing: Everyone who wants a clear yes or no answer or bases his case on an ideology is wrong and should be ignored. Only thing we can find is a working compromise and that´s all we can hope for.

Sadly, we live (again) in times where everyone wants to find certainty by having clear-cut right/wrong presented.Missing the point.


I disapprove many ideologies and political position, but to deprive a person from healthcare for that reason would be a monstrous act.

Although, human beings did many monstrous things over history.We already have government bureaucrats wielding the power of their regulatory agencies to penalize, silence, and delay those with whom they disagree. When you have the health care system administered by the State, the State must decide who needs health care and who doesn't, or there won't be enough for those who need it. If there is still not enough (and there won't be, because it won't be worth the while of anybody to get into said system when they can't get paid to do the work, and they start being assigned where they MUST work if they want to get educated in that field, while having to pay ever-increasing tuitions and go into ever-increasing debt to earn those degrees), then the State must choose who, out of those who need it, is the best investment of what limited resources the State has.

At that point, it comes down to a judgment call of some government bureaucrat. Of course it's monstrous to base your choice on whether the person whose life is in your hands politically agrees with you or not. But if all else is equal, or you can convince yourself that that's totally not what you're basing the choice on, but that obviously this person who is doing SUCH good work for the world in support of what is OBVIOUSLY a noble and worthwhile cause must deserve it more than that person whose life is ... well, just not worth much to the world, since he's only working on that...thing...that is actually detrimental (being something with which the bureaucrat politically disagrees).

And yes, there will be monsters who SEEK the power to do this sort of thing on purpose. They do it every time that power is made available in an absolute, no-recourse form (such as centralized government bureaucracies answerable to nobody). They have nobody above them with motives that would be harmed by their malfeasance, and they may even be rewarded for "efficiency" or something like that.

It already happens, right now, with aspects of the economy and licenses and tax statuses and permissions and permits that the government controls.




Western-european free health care is not that bad.Given that I know you can quote sources on that with which I'd disagree, and that you'd dismiss my counter-sources, I will agree to disagree with you on this.


That's only partially true. There comes another tipping point where you lower the prices too much and you make less money despite the additional buyers.

The trick is finding the sweet spot where the price is just right for the majority of the population.Indeed. That tipping point tends to be at a price where most of the (sadly shrinking under this economic policy) middle class can afford it.

Even when that tipping point is WAY higher, the practice of having wealthy early adopters pays off the R&D investments and leads to innovations in efficiency that leads to lowering of prices. You see it all the time in the fast-moving Electronics industry. The same actually happens with medicine all the time, too, as it moves from "expensive new thing" to "established pricey thing" to "commonplace treatment" over time.



This is, incidentally, why I will argue that the real world operates on an objective morality. Morality is the set of rules which, when followed, leads to optimal results given the circumstances. When we behave in alignment with it, we prosper. When we try to reshape the rules to be what we wish they were, rather than what they are, we see inefficiencies and corruption fester and thrive. This has nothing to do with a Divine Will, unless you mean in the sense that He designed the system in the first place and thus knows how it works. You can leave God out of it entirely and have it be equally true; it's just how things are, and knowing how to run the system optimally is what moral codes are all about. They're like instruction manuals for a device. Sure, you can get the thing to work without reading it, but the more your actions violate the instructions, the less well the device tends to operate.

(So, um, that's my attempt to pull this back on topic. Not sure if it'll succeed or not.)

[Conradine]

Given that I know you can quote sources on that with which I'd disagree, and that you'd dismiss my counter-sources, I will agree to disagree with you on this.


Well, I live in Italy and, due personal experience, mine and of my family, 'till today we hadn't any serious problem with our public health care. Until today, it worked well.

[Segev]

Well, I live in Italy and, due personal experience, mine and of my family, 'till today we hadn't any serious problem with our public health care. Until today, it worked well.

Glad to hear it!

I live in the US, and, except where we've had to deal with government injecting itself, my family has never had trouble with our private health care system. We have had brushes with the public one; it's disastrous. I can't go into more detail without lengthy essays, though, so suffice it to say that it means a choice between risking getting doctors in trouble for accepting payment privately or simply not getting care because the State system decides to change its rules every few months. And that's not even getting into the threat of bureaucrats deciding to factor politics into it. Right now, it's mostly the IRS that abuses things that way.

[Genth]

Apologies for being blunt and perhaps a little uncouth, but your arguments are those of a raving conspiracy theorist and I don't know why the mods have not closed this discussion yet at its flagrantly against the forum rules.

[Florian]

*Laughs* You know that the basic principle is that it is communally paid by the people for the people and the State has nothing, absolutely nothing to decide on the matter? You need treatment, you get treatment, simple as that. f you want more luxury than that, you can always to opt out and go with a private health insurance,

The real-world problem always seems to be that a lot of people actual want absolut morality. What they get are ideologies. Those are either untested or have already failed when tested.
Transporting this to D&D means that we have nine competent ideologies that stop at nothing on their way to be absolut morality.

Going back full circle to the OP means that just like something sound like a good idea and be benefial to all, what it actually is gets decided when compared to one of the nine alignments, and only that.

[Conradine]

Anyway, back to the OP: it's Evil, in your opinion, to hook up the goblins with the Extract Drug spell so they will not ask to leave?

[Jack_Simth]

I don't know why the mods have not closed this discussion yet at its flagrantly against the forum rules.I'm not a mod, but my first guess would be that nobody's felt strongly enough to report it as a violation, and none of the applicable moderators has read through the thread for non-report reasons (such as, say, personal interest in the topic at hand).

[Segev]

If the OP doesn't term it "slavery," I think he's got a good amount of room to call what his character does Neutral with a bent towards Evil, without quite leaning over into pinging on detect evil.

[nyjastul69]

The way the rules work in DnD its in no way an evil act. There is no victim. There is no stated harm caused to a person, no destruction of property. You cannot be a victim if nothing was done to you or your possession that caused harm/loss. Its is not directly hurtful. Ergo, not evil.

Definitely chaotic, but not evil. Not following the law is not evil. Its chaotic. Depending on the law it might be evil, ie murder, but if no one and nothing is hurt or lost its is NOT in any way evil, nor could it be construed in any way to be Evil. Just because someone doesn't like something you do doesn't make it evil.

He read a book and remembered it. Not evil. He essentially took notes. Not evil. He left the book as he found it in the exact same state. Not evil. No one was hurt. Nothing lost or damaged. Not evil. That the owner wanted to charge for the privilege and he didn't get it has no bearing in game terms or rules as evil. He was tricked at no cost to him (and likely with no knowledge FWIW). That is not evil. Chaotic potentially but not evil.

Of course it's not evil. There is victim however. Victimization is not related to good or evil. All theft leaves a victim. It's impossible to steal something without leaving a victim. The good/evil argument is irrelevant.

[Deadline]

Of course it's not evil. There is victim however. Victimization is not related to good or evil. All theft leaves a victim. It's impossible to steal something without leaving a victim. The good/evil argument is irrelevant.

If you are referring to the copying of books, that isn't theft, it's copyright infringement (at least in the modern day). The screaming meemies have managed to get Intellectual Property "theft" to be a common label, which is unfortunate, because they aren't the same thing, aren't the same crime, and shouldn't have the same punishment or reparations. That said, given the rather narrow viewpoints of the historical sources that the game is rooted in, I doubt the ruling class in-game would see the difference either, and punish it severely, especially given what you've shared about them.

The slavery bit has been well covered, and is pretty clearly evil, IMO. Your character's desire to not be considered evil is clearly not enough to avoid doing evil things, which really has no bearing on how evil the act is by the rules.

I won't touch on the Healthcare thing aside from adding that I am also in the States, am not hurting for money, and have many differing experiences to Segev, as well as holding some differing opinions.

[Segev]

From an in-setting viewpoint, the guilds and others from whom the secrets are acquired would view them as stolen, and it is not improbable that they'd kill to protect them. Guild Secrets were some of the most highly-protected things of the medieval era.

[Deadline]

From an in-setting viewpoint, the guilds and others from whom the secrets are acquired would view them as stolen, and it is not improbable that they'd kill to protect them. Guild Secrets were some of the most highly-protected things of the medieval era.

Agreed. It was one of several reasons for the whole Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Master paradigm I think.

[Kyberwulf]

Fraud-Evil
Theft-Evil
Slavery-Evil

These are all evil acts. So yes, he would be considered evil. It doesn't matter the degrees. I would say Lawful or Neutral Evil. He doesn't have the outright carelessness of Chaotic.

All these acts are pretty much evil. The only reason why other people get away with them, is because of some other "Mitigating" factor. Usually someone's life where in jeopardy. This clearly isn't the case in this guys actions. Everything he does is for his own self interest. All of this guys "mitigating" factors all basically saying... I just didn't take it all, Just enough to not be caught.

[Conradine]

I thought thieves which stolen from wealthy people without robbing the poor or resorting to violence would be considered Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral.
It seems that most users on that discussion would assing an Evil alignment to the vast majority of thieves.

Yet, reading manuals and supplements, I found several NPC that shows worst acts in their background but have a Neutral alignment. Samuel, from Heroes of Horrors, hurted several innocents with his magic but is considered Chaotic Neutral. There's a beguiller ( I don't remeber if from Champions of Ruins or Exemplars of Evil ) that play the ringleader role with magic manipulation, then stoles from the people houses when they are wreaking havok around, and she's considered Chaotic Neutral.

If we take into account Fiendish Codex: Tyrant from the Nine Hells, between the Corrupt acts is listed "Stealing from the poor and needy". Unaggravated theft ( no violence, no poor / starving people involved ) isn't even listed.


Now, my reasoning is that:

if we accept an NPC that uses magic to cause people rebel and do violence ( and possibly be jailed , whipped or executed ), then steal from their homes without any regard about who is robbing ( mabye she steals gems from a jeweler that was commissioned a work for a noble and that will be executed for losing the precious )

then I think that a character who cares to not hurting those who rob or mind control can be Neutral True.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, there hasn't been a lot of evidence that he's been stealing to benefit anyone other then himself. So really, he's stealing from evil dudes because they happen to have the things he wants, not because he feels it helps people.

[Conradine]

Fiendish Codex, page 30.


Act Corruption Value
Using an evil spell 1
Humiliating an underling 1
Engaging in intimidating torture1
Stealing from the needy 2
Desecrating a good church or temple 2


So we have, as minor corrupt acts humiliation and intimidation, as moderate-minor corrupt acts property destruction in good aligned churches and stealing from the needy.
Following this chart, stealing books from a church library ( no needy people involved ) and even vandalizing that library ( if not good aligned ) are not corrupted acts. The character in the OP does even less.
Also, the corruption chart suggests that corruption is earned through acts of intimidation, violence and humiliation rather than mere mind control.

Beside that.

Exemplars of Evil, page 15:


Example: Ralda Renforth (CN female half-elf beguiler 8)
travels from village to village, questioning the right of the
privileged to rule and fi lling the heads of commoners with
treasonous talk. She initiates riots and general upheaval by
calling for the redistribution of wealth and the destruction
of temples and marketplaces. In short, she puts a torch to
the tinderbox that is the social structure of a community.
During the commotion, Ralda slips from house to house,
stealing any valuables she can grab, and then sneaks off to
the city for a life of excess. When her money runs out, she
travels to another village and starts again


Here we have a character that uses mind-compelling powers to start events that lead to violence and possible retaliations, then steals everything she can with no regard about harm done and consequences. That character is Chaotic Neutral.

Is that character less evil than a benevolent slave-owner?

[Kyberwulf]

Well.. first off..Slave Owner. Secondly She isn't using magic to influence anyone. I would actually say she is neutral evil too. Bordering on Chaotic. Besides look at the extremes. Using an evil spell, to just humiliating someone. That's one evil point. I would venture stealing from someone, that doesn't need it. Would seem like a slippery slope that would get you another evil point. The fact that the character cons people out of money, then goes in to steal someone else's things. That isn't the hallmark of a good person. I would say it is neutral, but I gotta say. There is not hint of remorse or actually feeling ashamed of what they are doing. No act of recompense, which would indicate a sense of neutrality.

[Honest Tiefling]

Is that character less evil than a benevolent slave-owner?

Well, she's only killing them. And indirectly at that. So...Probably, but I wouldn't call her Chaotic Neutral either, she seems pretty Chaotic Evil to me, possibility Neutral Evil.

[LTwerewolf]

That beguiler was an excellent example of how they didn't understand their own alignment system. She's definitely evil.

[Efrate]

The beguiler seems perfectly CN to me. Inciting rebellion isn't evil. Its chaotic. Taking advantage of a situation, even if you created it. not evil. Uncaring isn't necessarily evil. Using people isn't necessarily evil. Taking advantage of a situation that you engineer isn't evil. She's essentially going "Look over there!" and pickpocketing, just on a grander skill. Totally neutral.

[Conradine]

Exept that she's using magic ( mind control ) to compel people acting in an highly harmful and possibly suicidal way ( law retaliations are usually very harsh ).

[Red Fel]

So we have, as minor corrupt acts humiliation and intimidation, as moderate-minor corrupt acts property destruction in good aligned churches and stealing from the needy.
Following this chart, stealing books from a church library ( no needy people involved ) and even vandalizing that library ( if not good aligned ) are not corrupted acts. The character in the OP does even less.
Also, the corruption chart suggests that corruption is earned through acts of intimidation, violence and humiliation rather than mere mind control.

Pause. There's a difference between "corruption" and generic Evil acts. "Corruption" is a term of art, coined in FCII, that suggests that certain acts may grant "corruption points" which, when a certain rating is reached, result in damnation irrespective of other acts of heroism.

Don't conflate the two. It is possible to be Evil beyond the list of corruption acts in FCII. Just because something isn't listed on the corruption acts table doesn't make it non-Evil. It just means it's not listed on the table.


Here we have a character that uses mind-compelling powers to start events that lead to violence and possible retaliations, then steals everything she can with no regard about harm done and consequences. That character is Chaotic Neutral.

Is that character less evil than a benevolent slave-owner?

As Honest Tiefling and LT Werewolf say, her conduct is pretty Evil. But let's look specifically at what she does:
Treasonous Talk: That's just Chaotic. Inciting the people to challenge authority isn't inherently Evil, unless she's doing so to cause suffering or specifically to produce violence.
Inciting Riots: CN/CE. To a certain degree, riling up the people lacks a moral charge; beyond that, however, you're deliberately endangering life.
Redistribution of Wealth: CN. See Treasonous Talk.
Destruction of Temples: Desecrating a temple is generally Evil, yeah.
Destruction of Marketplaces: CN/CE. Destroying property is generally more Chaotic than Evil, but ruining someone's livelihood is more likely to be Evil.
Stealing: CN/CE. Theft is not inherently charged, but stealing for personal gain trends towards Evil. Moreover, the context of the theft is pretty dark.
I get what they tried to do. They tried to make a social instigator/anarchist, which would trend CN. But they took it too far. And the thing to remember is that the writers tend to write C in one of two ways - CG, which is the lovable antihero who doesn't play by rules, and C-Everyone-Else, who are selfish psychos at best. This is one such example - they can't seem to write CN in a way that doesn't trend CE.


Exept that she's using magic ( mind control ) to compel people acting in an highly harmful and possibly suicidal way ( law retaliations are usually very harsh ).

Again, mind control isn't inherently Evil. It's not even non-Good. However, just because an action isn't Evil doesn't mean it can't become Evil when used in an Evil way. For instance, a Fireball isn't Evil; used against orphans, it's probably Evil.

[hamishspence]

For instance, a Fireball isn't Evil; used against orphans, it's probably Evil.

Holy Smite and Holy Word are quite capable of killing "nongood, nonevil" beings when cast - but that doesn't mean that using them indiscriminately is Good.

It's possible to commit murder with a [Good] spell (which the Forces of Good probably see as a massive desecration of what the spell stands for).

[Kyberwulf]

On the beguiler. If only she only did a couple things on the list, and the others where somehow a byproduct, then yeah I could see chaotic neutral. It's the fact she does it all by design, that makes it evil. She does it all, not only once.. but whenever she wants to go on a shopping spree. That isn't chaotic at all. That shows way to much planning and foresight.

[zergling.exe]

On the beguiler. If only she only did a couple things on the list, and the others where somehow a byproduct, then yeah I could see chaotic neutral. It's the fact she does it all by design, that makes it evil. She does it all, not only once.. but whenever she wants to go on a shopping spree. That isn't chaotic at all. That shows way to much planning and foresight.

Remember that chaotic does not mean inherently random, but does what they want. A CG character may make the most elaborate plan to free slaves, but they are still chaotic if they do it forcibly (ie, the slavery is legitimate in every regard).

[Kyberwulf]

Yeah, they do what they want. She also does what she want, in a way that hurts or harms others. I would say she is Neutral Evil.

[Segev]

Morally neutral characters tend to respect others' rights to life and happiness. They just don't feel any particular responsibility to uphold them on others' behalf, and may even be willing to place their own above others' (though with a heavy dose of cost/benefit analysis, if only on an instinctive level). If they can justify it as "I'm not hurting anyone" or "They can afford it" or "They won't even notice," then morally neutral people are generally morally okay with taking advantage of and/or exploiting others. Stealing from somebody who "won't notice" or "can afford it" is morally-neutral.

A CN "anarchist" who foments turmoil on purpose can remain morally neutral by keeping it to a simmer and by making sure his chaos-stirring is genuinely leading to no particular increase in pain, suffering, or death. Inciting riots? That's getting into Evil territory, because it's deliberately endangering life. Especially if the motive is not some greater cause for which they're putting their own life, as well, on the line, but just so they can take stuff in the distraction.

Stirring up suspicion between various groups so that they're all on a knife's edge? That's okay from a morally-neutral standpoint. While they're busy watching and inconveniencing each other, he takes what he wants and absconds. They probably won't really devolve into serious violence, unless it was going to happen anyway. Or at least, that's what he tells himself. (And he's probably right.)

That's how the CN type would do it. Don't incite riots, just stir up confusion.

[Conradine]

Remember that chaotic does not mean inherently random, but does what they want. A CG character may make the most elaborate plan to free slaves, but they are still chaotic if they do it forcibly (ie, the slavery is legitimate in every regard).

Paladins can disobey unjust laws without stopping being Lawful.

If not, in a settings where human sacrifices to Asmodeus are legally legit and mandatory, they would be impossiblitated to act.

[Clistenes]

Given that I know you can quote sources on that with which I'd disagree, and that you'd dismiss my counter-sources, I will agree to disagree with you on this.

I live in Europe, and the healthcare system is quite good. In my country medicines are quite cheap, medical attention is free, and everybody I know who required an operation or something similar had their needs satisfied for free.

[deathbymanga]

so, just my 2 cents regarding slavery. Let's say it's modern day. In today's political spectrum, all land is owned by one country or another. so it is impossible to live in one land or another without obeying the laws of someone else. you can't even leave if you're waterlocked without using money from that country's economy to pay for a way out. and even then, you can't enter a new country without being approved first. so how do you define this? is this not slavery? you're not even given the choice of coming to this country in the first place, since you're born in it.

[AnimeTheCat]

I just want to point out these two definitions of Slavery:



Slave

1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence


If you fall in to these categories, you are a slave. In the case of the OP, the Goblins are 100% slaves as they receive no pay of any kind. Feeding and Housing someone is not payment as they are still not able to live within their desired means. If the OP were to pay the Goblins for their services and offer them a chance to leave or do something else it would not be slavery (As brought up by many others earlier in this forum). Fighting the payment option with "they're just going to booze it away" or "they'll just buy weapons and kill people" isn't a valid counter argument because at that point you are controlling their lives and they are "completely subservient" to you. If you don't want them to be slaves, pay them as hired workers and provide housing on the work site. If they chose not to live there (where there is no fighting or threat of death from disease or punishment from the law), that's their own fault and that's one less individual you have to pay.

Its not like Goblins are master stone workers or anything either. Even if you had Profession (Architect) of 8 ranks and average (10) intelligence, the most you can ever get paid in a single week is 14 gold. For someone who's stealing secrets from temples and cabals, that seems like small potatoes to me. There's a good chance that none of these goblins have no profession ranks what so ever meaning they probably will never get paid more than about 5 gold a week (Profession skill (0)+Attribute (0)+d20 roll (~10)=10, 10/2=5 gold per week).

So its not a matter of not having enough money, its a matter of not wanting to pay them because you think they're beneath you which is evil. Hiding behind the guise of "I'm helping them better their lives" makes you no better than the tyrannical government system the OP portrays in the forum.

[Kyberwulf]

If by 2, you mean that they are slaves. Then that means we are all slaves. To a lot of things.

[Conradine]

Freedom do not makes people happy. Most people need to be taught what to do and even what to think by the few those who are better, more cultured and more intelligent than them.

[Red Fel]

Freedom do not makes people happy. Most people need to be taught what to do and even what to think by the few those who are better, more cultured and more intelligent than them.

Ahh, now you're talking my language. People just don't know how to handle freedom; only we, the strong and enlightened few, are fit to guide the ignorant masses.

"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel." -Loki

Welcome back to the LE corner of the alignment grid.

[Conradine]

Welcome back to the LE corner of the alignment grid.

A Lawful Evil character would not waste time in magical persuasion nor would he care for his slaves well being.

He would whip and Sigil-of-Justice / Geas / Dominate his slaves into obedience, give them just that little food they need to survive, forcefully breed them like animals and use them as guinea pigs for experiments.

A Lawful Evil character would sacrifice the infirm to the Dark Gods for Dark Craft points. The OP character cures and feed them, even when they become old and useless for productivity.

[Red Fel]

A Lawful Evil character would not waste time in magical persuasion nor would he care for his slaves well being.

Both baseless assumptions.

A Lawful Evil character would use whatever tools are at his disposal. One who has magical persuasion readily available would use it in the appropriate situation. One who has slaves would care for them as he would for any tool - a broken tool is useless after all.


He would whip and Sigil-of-Justice / Geas / Dominate his slaves into obedience, give them just that little food they need to survive, forcefully breed them like animals and use them as guinea pigs for experiments.

Don't tell me how to live my life, dad!


A Lawful Evil character would sacrifice the infirm to the Dark Gods for Dark Craft points. The OP character cures and feed them, even when they become old and useless for productivity.

... Don't mind me, just taking notes...

Seriously, though, one doesn't inspire the loyalty of one's minions by promising them a grisly, agonizing death when their usefulness comes to an end. It's just bad business.

[Bakkan]

A Lawful Evil character would not waste time in magical persuasion nor would he care for his slaves well being.

He would whip and Sigil-of-Justice / Geas / Dominate his slaves into obedience, give them just that little food they need to survive, forcefully breed them like animals and use them as guinea pigs for experiments.

A Lawful Evil character would sacrifice the infirm to the Dark Gods for Dark Craft points. The OP character cures and feed them, even when they become old and useless for productivity.

Someone who does those things is evil, but not everyone who is evil does those things. A LE person could easily take a more "humane" approach to slavery to, for example, make rebellion less likely or reduce aggression from non-evil neighbors.

[Florian]

Someone who does those things is evil, but not everyone who is evil does those things. A LE person could easily take a more "humane" approach to slavery to, for example, make rebellion less likely or reduce aggression from non-evil neighbors.

... or else we´re back to "Evil is stupid and self-destructive" memes.

[AnimeTheCat]

If by 2, you mean that they are slaves. Then that means we are all slaves. To a lot of things.

Indeed, we are all slaves in our own minds, in a way. We all feel beholden to a certain higher power in a way. We are not, however, slaves to our government or another person (at least in the united states). We are free to leave and we are even empowered to do so, as long as we follow the laws put forth. We receive compensation for the work that we put forward, and even when we can't perform work the government has the ability to take care of us (I'm not saying it uses that ability well, just that it is there).

[Florian]

Indeed, we are all slaves in our own minds, in a way. We all feel beholden to a certain higher power in a way.

We do? That´s news to me.

[Segev]

Freedom do not makes people happy. Most people need to be taught what to do and even what to think by the few those who are better, more cultured and more intelligent than them.
I do not think you understand freedom.

Ahh, now you're talking my language. People just don't know how to handle freedom; only we, the strong and enlightened few, are fit to guide the ignorant masses.

"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel." -Loki

Welcome back to the LE corner of the alignment grid.I do like that Loki quote. I also like how he felt he'd proven his point by killing those who defied him. He hadn't, actually. He'd proven that he could arrange it so that only those willing to bend knee and live down, however briefly, to his insults would survive the time he was physically present, but he has not proven it was the natural state of Man.

Frankly, he's way better off with his mind-controlled minions than with cowed ones, because his particular brand of mind-control made them eager and set their goals in alignment with his, leaving their full creativity and dedication to the tasks he set them. Without that, slaves are highly inefficient.

Still effective for grunt work, mind. Especially if they cannot rebel. But that's why I prefer mindless undead.


A Lawful Evil character would not waste time in magical persuasion nor would he care for his slaves well being.

He would whip and Sigil-of-Justice / Geas / Dominate his slaves into obedience, give them just that little food they need to survive, forcefully breed them like animals and use them as guinea pigs for experiments.Nonsense. As I mentioned above, if you have a form of mind-alteration/control that makes them eager and happy to work for you, you avoid problems of resistance and rebellion, and you gain their full eager cooperation and desire to fulfill the spirit of your requests with their best efforts. This is in general superior to mindless obedience or forced-control (particularly if they're aware and able to subvert, but just as true if they just do the minimum they can or do it ... well, slavishly, rather than willingly).


A Lawful Evil character would sacrifice the infirm to the Dark Gods for Dark Craft points.A short-sighted one would. Or one which could convince them that they want this ("gateway to the paradisical afterlife," perhaps?), but if you can earn loyalty and eager support, you are much better off than if you just have fearful devotion.


The OP character cures and feed them, even when they become old and useless for productivity.Which actually can be a redeeming mark in his favor. Or it could be a carefully contrived ploy to earn loyalty. "Make it this far, give this much, and you can have the good life. Risk death for it!"

[AnimeTheCat]

We do? That´s news to me.

You must be enlightened! I wish I could shake the feeling of Cthulu... I just can't :smalltongue:

[Conradine]

Someone who does those things is evil, but not everyone who is evil does those things. A LE person could easily take a more "humane" approach to slavery to, for example, make rebellion less likely or reduce aggression from non-evil neighbors.


All right.
A person could take the "humane" approach and still be firmly Evil if he does so only - or mostly - for self interest. If he fears rebellion or aggressions from neighbors, yes.

But if he could treat his slaves harshly, get more benefits and fear no repercussion ( if he has enough magical power to make rebellion virtually impossible - like Sigil of Justice on every single prisoner, and / or a good number of undead minions or contructs )

and still, for no other reason than genuine benevolence, he cares for the slaves well being

then I think he's not Evil.

[Florian]

@Conradine:

Take a look at Ancient Rome. That society made heavy use of slaves, both as labour and in domestic affairs. Even highly educated or skilled slaves lacked the two most important human rights of those times: Citizenship and the right to vote. No matter how well they were treated (they could earn money and own property), they lacked freedom and choice.

[Red Fel]

and still, for no other reason than genuine benevolence, he cares for the slaves well being

then I think he's not Evil.

Again, there are reasons other than "genuine benevolence" to make sure your slaves are well-fed, well-rested and medically cared for.

I feel like many of your threads have, at the core, a fundamental assumption that isn't necessarily supported. By default, XP comes from killing things. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488023-XP-from-training-study) Characters should gain xp from sparring, because a spar is a fight. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488149-The-blurred-line-between-fighting-and-sparring) Evil afterlives are inherently unpleasant for everyone involved. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488327-My-impression-is-that-Lawful-Evil-afterlife-is-harsher-than-the-others-%28-CE-NE-%29) Clerics receive their powers from an intelligent cosmic force. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488596-What-does-it-takes-to-become-a-godless-Cleric) And now, Evil is incapable of using arguably benevolent means to promote ultimately malevolent ends.

These are all debatable points. And when I say debatable, I mean that people are able to disagree - and have, as shown - because the fluff and crunch are not as black-and-white as you seem to view them. Evil can do arguably good deeds in pursuit of its aims. And when it comes to slaves, sure, a short-sighted and cartoonishly Evil character may beat and abuse them, and sacrifice them when they're too weak to work, but not every Evil character follows patrons who require human sacrifice, and not every Evil character views human tools as expendable. Slaves are expensive, and a minion is a terrible thing to waste. Get your money's worth.

[Kyberwulf]

Evil people are not vacuums. They don't just have only certain traits. They can be benevolent in some respects. In others they can be Harsh.

For the sake of argument, He could have came from a situations where he was a slave, or more slavish. It could have warped his world view. He doesn't everything a lawful evil guy does. Except for the treatment of those in his care. He could remember how it was to be mistreated as a slave. As such, he takes mercy on his slaves. He still has them. Although he doesn't treat them as such.

[Conradine]

And now, Evil is incapable of using arguably benevolent means to promote ultimately malevolent ends.



I never said that.
I don't said that benevolent treatment of slaves and minions could not be a good, rational tactic.

I said if a character could reap benefits from harsher slave treatment and/or isn't in the condition of reaping consistent benefits from kinder treatment ( and the mechanics for sacrifices and dark craft, plus the avaiability of mind control spells, makes these two assumptions often valid ),

and despite that he act in a human way

then he's not evil.



Despite your arguments, that would be valid in real life, in an high fantasy world like classical D&D there's no pragmatical reason to not be Evil. 1 HD slaves under Sigil of Justice have no realistical chance to rebel and xp from Dark Craft would allow to build an army of Golem, a billion times more dangerous and efficent than conscripted goblin minions.


( beside that, I could logically argue that - since intentions are at the base of Evilness - even if by treating fairly the slaves you're getting benefits, if you honestly think you would get better benefits by acting Evil and you don't do that due scruples, it's still a not Evil behiavour: in your mind and intentions, you're renouncing benefits due empathy or moral scruples )

[Honest Tiefling]

I never said that.
I don't said that benevolent treatment of slaves and minions could not be a good, rational tactic.

I said if a character could reap benefits from harsher slave treatment and/or isn't in the condition of reaping consistent benefits from kinder treatment ( and the mechanics for sacrifices and dark craft, plus the avaiability of mind control spells, makes these two assumptions often valid ),

and despite that he act in a human way

then he's not evil.


I disagree. Just because there are useful, more evil options available does not make the characters actions any less evil.

[Gildedragon]

I never said that.
I don't said that benevolent treatment of slaves and minions could not be a good, rational tactic.

I said if a character could reap benefits from harsher slave treatment and/or isn't in the condition of reaping consistent benefits from kinder treatment ( and the mechanics for sacrifices and dark craft, plus the avaiability of mind control spells, makes these two assumptions often valid ),

and despite that he act in a human way

then he's not evil.

No
All that follows is "then he is not so evil as to wholly exploit his slaves"
Even Evil people have lines they won't cross; where that line is is a wholly personal matter


...since intentions are at the base of Evilness What?! No.
No no no.
There's a reason why the saying is "the path to hell is paved with Good intentions" not "paved with Evil desires"
An evil intent does taint the deed; but not all evil deeds are the result of evil plots. A lawmaker that enshrines brutal public executions as the only punishment even for minor crime, can have done this with the intent to reduce crime and better the life of all (worthy) citizens of his nation.

[Deadline]

( beside that, I could logically argue that - since intentions are at the base of Evilness - even if by treating fairly the slaves you're getting benefits, if you honestly think you would get better benefits by acting Evil and you don't do that due scruples, it's still a not Evil behiavour: in your mind and intentions, you're renouncing benefits due empathy or moral scruples )

Evil people rarely consider themselves to be evil, or villainous. Much like your arguments here, you've got a guy engaging in blatantly evil behavior (slaver), who justifies it and considers himself a good person, "because I treat them well, and they need me to survive". He can feel all warm and fuzzy about himself. It doesn't mean he isn't evil.

[Conradine]

I feel like many of your threads have, at the core, a fundamental assumption that isn't necessarily supported. By default, XP comes from killing things. Characters should gain xp from sparring, because a spar is a fight. Evil afterlives are inherently unpleasant for everyone involved.


I never said that fiends do not get fun in evil afterlifes. But evil souls, according to every single source untill now, do not.

Let me quote Fiendish Codex 2, page 27:


WHY DO THEY DO IT?
One of the mysteries of the multiverse is why any person in her
right mind would choose a lawful evil alignment and devil worship.
Who wants to go to Baator and suffer horrific torments,
only to be boiled down into expendable energy and used to
spawn a pathetic, mindless lemure?
First of all, few inhabitants of a D&D world, even devil cultists,
have access to accurate information about the afterlife.
Most lawful evil characters envision the Nine Hells as a place
much like the everyday world, except with higher, sharper
mountains and a touch more brimstone in the air. One might
have heard that souls are tormented there, but she assumes
that her own special relationship with her local devils will somehow
exempt her from such treatment. After all, high-ranking
minions of evil universally regard themselves as special and
indispensable.
Characters might also be aware that lawful evil souls become
devils after death, but not that their identities are painfully
extracted and obliterated in the process. Arrogantly certain of
their ability to scale the diabolical hierarchy, they reckon that
they will quickly zoom to pit fiend status, retaining their earthly
personalities and memories in the process. Neither evil kings
nor fanatical cult leaders ever look at a lemure and imagine it
to be their most likely eternal form.
In a few rare cases, an exceptionally evil person might receive an
automatic promotion to a higher devil form. Thus, a band of adventurers
might conceivably slay a tyrant, only to see him return as
a mighty devil. Such a transformation is rare, but it can happen.


Basically, the main reason evil characters dare to die Lawful Evil in the classic D&D settings is that they don't know what awaits them.