Do you have an "Evil" race in your world?

[AMFV]

An action. Not a creature. And, importantly, the barometer has greater granularity than detect evil does.

Does it though? At least one of the moral philosophies I described does. Although that's the one that I can't get into because of board rules, but suffice it to say that one could very easily make an argument for the morality of creatures in the other cases. Also we don't have different races with questionably different degrees of free will, so we don't have the same moral problems that that they do in D&D.

Edit: And notably I'm arguing the SAME EXACT THING that you are, I'm arguing that reducing moral actions down to a single barometer (as some of those moral philosophies do) isn't the sort of thing that reduces all debate and complexity. Those moral philosophies still have lots of complex debate and argument. Even the ones that could reduce down to a barometer. Also "being Evil" in D&D is a very complex issue, Detect Evil doesn't detect garden variety Evil, you have to be pretty heavy duty to ping, so it'd be very difficult to figure out the small stuff making somebody evil or good.

[LudicSavant]

Does it though? Yes. The fact that you're rating every component action necessarily implies much greater granularity.


Also "being Evil" in D&D is a very complex issue, Detect Evil doesn't detect garden variety Evil, you have to be pretty heavy duty to ping, so it'd be very difficult to figure out the small stuff making somebody evil or good.

Pretty much. That's why I mentioned granularity as an issue.


Edit: And notably I'm arguing the SAME EXACT THING that you are, I'm arguing that reducing moral actions down to a single barometer (as some of those moral philosophies do) isn't the sort of thing that reduces all debate and complexity. Those moral philosophies still have lots of complex debate and argument.

They sure do! I agree with you there :smallsmile:

[AMFV]

Yes. The fact that you're rating every component action necessarily implies much greater granularity.

Not necessarily, of they rate down to a single scale then no, that isn't the case. The sum total is still going to be a mathematical sum total, for some moral actions. Or in the case of other moral systems, a single Evil act is sufficient.

[LudicSavant]

Not necessarily, of they rate down to a single scale then no, that isn't the case. The sum total is still going to be a mathematical sum total, for some moral actions. Or in the case of other moral systems, a single Evil act is sufficient.

Hmmm, point taken. Now that I'm thinking about it I can think of a hypothetical action-based system with less granularity than creatures (such as one where only a single act is measured, as you mentioned. For instance, "Do you believe in X? If so, Good. If not, Evil"). However, such a low-granularity system wouldn't address most moral debates in the first place (such as "should evildoers be punished? If so, how?").

[Max_Killjoy]

Name one that reduces literally all moral questions to a very low-granularity rating of how evil someone is.


It doesn't have to.

In settings with an objectively functional "detect evil", they'd be able to observe "evilness" empirically, and it seems that data could be built up that starts to answer many of those other questions.

[AMFV]

It doesn't have to.

In settings with an objectively functional "detect evil", they'd be able to observe "evilness" empirically, and it seems that data could be built up that starts to answer many of those other questions.

Well it's worth noting that in D&D "Detect Evil" doesn't detect auras that aren't really powerful Evil, and can be a pain. So you could only objectively examine really powerful evil.

[LudicSavant]

In settings with an objectively functional "detect evil", they'd be able to observe "evilness" empirically, and it seems that data could be built up that starts to answer many of those other questions.

These nebulous, unnamed settings you've mentioned (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21148837&postcount=226) which, if only any of us could access them, will provide a definition of "evil" that you have been continuously unwilling to provide when making claims about the implications of detecting this undefined thing? :smallconfused:

Seriously, you've been unwilling to provide a definition for this objective thing you're detecting in the last 3 pages. All I know about this "evil" that you keep referencing is that it's a thing, you're detecting it, and you're calling it evil. We cannot have much of a conversation about the implications of detecting a thing if you are unwilling to say what that thing is.

[Max_Killjoy]

These nebulous, unnamed settings you've mentioned (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21148837&postcount=226) which, if only any of us could access them, will provide a definition of "evil" that you have been continuously unwilling to provide when making claims about the implications of detecting this undefined thing? :smallconfused:

Seriously, you've been unwilling to provide a definition for this objective thing you're detecting in the last 3 pages. All I know about this "evil" that you keep referencing is that it's a thing, you're detecting it, and you're calling it evil. We cannot have much of a conversation about the implications of detecting a thing if you are unwilling to say what that thing is.

If any of the RPG settings that have "detect evil" as a thing were willing to provide that definition, I'd refer to it. But as far as I know, they don't.

So I have to speak of this "evil" that's being detected as a hypothetical.

They're telling us that evil is a detectable thing in their setting, so I'm starting from that basis.



Well it's worth noting that in D&D "Detect Evil" doesn't detect auras that aren't really powerful Evil, and can be a pain. So you could only objectively examine really powerful evil.

I wish someone had pointed that out a few pages ago.

[Frozen_Feet]

When the fact can be proven via science, people rejecting it are as reasonable as flat earthers. Which is very very different from minority opinions in real world morality debates.

There are boatloads of scientifically proven or provable facts about which normal, "reasonable" people are commonly wrong about, and this becomes more and more true when you look at eras where philosophy and the scientific method were less developed.

You and Max_Killjoy have made repeated claims such things are somehow "very very different" from moral debates, but I do not see how you have substantiated such claims. On the contrary: when considering all of the things which we now consider to belong in the realm of science, but which in prior eras were considered a matter of metaphysics or even a matter of (heh) moral debate, the difference seems very, very small. Your viewpoints seem to be limited to the realm of empiricism, yet even in contemporary ages it's not hard to find people who are inconsistent in their belief towards empirical facts, accepting them on some fronts yet rejecting them on others.

More: neither of you have adequately explained why "moral flat-earthers" are a problem to a game or its setting, anymore than normal flat-earthers. So what if a player character is a moral flat-eather? So what if drows or orcs are moral flat-earthers? So what if a setting is full of unreasonable navel-gazing philosophers who reject empiricism?

What exactly is the problem with such a game or setting? Beyond dislike due to personal taste, what is the supposed hard, troublesome, problematic part?

[LudicSavant]

If any of the RPG settings that have "detect evil" as a thing were willing to provide that definition, I'd refer to it. But as far as I know, they don't.

So I have to speak of this "evil" that's being detected as a hypothetical.

They're telling us that evil is a detectable thing in their setting, so I'm starting from that basis.

Okay. And how is a term which returns "undefined" going to answer all moral questions? Or, indeed, any of them?

Because what you have been describing over the past few pages sounds an awful lot like fake explanations (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/) to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay. And how is a term which returns "undefined" going to answer all moral questions? Or, indeed, any of them?


Who said it was undefined? I said I don't have the definition, and that my argument has had nothing to do with the definition. The people within the world of the setting have a definition, and I honestly don't care what it is at this point, because it's entirely meaningless to the discussion.

Most of your arguments appear directed at the hypothetical "what if?" premise, while I've been taking it as a given and working from there. So, here it is again, for the last time.

Presume, for a moment, that a setting has an objective, reliable, and quantitative test for actual, moral evil (not something that maps to evil or derives from evil or looks like evil or is just labeled evil). The effects of any action on the "evil level" of a test subject could then be determined. Therefore, the moral impact of that action would be known. From that, how would they not be able to determine which actions were, per the moral makeup of that setting, "evil"? And if there's a "Detect Good" that works the same way, then you'd have the other half.


It's all a moot point, however, as it has been pointed out that Detect Evil (in D&D) at least is a quantitative test with a very high threshold, making it ill-suited for the test, and the last several pages pointless.





Because what you have been describing over the past few pages sounds an awful lot like fake explanations (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/) to me.


Good for you. I don't see where I've offered a fake explanation, given that I've said that how exactly to explain it doesn't really enter into my point.

[LudicSavant]

Who said it was undefined? I said I don't have the definition, and that my argument has had nothing to do with the definition. The people within the world of the setting have a definition, and I honestly don't care what it is at this point, because it's entirely meaningless to the discussion. You say this, then immediately turn around and say this:


Presume, for a moment, that a setting has an objective, reliable, and quantitative test for actual, moral evil (not something that maps to evil or derives from evil or looks like evil or is just labeled evil). The effects of any action on the "evil level" of a test subject could then be determined. Therefore, the moral impact of that action would be known.

So, since the definition (e.g. the entire meaning of a word) is irrelevant (according to you), I could just replace that word with anything, right?


Presume, for a moment, that a setting has an objective, reliable, and quantitative test for actual, moral purpleness (not something that maps to purpleness or derives from purpleness or looks like purpleness or is just labeled purpleness). The effects of any action on the "purpleness level" of a test subject could then be determined. Therefore, the moral impact of that action would be known.

Sorry, I don't see how the purpleness level relates to the moral impact of that action.

[Max_Killjoy]

You want a definition?

Here. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil)

Now that that pointless pedantry is dealt with, can we get back to the actual discussion? I don't care how the people in the setting define it, and how the people in the setting define it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Entirely, completely, fundamentally irrelevant.

[LudicSavant]

You want a definition?

Here. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil)

Now that that pointless pedantry is dealt with, can we get back to the actual discussion?

Why are you giving me a definition? I thought you said the definition of that word was irrelevant to your point, and you haven't gone back on that claim. So let's hear about why that purpleness level relates to the moral impact of the action.

Edit: Responding to your edit


I don't care how the people in the setting define it, and how the people in the setting define it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

They define it as purpleness then. If it's actually utterly irrelevant, this should not hinder your argument at all, right? So please, explain to us why having the ability to detect something's hue allows these people to determine the moral impact of any action. I'm all ears.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why are you giving me a definition? I thought you said the definition of that word was irrelevant to your point. So let's hear about why that purpleness level relates to the moral impact of the action.

Or are you admitting that it's relevant?


Now you're just not making any damn sense at all.

You demanded a definition, I linked to a place where you might find one, hoping we could move on from the useless philosophical wankery. I should have known that hope was in vain.


In a setting with objective universal good and evil, the personal or cultural definitions don't matter. However, I don't have access to such a setting, so I can't tell you what that objective measure of good and evil is, or how to define it -- I can only make it's existence part of the premise of such a setting.

[LudicSavant]

Now you're just not making any damn sense at all.
I'm not making any sense by indulging your own premise? Whatever could that imply?

Responding to your edit from earlier:


I don't care how the people in the setting define it, and how the people in the setting define it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

The people define it as purpleness then. If the definition's actually utterly irrelevant, this should not hinder your argument at all, right? So please, explain to us why having the ability to detect something's hue allows these people to determine the moral impact of any action. I'm all ears.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm not making any sense by indulging your own premise? Whatever could that imply?

Responding to your edit from earlier:



They define it as purpleness then. If it's actually utterly irrelevant, this should not hinder your argument at all, right? So please, explain to us why having the ability to detect something's hue allows these people to determine the moral impact of any action. I'm all ears.


The only thing being "indulged" here is pointless navel-gazing philosophical wankery -- and not on my part.

If they define it as "purpleness", then they're blithering dysfunctional idiots and we might as well move on.

[Max_Killjoy]

But you said that the definition is utterly irrelevant. Which is it? Is it utterly irrelevant, or not? You can't have it both ways. That's a clear contradiction. Sufficient for a proof by contradiction, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction) in fact.

I'm sorry, I was assuming that whatever definition they had was functional, and not ridiculous. I guess I'm giving these hypothetical people too much credit.

[LudicSavant]

If they define it as "purpleness", then they're blithering dysfunctional idiots and we might as well move on.

But you said that the definition is utterly irrelevant. Which is it? Is it utterly irrelevant, or not? You can't have it both ways. That's a clear contradiction. Sufficient for a proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction), in fact.

[Kish]

I think a better answer might be, "If they define it as purpleness, then detect evil is a spell only useful to colorblind people, or alternatively a spell which they never cast because it doesn't test for purpleness and thus they don't recognize the significance of anything it detects although some of them may have noticed some personality differences between those who show up on it and those who don't, but somehow I do not think the DM who created this setting where people define evil as purpleness truly wants a relevant detect evil spell anyway."

(I don't think "these people define evil as purpleness" is necessarily invalid and meaningless, if some sapient creatures in the setting are purple-skinned and the DM is going for an overt Nazi analogy--of course, with such an analogy who a detect evil spell would detect should be abundantly obvious. I do think it's being used here for a gotcha, not for a legitimate argument.)

[Max_Killjoy]

But you said that the definition is utterly irrelevant. Which is it? Is it utterly irrelevant, or not? You cannot have it both ways, and still pretend that you're not being self-contradictory.

No.

1) I'm just giving these hypothetical people enough credit to assume that they're not blithering idiots, and that especially in a world with an objective and detectable "morality", they're not going to have a bloody stupid definition.

2) If a thing objectively exists, then definitions become secondary, and should be measured by their accuracy in mapping the reality at hand. If the hypothetical world in question has a cosmic, universal standard of morality, then the definition is secondary to that reality.

3) I think we can safely presume that the hypothetical cosmic universal objective morality of a non-bizarro world doesn't have anything to do with "purple".

[LudicSavant]

1) I'm just giving these hypothetical people enough credit to assume that they're not blithering idiots, and that especially in a world with an objective and detectable "morality", they're not going to have a bloody stupid definition.

I would very much like to see you suggest a definition that is not "bloody stupid." I am skeptical that there is any D&D setting which provides a definition which would make your argument hold.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would very much like to see you suggest a definition that is not "bloody stupid." I am skeptical that there is any D&D setting which provides a definition which would make your argument hold.

I am skeptical that there is any D&D setting that provides any sort of definition at all in materials available to the player.

I thought we could just safely presume a not-bizarre morality of some sort and move the hell on. Boy, was I wrong.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think a better answer might be, "If they define it as purpleness, then detect evil is a spell only useful to colorblind people, or alternatively a spell which they never cast because it doesn't test for purpleness and thus they don't recognize the significance of anything it detects although some of them may have noticed some personality differences between those who show up on it and those who don't, but somehow I do not think the DM who created this setting where people define evil as purpleness truly wants a relevant detect evil spell anyway."

(I don't think "these people define evil as purpleness" is necessarily invalid and meaningless, if some sapient creatures in the setting are purple-skinned and the DM is going for an overt Nazi analogy--of course, with such an analogy who a detect evil spell would detect should be abundantly obvious. I do think it's being used here for a gotcha, not for a legitimate argument.)

Regarding the bolded part -- nailed it in one.

When someone asks why I have so little regard for philosophy, it's this sort of discussion I point them to. We can't even discuss a fictional world with fictional cosmic universal objective morality and a fictional working reliable "detect evil" spell and how that would impact moral debate without wasting several pages on pointless wankery over just how exactly the fictional people would define "evil" or whether that even matters to the actual discussion. And if we don't stop and come up with an exact definition then it might as well be "purple!" No matter how far down the "floor" of a starting point for discussion might be, the philosopher will just keep shoveling away with "but what about?" until there's nothing left and everyone is just navel-gazing off by themselves with no way to actually undertake a discussion because there are no starting points and everything is just a matter of how its subjectively defined.

[Bucky]

So what do you guys think about the concept of thoroughly evil monsters? Do you use them in your game?

They're the most common race in the setting. They start by sending elite raiding parties into other races' territory, who kill anything that looks dangerous to the rank-and-file while opportunistically looting. Then the army moves in, conquering and enslaving. The final wave is engineers, destroying all relics of the previous civilization and rebuilding it in their own style. And any attempt to check the final wave brings down the elite groups on us.

They call themselves "Humans".

[OldTrees1]

If I may interject, Max_Killjoy's point about empirical knowledge being available due to the mere existence of trustworthy measuring device is accurate.

However Max_Killjoy is overselling how much knowledge can be gained and then further overselling how much would be gained.
1) Despite having both Detect Evil and Detect Good these spells only give binary moral information (strength of the auras measures personal power not morality). Casting Detect Evil either would only tell you "true" if they are sufficiently Evil. So at best you can divide people into 3 categories.

I have many bags of potatoes that I divided into 3 categories of weight (lighter than Sally, between Sally and Jonny, or heavier than Jonny) without knowing the actual weight of the potatoes. I also have many weights of unknown weight. I weigh each bag of potatoes with each of the weights(1 weight at a time) and get a list of which weights made which bags move up a weight category. If I give you that data can you tell me the weight of any of the objects involved? I can't but perhaps that is just me. However I might identify a weight as being heavier than another weight (moves the same bags up a weight category && moves one more bag up a weight category).

Analogy key:
Sally is Detect Good, Jonny is Detect Evil, the bags of potatoes are moral agents, the weights are actions (although I admit to excluding 0 or negative weight for simplicity)

2) Despite Detect Evil being an objective measuring device, we do not know how the morality of actions affects the morality of moral agents. My example in #1 presumed addition resulting in a single value. We might not get as lucky. New actions might impact moral character in a way that is effected by past actions as one abstract example.

[Max_Killjoy]

If I may interject, Max_Killjoy's point about empirical knowledge being available due to the mere existence of trustworthy measuring device is accurate.

However Max_Killjoy is overselling how much knowledge can be gained and then further overselling how much would be gained.
1) Despite having both Detect Evil and Detect Good these spells only give binary moral information (strength of the auras measures personal power not morality). Casting Detect Evil either would only tell you "true" if they are sufficiently Evil. So at best you can divide people into 3 categories.

I have many bags of potatoes that I divided into 3 categories of weight (lighter than Sally, between Sally and Jonny, or heavier than Jonny) without knowing the actual weight of the potatoes. I also have many weights of unknown weight. I weigh each bag of potatoes with each of the weights(1 weight at a time) and get a list of which weights made which bags move up a weight category. If I give you that data can you tell me the weight of any of the objects involved? I can't but perhaps that is just me. However I might identify a weight as being heavier than another weight (moves the same bags up a weight category && moves one more bag up a weight category).

Analogy key:
Sally is Detect Good, Jonny is Detect Evil, the bags of potatoes are moral agents, the weights are actions (although I admit to excluding 0 or negative weight for simplicity)

2) Despite Detect Evil being an objective measuring device, we do not know how the morality of actions affects the morality of moral agents. My example in #1 presumed addition resulting in a single value. We might not get as lucky. New actions might impact moral character in a way that is effected by past actions as one abstract example.

I was thinking that there was a quantitative element to Detect Evil (and Detect Good) that I have since been informed is not there, rendering that part of my argument far less solid regarding the specific spell in a standard D&D world.

Was probably thinking of fiction in which a cleric or psionic or other "sensitive" chews some scenery while exclaiming "I've never felt evil so powerful and twisted!"

[LudicSavant]

If I may interject, Max_Killjoy's point about empirical knowledge being available due to the mere existence of trustworthy measuring device is accurate.

However Max_Killjoy is overselling how much knowledge can be gained and then further overselling how much would be gained.
1) Despite having both Detect Evil and Detect Good these spells only give binary moral information (strength of the auras measures personal power not morality). Casting Detect Evil either would only tell you "true" if they are sufficiently Evil. So at best you can divide people into 3 categories.

I have many bags of potatoes that I divided into 3 categories of weight (lighter than Sally, between Sally and Jonny, or heavier than Jonny) without knowing the actual weight of the potatoes. I also have many weights of unknown weight. I weigh each bag of potatoes with each of the weights(1 weight at a time) and get a list of which weights made which bags move up a weight category. If I give you that data can you tell me the weight of any of the objects involved? I can't but perhaps that is just me. However I might identify a weight as being heavier than another weight (moves the same bags up a weight category && moves one more bag of a weight category).

2) Despite Detect Evil being an objective measuring device, we do not know how the morality of actions affects the morality of moral agents. My example in #1 presumed addition resulting in a single value. We might not get as lucky. New actions might impact moral character in a way that is effected by past actions as one abstract example.

Well summed up. I agree with all of this.

[OldTrees1]

I was thinking that there was a quantitative element to Detect Evil (and Detect Good) that I have since been informed is not there, rendering that part of my argument far less solid regarding the specific spell in a standard D&D world.

Was probably thinking of fiction in which a cleric or psionic or other "sensitive" chews some scenery while exclaiming "I've never felt evil so powerful and twisted!"

Ah. Understandable. Still, given my potato example, at least some information can be gained empirically.

[Thrudd]

Here's another possibility: a cosmology with supernatural good and evil planes. Gods and their attendants oversee mortal behavior and judge their actions. Souls are awarded spirit attachments during life according to the judgment of their overseers which destine them for an afterlife at one place or another. Detect Evil (or Good) detects when there is a preponderance of one type of spiritual attachment or another - it detects whether something either originates from or is destined for one or the other of the afterlife planes. Some magic also draws energy from these planes which can be attached to objects or places, and that will also be detected by the spells. In this cosmology, protection from evil should not protect from general forms of mind manipulation, although perhaps the spell was specifically designed to do both things.

So the objectivity of Good and Evil is rather deferred to the subjective opinion of near-omniscient deities (with the aid of a vast host of spirit helpers who can be assigned to accompany and report on every living being) who have opinions about what sort of behaviors are appropriate for beings on the material plane.

[ArcanaGuy]

Nice villainous rant there, but is it possible to believe all that and not be evil?

Are you asking if you can zeroth law the morality system? Yes! And no. It kinda depends on how you feel about individual life in the middle of all this. If you're trying to save thousands by sacrificing dozens and you feel miserable doing so, then you're probably not evil, you're just stuck in a bad situation. If you don't give a flying flip because hey, numbers work out in the end, you're probably evil. It's a gray area. Gray areas, in D&D, are called 'neutral.' Which is why that LE god uses it - to confuse the situation.


Aww shucks, cop-out. Now you've made the whole thing irrelevant. If no-one actually does believe that, then you're refusing to commit yourself on whether or not it's defensible.

No, not at all! It's the start of discussion, not the end of it. The limits of such philosophies are a part of the game to explore together - if the players so choose to do so. it's not some speechifying thing that I'm trying to impose on them.

I bring it up not as a cop-out, but as an indicator of WHY the god is still listed as 'Evil' despite him framing his evilness in a 'gray area.' It's demonstrating that no matter how he generates quite valid philosophical points as to the nature of measurable evil making things murky. His primary goal in this statement is not in stating truth about himself. His primary goal is muddying the waters so he can lure people to the dark side. And he's doing that by making statements which are 99% truth.


If "evil" means anything - and personally I'm in the "bin it, it adds nothing of value" camp - then it's about motivations, not actions. "Evil acts" do not in general "cause" the perpetrator to become evil - they were already evil before they acted. (They may cause others to become evil, but that's a side-issue and need not detain us.) The only reason we talk about "actions" is as an externally observable guide to the internal thoughts; but if there is a Detect Evil spell, we don't even need that. We can detect someone who is planning a murder before they've committed it.

On one hand, I quite agree with you - it is about motivations. That's the definition listed in the rules for the systems I mentioned.

However, I disagree that actions cannot lead someone deeper into evil. A person's values and motivations change over time - and the more one does murky, questionable acts, the more one gets used to them and stops considering them. No matter what a repeated act is, eventually it can become a habit. And a habit is, by definition, something we don't think about. And as we stop considering the morality of something we're doing, our motivations and attitude changes.


Once you've established that "evil" is a discrete quality you can detect, you've eliminated all non-empirical moral debate.


The problem is not that we haven't defined "evil" -- it's that the very existence of a reliable objective "detect evil" in a setting presupposes one and answers all questions about it.

And yet, despite me listing lots of reasons why it doesn't, you've yet to list a reason it does.

Jumping ahead like that is like saying, "Since computers have an global keyword of red which equates to a setting of #FF0000, that means nothing other than #FF0000 can be called red" and expecting us to follow why you're saying that. Why is #FF0001 not 'red', even though a computer would report it to be inequal to Color.Red?


In order for "detect evil" to work, Evil must be an objectively existent cosmic energy or force that's there to be detected and measured. By definition, actions that increase Evil are immoral, actions that decrease Evil are not. People, creatures, and objects that have Evil in them are them are immoral, and therefore subject to whatever sanction the culture/society deems necessary / acceptable.


Does an action cause the bucket to become more or less full?

Except Detect Evil can't detect if the bucket is becoming more or less full. Detect Evil can't detect whether actions are evil or not.


And it's even more true if "detect evil" isn't just qualitative, but quantitative.


I was thinking that there was a quantitative element to Detect Evil (and Detect Good) that I have since been informed is not there, rendering that part of my argument far less solid regarding the specific spell in a standard D&D world.


I wish someone had pointed that out a few pages ago.

I DID.

Page 7 of, at this point in time, 9. (I came in on page 6) So, of the 4 pages this particular discussion has been going on when you said that, it came in halfway through page 2.


Third, remember that 'Detect Evil' is very specifically NOT that sensitive that it can detect the subtle shifts in evil between one action and the next.

Detect evil is quantitative, but it doesn't have the fine detail you seem to be demanding of it. Detect Evil detects evil in very large swathes.

Let's look at the rules for 3.0/3.5. There are many different categories of 'things detect evil can detect'. For instance, Detect Evil can detect:
Faint Evil: Level 1 cleric of an evil deity
Moderate Evil: Level 2-4 cleric of an evil deity
Strong Evil: level 5-10 cleric of an evil deity
Overwhelming: Level 11+ cleric of an evil deity

However, there's no difference between a level 2 or a level 4 cleric. There's no difference between a level 5 or a level 10 cleric.

It can detect the four sizes of buckets and whether or not they're full, but it cannot detect an eyedropper putting another drop of water into the bucket. This is what I've been telling you.


If any of the RPG settings that have "detect evil" as a thing were willing to provide that definition, I'd refer to it. But as far as I know, they don't.


You want a definition?

Here. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil)


Well, here we come to the crux of the problem. My very first post specified that the problem most people have with understanding game systems is that they persist in using the real-world definition of evil and trying to apply it to the game system's rules keyword, which has a different, much more narrow definition.

But instead of listening to me telling you what the system defintion of evil was, you decided I was wrong, there was no system definition, and persisted in using the definition I started out saying was not the definition under use.

This is why he was insisting you give a definition. To make sure we were on the same page.

Try using the system definition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) instead.

Here, I have a question for you.

You have outright stated, now, that you have not read the rules regarding alignment, nor have you read the rules regarding Detect Evil. Why, then, have you been arguing so strenuously that these rules you have not read are useless?


Okay. And how is a term which returns "undefined" going to answer all moral questions? Or, indeed, any of them?

Because what you have been describing over the past few pages sounds an awful lot like fake explanations (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/) to me.

Eeeee! A link to Less Wrong! <3

Nothing to actually add. Just nerding out that someone else has actually heard of the site, much less referencing it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Here's another possibility: a cosmology with supernatural good and evil planes. Gods and their attendants oversee mortal behavior and judge their actions. Souls are awarded spirit attachments during life according to the judgment of their overseers which destine them for an afterlife at one place or another. Detect Evil (or Good) detects when there is a preponderance of one type of spiritual attachment or another - it detects whether something either originates from or is destined for one or the other of the afterlife planes. Some magic also draws energy from these planes which can be attached to objects or places, and that will also be detected by the spells. In this cosmology, protection from evil should not protect from general forms of mind manipulation, although perhaps the spell was specifically designed to do both things.

So the objectivity of Good and Evil is rather deferred to the subjective opinion of near-omniscient deities (with the aid of a vast host of spirit helpers who can be assigned to accompany and report on every living being) who have opinions about what sort of behaviors are appropriate for beings on the material plane.

Whereas I would consider that a version of subjective morality.

It's only objective morality if NO ONE gets to "make the call" but rather it's an inherent universal fact regardless of what any being might say -- it's only objective if it's like gravity or light or whatever.





Well, here we come to the crux of the problem. My very first post specified that the problem most people have with understanding game systems is that they persist in using the real-world definition of evil and trying to apply it to the game system's rules keyword, which has a different, much more narrow definition.

But instead of listening to me telling you what the system defintion of evil was, you decided I was wrong, there was no system definition, and persisted in using the definition I started out saying was not the definition under use.

This is why he was insisting you give a definition. To make sure we were on the same page.

Try using the system definition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) instead.

Here, I have a question for you.

You have outright stated, now, that you have not read the rules regarding alignment, nor have you read the rules regarding Detect Evil. Why, then, have you been arguing so strenuously that these rules you have not read are useless?



And this is of course because only D&D rules, D&D definitions, and D&D settings count for this discussion? I wasn't aware we were in the D&D-only section. To be clear, I don't care in the slightest how D&D's whacked-out alignment system defines "evil" or anything else. The only reason I care one whit about the specific D&D "Detect Evil" spell functions in detail is because some of us were talking past each other based on a disconnect as to whether we were talking about a general "detect evil" across all hypothetically possible settings, versus the specific D&D spell.

There are ways to determine the "evilness" of actions, given enough "test situations" and a sufficiently granular / quantitative "detect evil" (which D&D's apparently doesn't count as) -- as long as it's actions that set someone's "evil content", and not some sort of inherent "evil by fiat".


Whether or not we were "on the same page" was meaningless to my point. Utterly, totally, completely, and infinitely meaningless. We were not debating the actual nature of evil, and the exact nature of evil was not at all germane to my point.

For the sake of the discussion, I was for one of the possible situations assuming hypothetical realities with cosmic universal objective morality. As I do not live in such a reality, and have no access to such a reality, I cannot -- literally can not -- give the definition of evil as would be the case in any such reality. Therefore, I was assuming a functional, non-blue-and-orange morality that we could at least recognize as such, and assuming that the hypothetical people there are not blithering idiots or raving madmen.

That is, I was assuming a spherical morality of uniform density in a vacuum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow). for the sake of moving the discussion along. I thought I made this very plain and very clear, but it seems that I utterly failed to communicate it to anyone despite my repeated attempts. I really wanted, for the sake of informal discussion, to just take it as a given at that point that we were not dealing with "edge cases".

The only reason I threw in the general dictionary link was out of raw frustration.


Meh.

[ArcanaGuy]

And this is of course because only D&D rules, D&D definitions, and D&D settings count for this discussion? I wasn't aware we were in the D&D-only section. To be clear, I don't care in the slightest how D&D's whacked-out alignment system defines "evil" or anything else. The only reason I care one whit about the specific D&D "Detect Evil" spell functions in detail is because some of us were talking past each other based on a disconnect as to whether we were talking about a general "detect evil" across all hypothetically possible settings, versus the specific D&D spell.

Well, given in the very first post I made, the one you started responding to, I specified that I was discussing things in that context, perhaps you should have specified that "I'm responding to your comments about 3.0/3.5/pathfinder alignment but I'm not keeping it in context of 3.0/3.5/pathfinder."

That being said...

Why would you bother responding to someone talking about a specific set of rules if your response was going to be outside of the context they were speaking in? I mean, really, if you had bothered mentioning that detail, our conversation would have more or less been like this:

Me: "In this context, insert contention."
You: "Yeah, but outside of that context, that doesn't apply."
Me: "... duh. That's why I specified the context."

Additionally, you made the universal statement that you were unaware of ANY systems in which there was 'detect evil' where evil was actually defined by the system. Given that I had listed three systems which defined it as so right at the start..

For that matter, I am unaware of ANY game universe with 'Detect Evil' which works the way you describe it. But yes, for your hypothetical game universe where Detect Evil works the way you imagine it ... your conclusions are accurate. Could you please name a game system which at one point had orcs listed as 'evil' but has been pulling away from that as the original poster mentioned, has 'detect evil' and an alignment system, but works the way you've been stating, that isn't D&D?

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, given in the very first post I made, the one you started responding to, I specified that I was discussing things in that context, perhaps you should have specified that "I'm responding to your comments about 3.0/3.5/pathfinder alignment but I'm not keeping it in context of 3.0/3.5/pathfinder."

That being said...

Why would you bother responding to someone talking about a specific set of rules if your response was going to be outside of the context they were speaking in? I mean, really, if you had bothered mentioning that detail, our conversation would have more or less been like this:

Me: "In this context, insert contention."
You: "Yeah, but outside of that context, that doesn't apply."
Me: "... duh. That's why I specified the context."

Additionally, you made the universal statement that you were unaware of ANY systems in which there was 'detect evil' where evil was actually defined by the system. Given that I had listed three systems which defined it as so right at the start..

For that matter, I am unaware of ANY game universe with 'Detect Evil' which works the way you describe it. But yes, for your hypothetical game universe where Detect Evil works the way you imagine it ... your conclusions are accurate. Could you please name a game system which at one point had orcs listed as 'evil' but has been pulling away from that as the original poster mentioned, has 'detect evil' and an alignment system, but works the way you've been stating, that isn't D&D?


What an interesting and absolutely incorrect retelling of that first exchange.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497485-Do-you-have-an-quot-Evil-quot-race-in-your-world&p=21145380#post21145380
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497485-Do-you-have-an-quot-Evil-quot-race-in-your-world&p=21145693#post21145693

Oh well.


Also, I think I owe LudicSavant an apology, the identical avatars may have caused some collateral-damage frustration and confusion on my part.

[LudicSavant]

Also, I think I owe LudicSavant an apology, the identical avatars may have caused some collateral-damage frustration and confusion on my part.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

[ArcanaGuy]

What an interesting and absolutely incorrect retelling of that first exchange.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497485-Do-you-have-an-quot-Evil-quot-race-in-your-world&p=21145380#post21145380
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497485-Do-you-have-an-quot-Evil-quot-race-in-your-world&p=21145693#post21145693



From the first link:


Original Poster did not specify a game world, but I'm going to use 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder for reference, specifically because the concepts of 'detect evil' and the like have popped up several times in this discussion, and this is a very convenient set of rules to demonstrate exactly why we need to be careful about which meaning of the word we're using.

Which translates to: "In this context, insert contention."

Of course, by the time we get to the second statement, that's where I'm getting to the 'would have been' part of that brief retelling.

Meaning, of course it's incorrect.

And of course, you're ignoring this question I asked you:


For that matter, I am unaware of ANY game universe with 'Detect Evil' which works the way you describe it. But yes, for your hypothetical game universe where Detect Evil works the way you imagine it ... your conclusions are accurate. Could you please name a game system which at one point had orcs listed as 'evil' but has been pulling away from that as the original poster mentioned, has 'detect evil' and an alignment system, but works the way you've been stating, that isn't D&D?

I'm even willing to go further. Which system has 'Detect Evil' and an alignment system that isn't D&D? (And let's also exclude GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, where their Detect Evil basically is a send-up.)

[GungHo]

Also, I think I owe LudicSavant an apology, the identical avatars may have caused some collateral-damage frustration and confusion on my part.
This is why i have turned off avatars.

[2D8HP]

I'm even willing to go further. Which system has 'Detect Evil' and an alignment system that isn't D&D? (And let's also exclude GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, where their Detect Evil basically is a send-up.)Chaosium's "Classic Fantasy" for BRP!
Which is.... also basically a send-up.

:redface:

[Knitifine]

Alignments don't exist as a fixed part of the world in my setting. Likewise there is no 'always chaotic evil' race. Even devils and demons are nothing but sinful souls who have become stuck in their ways, no more immune to changing their worldview with a great enough event than a particularly old elf.

And before someone asks me what makes a sinful soul in a world without moral absolutes, it's the job of ye local god of death to decide which after life you go to, and some might disagree with how they do so, which is entirely valid.

[Princess]

As far as I'm concerned when I run a game, and whenever I can convince another DM of this, the very first adventure of the Gygax-Arnessonian era to actually flesh out drow, where it explained that most of the citizens of drow cities were actually neutral or chaotic neutral, is cannon. "Drow are evil" because they have a psychotic government system run by sadism cultists (The Church of Lolth is bizarre, and not because of the matriarchy part). That makes it much easier to write interesting plots and NPCs, and avoids all the nastiest implications of "well this race is inherently evil" when dealing with things that are, let's face it, mostly human.

A lot of D&D settings have evil empires or organizations run by humans, so it only makes sense that if a humanoid group seems to all be evil, the easiest sensible explanation is that it's a systemic social issue. Society is run by elites who often set the tone of how things work - Real world elites have set standards in fashion, behavior, religion, education, and so forth, and the average man on the street usually goes along with it or ignores it.

Fringe benefit: Any players who want to be a drow who isn't evil are less special-snowflakey and you can callout murderhobos for being murderous without "but they're evil!"

Plus, demons, for whom evil alignment is actually a defining feature, stand out much more when they show up in a game as unreasonable and vicious.

[Cluedrew]

This is why i have turned off avatars.After a few incidents I have gotten in the habit of always checking the name. Not only does ArcanaGuy have the same avatar as LudicSavant, but so does IntelligentPaladin and 8BitNinja. Although the last has since gotten unique avatar. And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.

Still I like to think that people's avatar was chosen for a reason. Although some people don't seem to put that much thought into either the avatar or their username. Or maybe I'm just missing the meaning.

[Max_Killjoy]

After a few incidents I have gotten in the habit of always checking the name. Not only does ArcanaGuy have the same avatar as LudicSavant, but so does IntelligentPaladin and 8BitNinja. Although the last has since gotten unique avatar. And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.

Still I like to think that people's avatar was chosen for a reason. Although some people don't seem to put that much thought into either the avatar or their username. Or maybe I'm just missing the meaning.


I'm pretty sure mine should stand out.

[Blue Duke]

In one of my setings -elves- tend to be jerks and are the most likely of the major empires to be 'evil', even the vampires are less likely to be out and out evil because they dont want to abuse their more numerous living subjects/food source.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: There aren't many avatars with yellow as the primary colour that is for sure. Anyways, I was going to ask you a question about your username & avatar, but instead I will direct you to this new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502930-Usernames-Why-did-you-choose-yours) I just created. Both to keep us from wondering too far off the original topic and because I have had this idea rattling around in the back of my head for a while.

Actually to say something about the original topic (I may have said this pages ago) I usually have no evil race unless they the are supernatural, like demons or nightmares or something that exists outside of nature (or the biology part of it). Even then those are usually secondary villains, the main ones are usually humans. Not because I believe that humans are evil, but I believe they can be.

[Max_Killjoy]

As far as I'm concerned when I run a game, and whenever I can convince another DM of this, the very first adventure of the Gygax-Arnessonian era to actually flesh out drow, where it explained that most of the citizens of drow cities were actually neutral or chaotic neutral, is cannon. "Drow are evil" because they have a psychotic government system run by sadism cultists (The Church of Lolth is bizarre, and not because of the matriarchy part). That makes it much easier to write interesting plots and NPCs, and avoids all the nastiest implications of "well this race is inherently evil" when dealing with things that are, let's face it, mostly human.

A lot of D&D settings have evil empires or organizations run by humans, so it only makes sense that if a humanoid group seems to all be evil, the easiest sensible explanation is that it's a systemic social issue. Society is run by elites who often set the tone of how things work - Real world elites have set standards in fashion, behavior, religion, education, and so forth, and the average man on the street usually goes along with it or ignores it.

Fringe benefit: Any players who want to be a drow who isn't evil are less special-snowflakey and you can callout murderhobos for being murderous without "but they're evil!"


That's a much more believable scenario than the "evul because evul, for the evulz" species/race.

It's also possible for a non-human species to have thought processes and priorities and needs so alien or contrary that they are inherently inimical to human interests.

[Jay R]

When Sneetches are raiding the village, the party generally doesn't have time to investigate whether Sneetches are inherently evil, or just this tribe is evil, or they are under the sway of an evil chieftain, or they are deluded by the policies of their local newspapers, or they are just suffering from starbelly envy and are not responsible for their own actions. The PCs' job is not psychiatric therapy; it's to stop the raid and save people.

Accordingly, I as DM don't feel the need to delve too deeply into the Sneetch motivations either.

Even if every orc tribe the PCs will ever meet are evil, that doesn't mean there aren't perfectly polite orcs elsewhere in the world.

There is no point finding an answer for a question if that answer will not affect the adventure.

[Max_Killjoy]

When Sneetches are raiding the village, the party generally doesn't have time to investigate whether Sneetches are inherently evil, or just this tribe is evil, or they are under the sway of an evil chieftain, or they are deluded by the policies of their local newspapers, or they are just suffering from starbelly envy and are not responsible for their own actions. The PCs' job is not psychiatric therapy; it's to stop the raid and save people.


This is also true. When someone is trying to kill you, take your stuff, and do bad things to your families... that's not the time to stop and ask why they're doing it, that's the time to make them wish they'd picked another village.

[Princess]

Knowing the motivation of x, y, or z npc in the game makes things more believable in a long term game, and makes it easier to react if the PC's try something other than "kill 'em all and take their stuff!" Sometimes that's just a simple "because they want food," and sometimes it's because of something more complex that can tie into a longer plot arc.

For a quick short murderhobo adventure, that doesn't matter. But for a whole long term campaign, having a clearer idea of what exists in the world means that the DM can be much more reactive to PC actions, in a more complex, interesting, and satisfying way for anyone who wants to go Beyond Murderhobo.

Incidentally, I have had PCs run into wandering bands of maniacal murderhobos in NPC form, because it's good to keep 'em on their toes. But I like games to last for months, maintain some sense of continuity, and have character development for PCs and NPCs when it feels right.

[Jay R]

Knowing the motivation of x, y, or z npc in the game makes things more believable in a long term game, and makes it easier to react if the PC's try something other than "kill 'em all and take their stuff!" Sometimes that's just a simple "because they want food," and sometimes it's because of something more complex that can tie into a longer plot arc....

Agreed. I always know why the raiders are raiding, why the carnivores are hunting, why the thieves are stealing. None of which has any bearing on whether every other member of a race shares the same alignment.

[Donnadogsoth]

So what do you guys think about the concept of thoroughly evil monsters? Do you use them in your game?

I don't quite understand the drive I see to humanise everything. It's like the mythic or fairy tale aspect of these games are giving way to humanistic sociology. Is this making up for Europeanesque settings where non-European-looking people are rare and so have to be subbed for by gnomes, dwarves, orcs, and the like? So, instead of being the minatory savages the orcs become the misunderstood savages who got a raw deal by history.

Thoroughly evil monsters are great and I use them when I can. The evil, intelligent monsters in my game are the elves. The explanation behind them is that they live in a society where the elders magically "weed out" the good elf children and leave only the evil ones. Thus they preserve a self-reinforcing society of wickedness.

It is rumoured possible that a "good elf" was spirited away at birth after failing the test, but given the depredations the other races in the game have suffered at the hands of the elves, such a "good elf" would have to trim their ears, do their best to gain weight, work on their tan, and otherwise bend over backwards not to be recognised as an elf. But of course at this point of tens of thousands of years of magical selection their wickedness is to a degree bred in their bones and so if you know he's an elf you'd be best off watching him.

[Jay R]

"Evil" isn't the only, or even necessarily the primary, cause of strife.

If there's a monster species that only eats humans or other sentient species, then they aren't evil. They just want to survive.

They are, however, our enemies, and must be killed whenever found.

[hamishspence]

Generally you don't find "just want to survive" on its own though.

Mind flayers may need to eat sapients to survive (non sapient brains just don't provide enough of certain energies) - but, they're also pretty arrogant and sociopathic - hence Evil.

[VoxRationis]

Generally you don't find "just want to survive" on its own though.

Mind flayers may need to eat sapients to survive (non sapient brains just don't provide enough of certain energies) - but, they're also pretty arrogant and sociopathic - hence Evil.

Eh. Most things tend to be "arrogant and sociopathic" from the perspective of their food.

[Donnadogsoth]

Generally you don't find "just want to survive" on its own though.

Mind flayers may need to eat sapients to survive (non sapient brains just don't provide enough of certain energies) - but, they're also pretty arrogant and sociopathic - hence Evil.

One sapient willfully killing another is called murder. I might die without your bread, but if I kill you for it, no matter how humble and empathetic I may be, I am still a murderer.

[hamishspence]

BovD defines murder as requiring "nefarious purpose" - a certain amount of debate can be made about whether "survival" is nefarious under normal circumstances.

That said - it also points out that the sacrifice of others to save oneself is clearly an evil act: "It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is".

[Raimun]

Uh, haven't you noticed that orcs have tusked teeth and crudely made axes and scimitars? It's pretty clear that they are Evil and have to die.

[Hawkstar]

For Illithids (Seeing them mentioned) - I don't have them considered "Evil", as much as "Humans squared". As far as they're concerned, no other species is truly 'sapient' - they regard a psionic human with the same fascinating contempt one might have for a talking cat or parrot. There's an SMBC comic that sums it up.

But for other species - For me, Goblinoids are supernatural manifestations of assorted types of evil humans can fall to. Hobgoblins are unyielding loyalty to an oppressive social contract ("Hobbe's Goblins"), with Goblins and Bugbears being ugly, brutish and short in life and appearance. Theoretically, they have free will, and they appear to have it - but they have never been observed to actually demonstrate decency and civility. Evil is not fair, it does not play by rules. Good tries to have "Racism is evil and wrong". Evil made a species that IS always Evil, with a smug "Checkmate." Well-meaning adventurers who think the malevolence of a goblinoid is nurture instead of nature are responsible for a LOT of dead caretakers, orphans, and other well-meaning social workers. The injustice is enough to drive some people mad (And Cosmic Evil loves it when people fail to grasp the "Inherent evil" nature of goblinoids properly, and either result in suffering from the futile task of redeeming them, or from extrapolating "Goblins are always evil, and thus [not always evil race is too!"

Orcs, meanwhile - I use them as violent parody. They are not actually people, but manifestations of raw violence, with identities tacked onto them. They also often defy physics and reason. Inner cities are often plagued by gangs of marauding Orcish Skatesworders - Orcs that do nothing but violently kill people while pulling off sweet tricks on their surprisingly-mobile Skateswords (Greatswords that function as Skateboards), with Tony Horc being the most formidable of them. Meanwhile, there are also Helorcopters, Orcs that raid the air by spinning giant double-bladed axes above their heads. They have headquarters on mighty Helorcarriers. Their greatest heroes (Villains?) are the Avengorcs, Orcs of legendary power and dual-identities:
* Tony Storc, eccentric billionaire business orc who is also the legendary Oricalcum Orc
* Bruce Bannorc, a mad orc scientist who, in battle, transforms into the Incredible Horc (no relation to Tony Horc, Pro Skatesworder)
* Roceye/Clint Borkton. An orc who's archery skills are unmatched.
* Steven Rojorc/Captain Orcmerica - While just as violent and remorseless in battle as any other orc, he's also prone to giving stirring heroic speeches while smashing through opposition with his indestructible shield.
* Natalya Romanorc, the Black Widork. A stealthy, creepily attractive orcish infiltrator and assassin.
* The Mighty Thorc, an orc of almost deific power, and wielder of the legendary hammer Mjolnorc.

[2D8HP]

* The Mighty Thorc, an orc of almost deific power, and wielder of the legendary hammer Mjolnorc.Just so much from this post is sigworthy!
:biggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

* Tony Storc, eccentric billionaire business orc who is also the legendary Oricalcum Orc
* Bruce Bannorc, a mad orc scientist who, in battle, transforms into the Incredible Horc (no relation to Tony Horc, Pro Skatesworder)
* Roceye/Clint Borkton. An orc who's archery skills are unmatched.
* Steven Rojorc/Captain Orcmerica - While just as violent and remorseless in battle as any other orc, he's also prone to giving stirring heroic speeches while smashing through opposition with his indestructible shield.
* Natalya Romanorc, the Black Widork. A stealthy, creepily attractive orcish infiltrator and assassin.
* The Mighty Thorc, an orc of almost deific power, and wielder of the legendary hammer Mjolnorc.


That gets better every time I read it.