Roleplaying Good Murder Hobos - How far is too far? [Archive]

lunaticfringe

2016-09-23, 09:52 PM

@LunaticFringe You assume that the 'heroes of the old west' weren't considered an evil faction in their own time. Primary sources give innumerable examples of contemporary people who regarded these characters as the most depraved sort of men.

This idea that "it was okay back then, everyone was fine with it," is a myth, plain and simple. The people getting killed sure as hell weren't fine with it. And it's not like all the Europeans were fine with it either; they actually had a problem with people defecting to stand with the natives.

Pretty much.

Lol I wasn't defending the the actions or holding the up as an example of righteousness. Also I was referring to lawmen like Wyatt Earp not the US Calvary.
1. Assuming that every White Christian west of the Mississippi partook in heinous acts against Natives is small minded.
2. At the time they were considered Heroes and their exploits mythologized by the public, even today.
3. Many Whites of the time were taught to believe Natives were a lower form of Human, more like animals then people. It was the duty of a good Christian to destroy 'paganism' at all cost.
4. Lol believing all Europeans shared that belief is also small minded.

While I personally believe that Manifest Destiny & the Indian Wars were a dark, terrible, horrifying chapter in American history I do recognize that could be a byproduct of my living now. If I was a White Christian of that time a may feel differently, I would hope that I wouldn't but that is conjecture. I could feel that the Subjugation and Ethnic Cleansing of Many Peoples (lumping Natives together into one group is an oversimplification) was proof of God's Righteous Existence, as many did at the time.

There is no Objective Morality.

I think so anyway. Idk, I was almost an Anthropologist. There is no Right Culture or Wrong Culture, just Cultures. You can't quantify humanity that way. People are different, with different belief systems, different values, different ways of thinking.

LudicSavant

2016-09-23, 09:59 PM

*snip*

My objection was that your portrayal seemed to excuse the Columbuses and ignore the Bartolomes, whether that was your intention or not.

My point is that there were many medieval Europeans who would disagree with the notion that

Killing things different than you is perfectly moral, just, righteous, and probably Sanctioned by your God.

and therefore that such beliefs are not necessarily anachronistic, as you seem to have implied.

___

1. Assuming that every White Christian west of the Mississippi partook in heinous acts against Natives is small minded. I made no such assumption. I responded to your own assumption that

Killing things different than you is perfectly moral, just, righteous, and probably Sanctioned by your God. and your assumption that a character who is thinking otherwise is anachronistic.

Judging things by modern moral systems is flawed in my mind.

___

]2. At the time they were considered Heroes and their exploits mythologized by the public, even today. Many people who were considered heroes and mythologized by the public were also considered villains by other members of the public. Presenting cultures as a monolithic consensus is misleading at best.

lunaticfringe

2016-09-23, 10:12 PM

I made no such claim that all did. I'm pretty sure soldiers during the Crusades got a free pass for slaughtering non Christians though. Anyway think what you like about me, I don't give a hoot. This is becoming tedious.

Shaofoo

2016-09-23, 10:13 PM

Alignment has much less impact in 5e than it did in previous editions. There is no way to quantify someone as evil or good outside of a select few artifacts (which in this case means that there is no way for a player to quantify if someone is good or evil outside of a risky wish).

There is no distinction of alignment here. You kill orcs because they pillage the towns indiscriminately and are a threat to society, not because they ping evil on your radar.

Also I find that discussing alignment starting with how does one stand on killing babies and children to be a pretty evil act as well (because of the flame wars that they will produce).

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-23, 10:16 PM

Also I was referring to lawmen like Wyatt Earp

Amusingly, the historical Wyatt Earp was basically a career criminal.

DragonSorcererX

2016-09-23, 10:16 PM

Judging things by modern moral systems is flawed in my mind.

What are modern moral systems? Real life doesn't have any rules nor a system, even today what is evil in one country maybe neutral in other. Different from D&D, things such as moral, ethics, light and darkness doens't exist as a system, they are just things that animals with enough psionic power to "create" them believe in.

lunaticfringe

2016-09-23, 10:31 PM

What are modern moral systems? Real life doesn't have any rules nor a system, even today what is evil in one country maybe neutral in other. Different from D&D, things such as moral, ethics, light and darkness doens't exist as a system, they are just things that animals with enough psionic power to "create" them believe in.

I agree with you Philosophically, but they exist. Here is the definition of Moral System.

a system of rules for guiding human conduct, and principles for evaluating those rules.

So while I don't believe in any Objective Morality System, Morality Systems exist. Subjective Morality is totally a thing and you should have some.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 12:40 AM

Malifice

2016-09-24, 12:42 AM

Now, seriously, what would a Lawful Good Outsider do?

Place the child in the care of a loving family (or raise it himself) so it can grow up kind and just like the Outsider.

djreynolds

2016-09-24, 01:21 AM

Lt. Commander Spock, lets not bust him down.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 01:29 AM

What are modern moral systems?

Slightly irrelevant. Lets look at DnDs moral system. Where killing and harming = evil, and charity and compassion = good.

Real life doesn't have any rules nor a system, even today what is evil in one country maybe neutral in other.

It does have a system, it just varies. Thats because objective evil and good isnt relevant in the real world, nor does it exist outside of a human construct.

Different from D&D, things such as moral, ethics, light and darkness doens't exist as a system, they are just things that animals with enough psionic power to "create" them believe in.

Good and Evil arent just words with no meanings attached. They are how your character views the world, and the actions that follow. A Good person (or outsider) acts with mercy, compassion and kindness. They avoid harming and killing others. An Evil person (or outsider) has the utmost contempt for mercy and compassion and kindess seeing it as weak. They have no qualms about killing or harming others.

A good person doesnt kill children. That I have to tell you that, really disturbs the crap out of me.

Regitnui

2016-09-24, 01:48 AM

I posted a while back about my "soft" alignments; Altruism vs Self-Concern and Exterior Authority vs Independence, but I can't find a link.

In either case, my players were carrying around a kid belonging to cultists who kidnapped them. In the end, they managed to keep all the cultists alive and home safely, with the kid unharmed. Whether this was because I told them putting the kid on a shield and walking into the ritual would be an alignment violation for the Chaotic Neutral monk, let alone the Good characters, or because it was a stupid and dumb thing to do, I'm not sure.

RickAllison

2016-09-24, 01:53 AM

Alignment has only three functions in 5e:

1) Sprites can detect it. I am pretty sure this was just something they missed while editing and didn't consider worth making errata for. Why should this little creature have an ability that doesn't fit in with the rest of the world?

2) A select few magic items are restricted by it. Great, magic items are supposed to be weird.

3) As a punishment system for DMs to backhand players who act in a manner contrary to the DM's moral code by condemning dead PCs to horrible afterlives. Often coupled with doing so in spite such an outcome making no sense in-universe (. Fairly indicative since how often do you meet dead PCs but when the DM wills it? Alternatively, preventing the use of spells and such by a cleric or paladin.

I like alignment as something to consider. I don't like introducing it in-universe. Consider Angels in D&D terms, many of whom obey the will of the Good gods without deviation. If you seriously consider them, they should be LN, not LG! These angels act without regard for any moral boundaries so long as they fulfill orders, something that would directly be identified as LN if a player.

TL;DR: Alignment was divorced from mechanical effects for a reason. Questions like "Would my PC slaughter the eight-year-old orcs being taught the art of war?" are things that should be considered by analyzing it in terms of all personality facets of which alignment is only one. You shouldn't ask "Why would a Good person do this?" but "Why would Eranthor do this?"

Simple fact, otherwise-Good people can do awful things when pushed to their limits. It isn't that they aren't being Good, but that the other personality traits overpower the one aspect.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 02:02 AM

Luvia

2016-09-24, 03:59 AM

Lt. Commander Spock, lets not bust him down.

to be fair he was a captain when he said it so lets no bust him down. Remember the original wrath of khan.

Talionis

2016-09-24, 08:49 AM

A lot of this depends on who is judging alignment. The DM with his own moral compass or the players God with his moral compass.

D&D has Good vs Evil locked in war. Good characters will kill things in war. The preemptive strike on the children keeps them from killing and doing Evil in the future. In a society full of laws , schools and police we can hope that children won't grow up to do evil. If you apply peace time judging to War time almost everyone in the campaign will be Evil. I'm not judging exactly that that is bad for your campaign just that it's worth thinking about how many characters would be Evil in the universe.

Something important to answer is are all Orcs evil in your campaign? If they have no chance for redemption then I'd say killing them is a Good act every time. No one has a problem killing termites or baby termites for that matter. They aren't even Evil they are just neutral and exist in a way that they damage property. But when something is both harmful and without redemption Good can destroy it. But even this philosophy judges from a point of view.

In Universe it might be important to look at Good and Evil through the eyes of the Gods. It might affect Clerics and Paladins. If good Gods are allowing their Clerics to go on Crusade against Orcs without rebuke then those Gods don't see that kind of genocide as Evil. If all orcs worship Evil gods, Good gods will probably be okay eradicating orcs.

Something to consider is the vast number of people are not Good or Evil even though most of us probably consider ourselves Good. So at worst I would move a character from Good to Neutral for this kind of act, but I'd probably not Even do that. If you want Neutral would show the shift and serve as a warning you think they are slipping to the dark side.

I think you can give this more depth and room to explore and role play in the campaign if you allow for all Orcs not necessarily Evil. Or maybe this is was one of the first pure Orc tribes with the possibility of being Neutral. Here the Good character would think he was doing Good but for the first time not killing Orcs was the Good thing to do.

It's a great question without a perfect answer akin to is Batman still good when he hasn't killed Joker and Joker keeps killing people?

Trum4n1208

2016-09-24, 08:51 AM

Amusingly, the historical Wyatt Earp was basically a career criminal.

I'll confess, I was reading this purely to see if anyone else would bring this up. From everything I've read, Wyatt Earp was not the kind of person we would think highly of today if he were a public figure. Hell, people in his own time didn't think highly of him. Just because the well known Lawmen of the American West were lawmen doesn't mean that they were good men. Sorry, big fan of "Old West" history.

Anyways, I'd tend to agree with RickAllison on this one.

RickAllison

2016-09-24, 09:40 AM

I'll confess, I was reading this purely to see if anyone else would bring this up. From everything I've read, Wyatt Earp was not the kind of person we would think highly of today if he were a public figure. Hell, people in his own time didn't think highly of him. Just because the well known Lawmen of the American West were lawmen doesn't mean that they were good men. Sorry, big fan of "Old West" history.

Anyways, I'd tend to agree with RickAllison on this one.

On the flip side, much of the "Old West" we are familiar with is highly exaggerated. Violence wasn't nearly as rampant as people tend to think (when every other person has a gun, it becomes very dangerous to make trouble), Amerindian attacks were few and far between, and the most likely causes of death were still things like disease rather than someone killing you.

That goes out the window if you bring military expeditions into it. Which you would expect, those turn the place into a war zone rather than an uneasy peace.

Temperjoke

2016-09-24, 09:56 AM

*checks the calendar*

Huh, already time for another circular morality argument that spends 15 pages around the same arguments and counter-arguments?

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:04 AM

3) As a punishment system for DMs to backhand players who act in a manner contrary to the DM's moral code by condemning dead PCs to horrible afterlives. Often coupled with doing so in spite such an outcome making no sense in-universe (. Fairly indicative since how often do you meet dead PCs but when the DM wills it? Alternatively, preventing the use of spells and such by a cleric or paladin.

Which isn't much of a punishment, if the player was willing to break his alignment and basically go out of character then I doubt saying that his character is now being turned into soul maggot poop in the Nine Layers of Hell will phase him.

Also a Paladin is not a function of alignment but rather his oath, I think that a Paladin could probably break his alignment several times over and still be within his oath (especially true with the Vengeance Oath). And you worship gods, not alignments so you might still be okay with your god even if you alignment shifts.

I also wonder we always talk about the extreme sides of good and evil that we never consider the more subtle alignment shifts.

Questgiver: Thank you for slaying the bugs in my farm. We won't starve anymore!

LG PC: It was no trouble at all

Questgiver: Please accept this sword and a few silver pieces, it is all we can give.

LG PC: I truly appreciate your reward *takes sword and silver*

DM: HA! *grabs PC sheet and writes N over the G*

LN PC: What?

DM: A true good player would never accept a reward, he must never take anything.

LN PC: But I had to spend a healing potion while fighting the bugs or I would've died, I am actually at a net loss here.

DM: Worrying over money. Money is the root of all evil! *Writes E over N while crows congregate over the strawman DM*

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:05 AM

*checks the calendar*

Huh, already time for another circular morality argument that spends 15 pages around the same arguments and counter-arguments?

Can we make it a rule that anyone that starts a morality topic is considered evil?

smcmike

2016-09-24, 10:07 AM

On the flip side, much of the "Old West" we are familiar with is highly exaggerated. Violence wasn't nearly as rampant as people tend to think (when every other person has a gun, it becomes very dangerous to make trouble), Amerindian attacks were few and far between, and the most likely causes of death were still things like disease rather than someone killing you.

That goes out the window if you bring military expeditions into it. Which you would expect, those turn the place into a war zone rather than an uneasy peace.

It seems like there's a fair bit of discussion on the point of just how violent the West was, and why. My impression is that it was, actually, quite violent, but that a high level of violence doesn't mean a daily shootout in your average small town. I live on the outskirts of a pretty violent city by modern standards. I've never seen an act of criminal violence.

Also, some research seems to show that towns where guns were banned were less violent, and that a lot of the violence occurred in the context of rowdy drunk young men.

Draco4472

2016-09-24, 10:10 AM

So, D&D has that awesome logic of evil aligned = evil outsider (at least 3.5 had), this means that you can basically genocide every evil aligned creature with your own hands (I know that good aligned scimitar dual-wielding exceptions may exist), but when is it too far?

For example, I don't know if I am a psychopath but I think that crushing kobold hatcheries, setting fire to goblinoid nurseries and killing orcish children isn't evil, do you think that any of these actions would be considered an evil act?

I think it depends. A Lawful good paladin may eradicate the children of a race deemed 'evil', but another paladin of a same alignment may spare them for being children who have yet to grow 'evil', or children period.

And maybe it's my own morals effecting those of my characters, but never has a character of any good alignment I've played, have any reason for killing goblin children. And I have had plenty of chances playing SKT these past few weeks.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:23 AM

It's a great question without a perfect answer akin to is Batman still good when he hasn't killed Joker and Joker keeps killing people?

You miss the point.

This is what makes Batman good and what makes the Joker evil. The Joker kills people. Batman avoids it, even when its the Joker.

Killing him would be evil. Batman saves him instead. While the Joker mocks him for doing so.

You cant attribute the actions of the Joker to Batman. If I show mercy to an evil man, and he again commits evil, that doesnt make ME evil. It makes him evil, and me good. For many that you show mercy to, they reform, You lead by example and take the higher ground. If you act like the monsters you fight, you become them.

The Punisher is like the Batman. He's suffered personal tragedy, and he hunts criminals and brings them to justice using fear as a weapon. The Punisher (unlike the Batman) is evil. He employs torture, murder and suffering. He'd snap the Jokers neck (after first killing his family to make him suffer).

Similar characters, similar goals, differing alignments.

RickAllison

2016-09-24, 10:25 AM

Which isn't much of a punishment, if the player was willing to break his alignment and basically go out of character then I doubt saying that his character is now being turned into soul maggot poop in the Nine Layers of Hell will phase him.

Also a Paladin is not a function of alignment but rather his oath, I think that a Paladin could probably break his alignment several times over and still be within his oath (especially true with the Vengeance Oath). And you worship gods, not alignments so you might still be okay with your god even if you alignment shifts.

I also wonder we always talk about the extreme sides of good and evil that we never consider the more subtle alignment shifts.

Questgiver: Thank you for slaying the bugs in my farm. We won't starve anymore!

LG PC: It was no trouble at all

Questgiver: Please accept this sword and a few silver pieces, it is all we can give.

LG PC: I truly appreciate your reward *takes sword and silver*

DM: HA! *grabs PC sheet and writes N over the G*

LN PC: What?

DM: A true good player would never accept a reward, he must never take anything.

LN PC: But I had to spend a healing potion while fighting the bugs or I would've died, I am actually at a net loss here.

DM: Worrying over money. Money is the root of all evil! *Writes E over N while crows congregate over the strawman DM*

I was meaning more for followers of gods like Mielikki, whose rather extreme measures mean they might do things that ping DMs like Malifice despite doing exactly what they were told by their goddess. A god may only directly empower followers who match their alignment (though this is no longer a requirement), but they may have devoted followers all over the alignment grid.

In such a case, the character should by logic be headed to the divine domain of their goddess, but get shucked off somewhere awful for no reason other than acting against the preferences of the DM. Also the reason why in my games, spirits don't coalesce immediately, needing years before they can take apparent form. That way, I don't even have to consider where they would go, they can't find the guy :smallwink:

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:26 AM

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:28 AM

A Lawful good paladin may eradicate the children of a race deemed 'evil'.

No, he cant.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:34 AM

When you can only make your point with an argument that is both ridiculous and a strawman, youve already lost.

I think you can send supplies to the International Space Station the way things fly over your head.

FYI I never had an argument in the first place, please read before jumping on strawmen that are clearly marked strawmen (FYI the Quickening: It isn't much of a strawman if I point it out myself).

RickAllison

2016-09-24, 10:38 AM

No, he cant.

I am falling for your bait again, but alignment isn't defined by one act, but all of your acts, your intentions behind them, and how they react afterwards. Eradicating a race may be an Evil act, but that doesn't mean a Good person can't do it. An Evil PC may have total apathy towards it, a Neutral would justify it as doing what must be done, while the Good PC is wracked with guilt over the people he killed.

Trying to create blanket statements like "A Good PC cannot do this," is just being a tyrannical DM.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:38 AM

I think you can send supplies to the International Space Station the way things fly over your head.

FYI I never had an argument in the first place, please read before jumping on strawmen that are clearly marked strawmen (FYI the Quickening: It isn't much of a strawman if I point it out myself).

Your example isnt an example of when to whack 'N' on someones character sheet.

I might do it if the PC in question never engaged in evil acts, but also never did anything particularly good either.

I am falling for your bait again, but alignment isn't defined by one act, but all of your acts

Rick, if a person went down to the local kindergarden and killed a ton of kids, I would have no hesitation in labelling that person evil, just as I would if your character did it.

Eradicating a race may be an Evil act, but that doesn't mean a Good person can't do it.

Bull****.

Allright Rick, give me one historical or fictional example of a GOOD person that intentionally murders a bunch of children.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:45 AM

Your example isnt an example of when to whack 'N' on someones character sheet.

I might do it if the PC in question never engaged in evil acts, but also never did anything particularly good either.

I don't think there can ever be an example on when to "whack N" on the sheet but then again I consider it poor form to "whack anything" on a character sheet and instead let the consequences of their actions speak for themselves and not have to constantly rewrite two letters. I don't tend to micromanage alignment especially since they are inconsequential in the end.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:46 AM

Allright Rick, give me one historical or fictional example of a GOOD person that intentionally murders a bunch of children.

You lost here mate. There is no such thing as Alignment in the real world. What could be considered evil and abhorrent to one can be considered just and good to another.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:47 AM

I don't think there can ever be an example on when to "whack N" on the sheet but then again I consider it poor form to "whack anything" on a character sheet and instead let the consequences of their actions speak for themselves and not have to constantly rewrite two letters. I don't tend to micromanage alignment especially since they are inconsequential in the end.

I trust my players to play their alignments. If youre good, be good, if youre evil be evil and so forth.

Dont waltz into my campaign and try and pass off the slaughter of children, genocide, torture or rape or equally vile acts as 'good'. Theyre evil with a capital E.

Anyone that engages in them is evil. If you wont change your alignment to match, I will.

smcmike

2016-09-24, 10:48 AM

I am falling for your bait again, but alignment isn't defined by one act, but all of your acts, your intentions behind them, and how they react afterwards. Eradicating a race may be an Evil act, but that doesn't mean a Good person can't do it. An Evil PC may have total apathy towards it, a Neutral would justify it as doing what must be done, while the Good PC is wracked with guilt over the people he killed.

Trying to create blanket statements like "A Good PC cannot do this," is just being a tyrannical DM.

Meh. I agree, but only because I don't think the alignment label on a character sheet is particularly important, other than as a tool for the player.

If you are using character alignment for something else - let's say the party has to talk their way past the pearly gates - this is the sort of sin that would be hard to atone for.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:51 AM

You lost here mate. There is no such thing as Alignment in the real world. What could be considered evil and abhorrent to one can be considered just and good to another.

Yeah, but I exist in the real world. The rules for alignment exist in them too. Good = compassion, mercy and kindness. Evil = harming and killing others.

The reason you cant find an example of when murdering kids is done by a good person, is obvious. Becuase only evil monsters do it.

The fact that this has to be explained to people over and over is a symptom of the kinds of low social skill peeps that play our hobby. Its sad and disgusting that this argument comes up over and over again, with nerds arguing that 'Genocide of children is perfectly LG'.

Even Gygax himself wasnt immune.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:51 AM

I trust my players to play their alignments. If youre good, be good, if youre evil be evil and so forth.

Dont waltz into my campaign and try and pass off the slaughter of children, genocide, torture or rape or equally vile acts as 'good'. Theyre evil with a capital E.

Anyone that engages in them is evil. If you wont change your alignment to match, I will.

Yeah good strawman there, see that is how you identify a strawman, mate.

But I wish to stop any further discussion with you; your previous insight is quite disturbing to say the least (and now I expect you to think that means that I say that murder and rape and all that is good because I disagree with you) and I have no wish to discuss such topics to someone who has a twisted view.

But glad to hear that you are willing to do my job as a DM if I won't do it, I appreciate such a sentiment.

Good day.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:54 AM

Yeah, but I exist in the real world. The rules for alignment exist in them too. Good = compassion, mercy and kindness. Evil = harming and killing others.

The reason you cant find an example of when murdering kids is done by a good person, is obvious. Becuase only evil monsters do it.

The fact that this has to be explained to people over and over is a symptom of the kinds of low social skill peeps that play our hobby. Its sad and disgusting that this argument comes up over and over again, with nerds arguing that 'Genocide of children is perfectly LG'.

Even Gygax himself wasnt immune.

Glad to hear you are the shining bastion of morality to us "low social peeps that play our hobby".

Seriously, you are a disturbed person. Your morality can be basically be resumed as "I am good therefore I am better than everyone else".

Good day.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:56 AM

But I wish to stop any further discussion with you; your previous insight is quite disturbing to say the least (and now I expect you to think that means that I say that murder and rape and all that is good because I disagree with you) and I have no wish to discuss such topics to someone who has a twisted view.

No, mate, Im saying such acts are EVIL with a capital E, and if your character engages in such, then he's an evil monster.

You can argue thats a strawman as long as you want. If your 'Good aligned' character engages in such evil acts, he isnt a good person who just happens to engage in some 'light genocide' or a small amount of child murder or torture or worse, he's (objectively) an evil monster who just (perversely) thinks he's good.

If the player wont change the characters alignment to Evil, I (as DM) sure as hell will. He can take his alignment arguments elsewhere. Theyre not for my table.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:59 AM

Glad to hear you are the shining bastion of morality to us "low social peeps that play our hobby".

Its a sad day indeed when the topic of genocide or child murder is debated as being evil or good, or when a person who decries the act as evil is deridingly labelled a 'bastion of morality'.

Its evil. Feel free to conduct a survey of the next 100 people you pass on the street if you dont believe me.

And yes. Our hobby is full of neckbeards, nerds and peeps with low social skills. Have you been to a gaming store? Im proud of this fact, but it leads to ridiculous arguments like this all too often.

Seriously, you are a disturbed person.

For calling out child killing and genocide as evil?

Yeah, nah.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 10:59 AM

No, mate, Im saying such acts are EVIL with a capital E, and if your character engages in such, then he's an evil monster.

You can argue thats a strawman as long as you want. If your 'Good aligned' character engages in such evil acts, he isnt a good person who just happens to engage in some 'light genocide' or a small amount of child murder or torture or worse, he's (objectively) an evil monster who just (perversely) thinks he's good.

If the player wont change the characters alignment to Evil, I (as DM) sure as hell will. He can take his alignment arguments elsewhere. Theyre not for my table.

Nothing that you have said is relevant to what I have said, neither the reply nor previous posts.

But I don't think I'll get more insight from you.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 11:03 AM

Nothing that you have said is relevant to what I have said, neither the reply nor previous posts.

Lets start from the OP.

The OP posits via inference that tossing dozens of screaming terrified children into a burning fire as part of a deliberate campaign of genocide is 'LG'.

Do you agree?

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 11:05 AM

Lets start from the OP.

The OP posits via inference that tossing dozens of screaming terrified children into a burning fire as part of a deliberate campaign of genocide is 'LG'.

Do you agree?

I do not wish to discuss further things with you. As I said alignment discussion are pointless in the end.

It is much more complex and has a lot more variables than "killing children" but I know you won't get it because you never do. I know better.

Cazero

2016-09-24, 11:08 AM

Allright Rick, give me one historical or fictional example of a GOOD person that intentionally murders a bunch of children.
For the sake of argument, I have one fictionnal example of a good person who might (maybe) still be good after the murdering of a single child. Here. (http://www.lfg.co/page/87/) (You might need some more context, but it would take a loooong time re-reading the story arc.)

Malifice

2016-09-24, 11:09 AM

I do not wish to discuss further things with you.

Cool man. I just didnt want you to think I was justifying that crap. Im doing the exact opposite.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 11:15 AM

For the sake of argument, I have one fictionnal example of a good person who might (maybe) still be good after the murdering of a single child. Here. (http://www.lfg.co/page/87/) (You might need some more context, but it would take a loooong time re-reading the story arc.)

Kill a child to save the world, no other options are possible at all?

I might let the PCs alignment stay the same afterwards, but a long period of remorse and contrition would follow. In older versions of the game, if the killer was a PC Paladin he'd fall.

Im also reminded of the finale of M*A*S*H.

smcmike

2016-09-24, 11:30 AM

Kill a child to save the world, no other options are possible at all?

I might let the PCs alignment stay the same afterwards, but a long period of remorse and contrition would follow. In older versions of the game, if the killer was a PC Paladin he'd fall.

Im also reminded of the finale of M*A*S*H.

Or, for a real-world scenario, aerial bombing of targets where civilians will be killed - let's say with the certainty that said bombing will lead to a better overall outcome.

Addaran

2016-09-24, 11:36 AM

The Punisher is like the Batman. He's suffered personal tragedy, and he hunts criminals and brings them to justice using fear as a weapon. The Punisher (unlike the Batman) is evil. He employs torture, murder and suffering. He'd snap the Jokers neck (after first killing his family to make him suffer).

Similar characters, similar goals, differing alignments.

Punisher wouldn't kill Joker's family to make him suffer, UNLESS Joker's family is also evil/criminal. While he might go to extreme, even in the Max serie he doesn't kill innocents and in that serie, he's shown to be a severily PTS person that enjoy violence, even before his family died.

But he's still willing to do selfless acts and risk his life to save victims. If you check the Mother Russia serie, he's willing to die in order to protect the little girl, and he'deven go so far as to kill American soldiers and his old mate Nick Fury if they tried to use her

Batman is more LN then any good. He's more interested in the principle of the law and order then actually saving people. Maybe killing the Joker would be evil, but putting him back in Arkham is criminal negligence. He knows he'll escape again. If you must absolutly not kill Joker, at least put him in a real private prison that's guarded by Superman class heroes for the rest of his life.
In other series, he's willing to cross the line in order to save humanity. (exploding the entire Dark Seid planet, with all the habitants, if he doesn't let Supergirl go)

While Punisher is a bit extreme (death penality for most crimes) i still prefer his approach. At least, when he find true monsters (slavers, rapists, child abusers, terrorists, people that willingly caused dozens of death) he actually make sure that person will never be able to hurt anyone again.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 11:45 AM

Punisher wouldn't kill Joker's family to make him suffer, UNLESS Joker's family is also evil/criminal.

As determined by whom? The Punisher? The Punisher gets to unilaterally determine people are evil and then murder them?

And if crime and murder are evil (according to the Punisher) then so is the Punisher.

Heck he acknowledges he's evil. He met the Devil once and wasnt at all surprised to find out he's on a one way ticket to hell.

While he might go to extreme, even in the Max serie he doesn't kill innocents and in that serie, he's shown to be a severily PTS person that enjoy violence, even before his family died.

Yep, so evil.

But he's still willing to do selfless acts and risk his life to save victims. If you check the Mother Russia serie, he's willing to die in order to protect the little girl, and he'deven go so far as to kill American soldiers and his old mate Nick Fury if they tried to use her

Walter white and Tony Soprano would do the same to save their children and families.

But theyre still evil.

Batman is more LN then any good.

Rubbish. He's LG. Its why he and Superman get along so well.

While Punisher is a bit extreme (death penality for most crimes) i still prefer his approach. At least, when he find true monsters (slavers, rapists, child abusers, terrorists, people that willingly caused dozens of death) he actually make sure that person will never be able to hurt anyone again.

He's evil. Hes prepared to resort to evil methods for a 'greater good'. As all evil people do.

Or, for a real-world scenario, aerial bombing of targets where civilians will be killed - let's say with the certainty that said bombing will lead to a better overall outcome.

Evil. Just like when terrorists do the same.

Talionis

2016-09-24, 12:31 PM

You miss the point.

This is what makes Batman good and what makes the Joker evil. The Joker kills people. Batman avoids it, even when its the Joker.

Killing him would be evil. Batman saves him instead. While the Joker mocks him for doing so.

You cant attribute the actions of the Joker to Batman. If I show mercy to an evil man, and he again commits evil, that doesnt make ME evil. It makes him evil, and me good. For many that you show mercy to, they reform, You lead by example and take the higher ground. If you act like the monsters you fight, you become them.

The Punisher is like the Batman. He's suffered personal tragedy, and he hunts criminals and brings them to justice using fear as a weapon. The Punisher (unlike the Batman) is evil. He employs torture, murder and suffering. He'd snap the Jokers neck (after first killing his family to make him suffer).

Similar characters, similar goals, differing alignments.

I think you missed my point. Not that killing Joker is good, but at what point is it good to kill Joker? That question is more grey than you make it sound.

Batman puts Joker in Arkham for the first time Joker gets out and kills 100 people. Batman does it again and Joker gets out again killing 500 this time. Batman catches him again Joker gets out and kills 2000. At what point is Batman Good to just kill Joker? Is the answer never? I think that's overly simplistic and naïve.

I guess to make my point here is at some point you have to see Joker as dangerous and irredeemable. It's Good to protect the weak from a monster like that.

Is Superman evil at the end of Man of Steel where he kills Zod to save people?

Batman has taken an Oath of no killing at least in some versions of himself. But breaking an Oath against killing is a different and more clear question than killing makes you evil.

I think there are plenty of times when a Good person can kill and remain Good. In many ways it's solely their motivation that makes an act Good or Evil. Evil kills for fun or personal gain. Good kills to punish and protect.

Tanarii

2016-09-24, 12:45 PM

For example, I don't know if I am a psychopath but I think that crushing kobold hatcheries, setting fire to goblinoid nurseries and killing orcish children isn't evil, do you think that any of these actions would be considered an evil act?

There is precisely one defined evil act in D&D 5e: casting necromancy spells that raise the dead. Other than that, Alignment (including Good or Evil) is about moral attitudes, not actions.

That said, I think that no one with a Good Alignment / moral attitude would consider crushing kobold hatcheries, setting fire to goblinoid nurseries and killing orcish children. Edit: Unless they had a Personality, Bond or Flaw that might lead to that, of course. And then they'd experience a very classic conflict inside their head, or suffer from regret or guilt afterwards. Probably.

Talionis

2016-09-24, 12:54 PM

There is precisely one defined evil act in D&D 5e: casting necromancy spells that raise the dead. Other than that, Alignment (including Good or Evil) is about moral attitudes, not actions.

That said, I think that no one with a Good Alignment / moral attitude would consider crushing kobold hatcheries, setting fire to goblinoid nurseries and killing orcish children.

Is your opinion different if they are fiend eggs? Fiends are pretty much Evil without any ability to become even Neutral. If they will eventually get much stronger and eventually try to perform acts of Evil then killing a bunch of them now protects the weak. If they must grow up to be dangerous and Evil then it must be Good to kill them as young as possible when they aren't dangerous.

The reason for killing is not to gain but to protect.

Addaran

2016-09-24, 01:04 PM

As determined by whom? The Punisher? The Punisher gets to unilaterally determine people are evil and then murder them?
You said that he'd kill Joker's family to make him suffer. No version of him would do that. Yes he unilaterally determine who deserve to die. But he'd never kill someone he doesn't think deserve to die (innocent in his view) to make someone guilty suffer.

And if crime and murder are evil (according to the Punisher) then so is the Punisher.

Is it evil to kill a demon (the pure embodiment of evil and chaos, something irredeemable). Should paladin give mercy to demons if they surrender when they are about to die?

Walter white and Tony Soprano would do the same to save their children and families.

But theyre still evil.
The girl is totally unrelated to him, just like all the victims he saves. They aren't part of his family, clan, etc. Just strangers in need of help.

He's evil. Hes prepared to resort to evil methods for a 'greater good'. As all evil people do.

So every single soldier in an army that's prepared to kill someone is evil? No difference between taking a life for selfish reason or hate then taking someone's life when it's someone invading your country and killing people?

Evil. Just like when terrorists do the same.
That i have to agree. Bombing civilians to get at the enemy, that's evil. You don't just hand wave innocent dying as collateral damage.

JackPhoenix

2016-09-24, 01:14 PM

[QUOTE=Malifice;21236190Your DM will change your alignment if he thinks you're playing a different one. I do. If a 'good' PC murdered children, I'd take his character sheet, rub out the G and write a big fat E there.[/QUOTE]

What, because you give him Helm of Opposite Alignment, or some curse, or something? Because you have no say over what alignment the player has on his sheet. This is not 3e discusion, there's no forcing alignment change over actions.

Xetheral

2016-09-24, 01:15 PM

Allright Rick, give me one historical or fictional example of a GOOD person that intentionally murders a bunch of children.

How about Ripley, in Aliens?

That she was willing to risk her life and face her terror in order to help the colonists suggests that she is Good. Her rejection of Burke's plan on moral grounds is more evidence. Her willingness to go into the powerplant alone to get Newt is even more.

And then she burns alive dozens of children of a race she had just established was intelligent enough to non-verbally communicate with. Under the (rather extreme) circumstances, I don't view that as in conflict with her Good nature.

Shaofoo

2016-09-24, 01:39 PM

Is it evil to kill a demon (the pure embodiment of evil and chaos, something irredeemable). Should paladin give mercy to demons if they surrender when they are about to die?

Part of the reason why it isn't evil to kill demons beyond the "demons are evil" is because the laws of mortality don't apply to them. Most demons are summoned and there is usually a clause that they are transported back to their home plane as soon as they reach 0 HP and I think there is some rules about when they actually die they just get a new body or something similar. Someone correct me if I am dead wrong.

Which would also apply to good outsiders, it isn't as evil to "kill" a good outsider than it is to actually kill someone who isn't an outsider (of course if you are killing a good outsider to stop good from preventing evil then that is an evil act but the same is interfering the good outsider without having to kill it).

CNagy

2016-09-24, 01:40 PM

Religion, gods, and proof of their existence mucks up the alignment debate. I'm not saying I think this is the way it is supposed to go, but this is the way I've settled it in my games:

Basically, your character's alignment works as described in the book. How you are seen by your god, his servants, and his clergy are an entirely different matter. Mortal good can clash with divine good. Thus torching a hatchery could be an abhorrent act of divine good. A lawful evil crusader could be met with approval from god, church, and country for sticking to the appropriate targets--but it doesn't make him a good person in the alignment sense, just a monster with divine sanction.

The character alignment is basically morality. The judgment alignment (for lack of a better term) is basically how the greater power that the character has devoted himself grades his acts in life. It may turn out that on a cosmic level, the act of total genocide against the orc race is a profoundly good act. It may turn out that killing one's fellow elf, in this case the cruel general bent on perpetrating that genocide, gets chalked up as an evil deed on the cosmic scoreboard. No one said the black/white literal manifestations of Good/Evil were ever fair or convenient.

Tanarii

2016-09-24, 03:37 PM

What, because you give him Helm of Opposite Alignment, or some curse, or something? Because you have no say over what alignment the player has on his sheet. This is not 3e discusion, there's no forcing alignment change over actions.
Not only that, taking a players sheet away and changing it against her will is clearly an Evil action. DM's Alignment just shifted to LE with that one action. :smallbiggrin:

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-24, 03:41 PM

Posters changing their avatars so they can no longer be recognized is clearly an Evil action.

Tanarii

2016-09-24, 04:03 PM

Posters changing their avatars so they can no longer be recognized is clearly an Evil action.
Hahahaha and here I thought it made me more recognizable. :)

Kydo

2016-09-24, 04:22 PM

Kill a child to save the world, no other options are possible at all. In older versions of the game, if the killer was a PC Paladin he'd fal.

. Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good." -Gary Gygax 2005

Being "good" is not about not killing. It's not about not being compassionate. It's about doing the right thing for the right reasons. Evil is about doing what you decide you want to do for your own selfish reasons. Sure, you follow an evil god, what are you getting out of it? Usually it's some form of power.

Also, the Gygax quote originated in the dragonfoot forums if you want to check the source.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 09:51 PM

I think you missed my point. Not that killing Joker is good, but at what point is it good to kill Joker?

As an act of self defence when no other option reasonably presents itself.

If you can take him in alive, you do so. If its down to shooting him as the only way to stop him harming others or yourself, you do so.

Batman puts Joker in Arkham for the first time Joker gets out and kills 100 people.

Thats on the Joker, not Batman.

Batman does it again and Joker gets out again killing 500 this time. Batman catches him again Joker gets out and kills 2000. At what point is Batman Good to just kill Joker? Is the answer never?

Yes, it is.

Is Superman evil at the end of Man of Steel where he kills Zod to save people?

No. Like I said, he had no other option available to him in order to save the lives of innocents.

If a man breaks into your house with a gun, its not evil to kill him in reasonable self defence to protect yourself or others in the house.

If he surrenders, and you have him at your mercy, gunning him down in cold blood anyway is evil.

I think there are plenty of times when a Good person can kill and remain Good.

I agree.

Good kills to punish and protect.

Protect yes; punish no.

Is your opinion different if they are fiend eggs? Fiends are pretty much Evil without any ability to become even Neutral.

Theyre 'pretty much' going to be evil later on down the track, isnt a reason to kill outsider children (not that such things exist, pretty sure outsiders just 'are').

DnD has plently of examples of fallen angels and redeemed fiends and other outsiders like Titans that turned to evil, and devils (Graazt) who changed alingment to CE from LE.

Even outsiders can change alignments and redeem themselves.

Undead can be put to the sword freely (they're not alive). Demons and Devils can almost always be put to the sword becuase they're virtually always evil, and doing evil stuff (necessitating self defence or the defence of others).

Tanarii

2016-09-24, 09:55 PM

Is your opinion different if they are fiend eggs? Fiends are pretty much Evil without any ability to become even Neutral. If they will eventually get much stronger and eventually try to perform acts of Evil then killing a bunch of them now protects the weak. If they must grow up to be dangerous and Evil then it must be Good to kill them as young as possible when they aren't dangerous.

The reason for killing is not to gain but to protect.
I missed this, but Malifices answer made me catch it.

Fiends lay eggs?

But assuming the answer is yes, it would change. D&D outsider fiends aren't potentially Evil. They are the embodiment of Evil, through and through, from the beginning of their existence to the end. They have no free will in the matter.

Evil humanoids have the ability to resist the coercive attempts of their gods to drive them to evil.

That's all in the PHB section on alignment.

Malifice

2016-09-24, 09:59 PM

Also, the Gygax quote originated in the dragonfoot forums if you want to check the source.

I know about the Gygax quote, and like I said earlier Gygax was a neckbeard who was wrong.

In any event, even if an assumption can be made that what he said had relevance to DnD in any way shape or form, that ended with the release of 3E at the latest (if not sooner).

From 3E:

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

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

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Malifice

2016-09-24, 10:02 PM

But assuming the answer is yes, it would change. D&D outsider fiends aren't potentially Evil. They are the embodiment of Evil, through and through, from the beginning of their existence to the end. They have no free will in the matter.

Untrue. DnD canon has fallen angels (many), Demon lords who were once devils (Grazzt), CG Titans that rebelled agains the Gods and are now N-CE, a LG Succubus Paladin and more.

Its rare, but even outsiders can change alignment.

How about Ripley, in Aliens?

Its fair to say that Ripley was acting in reasonable self defence there (standing in a next of Alien eggs, with the lot of you about to be vaporised). If you recall correctly, the Queen had an egg pop open after their little 'truce' was declared and Ripley was backing off.

And Alien 'children' are facesuckers that are exceptionally deadly (not harmless noncombatants). Ripley was surrounded by eggs full of them. As soon as one popped open, she was acting in reasonable self defence.

Ripley is NG through and through.

Are we calling the Xenomorph truly sentient though? You cant give the Alien an alignment other than N. They kill, eat and reproduce. Like any other animal.

What, because you give him Helm of Opposite Alignment, or some curse, or something? Because you have no say over what alignment the player has on his sheet. This is not 3e discusion, there's no forcing alignment change over actions.

Yes, (as DM) I do.

If objective alignment exists, then I (as the DM) determine what that is, not the individual player.

The individual player (and character) might have a subjective view on what their characters alignment is. But its the DM who determines Objective alignment.

Frank the Player might view his noble Paladin of Corellion Sir Gwain as a righteous paragon of Good as he tosses screaming Drow children on the Pyre, and takes the Drow women as concubines and comfort slaves for his Army as they embark on a genocidal campaign to exterminate the Drow once and for all and end thier menace by breeding them out and slaughtering the men. Sir Gwain himself might also view himself that way as he slaughters children, and forces himself on his Drow Concubines.

I'll take his character sheet of him and rub a very firm LE on his character sheet, and Corellion will strip his powers off him immediately (for betraying Corellions dogma). When he dies he either gets walled into the Wall of the Faithless by Kelemvor or (should he agree to go along with the Devils on the river Styx) goes to the Nine Hells.

Tanarii

2016-09-25, 04:55 AM

Untrue.

PHB page 122:
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather lawful evil is in its essence. If it ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

I'll take his character sheet of him and rub a very firm LE on his character sheet,Ive never met a DM as tyrannical as you say you would be. Thankfully.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-25, 09:01 AM

Demons and Devils can almost always be put to the sword becuase they're virtually always evil, and doing evil stuff (necessitating self defence or the defence of others).

They're like a big bunch of Jokers which we're allowed to kill unlike the one single Joker.

lunaticfringe

2016-09-25, 09:35 AM

I know about the Gygax quote, and like I said earlier Gygax was a neckbeard who was wrong.

In any event, even if an assumption can be made that what he said had relevance to DnD in any way shape or form, that ended with the release of 3E at the latest (if not sooner).

From 3E:

Well by that logic the Alignment definitions your referring to are equally invalid in 5e and havent been in operation since 2008. Did you even have to pick an Alignment in 4e? Couldn't you be Unaligned? The Alignment descriptions in the current PHB are a lot less defined & concrete (which is probably why you didn't quote them, eh?). You are trying to argue Subjective is Objective. Good luck with that pal....

Iron Angel

2016-09-25, 09:44 AM

A lot of people get causality wrong. Your character's alignment doesn't govern your behavior, your character's behavior governs your alignment. Your alignment is a reflection of how your character acts and thinks, not the other way around.

A casual disregard for innocent life is definitely evil. However, you aren't "not allowed" because your alignment is good. Instead, if it becomes a major defining personality trait, what happens is you start moving towards the evil end of the spectrum because it more effectively represents who your character is.

Its not a lock that forces your actions, its just a litmus test that informs what they are. One frustrates your player because they feel like they are being forced, and one makes your player WANT to roleplay correctly so they don't start moving around the chart.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-25, 09:52 AM

A lot of people get causality wrong. Your character's alignment doesn't govern your behavior, your character's behavior governs your alignment. Your alignment is a reflection of how your character acts and thinks, not the other way around.

Planescape called, it said "help I'm a campaign setting what am I doing in this phone".

Iron Angel

2016-09-25, 10:20 AM

Planescape called, it said "help I'm a campaign setting what am I doing in this phone".

Its true, not all settings are created equally, but I use it as a general rule for player characters.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-25, 10:30 AM

So, D&D has that awesome logic of evil aligned = evil outsider (at least 3.5 had)
That logic does not actually pass examination, even in 3.5. I don't believe 5e uses it, officially, and I certainly don't use it in my games.

(I know that good aligned scimitar dual-wielding exceptions may exist)
To paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle, exceptions necessarily disprove assertions. The fact that a supposedly naturally evil species has moral members necessarily disproves the assertion that the species is inherently evil.

Of course, Sir Arthur was a nutter about plenty of other things.

For example, I don't know if I am a psychopath but I think that crushing kobold hatcheries, setting fire to goblinoid nurseries and killing orcish children isn't evil, do you think that any of these actions would be considered an evil act?
I day this with no intent to insult you, but that sentence absolutely strikes me as psychopathic.

Kydo

2016-09-25, 10:39 AM

The concept that good people don't kill is just stupid and ignorant. Good people will help out society where they can, they do not intentionally harm the innocent, they also should not be as stupid as Batman and let the bad guy murder people again and again and again.

There are two sayings that need to be looked at here. First is easy and used a lot,"the best of intentions" lead to some of the worst things in history happen with them but it doesn't mean those people were evil. This is like asking if the war waged in Japan That unified the nation but killed a great many people was an evil act. It might have been the single greatest thing that happened to them.

Second is a far more in-depth thing but the concept still stands. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Is a paladin who executed a criminal whos punishment demands death wrong? Definitely not. If that same criminal has surrendered first is he wrong? No. He is actually both following the law and doing what his alignment demands should be done. Just because being good means that you understand there is a sanctity of life does not mean that you will not take life. If good never punishes evil, evil grows out of control. If good only ever locks that evil in a cell, the problem has just been deferred for someone else to deal with later.

Now there are acts that are evil in the world, rape, torture, and the murder of innocents. But some of these are subjective. The idea of one death saves a thousand lives is a question of the greater good, the one is innocent but of those thousand if even two are innocent end begets the means. Yes, every person who reads anything in a moral debate is going to do so through thier own moral filter, but if you think being good is the same as never killing you are ignorant.

On the Batman argument, sure cage joker once... Hell cage him twice. Then if the state won't kill him do it yourself. See, I've even got two new quotes here... "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." The other is, "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, the times is a pattern." When something becomes a pattern and you do nothing about it you are as responsible for it as the one doing it.

I know about the Gygax quote, and like I said earlier Gygax was a neckbeard who was wrong.

...

From 3E:

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

See, your argument here is, "I'm going to throw an insult and then state that because I don't agree with him he is wrong." As much fun as it would be to respond in kind I'm going to just point out that you actually helped with that quote from 3E.

Respect for life does not mean never taking life. It means understanding the difference between when taking it or not is necessary. A concern for sentient beings works so many ways in not going to really go into it, but suffice it to say that a paladin riding through a town doesn't just dismount his horse and donate that asking with his 1500g worth of plate armor to the dirt poor peasants... But you argue that he is still good.

That same presents two children starve to death a few nights later, the paladin could have butchered his horse and saved them but you wouldn't condemn him for that.

Tanarii

2016-09-25, 11:33 AM

A lot of people get causality wrong. Your character's alignment doesn't govern your behavior, your character's behavior governs your alignment. Your alignment is a reflection of how your character acts and thinks, not the other way around.This is wrong in 5e. In 5e, your alignment is a tool for the player to use when determining his behavior and actions. Also, alignment is explicitly defined as your characters moral and social order attitudes. Not something determined by actions or behavior.

Malifice

2016-09-25, 11:37 AM

PHB page 122:
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather lawful evil is in its essence. If it ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

Emphasis added.

When Grazzt changed alignment from LE to CE he ceased to be a devil and became a demon. Same deal with Erinyes (once celestials, now fiends).

Even outisders can change alignment.

Ive never met a DM as tyrannical as you say you would be. Thankfully.

The character has just engaged in rape, genocide, wanton slaughter, slavery and child murder, and you're calling me a 'tyrannical DM' for informing him he's (objectively in the eyes of the gods) evil?

Good lord.

Malifice

2016-09-25, 11:39 AM

They're like a big bunch of Jokers which we're allowed to kill unlike the one single Joker.

If they're doing evil stuff and you are required to use force for self defence of the defence of others, its not evil.

Cops arent evil when they are forced to shoot an armed attacker to save a life. Soldiers arent evil when defending their nation from an armed hostile invader.

The concept that good people don't kill is just stupid and ignorant.

No-one is saying that. You're jumping at shadows.

Second is a far more in-depth thing but the concept still stands. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Is a paladin who executed a criminal whos punishment demands death wrong? Definitely not. If that same criminal has surrendered first is he wrong? No. He is actually both following the law and doing what his alignment demands should be done. Just because being good means that you understand there is a sanctity of life does not mean that you will not take life. If good never punishes evil, evil grows out of control. If good only ever locks that evil in a cell, the problem has just been deferred for someone else to deal with later.

Cool story bro. You'd fall in my games.

Now there are acts that are evil in the world, rape, torture, and the murder of innocents.

All murder is evil. If a psucyopath murders a fellow inmate in prison its still an evil act.

But some of these are subjective. The idea of one death saves a thousand lives is a question of the greater good, the one is innocent but of those thousand if even two are innocent end begets the means. Yes, every person who reads anything in a moral debate is going to do so through thier own moral filter, but if you think being good is the same as never killing you are ignorant.

Killing in the name of 'the greater good' eh?

Youre aware that every genocide ever was done for the 'greater good'?

On the Batman argument, sure cage joker once... Hell cage him twice. Then if the state won't kill him do it yourself. See, I've even got two new quotes here... "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." The other is, "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, the times is a pattern." When something becomes a pattern and you do nothing about it you are as responsible for it as the one doing it.

These are not 'good' (in DnD terms) views. You condone murder (if you do it, and the victim is in your eyes 'guilty'), you think good people are idiots for not engaging in murder (of other evildoers of course).

Your views sound more Neutral. Given your strong support of laws, the state (and capital punishment) it sounds like youre expressing a more LN view.

Its what id write on someones character sheet if they played a person with views like this.

Malifice

2016-09-25, 11:57 AM

This is wrong in 5e. In 5e, your alignment is a tool for the player to use when determining his behavior and actions. Also, alignment is explicitly defined as your characters moral and social order attitudes. Not something determined by actions or behavior.

How does a person with a LG attitude and moral compass go around raping, taking slaves, murdering, worshipping Orcus, slaughtering children and worse? He also disrespects authority, never keeps his word, murdered his whole family, is unreliable and untrustworthy and completely unpredictable,

Answer: he doesnt. He isnt LG.

Clearly the player made a mistake writing LG on his character sheet. Im more than happy fixing that for him.

Kydo

2016-09-25, 11:58 AM

The character has just engaged in rape, genocide, wanton slaughter, slavery and child murder, and you're calling me a 'tyrannical DM' for informing him he's (objectively in the eyes of the gods) evil?

First, there is no "objectively in the eyes of the gods" concept. Good luck trying to understand literally -anything- a god thinks out is planning. We, as humans, are mortal and could never begin to comprehend that.

Second, slavery is not particularly evil (Ya, I said it. Flame war go!). Until recently in the history of the world it was far beyond the norm if you fought a war and lost. Even in D&D games it is not overly uncommon. If said person is a slave, especially as far as the law is concerned is it rape? I don't know that any fight against the drow would ever be wanton slaughter. It's far more likely he would just due in his sleep, probably having spiders crawling out of his throat from that magical poison he ingested.

My point is you are trying to judge D&D morals through your modern moral lenses. If you went into a fight knowing that if you lost and went killed you would very likely end up enslaved would it be evil of the one doing that when the enacted the expected norm?

Malifice

2016-09-25, 12:07 PM

First, there is no "objectively in the eyes of the gods" concept.

Yes there is. In DnD alignment is objective. This is determined by the DM.

Players (and thier characters) might view themselves as a different alignment. The foulest of villians might view himself as a good man, and feel righteous and justified in his evil acts.

He may even be shocked to discover on death he winds up in the Nine Hells.

Good luck trying to understand literally -anything- a god thinks out is planning. We, as humans, are mortal and could never begin to comprehend that.

As the DM I am more omnipotent and more omniscient than the Gods. The Gods only exist on the DMs say so.

Second, slavery is not particularly evil (Ya, I said it. Flame war go!). Until recently in the history of the world it was far beyond the norm if you fought a war and lost.

Just because its common doesnt make it any less evil. Rape and Domestic violence are incredibly commmon place in the real world, but this doesnt make them any less evil.

We dont hunt down rapists and rape them in revenge. We dont hunt down those that practice domestic violence and beat them and their families up. We dont stop genocide by rounding up those that attempt it and wiping them out. We didnt march the Nazis into Auschwitz after the war.

Good people show mercy and kindness and compassion. They take the higher ground and lead by example.

You know what. Screw this. Ive had people justifying 'good' people engaging in rape, torture, genocide, murder and worse in this thread. If (as a person) you cant see how those things are evil, then I cant help you.

Sigreid

2016-09-25, 12:09 PM

I've seen this debate a few times and no one is ever persuaded. I'll go back to what I said in the beginning. It depends on the DM's campaign. If orcs and goblins and such are people who have been "raised wrong" then killing their kids is killing innocent beings and good characters should balk at that.

If however, they are physical manifestations of their god's evil, then killing the kids is no more evil than destroying termite eggs so they don't grow up to eat your house. Some of us remember when bipedal creatures that walk erect were divided into 3 categories in the game:

Humans: The most varied and with the largest amount of free will. Humans could pretty much make themselves whatever they pleased.
Demi-humans: Similar to humans but with inborn restrictins on what they could be.
Humanoids: Humanoids were evil and barbaric and simply were what they were.

Tanarii

2016-09-25, 12:20 PM

How does a person with a LG attitude and moral compass go around raping, taking slaves, murdering, worshipping Orcus, slaughtering children and worse? He also disrespects authority, never keeps his word, murdered his whole family, is unreliable and untrustworthy and completely unpredictable,

Answer: he doesnt. He isnt LG.

Clearly the player made a mistake writing LG on his character sheet.Completely agree.

Im more than happy fixing that for him.Completely disagree with that action, if you're still talking about forcibly changing a player's character sheet. As far as I'm concerned a player's character sheet is their personal property. You're talking about screwing with someone else's personal property, potentially against their will, in real life, over a game thing that isn't even necessary.

As a DM, you don't have a particular reason to care what it says on their character sheet, unless they are breaking a campaign alignment rule that you've put in place. Alignment is a player tool, for player use in roleplaying their character. DMs should be concentrating on in-world consequences for PC actions. Not players ignoring what they wrote down as a roleplaying aid.

Now if you're using alignment in a fashion not intended by 5e, as something other than a roleplaying aid for players, as something with some kind direct in-world consequences, then you potentially have a problem on your hands. You'll have to figure out how to handle that. Preferably without being a **** about it.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-25, 12:32 PM

Everyone is entering the discussion with wildly differing views on alignment and morality. It is beyond pointless at the moment because it started without any shared foundation from which to base a proper argument.

Fot any alignment discussion to be productive in any sense of the word, the participants must agree on three things:

Is morality based in actions and beliefs, or is it an objective force?
Do alignments define a character's tendency, or are they absolute characteristics?*
Are individuals capable of defying the alignment of the group to which they were born?

Without agreeing to answers to these questions, any discussion on alignment necessarily fails before it begins.

Kydo

2016-09-25, 12:34 PM

Cool story bro. You'd fall in my games.

All murder is evil. If a psucyopath murders a fellow inmate in prison its still an evil act.

Good thing I don't generally play in games with narrow sighted DM's. Also is capital punishment, ie murdering a man condemned to die for his crimes, evil in your eyes? That is the same thing a paladin carrying out a sentence is doing.

How does a person with a LG attitude and moral compass go around raping, taking slaves, murdering, worshipping Orcus, slaughtering children and worse? He also disrespects authority, never keeps his word, murdered his whole family, is unreliable and untrustworthy and completely unpredictable,

Answer: he doesnt. He isnt LG.

Clearly the player made a mistake writing LG on his character sheet. Im more than happy fixing that for him.

I agree that given the described character there is not LG, but not for the reasons you would have listed the first time. You are still looking through your modern moral lenses.

Yes there is. In DnD alignment is objective. This is determined by the DM.

Players (and thier characters) might view themselves as a different alignment. The foulest of villians might view himself as a good man, and feel righteous and justified in his evil acts.

He may even be shocked to discover on death he winds up in the Nine Hells.

As the DM I am more omnipotent and more omniscient than the Gods. The Gods only exist on the DMs say so.

Just because its common doesnt make it any less evil. Rape and Domestic violence are incredibly commmon place in the real world, but this doesnt make them any less evil.

We dont hunt down rapists and rape them in revenge. We dont hunt down those that practice domestic violence and beat them and their families up. We dont stop genocide by rounding up those that attempt it and wiping them out. We didnt march the Nazis into Auschwitz after the war.

Good people show mercy and kindness and compassion. They take the higher ground and lead by example.

You know what. Screw this. Ive had people justifying 'good' people engaging in rape, torture, genocide, murder and worse in this thread. If (as a person) you cant see how those things are evil, then I cant help you.

In the past we cut fingers off thieves. Rapists were only required to repay a family the dowry the family has been denied due to the maids virginhead having been taken. Other cultures would hung down the man and castrate him with a knife before leaving him on the side of the road as an example.

While I do agree some evil men think themselves just, a lot of them actually, not every man following the law and expectations of his land/god are.

We do go and do these things though that you say we don't. It's not uncommon for brothers to go rough up a guy who beat thier sister.

Also, we put the Japanese in camps of our own during WW2.

This whole post is painfully made from the point of view of someone in the modern US.

-----------

Rape is a common crime in China. Marital rape is not illegal in China. Same-sex sexual assault between males was made illegal in late 2015.

The common law crime of rape was collectively adopted by the American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Until the late twentieth century, spousal rape was not considered a true rape case because the woman was traditionally viewed as the property of her husband.

I'm just posting these as examples but in the US until that law passed saying that spousal rape could not be done a man doing so could well have been considered a good man.

In a world with gods there are some black and white issues but they aren't that cut and dry. The LG god of the woods probably doesn't care how you treat a cave dwelling drow who would burn down his forests if given the chance.

Talionis

2016-09-25, 01:33 PM

As an act of self defence when no other option reasonably presents itself.

If you can take him in alive, you do so. If its down to shooting him as the only way to stop him harming others or yourself, you do so.

Thats on the Joker, not Batman.

Yes, it is.

No. Like I said, he had no other option available to him in order to save the lives of innocents.

If a man breaks into your house with a gun, its not evil to kill him in reasonable self defence to protect yourself or others in the house.

If he surrenders, and you have him at your mercy, gunning him down in cold blood anyway is evil.

I agree.

Protect yes; punish no.

Theyre 'pretty much' going to be evil later on down the track, isnt a reason to kill outsider children (not that such things exist, pretty sure outsiders just 'are').

DnD has plently of examples of fallen angels and redeemed fiends and other outsiders like Titans that turned to evil, and devils (Graazt) who changed alingment to CE from LE.

Even outsiders can change alignments and redeem themselves.

Undead can be put to the sword freely (they're not alive). Demons and Devils can almost always be put to the sword becuase they're virtually always evil, and doing evil stuff (necessitating self defence or the defence of others).

So you think Good alignment equals stupid alignment. They can't kill someone to prevent a hundred or thousand people from being killed.

I've seen the meme: Paladin is Lawful Good not lawful nice.

Conversations Like this make me very happy alignment does almost nothing in 5E.

If I live in the Wild West I'm killing the guy that shot ten people in the back regardless if he surrenders. I'd hang him from a tree and give him a trial first, but I'm not leaving him alive to kill me or my loved ones down the road.

I'm killing to protect, not for gain. If I can't kill to protect, I'm just naive and stupid. If no prison can hold a guy and he's a serial killer, NOT killing the serial killer is Evil.

Your good aligned character is failing to protect the weak and actively choosing not to do things that would protect.

Evil succeeds when Good fails to take action.

Kydo

2016-09-25, 01:46 PM

I like you.

Shaofoo

2016-09-25, 07:15 PM

Kydo

2016-09-25, 07:51 PM

Alright, so if 'in the context of D&D' doesn't work lets look at an actual concept of morality and alignment?

{scrubbed}

DwarvenGM

2016-09-25, 08:33 PM

All murder is evil. If a psucyopath murders a fellow inmate in prison its still an evil act.

This is what makes things tricky in d&d pc's commit murder on a regular basis. Oh you scouted ahead and found a possible ambush? should we talk with them and see if we can sort things out or sneak attack?

If you don't talk then the enemies are literally practicing self defense as they are ambushed. If you do try to talk with them you just gave up a tactical advantage and a tpk might be in your future.

A group of bandits are trying to rob you what do you do? You could knock them out and turn them over to authorities. But preemptively assaulting a thug on the road and killing him would be murder.

You storm a keep of angry cultist and find a robed figure at a desk he could be a prisoner or a hired scribe but will your party risk alerting him if he is an enemy wizard?

Now I find black and white morality too naive for my games. Not all goblins are evil not all dwarves are good. In fact I ignore the alignment system completely and focus more on characters own personality I don't want to hear someone say "Well I'm chaotic good, would I do that?" I'd rather hear "Well I've only encountered evil orcs so I'd probably assume these were evil too."

Hell batman psychologically tortures people regularly, holding them over ledges implying death or threatening severe beatings if they don't talk and yet you refer to batman as good.

Iron Angel

2016-09-25, 08:51 PM

RickAllison

2016-09-25, 10:12 PM

I think good people can kill if it is necessary or would be better in the long run. They might not like it, they might even be sad about the fact that it had to be done. But they did the grisly deed anyway because it needed to be done. That doesn't make them evil.

That's what I really liked about nWoD's Morality score! Losing Morality wasn't about how "Good" or "Evil" you were, it was about whether you were affected by things. A successful Morality roll meant you felt guilt and/or remorse for your act, even subconsciously (the supposedly Evil dude doesn't want to admit it, but accidentally hitting that child behind the werewolf is tearing him up inside). Failing it didn't mean you were a bad person, but that you don't feel anything about it. The fact that you don't feel anything might then be disturbing and you might want to change that, but it represents people like the paladin who has seen so much death that he doesn't feel any remorse after slaughtering kobolds, even when he knows he should.

Add in the Codes of the Hunters and you get an even more versatile system where you can decide that certain things are simply necessary evils and so don't affect Morality. A paladin of Corellon Larethian might have created the code that "Orcs are the spawn of Gruumsh and all are evil; I must show them no mercy," and so it is actually a Morality check if he leaves an Orc alive!

Both losing Morality and taking Codes then have the downside of making the person less able to relate to others when appropriate. The Punisher has killed so many criminals that he now subconsciously stares down people just looking for signs of guilt, meaning he now has a penalty to social checks for anyone who isn't totally innocent. The above paladin may find that his code makes anyone who hears his opinions on orcs off-put and so have a penalty.

It makes for a much more dynamic system that allows for progression of morality even while holding the same beliefs and alignment. The LG paladin has his ideals he aspires to, but finds himself becoming worryingly detached as he eliminates evildoers; eventually, he begins seeing evil in everybody. The CE warlock believe he desires chaos and evil, but he can't help but feel guilty every time he commits murder and so begins to question his beliefs (maybe, maybe he chooses to ignore the signs).

I think I may just have to house rule it in to my future games...

Sigreid

2016-09-25, 10:33 PM

There is a lot to like about the philosophy behind how WoD works. I just think the d10 system they set up was extremely flawed. The humanity, roads, nature and facade concepts they set up were excellent.

Malifice

2016-09-25, 10:56 PM

is capital punishment, ie murdering a man condemned to die for his crimes, evil in your eyes?

Yes.

Which is precisely why the entire enlightened world has gotten rid of it.

In the past we cut fingers off thieves. Rapists were only required to repay a family the dowry the family has been denied due to the maids virginhead having been taken. Other cultures would hung down the man and castrate him with a knife before leaving him on the side of the road as an example.

I dont care about the past. DnD doesnt happen in the past. Faeurun isnt the past.

Even if it did/ was, all the things you mention are evil. Slavery, rape and murder were not less evil thousands of years ago. There were just more evil people.

This whole post is painfully made from the point of view of someone in the modern US.

I agree. Im not in the USA.

The common law crime of rape was collectively adopted by the American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Until the late twentieth century, spousal rape was not considered a true rape case because the woman was traditionally viewed as the property of her husband.

Evil.

Malifice

2016-09-25, 10:59 PM

So you think Good alignment equals stupid alignment. They can't kill someone to prevent a hundred or thousand people from being killed.

No I dont. I said good can kill in self defence or the defence of others when reasonable necessary.

This is what makes things tricky in d&d pc's commit murder on a regular basis. Oh you scouted ahead and found a possible ambush? should we talk with them and see if we can sort things out or sneak attack?

THATS NOT MURDER!

Argh!

RickAllison

2016-09-25, 11:22 PM

No I dont. I said good can kill in self defence or the defence of others when reasonable necessary.

THATS NOT MURDER!

Argh!

No, murder is what you do to the rules of the forum :smallwink:

MeeposFire

2016-09-25, 11:25 PM

I am so glad unaligned was something they kept from 4e. Alignment is one of those things I wish was never invented for D&D and I am so glad that for the most part it is no longer actually mechanically relevant.

That is not to say that a philosophical discussion is not fun but the whole thing here is polluted by trying to orce it to fit the definitions of the alignments found in D&D and they don't work very well for that and I really hate how they define your character rather than your actions defining your character. I want to be judged by the actions my character committed not by whether you think I fit some word on my sheet that nobody in the game world ever sees.

Malifice

2016-09-25, 11:32 PM

No, murder is what you do to the rules of the forum :smallwink:

Im not advocating for Good PCs to be pacifist.

Good PCs can use lethal force if reasonably necessary to save lives and no other option reasonably presents itself.

Again, a police officer shooting an armed suspect. A member of a defence force conducting operations to repell a foreign invader. A band of heroes storming a dragons lair to protect a villiage from its predation, or rescuing kidnapped children from a nest of Kobolds.

People in this thread are arguing for all kinds of henious acts like rape, murder (including children), torture, terrorism, genocide and worse as 'perfectly good things' or 'things a Good person could engage in'.

Im frankly appalled. If they're things a Good person can engage in willingly, then what the heck do Evil people do?

I should have expected it. Again, our hobby attracts a certain 'type'. But it saddens the crap out of me.

Isidorios

2016-09-25, 11:57 PM

Step 1: Dump the Alignment system, it's 100% unnecessary
Step 2: Sit down with the players, and hash out whether the campaign will be Viggo Mortensen and Lord of the Rings, or Rutger Hauer and Flesh+Blood.
Step 3: Run a campaign based on that decision.

If the player decision is to play "Sociopathic Murder/Rape-fest" and that isn't your thing to DM, try finding more emotionally mature players to run your games for.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 12:00 AM

Im not advocating for Good PCs to be pacifist.

Good PCs can use lethal force if reasonably necessary to save lives and no other option reasonably presents itself.

Again, a police officer shooting an armed suspect. A member of a defence force conducting operations to repell a foreign invader. A band of heroes storming a dragons lair to protect a villiage from its predation, or rescuing kidnapped children from a nest of Kobolds.

People in this thread are arguing for all kinds of henious acts like rape, murder (including children), torture, terrorism, genocide and worse as 'perfectly good things' or 'things a Good person could engage in'.

Im frankly appalled. If they're things a Good person can engage in willingly, then what the heck do Evil people do?

I should have expected it. Again, our hobby attracts a certain 'type'. But it saddens the crap out of me.
Morality is difficult to tackle even when you aren't playing a game that centers around acts of violence, and people generally don't actually tackle it in real life, or at least not in a consistent way. People think in simplistic terms like, "violence is always immoral," or they just substitute moral precepts with social acceptability. In D&D, they have permission to act out in ways that are traditionally seen as immoral, but can have the veneer of social acceptability that most people use in place of actual morality. Because they don't think terribly hard about what it means to be moral in real life, this seems fine to them.

Isidorios

2016-09-26, 12:11 AM

Morality is difficult to tackle even when you aren't playing a game that centers around acts of violence
D&D doesn't center on acts of violence, it centers on slaying rapacious man-eating monsters, thwarting the diabolical machinations of insane wizards and the priests of dark gods, and occasionally fighting back the invading forces of inimical Giants/Orcs/Drow/Whatever. You can CHOOSE to run it as the TTRPG version of "The Purge", but there's nothing in D&D that implies you have to be a wanton edgelord carving a path of gore through every tavern and watch station.

Even Guts spends his time killing howling supernatural horrors intent on wreaking havoc on humanity.

MeeposFire

2016-09-26, 12:17 AM

D&D doesn't center on acts of violence, it centers on slaying rapacious man-eating monsters, thwarting the diabolical machinations of insane wizards and the priests of dark gods, and occasionally fighting back the invading forces of inimical Giants/Orcs/Drow/Whatever. You can CHOOSE to run it as the TTRPG version of "The Purge", but there's nothing in D&D that implies you have to be a wanton edgelord carving a path of gore through every tavern and watch station.

Even Guts spends his time killing howling supernatural horrors intent on wreaking havoc on humanity.

Umm I would call "slaying rapacious man-eating monsters, thwarting the diabolical machinations of insane wizards and the priests of dark gods, and occasionally fighting back the invading forces of inimical Giants/Orcs/Drow/Whatever" centering on acts of violence considering that acts of violence is the common solution to those situations.

While D&D is not all violence to say that violence is not one of the central tenets of the game would be false. Heck it started as a war game and has not gone that far away from its roots.

Isidorios

2016-09-26, 12:24 AM

Kydo

2016-09-26, 12:26 AM

Morality is difficult to tackle even when you aren't playing a game that centers around acts of violence, and people generally don't actually tackle it in real life, or at least not in a consistent way. People think in simplistic terms like, "violence is always immoral," or they just substitute moral precepts with social acceptability. In D&D, they have permission to act out in ways that are traditionally seen as immoral, but can have the veneer of social acceptability that most people use in place of actual morality. Because they don't think terribly hard about what it means to be moral in real life, this seems fine to them.

Violence is not always immoral, nor is it always evil and wrong (see the fact that nations have a military force). Yes, there are people that act out differently but what is and isn't moral has also change since the time of the middle ages until now. Morals are different for every nation and every society. Things are defined differently here compared to there. As I said before, In a world with gods there are some black and white issues but they aren't that cut and dry. The LG god of the woods probably doesn't care how you treat a cave dwelling drow who would burn down his forests if given the chance.

Suffice it to say that a paladin riding through a town doesn't just dismount his horse and donate that along with his 1500g worth of plate armor to the dirt poor peasants... But you argue that he is still good.

That same presents two children starve to death a few nights later, the paladin could have butchered his horse and saved them but you wouldn't condemn him for that.

Im not advocating for Good PCs to be pacifist.

Good PCs can use lethal force if reasonably necessary to save lives and no other option reasonably presents itself.

Again, a police officer shooting an armed suspect. A member of a defence force conducting operations to repell a foreign invader. A band of heroes storming a dragons lair to protect a villiage from its predation, or rescuing kidnapped children from a nest of Kobolds.

People in this thread are arguing for all kinds of henious acts like rape, murder (including children), torture, terrorism, genocide and worse as 'perfectly good things' or 'things a Good person could engage in'.

Im frankly appalled. If they're things a Good person can engage in willingly, then what the heck do Evil people do?

I should have expected it. Again, our hobby attracts a certain 'type'. But it saddens the crap out of me.

You really are advocating that. How many paladin characters have you ever had through games that made it through as the alignment they started as? If in an area where slavery is lawful then whatever can be done with said slaves is also lawful and generally in an area where slavery is heavily present it is also morally acceptable to do what you please unless there are rules against such actions. Having war concubines is not an old concept and was never really looked down on.

Which is precisely why the entire enlightened world has gotten rid of it.

I dont care about the past. DnD doesnt happen in the past. Faeurun isnt the past.

Even if it did/ was, all the things you mention are evil. Slavery, rape and murder were not less evil thousands of years ago. There were just more evil people.

Evil.

So here is my big question, say your party of good PC's goes out and gets to the BBEG. Just before the deathblow is thrown he drops all his weapons and ceases fighting and the party captures him (as we already know you would say it was evil if they killed him). Then the party takes BBEG back to the kingdom that hired them to begin with, does your king;

A) Execute a criminal that probably cost the kingdom lives ontop of lives as well as whatever the cost of getting the heroes involved was... or B) Puts BBEG in a cell and waits for him to get out so they can do it all over again?

If A then what is the difference between the kingdom doing it and the players doing it? If B, why?

Isidorios

2016-09-26, 12:35 AM

If A then what is the difference between the kingdom doing it and the players doing it? If B, why?

The sovereign of the land has the implicit right to dispense justice in the lands over which he has authority?
The masses implicitly accept that he's going to make judgments that affect their lives, and the fate of criminals (what ARE crimes are also determined by the sovereign).

Even the Wild West wasn't the fictional Wild West. You shot an unarmed guy, the Sheriff or the Rangers would simply hang you. Because that's what they are their for. If you are killing Bandits or Orcs inside an actual Kingdom as opposed to an untamed wilderness, you are doing so at the tolerance of the Sovereign. If you start "clearing out" towers belonging to "evil" Wizards within his kingdom, he might have serious problems with that.

Tanarii

2016-09-26, 12:45 AM

Fot any alignment discussion to be productive in any sense of the word, the participants must agree on three things:

Is morality based in actions and beliefs, or is it an objective force?
Do alignments define a character's tendency, or are they absolute characteristics?*
Are individuals capable of defying the alignment of the group to which they were born?

Without agreeing to answers to these questions, any discussion on alignment necessarily fails before it begins.luckily, 5e has already defined most these things. All you have to do is look in your PHB at Chapter 4: Personality and Background:

1) A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.
Alignment is about attitudes.

2)These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
Alignment attitudes result in typical behavior, but individuals vary, and it's not necessarily perfect nor consistent.

3) For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos. According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery.
The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.)
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.
Humans and demi-humans have free will. Many evil races have inborn tendencies but can struggle to overcome them. Celestials and fiends alignment is part of their essential nature they cannot change without ceasing to be celestials or fiends.

The only thing not answered is if Alignment is objective. Although IMO that's pretty strongly implied anywhere alignment is referenced.

Now, some people choose to completely ignore what D&D 5e has to say about Alignment being attitudes, and that the resulting typical behaviors are not perfectly or consistently followed. They choose to ignore that it's clearly a player aid to roleplaying a character, along with Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. And instead assign it some kind of action-derived system of Alignment change to a players character sheet, like some older editions had. That's fine. People are and should be free to do whatever they want in their own games. But coming into a 5e forum, and every time other players asking Alignment questions about Alignment in 5e, telling them that Alignment works in some completely different way to what the 5e base rules say, because that's how they choose to run them in their game, is BS.

MeeposFire

2016-09-26, 12:49 AM

Perhaps, but this thread is less about killing Manticores and more about "taking it too far", which is your typical social misfit/immature twit who thinks that Ramsay Bolton is a good core concept for his next character.

Outside of said Manticore eating peasants or a Horror from Hell scenario, you generally aren't obligated to "save the day" through pure hack and slash.

And yes, this game started out as clearing mazes full of miniatures, but that's some pretty PG rated cartoon violence right there.

Whether the violence is PG or not does not change the fact that violence is being used. Also discussing whether the violence is going too far means we are talking about violence. Even if everything does not have to be done by the sword I think if we are being rational can agree that a large part of this game deals with dealing out violence. It takes up most of the books for instance.

The game can have violence as a central part of the game but still have non-violent means of dealing with problems.

Isidorios

2016-09-26, 12:54 AM

Whether the violence is PG or not does not change the fact that violence is being used. Also discussing whether the violence is going too far means we are talking about violence. Even if everything does not have to be done by the sword I think if we are being rational can agree that a large part of this game deals with dealing out violence. It takes up most of the books for instance.

The game can have violence as a central part of the game but still have non-violent means of dealing with problems.

Fine, let me refine my point then. D&D isn't about GRAPHIC, questionable violence. It's about inflicting d-whatever damage to the hit point pools of dungeon denizens or wilderness critters.

When the very topic of "how far is too far?" (the OP) comes up, it is a sure sign that it's too far. At that point your game has probably become "Beavis and Butthead reinact Game of Thrones".

Malifice

2016-09-26, 01:46 AM

Violence is not always immoral, nor is it always evil and wrong (see the fact that nations have a military force).

And as Ive stated repeatedly now, there is nothing wrong about using violence to stop others doing the same - in an act of self defence or the defence of others.

Again, if a foreign army attacks you, you can engage in offensive operations (ambushes, patrols, attacks, assaults) to repel that invader. If a dragon starts terrorising the villiage, you can track it to its lair and slay it. If youre a police officer and the suspect draws a gun on you, you can shoot him. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you you can respond with lethal force if thats what is reasonably needed to defend yourself and your family.

You cant engage in a pre-emptive war of genocide and rape 'against the evil-doers'. That makes you the bad guy.

there are people that act out differently but what is and isn't moral has also change since the time of the middle ages until now.

Objective alignment is what we are taking about here. I dont care what people thought in the Middle ages of Earth. Thats subjective alignment and not relevant to the discussion.

Morals are different for every nation and every society. Things are defined differently here compared to there. As I said before, In a world with gods there are some black and white issues but they aren't that cut and dry. The LG god of the woods probably doesn't care how you treat a cave dwelling drow who would burn down his forests if given the chance.

Again, this is subjective alignment. I dont care what youre saying, its not relevant what people or 'nations' think.

Suffice it to say that a paladin riding through a town doesn't just dismount his horse and donate that along with his 1500g worth of plate armor to the dirt poor peasants... But you argue that he is still good.

He's not required to do anything of the sort. Just like an Evil PC isnt 'required' to slaughter every peasant he walks past.

You really are advocating that. How many paladin characters have you ever had through games that made it through as the alignment they started as?

All of them (barring one). But LG Paladins in my games dont engage in genocide, murder, rape, torture, slavery and child killing.

If in an area where slavery is lawful then whatever can be done with said slaves is also lawful and generally in an area where slavery is heavily present it is also morally acceptable to do what you please unless there are rules against such actions. Having war concubines is not an old concept and was never really looked down on.

Mate, in Thay its perfectly acceptable to own slaves, raise the dead as zombies, engge in torture, bigotry and so forth. That doesnt make it Good.

So here is my big question, say your party of good PC's goes out and gets to the BBEG. Just before the deathblow is thrown he drops all his weapons and ceases fighting and the party captures him (as we already know you would say it was evil if they killed him). Then the party takes BBEG back to the kingdom that hired them to begin with, does your king;

A) Execute a criminal that probably cost the kingdom lives ontop of lives as well as whatever the cost of getting the heroes involved was... or B) Puts BBEG in a cell and waits for him to get out so they can do it all over again?

If A then what is the difference between the kingdom doing it and the players doing it? If B, why?

What a hollow and (frankly) silly example. I dont know anything about the villian here, the king, why the villian is wanted, the motivations of the people involved or anything else. Your example lacks all context.

Perhaps, but this thread is less about killing Manticores and more about "taking it too far", which is your typical social misfit/immature twit who thinks that Ramsay Bolton is a good core concept for his next character.

Ramsay Bolton is LG. Says it on his character sheet. Alignment doesnt mean anything. He just does what he does for 'the greater good' of the North. Hes just acting sensibly and pragmatically.

:smallwink:

Corran

2016-09-26, 03:27 AM

Ramsay Bolton is LG. Says it on his character sheet. Alignment doesnt mean anything. He just does what he does for 'the greater good' of the North. Hes just acting sensibly and pragmatically.

:smallwink:
Couldn't resist...:smallbiggrin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJptaHqta1Q

Asmotherion

2016-09-26, 05:09 AM

the moral behind everything is subjective. If you think you are working for the greater good, even if you do something evil you are actually "chaotic good". I think it's mostly about wether you are doing something for egoistic or altrouistic reasons; Exceptions might exist though...

To be more precise, Altrouistic behavior is good
Egoistic behavior that does not cross a line and goes as far as "turning a blind eye to evil", or, not acting when having the chance to do something (either good or bad) is neutral
Crossing the line between "I want to steal this" and "I'll kill the owner to get my hands on it" is evil. On the other hand, killing someone, because he did that is good. Killing (or otherwise harming) an inocent is never good. Even if you kill a demon, just because it's a demon, and without it having given you any other reason to do so, is, best case scenario a neutral action. That's why whoever RPs as a (clasic, Lawful Good) paladin will always say something along the line of "I don't want to harm you", or "Please don't give me a reason". If said paladin attacked a demon or devil, wile that devil never did anything to harm him, his action would be neutral at best, pure evil at worst.

The only exception can be constructs or anything without a soul (such as zombies). Note that this is not a general rule for undead, as some undead do have souls (Liches, Ghosts etc).

Malifice

2016-09-26, 06:54 AM

the moral behind everything is subjective. If you think you are working for the greater good, even if you do something evil you are actually "chaotic good".

Hitler and the Nazis were CG now? Intresting theory.

And rubbish mate. If you think you're good, but do evil, then objectively you're evil. You might honestly think youre a really nice guy who just goes out and rapes and murders non believers of your LG faith for 'the greate good'. Im sure your LG god will have something to say about this on your death when you get sent straight to hell.

What you think you are is totally different to what you are.

You're confusing subjective belief with objective truth. DND alignment is objective. If it was subjective, you wouldnt need to write it down. Alignment would have no meaning other that whatver meaning you give it. You could define rape and wanton random murder of children and innocents as 'Good' (and feel free to if thats what rocks your boat). Also feel free to write down whatever alignment your character thinks he is. Next to that you can also write whatever you think your characters alignment is.

Thats not what it actually is though. Thats up the the DM, not the player. If the DM determines youre objectively evil, then you are. If he determines youre objectively good, then you are.

What he objectivley is is up to the DM.

And the PHB is clear on what Evil and Good entail. Murder, rape, genocide, torture = Evil. Compassion, kindness, charity and mercy = Good.

Maybe to you raping, murdering, killing children or whatever is 'good' as long as the rapist / murderer thinks it is good in his own head. If thats the case, forget alignments entirely. They're nothing but hollow labels that are empty of any meaning.

I mean maybe to you a sword is an axe if the person thinks it is, or the sky is green and water is dry if the person thinks it is as well. Thats very postmodern of you, but in DnD it isnt the case (or more correctly, its only the case if the DM says it is).

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 07:10 AM

D&D doesn't center on acts of violence, it centers on slaying rapacious man-eating monsters,

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or simply don't understand what the word violence means...

Violence is not always immoral, nor is it always evil and wrong (see the fact that nations have a military force).
I did not say that violence is immoral. In fact, I said that position was simplistic. Also, for the purposes of a discussion on morality, the terms immoral, evil, and wrong are essentially exchangeable. Oh, and pointing to military forces as evidence of violence as potentially moral is a very bad argument. You're basically saying that because the world is currently x, x is desirable.

Yes, there are people that act out differently but what is and isn't moral has also change since the time of the middle ages until now. Morals are different for every nation and every society. Things are defined differently here compared to there.
Try telling that to a moral absolutist. Also, you're really just substituting social acceptance into morality's place, which is a fairly lazy way to define it. Besides which, if you want to actually operate on a system of morals, treating cultural norms as necessarily moral will consistently undermine your ability to act in a consistent and coherent manner.

As I said before, In a world with gods there are some black and white issues but they aren't that cut and dry. The LG god of the woods probably doesn't care how you treat a cave dwelling drow who would burn down his forests if given the chance.
The lawful aspect of the LG god (why would there be an LG nature god?) implies that he would absolutely care about how you treat the drow. Specifically, he would care that you treat him lawfully.

MeeposFire

2016-09-26, 12:33 PM

Fine, let me refine my point then. D&D isn't about GRAPHIC, questionable violence. It's about inflicting d-whatever damage to the hit point pools of dungeon denizens or wilderness critters.

When the very topic of "how far is too far?" (the OP) comes up, it is a sure sign that it's too far. At that point your game has probably become "Beavis and Butthead reinact Game of Thrones".

I would agree that D&D does not use extreme graphic violence as a central tenant. Violence yes but the graphic level of violence is determined game by game so the level of violence is not held to any actual standard by default.

Xetheral

2016-09-26, 01:53 PM

Its fair to say that Ripley was acting in reasonable self defence there (standing in a next of Alien eggs, with the lot of you about to be vaporised). If you recall correctly, the Queen had an egg pop open after their little 'truce' was declared and Ripley was backing off.

And Alien 'children' are facesuckers that are exceptionally deadly (not harmless noncombatants). Ripley was surrounded by eggs full of them. As soon as one popped open, she was acting in reasonable self defence.

Ripley is NG through and through.

Are we calling the Xenomorph truly sentient though? You cant give the Alien an alignment other than N. They kill, eat and reproduce. Like any other animal.

So, am I correct in interpreting that you believe that killing children in self-defense does not count as murder?

This is what makes things tricky in d&d pc's commit murder on a regular basis. Oh you scouted ahead and found a possible ambush? should we talk with them and see if we can sort things out or sneak attack?
THATS NOT MURDER!

Argh!

Am I correct in interpreting that you believe that pre-emptively attacking those who intend to ambush you counts as self-defense? As I understand it, that is not the case, at least in common-law countries. Or do you believe that it counts as self-defense from an ethical standpoint, and feel that the law in such countries is not a good reflection of morality?

smcmike

2016-09-26, 02:19 PM

Am I correct in interpreting that you believe that pre-emptively attacking those who intend to ambush you counts as self-defense? As I understand it, that is not the case, at least in common-law countries. Or do you believe that it counts as self-defense from an ethical standpoint, and feel that the law in such countries is not a good reflection of morality?

This is a critical question (for anyone who wants to play with Mal). He draws a very hard line, but it isn't always clear where it is drawn. Getting the drop on enemies is a core strategy of D&D, but it's also murder in the modern civilian context. Obviously, the modern civilian context isn't the right measuring stick, but Mal likes to talk about murder, which is primarily a legal term, used in the civilian context.

DwarvenGM

2016-09-26, 02:45 PM

Kydo

2016-09-26, 02:55 PM

This is a critical question (for anyone who wants to play with Mal). He draws a very hard line, but it isn't always clear where it is drawn. Getting the drop on enemies is a core strategy of D&D, but it's also murder in the modern civilian context. Obviously, the modern civilian context isn't the right measuring stick, but Mal likes to talk about murder, which is primarily a legal term, used in the civilian context.

Thank you. This is sort of what I've been trying to say the whole time.

I used one example where a paladin executes a condemned murderer after he surrendered to the party for his crimes.

Mal says this is evil and the paladin will fall because he's murdering. This is carrying out a law on a condemned criminal but is clearly evil because you are killing someone who surrendered (even though if you deliver him back to where they want him he's going to be killed). Also should this man get free while you are transporting him he may well kill more people, possibly one of your own friends. Evil. Right, got it.

I use an example where a paladin meets a family that is starving and doesn't give them anything and the two children in the family starve to death a day or so later.

Mal says this is fine, he's not required to. By his own repeated definition of good this is nothing compassionate nor charitable and as a direct result people die.

The inconsistencies with which he is judging things baffles me.

That said, Anagram you are correct I could have chosen a much better idea to use as a basis. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to put this, in Rome it was never considered an immoral thing to own slaves the entire society was based off of it. Was all of Rome evil? That might depend on who you ask. What did Rome do for the world, advanced technology to a point that we require them in history to be where we are now.

What makes me curious the most though is that he has stated that capital punishment is evil. So do his kingdoms just lock people away in small rooms for the rest of their lives when they get caught if said kingdom is a LG one? Do they put them to work in mines, or doing some form of pseudo community service (slavery)? What happens. It's a matter of locking them up can be nice but in a world with magic if they were worth sending heroes after they are probably worth breaking out to, which has only deferred the problem to someone else.

Further we can look at something like Game of Thrones. When Robert took over the seven kingdoms what was the first thing they tried to do? Wipe out all of the Targaryens. Men, women, and children. This wasn't because he was being evil, this was because it needed to happen to prevent another huge war. Now this war is coming back for him because they didn't manage to kill Daenerys and Viserys. Now if these two had died and a war not been on the horizon how many people would it have saved?

Maxilian

2016-09-26, 03:09 PM

So, D&D has that awesome logic of evil aligned = evil outsider (at least 3.5 had), this means that you can basically genocide every evil aligned creature with your own hands (I know that good aligned scimitar dual-wielding exceptions may exist), but when is it too far?

For example, I don't know if I am a psychopath but I think that crushing kobold hatcheries, setting fire to goblinoid nurseries and killing orcish children isn't evil, do you think that any of these actions would be considered an evil act?

Depends on the reason, if they are done for the heck of it, its evil, but if its done because they trully believe that what they are doing is for good, then its ok (Note: That would apply to any type of hatchlings and/or babies :P)

smcmike

2016-09-26, 03:12 PM

in Rome it was never considered an immoral thing to own slaves the entire society was based off of it. Was all of Rome evil? That might depend on who you ask. What did Rome do for the world, advanced technology to a point that we require them in history to be where we are now.

What makes me curious the most though is that he has stated that capital punishment is evil. So do his kingdoms just lock people away in small rooms for the rest of their lives when they get caught if said kingdom is a LG one? Do they put them to work in mines, or doing some form of pseudo community service (slavery)? What happens. It's a matter of locking them up can be nice but in a world with magic if they were worth sending heroes after they are probably worth breaking out to, which has only deferred the problem to someone else.

Further we can look at something like Game of Thrones. When Robert took over the seven kingdoms what was the first thing they tried to do? Wipe out all of the Targaryens. Men, women, and children. This wasn't because he was being evil, this was because it needed to happen to prevent another huge war. Now this war is coming back for him because they didn't manage to kill Daenerys and Viserys. Now if these two had died and a war not been on the horizon how many people would it have saved?

The short answer to these sorts of questions is that every country in the history of this world (and every other possible world) has been evil.

I don't propose this answer as some sort of ridiculous slippery slope argument. Actually, this answer is very hard to avoid, and consistent with a lot of religious and philosophical thought, to the extent that they have such thing as "Evil."

Asmotherion

2016-09-26, 03:13 PM

Hitler and the Nazis were CG now? Intresting theory.

And rubbish mate. If you think you're good, but do evil, then objectively you're evil. You might honestly think youre a really nice guy who just goes out and rapes and murders non believers of your LG faith for 'the greate good'. Im sure your LG god will have something to say about this on your death when you get sent straight to hell.

What you think you are is totally different to what you are.

You're confusing subjective belief with objective truth. DND alignment is objective. If it was subjective, you wouldnt need to write it down. Alignment would have no meaning other that whatver meaning you give it. You could define rape and wanton random murder of children and innocents as 'Good' (and feel free to if thats what rocks your boat). Also feel free to write down whatever alignment your character thinks he is. Next to that you can also write whatever you think your characters alignment is.

Thats not what it actually is though. Thats up the the DM, not the player. If the DM determines youre objectively evil, then you are. If he determines youre objectively good, then you are.

What he objectivley is is up to the DM.

And the PHB is clear on what Evil and Good entail. Murder, rape, genocide, torture = Evil. Compassion, kindness, charity and mercy = Good.

Maybe to you raping, murdering, killing children or whatever is 'good' as long as the rapist / murderer thinks it is good in his own head. If thats the case, forget alignments entirely. They're nothing but hollow labels that are empty of any meaning.

I mean maybe to you a sword is an axe if the person thinks it is, or the sky is green and water is dry if the person thinks it is as well. Thats very postmodern of you, but in DnD it isnt the case (or more correctly, its only the case if the DM says it is).

You either didn't see or purposely left out the part were I say "killing inocents is NEVER good".

What I mean by the above statement is this: Let's say a handfull of adventurers get to follow a questline, that is supposed to make the world a better place by doing some purification rituals (that do not involve killing inocent people). For the example's sake, the rituals are about destroying 10 seals that are guarded by some elementals.

What the players do not know however, is that they were actually tricked by a devil that posed as an angel, to destroy the 10 seals that prevent Asmodeus from comming to earth.

Those players are still Good aligned, even if what they did was evil, because their original purpose was to do something good.

Your example on Adolf on the other hand, is someone who

A) Killed millions of inocents
B) Was not working for the greater good, but for the good of his country (and mostly his ego, but let's just go with the good of his country). The good of his countly (as he saw it) was actually an egoistical pretext, as in the end what he did was harmfull to every other country in the world, AND harmful to his country as it divided it in two. So, actually, as I said his motivations were egoistical, as he put everyone else's benefit after his own (which was to be remembered as someone who purged the earth of filth, as he thought).

In any case, the line of evil (in my oppinion) is crossed when inocents are harmed.
Harming someone who is ready to fight back, or someone who is a warrior by trade, is neutral; He endered the "dance" on his own free will, so it's not evil to harm someone who lives to fight (at least in a fair fight).
Trying to avoid violance, or at least trying to avoid violance that ends up in death is good. A really good character will kill only if he has no other choice.

Maxilian

2016-09-26, 03:14 PM

Finieous

2016-09-26, 03:34 PM

Assume your setting effectively exists in a state of perpetual war, and "good" characters can then simply apply the principles of "right conduct in war" (jus in bello):

Distinction: Violence should be directed at enemy combatants; but

Proportionality: Harm caused to non-combatants (by "distinction," unintentional) should not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from an attack on a legitimate military objective.

Necessity: The action is not gratuitous but is meant to defeat the enemy.

Fair Treatment of POWs: No torture or other mistreatment.

No Means "Evil in Themselves": No mass rape, ethnic cleansing, human shields, use of uncontrollable weapons.

Now you can preemptively attack those enemy combatants who are planning to ambush you. But no torturing afterwards.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 03:51 PM

Finieous

2016-09-26, 03:56 PM

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 04:00 PM

I'd say good-evil covers personal conduct, and law-chaos is political alignment. That is, the latter signals your beliefs about just relations for polities (family, clan, community, state) and between individuals and polities.

So your opinion is that the Good-Evil spectrum refers to your adherence to moral codes, while the Law-Chaos spectrum is more about political beliefs? So the CG player aspires to moral anarchy?

Finieous

2016-09-26, 04:40 PM

So your opinion is that the Good-Evil spectrum refers to your adherence to moral codes, while the Law-Chaos spectrum is more about political beliefs? So the CG player aspires to moral anarchy?

No... I think what I said is pretty close to the PHB: "one [axis] identifies morality (good, evil, neutral) and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, neutral)."

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "moral anarchy." I presume a chaotic good character would adhere to something like the principles of just conduct in war in their use of violence, and would also value freedom, liberty and individualism to a greater extent than social order and established tradition. As far as relations between polities, likewise, I'd expect a chaotic character to be more non-interventionist, as they would apply those same values of liberty and individualism to other clans or states. "Live and let live."

Again, one axis governs personal conduct; the other governs relations between the individual and the polity and relations between polities.

smcmike

2016-09-26, 05:18 PM

So your opinion is that the Good-Evil spectrum refers to your adherence to moral codes, while the Law-Chaos spectrum is more about political beliefs? So the CG player aspires to moral anarchy?

This is a way of thinking about it that bugs me. Neither Law/Chaos nor Good/Evil are necessarily some sort of intentional philosophical aspiration. They might have nothing at all to do with one's beliefs. You can believe that something is morally repugnant even as you do it.

Xetheral

2016-09-26, 05:20 PM

No... I think what I said is pretty close to the PHB: "one [axis] identifies morality (good, evil, neutral) and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, neutral)."

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "moral anarchy." I presume a chaotic good character would adhere to something like the principles of just conduct in war in their use of violence, and would also value freedom, liberty and individualism to a greater extent than social order and established tradition. As far as relations between polities, likewise, I'd expect a chaotic character to be more non-interventionist, as they would apply those same values of liberty and individualism to other clans or states. "Live and let live."

Again, one axis governs personal conduct; the other governs relations between the individual and the polity and relations between polities.

I like this a lot.

It does produce the seemingly-ironic outcome that the scale of interventionism starts with "least likely to intervene in outsiders' affairs" at CG, then moves counter-clockwise to LG, then LE, and ending with CE polities as the "most likely to intervene in outsiders' affairs" (because neither morality nor tradition nor treaties nor anything else except fear of repercussions stands in the way of intervention). Despite the irony, the more I think about it, the more I agree with it.

Tanarii

2016-09-26, 05:27 PM

This is a way of thinking about it that bugs me. Neither Law/Chaos nor Good/Evil are necessarily some sort of intentional philosophical aspiration. They might have nothing at all to do with one's beliefs. You can believe that something is morally repugnant even as you do it.That's why 5e Alignment is about attitudes, but doesn't require them to be strictly adhered to 100% of the time, that few people are consistent or perfectly adhere to their alignment precepts. That allows Alignment to be not just about what the person espouses to believe, but the core of their sub-concious personality that drives how they act. In other words, their "real" moral (and social order) motivations, regardless of what they claim they believe. Of course, that language also allows for other personality traits to work in conjunction with Alignment to form the entirety of the character's motivations, instead of being a one-dimensional caricature.

Edit: IMO. Obviously I'm not a dev. So this is definitely IMO.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 05:31 PM

No... I think what I said is pretty close to the PHB: "one [axis] identifies morality (good, evil, neutral) and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, neutral)."

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "moral anarchy." I presume a chaotic good character would adhere to something like the principles of just conduct in war in their use of violence, and would also value freedom, liberty and individualism to a greater extent than social order and established tradition. As far as relations between polities, likewise, I'd expect a chaotic character to be more non-interventionist, as they would apply those same values of liberty and individualism to other clans or states. "Live and let live."

Again, one axis governs personal conduct; the other governs relations between the individual and the polity and relations between polities.

Gotcha. So, let's apply this theory of morality in gameplay scenarios.

In a land that once experienced a major Illithid incursion, the party investigates a large town at the behest of the local ruler. Over the course of the investigation, you discover that at least one person in the town was under the control of an Intellect Devourer, and you know the standard protocol the ruler would enact if he learned this would be to exterminate the town.

Is it moral for the players to treat that town as an acceptable loss to prevent another mindplague, or does a minor genocide fall under Means Evil in and of Themselves?

I love alignment discussions with firm bases from which to work!

Finieous

2016-09-26, 05:33 PM

Shaofoo

2016-09-26, 05:36 PM

You know I always wondered how silly it would be to talk about the moral ethics of killing goblin babies while one is covered in the entrails of their parents.

If killing goblin babies is supposed to be evil then killing goblins is evil, this is just killing on the basis of race and nothing else.

The only way that I can reason is that people take "good and evil" into some sort of sportsmanship where good is "giving a fair chance" which while I would suspect that a good character would do I don't think that it would extrapolate to "Set a minimum age to kill Goblins".

Finieous

2016-09-26, 05:38 PM

Is it moral for the players to treat that town as an acceptable loss to prevent another mindplague, or does a minor genocide fall under Means Evil in and of Themselves?

No, that obviously wouldn't adhere to the distinction, proportionality or malum in se principles. But you could confront some thorny dilemmas surrounding the enforcement of a quarantine.

smcmike

2016-09-26, 05:46 PM

Chaotic good is "live and let live." Chaotic evil is "live and let die." :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, I described chaotic good as valuing freedom, liberty and individualism, and then extending those values to relations between polities.

On the other hand, couldn't you say that the act of extending values to polities is what moves you from "chaotic" to "lawful?"

Here's a counterexample: Two PCs walk down the street, one LG, one CG. They see a man beating a mule. The LG character may want to stop him, but realizes that the law and custom of the community gives him no standing to do so, and avoids confrontation. The CG character slugs the mule-beater in the face.

Xetheral

2016-09-26, 05:53 PM

Chaotic good is "live and let live." Chaotic evil is "live and let die." :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, I described chaotic good as valuing freedom, liberty and individualism, and then extending those values to relations between polities. And that's kind of a "good" way of framing it. Restricting ourselves to the "chaotic" alignment more broadly, and framing it more neutrally, we'd come up with something like "values self-determination and freedom from restraint, both in relations between the individual and the social group and between social groups." Pair that with "evil" on the morality axis and take it to the extreme, you get psychopaths who not only don't recognize but probably can't even understand any constraints on their own desires or impulses. Extended to relationships between social groups...they just want to watch the world burn.

It really is quite insightful. I'd always assumed interventionism would map pretty well with the Law/Chaos axis, where Chaos was more likely to intervene because concepts of national borders or treaties would be irrelevant. As I saw it, the chaotic good polity would cheerfully raid the slaveholding nation next door based simply on principles of morality, unconstrained like the LG polity would be. But you've introduced a compelling argument that CG would apply its love of individualism at the polity level too, and thus be less interventionist than LG. It's a lot of fun to think about.

Do you see your position as setting up potential conflict between individual CG citizens (bent on freeing their oppressed neighbors) and the collective interest of their polity (determined to respect other groups' autonomy)? Or do you see the interest in respecting foreign autonomy as applying at the individual level as well?

Kydo

2016-09-26, 06:04 PM

This is getting to be a good read now. There is one other thing that hasn't really been touched on yet as well.

Does a good person so being a good person stop being a good person because they do one thing that is evil?

Or in another question say you have a vampire that is somehow good. Is that vampire evil because his food chain demands he feed on humans?

Then we have illithid who have to eat the brains of sentient creatures to survive. They implant offspring into other creatures to turn them into new mind flayers. This is what they have to do to continue as a species are they inherently evil?

Tanarii

2016-09-26, 06:08 PM

Does a good person so being a good person stop being a good person because they do one thing that is evil?
Are we talking about 5e Alignment here? Previous editions (which were considerably different)? Or opinions on good and evil in the real-world?

Kydo

2016-09-26, 06:17 PM

Let's say both 5 and previous.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 06:19 PM

No, that obviously wouldn't adhere to the distinction, proportionality or malum in se principles. But you could confront some thorny dilemmas surrounding the enforcement of a quarantine.

Okay, but why? I should have said earlier, but in this hypothetical a single breach in quarantine can be an existential threat to human civilization. That's millions of lives levied against thousands. What is your justification for your response?

Tanarii

2016-09-26, 06:27 PM

Let's say both 5 and previous.In that case, the answer for 5e is there is only one action defined as evil: raising the dead. And the rules just say that good characters won't do it regularly. Other than that, 5e Alignment isn't determined by actions. Instead, it provides a player with typical, but not perfect nor consistent general behavior, that they can use to inform their action choices. Likewise, there isn't a mechanism for PC alignment change due to actions.

In other words, your question doesn't make any sense for 5e Alignment.

Edit: Alternately, the answer is: the player, possibly in conjunction with or at prompting from the DM, decides when actions determine they should change their alignment due to actions that don't fit it. As far as I know there's nothing saying a player can't change their alignment if they decide that fits in-game events.

Shaofoo

2016-09-26, 06:41 PM

Or in another question say you have a vampire that is somehow good. Is that vampire evil because his food chain demands he feed on humans?

Most forms of vampirism either have alternate ways to feed (animals) or ask for permission to feed and make extra sure not to kill the host. Also vampirism can be inflicted unwillingly on the host. So alignment can play into how would a vampire feed

Then we have illithid who have to eat the brains of sentient creatures to survive. They implant offspring into other creatures to turn them into new mind flayers. This is what they have to do to continue as a species are they inherently evil?

Some consider them to be aberrant and thus the views of morality should not apply to anything that one might not consider "natural".

Just to make sure D&D wholly agrees with the concept "Killing certain races is acceptable" (open up the MM and read up on some of the race descriptions), note that THIS IS NOT "Killing certain races is good" but that there is some distinctions between races that makes them acceptable targets.

By D&D logic, yes illithids are purely evil and probably irredeemable because their biology is incompatible with how should a good person act, see aberrant before.

Finieous

2016-09-26, 07:14 PM

On the other hand, couldn't you say that the act of extending values to polities is what moves you from "chaotic" to "lawful?"

Well, I'd say both political alignments extend (maybe "expand" is a better word?) to relations between polities. If you're chaotic, you'll be more supportive of the self-determination of other states (e.g. libertarianism). If you're lawful, you'll be more supportive of imposing or constructing (through diplomacy, political alliance, trade, international institutions, etc.) a multi-state or international order.

Here's a counterexample: Two PCs walk down the street, one LG, one CG. They see a man beating a mule. The LG character may want to stop him, but realizes that the law and custom of the community gives him no standing to do so, and avoids confrontation. The CG character slugs the mule-beater in the face.

I don't think we have enough information, since these are broad categories. As a general rule, I'd say the chaotic good character is less likely to intervene. "It's no business of mine how a man treats his mule." However, the character's particular brand of chaotic political alignment might set limits on individual liberty and self-determination; he might set that line at intentionally inflicting harm on another creature, since he's specifically chaotic good. A different chaotic good character might set the line at intentional harm of another person, and therefore would only intervene if the man were beating his wife (for example).

If mule-beating is legal and also the custom of the community, perhaps the lawful good character feels compelled to purchase the mule from its abusive owner -- a legal and socially acceptable way to resolve a moral conflict. But he'd also be concerned with reforming the law and local custom so that such cruelties weren't permitted in the future.

Do you see your position as setting up potential conflict between individual CG citizens (bent on freeing their oppressed neighbors) and the collective interest of their polity (determined to respect other groups' autonomy)? Or do you see the interest in respecting foreign autonomy as applying at the individual level as well?

I'm not totally sure I'm tracking the question. I wouldn't really assign alignments to polities -- just the people that comprise them. Obviously, absent controls, the alignments of the people in power will largely determine the collective actions of the polity. But I don't think chaotic goods are typically going to be "bent on freeing their oppressed neighbors," depending on how you define "neighbors." Mal Reynolds isn't much concerned about overthrowing the tyrannical Alliance and liberating the core worlds. He just wants them to leave him and his alone. As a rule of thumb, I'd say a chaotic good character would be increasingly less interested in "liberating" someone the further away from himself that person was: self, family, clan, community, tribe, nation........foreign nation. If you make it across those ellipses, the "good" -- your moral compass -- is really starting to outweigh your political alignment and you're at least headed toward "neutral good." If you make "the liberation of others, everywhere" the cause of your life, you're well into "lawful good."

I'm not even sure that answered your question. :smallbiggrin:

smcmike

2016-09-26, 07:39 PM

Well, I'd say both political alignments extend (maybe "expand" is a better word?) to relations between polities. If you're chaotic, you'll be more supportive of the self-determination of other states (e.g. libertarianism). If you're lawful, you'll be more supportive of imposing or constructing (through diplomacy, political alliance, trade, international institutions, etc.) a multi-state or international order.

I don't think the extension to international politics works.

For an example, let's take the original text on the subject: The Peloponnesian War. In broad strokes, the Athenians were the empire builders and the Spartans were a sort of conservative ultranationalist state who opposed empires in principle. Does that mean that Spartans were more chaotic than Athenians? That would be a very strange outcome, considering that they were mostly famous for rigid discipline and devotion to the state, while the Athenians wrote comedies and did philosophy.

I get what you're saying - yeah, anarchists don't like trade deals. But they also don't necessarily like nationalist isolationism - they are anarchists - they don't like STATES.

I don't think we have enough information, since these are broad categories. As a general rule, I'd say the chaotic good character is less likely to intervene. "It's no business of mine how a man treats his mule."

This does not sound like a Good stance to me. If you are good, suffering is offensive to you. If you are chaotic, and you see something offensive, there is nothing holding you back from doing something about it.

If mule-beating is legal and also the custom of the community, perhaps the lawful good character feels compelled to purchase the mule from its abusive owner -- a legal and socially acceptable way to resolve a moral conflict. But he'd also be concerned with reforming the law and local custom so that such cruelties weren't permitted in the future.

Yes, true enough. But let's assume for this hypothetical that the mule-beater is enraged and just wants to beat the poor animal to death.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-26, 08:10 PM

This does not sound like a Good stance to me. If you are good, suffering is offensive to you. If you are chaotic, and you see something offensive, there is nothing holding you back from doing something about it.
...
Yes, true enough. But let's assume for this hypothetical that the mule-beater is enraged and just wants to beat the poor animal to death.
Just to jump in here- IMO purchasing the mule seems like more of a chaotic-good solution in that it resolves the immediate problem in the short term in a kind-of round about manner. Getting the law changed seems like the lawful solution in that it's working within the system for a longer-term solution.

To me, the idea of being lawful means you see the laws (or customs) and everything that supports it as being a source of good. Sometimes the laws aren't perfect but that means that the laws need fixing. Being chaotic on the other hand means you view laws as a stifling bureaucracy at best and tyranny at worst, that gets in the way of people acting quickly to resolve problems effectively and efficiently.
Chaotic good vs. Lawful good is hard to define in a vacuum I think- you really only see the biggest differences when you compare them to each other.

Edit: I feel like I am treading dangerously close to the "no real-world morality" rule here but I'm going to press on regardless. [damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!]
If you wanted to compare law and chaos to more modern concepts, I kind of look at Chaotic characters as progressive and Lawful character as conservative. A Chaotic character thinks that we need to keep moving forward to build a better world based on our constantly evolving ideas of what's good or what's right. A Lawful character relies on rules and customs to guide our actions and prevent us from being lead astray or from falling to corruption. And neither character is always right all the time, but being strongly lawful or strongly chaotic (again, IMO) means that you are less willing to see how the other side is applicable in a given situation than a neutral-good character would be.
Finally, my sentiments here only apply to a fantasy world were we are making up the rules, inventing characters, and there are many black-and-white examples of pure good and evil. One should not attempt to extrapolate this into real-world ethics or morality.

Millstone85

2016-09-26, 08:35 PM

Whether an "evil race" is entirely made of villains or just experiences a stronger pull toward wickedness, the very concept is a validation of racism in the fantasy world. It would make for interesting discussions if it wasn't so uncomfortable.

Also feel free to write down whatever alignment your character thinks he is. Next to that you can also write whatever you think your characters alignment is.

Thats not what it actually is though. Thats up the the DM, not the player.Call me crazy but I still think that's an excellent idea. Are you playing a villain who thinks they are a hero, a kind soul who has been judging themself too harshly, or a believer in neutrality who is too selfish or too selfless to ever reach that ideal? Those are useful questions for character creation. And if the character is ever faced with any form of divine judgment, from being able to pull the sword in the stone to being thrown into Hell, that's when you know what the DM thinks of your character's alignment.

The DM should also remember that even if objective forces of good and evil exist in the multiverse, the Moral Compass of Outer Plane Attunement is probably an extremely rare artifact. It is possible for the local townspeople to share a character's delusions of lawful goodness.

Then we have illithid who have to eat the brains of sentient creatures to survive. They implant offspring into other creatures to turn them into new mind flayers. This is what they have to do to continue as a species are they inherently evil?I kind of like the idea of an illithid becoming an alhoon to escape that predicament, only to be told by humans that undeath is just as evil because reasons.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-26, 09:00 PM

Addaran

2016-09-26, 09:33 PM

By D&D logic, yes illithids are purely evil and probably irredeemable because their biology is incompatible with how should a good person act, see aberrant before.

A point could be made for illithids. Theoretically, they are more intelligent/advanced then humans (at least in older editions since they didn't have the "cap" of 20 in a stat). Them eating humans would be the same as us eating animals. And using humans as slaves would be akind to humans using mules to carry a merchant's cart.

We like to relate to humans because that's what we are, but even in fantasy, humans are often invaders. They go somewhere inhabited, steal the land and resources, then label the ex-owner evil when they try to protect what is theirs. A few generations later, the other race is forced to raid humans to survive and is now an always "evil" race. (example, most adventurers probably won't think twice before killing lizardfolks, even though they are neutral).

Kydo

2016-09-26, 09:35 PM

Deepbluediver

2016-09-26, 09:49 PM

Is he evil for not letting himself die?
For that alone, I'd say "no", but it seems like you're constantly walking a knife's edge. If you can find someone sufficiently evil to be deserving of death that the demon will accept in your place, then you can probably skate by for a while. But killing people (even wicked people) to extend your own life instead of for justice or because it's the right thing to do makes me think that overall your actions aren't "good" either. And if you kill even 1 person who's innocent (or at least not guilty enough to deserve death) then you're probably screwed.

This is of course predicated on the basis that, in your setting, one life is always equal to another. In this sense, your life is not more valuable than another non-evil person's life. I have met people on occasion who would at least consider the possibility that someone like a paladin or cleric (or just a lawful good character) could sacrifice someone else to save themselves and not be immediately considered evil if the net gain is that they are doing more "good" acts in the long run. I.e. "I go out and slay dragons and liches and demons and stuff, and that's objectively better for good as a whole than some orphan who spends all day begging for food". However that's a highly utilitarian viewpoint, and even if it's logical, it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Ultimately it's probably going to boil down to what the deities (aka the GM) define good and evil as in your setting.

Malifice

2016-09-26, 10:00 PM

So, am I correct in interpreting that you believe that killing children in self-defense does not count as murder?

No, I dont view Alien facesuckers as 'children'. They're not non-combatants.

They're mindless killing machines that cant be reasoned with or redeemed.

Am I correct in interpreting that you believe that pre-emptively attacking those who intend to ambush you counts as self-defense?

First let me ask: Are there any other options reasonably available to you in the circumstances to resolve the issue without violence and killing, or allowing innocents to die?

RickAllison

2016-09-26, 10:06 PM

No, I dont view Alien facesuckers as 'children'. They're not non-combatants.

They're mindless killing machines that cant be reasoned with or redeemed.

First let me ask: Are there any other options reasonably available to you in the circumstances to resolve the issue without violence and killing, or allowing innocents to die?

How do you know? You are talking about attacking without warning. To check for the alternative options is to ruin your chance for surprise.

Shaofoo

2016-09-26, 10:10 PM

A point could be made for illithids. Theoretically, they are more intelligent/advanced then humans (at least in older editions since they didn't have the "cap" of 20 in a stat). Them eating humans would be the same as us eating animals. And using humans as slaves would be akind to humans using mules to carry a merchant's cart.

We like to relate to humans because that's what we are, but even in fantasy, humans are often invaders. They go somewhere inhabited, steal the land and resources, then label the ex-owner evil when they try to protect what is theirs. A few generations later, the other race is forced to raid humans to survive and is now an always "evil" race. (example, most adventurers probably won't think twice before killing lizardfolks, even though they are neutral).

By your logic demons and devils are also not evil because they can be more intelligent/advanced than humans as well. Of course morality is relevant on the race, I am sure the chaotic evil orc thinks that elves are pure evil because of their genetic hatred towards them.

But I don't think that "humans are often invaders" is a common trope. Sure they can invade but I am going by what the book directly says about them not that every gnoll, kobold and orc is actually a displaced race by evil humans.

Shaofoo

2016-09-26, 10:21 PM

I've played a character in the past that was the best person perhaps in the world.

When there were people in need he would do what he could to help, usually asking them to preform some task that could be translated to work and then pay them well for it, teach a man to fish and so on. He bought a pair of slaves and their sole duties were tending his things and preparing food. For that service they slept in actual beds (so long as the party was in a location that permitted), ate their fill of food, and were provided with a weekly allotment of coin to buy things they wanted for themselves. When his traveling and campaign was over he set them free, having taught them to read and write, given them a firm understanding of economics, and even the skills to defend themselves should the need arise. Further they were sent away with no little amount of coin for some two years of good service.

In towns he visited he paid heed to the shrines and paid tax and tithe where it was required, often donating more than needed to locations that seemed as they they had need of such donation.

Even as a noble born he did not weigh and wave his rank over those around him. Instead he listened and acted as a rational man should.

Thing was, as part of the character he was stillborn. His mother made a pact with a devil (or demon don't remember now) to make her child live. In exchange for this once the child reached the age of 14 he would have to kill a sentient creature and preform a ritual to deliver the soul to the creature or he himself would die. Self-preservation being what it is, he did just that once every three months.

Is he evil for not letting himself die?

While I am not sure in 5e but in previous editions messing with someone's soul (even your own) is big bold Evil and unpardonable. Your guy would be branded E no question and no good or even neutral aligned being would want to deal with you, no matter how many brownie points you would accumulate. You mess with the natural order, the good farmer that would've gone to a great celestial reward for his good deeds and instead gets to spend torment in hell for nothing that he did is considered the greatest sin anyone in D&D can commit. This is why even becoming a Lich is pure evil since you are preventing your soul from actually getting what it deserves.

Of course you could argue that your guy would only sacrifice people that would've gone to hell anyway but according to D&D logic he is fooE and nothing can change that.

Malifice

2016-09-26, 10:23 PM

Let's say a handfull of adventurers get to follow a questline, that is supposed to make the world a better place by doing some purification rituals (that do not involve killing inocent people). For the example's sake, the rituals are about destroying 10 seals that are guarded by some elementals.

What the players do not know however, is that they were actually tricked by a devil that posed as an angel, to destroy the 10 seals that prevent Asmodeus from comming to earth.

Those players are still Good aligned, even if what they did was evil, because their original purpose was to do something good.

Of course they're still good aligned! Being tricked into releasing a demon in an effort to save others selflessly is in no way evil.

I would assume those Good PCs would be wracked with guilt, and would proceed to do everything in their power to undo their mistake.

Your example on Adolf on the other hand, is someone who

A) Killed millions of inocents
B) Was not working for the greater good

Innocent to whom, and whose greater good?

Remember, from Hitler and the German peoples perspective, Jewish people, and indeed most of Europe and the world were conspiring to destroy Germany. There was a 'Zionist conspiracy' where 'the Jews' were aligned with both the 'American and European banks' and 'Russian communists' to destroy 'the noble Arayan culture and race.'

From Hitlers POV, he was acting for the 'greater good'. Just like with every genocial madman ever. Pol Pot in Cambodia only did what he did (slaughter millions) for 'the greater good'. Hundreds of thousands of people were vaporised at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for 'the greater good'. Terrorists and IS throw people off bridges, and barbarically massacre people daily for 'the greater good'. The guys flying the planes on 9/11 did it for 'the greater good'. Japan only invaded China and the rest of Asia (and Pearl Harbor) to create an 'East Asian Co-prosperity sphere' for the 'greater good'. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Im not saying any of these acts were good. I'm just saying every single mass horrific act done ever was done 'for the greater good' by a man who genuinely thinks he is the good and righteous man, and his victims are evildoers, or 'sad but necessery victims in his quest for the greater good'.

In any case, the line of evil (in my oppinion) is crossed when inocents are harmed.

Inocents as defined by whom exactly? By the one doing the killing? Or is there some objective standard that applies?

Trying to avoid violance, or at least trying to avoid violance that ends up in death is good. A really good character will kill only if he has no other choice.

On this we agree.

Thank you. This is sort of what I've been trying to say the whole time.

I used one example where a paladin executes a condemned murderer after he surrendered to the party for his crimes.

Mal says this is evil and the paladin will fall because he's murdering.

Its not murder if its a lawful killing.

Im saying that a Paladin should reject laws that are unjust. He is not compelled (for example) to go along with laws that mandate slavery, or laws that strip a woman of all rights and allow her to be raped at will.

If a villian surrenders, and repents, he should be given an opportunity to atone. I would expect a Paladin to object to any order to kill the man after the fact.

I use an example where a paladin meets a family that is starving and doesn't give them anything and the two children in the family starve to death a day or so later.

And I rubutted that argument. The Paladin generally should seek to help them if possible, and should show genuine sympathy and kindness. But he's not required to help every starving orphan he walks past, just like an evil person isnt required to murder every person he walks past.

What makes me curious the most though is that he has stated that capital punishment is evil.

Thats because it is. There is a reason why every single developed and enlightened nation in the world (barring one) has done away with it.

So do his kingdoms just lock people away in small rooms for the rest of their lives when they get caught if said kingdom is a LG one?

LG kingdoms are very rare. Most tend towards LN.

And yes, a LG Kingdom doest practice capital punishment. Or slavery.

Further we can look at something like Game of Thrones. When Robert took over the seven kingdoms what was the first thing they tried to do? Wipe out all of the Targaryens. Men, women, and children. This wasn't because he was being evil, this was because it needed to happen to prevent another huge war.

Robert wasnt LG. If anything, he's depicted as CN.

smcmike

2016-09-26, 10:24 PM

Malifice

2016-09-26, 10:32 PM

How do you know? You are talking about attacking without warning. To check for the alternative options is to ruin your chance for surprise.

What the hell are you on about?

They're face suckers. Mindless killing machines. Why do I have to shout a warning to a mindless killing machine? How is that a reasonable thing to do? Why on earth would anyone try and bargain with it, show it mercy, or take it home to raise it in a goodly way in the hope it redeems itself?

As hillarious as the later would be.

Blasting a face sucker to kingdom come is a perfectly reasonable and proportionate response to the imminent and direct threat it poses.

How are you comparing a newly born human (or orcish) child (sentient, non combatant, poses zero threat, can choose good or evil, harmless) to an Alien facesucker (mindless, killing machine, lethal, combatant)?

Can you not see how one of those things poses an imminent and direct (and lethal) threat, and one does not?

Thing was, as part of the character he was stillborn. His mother made a pact with a devil (or demon don't remember now) to make her child live. In exchange for this once the child reached the age of 14 he would have to kill a sentient creature and preform a ritual to deliver the soul to the creature or he himself would die. Self-preservation being what it is, he did just that once every three months.

Is he evil for not letting himself die?

Very much so. He is diabolicaly evil. Through and through. A monster of the highest order.

How on earth are you using this as an example?

Dare I ask, what alignment did you think this obviously LE monster was?

For that alone, I'd say "no",

WHAT!

This guy is literally murdering someone every three months, and condemning their souls to Hell as part of a dark pact!

Hes a serial killer, with over 40 innocent victims!

I give up. I dont know why I bother.

Kydo

2016-09-26, 10:54 PM

Second is a far more in-depth thing but the concept still stands. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Is a paladin who executed a criminal whos punishment demands death wrong? Definitely not. If that same criminal has surrendered first is he wrong? No. He is actually both following the law and doing what his alignment demands should be done. Just because being good means that you understand there is a sanctity of life does not mean that you will not take life. If good never punishes evil, evil grows out of control. If good only ever locks that evil in a cell, the problem has just been deferred for someone else to deal with later.

Cool story bro. You'd fall in my games.

Sounds kinda like that is exactly what you were saying.

Its not murder if its a lawful killing.

Im saying that a Paladin should reject laws that are unjust. He is not compelled (for example) to go along with laws that mandate slavery, or laws that strip a woman of all rights and allow her to be raped at will.

If a villian surrenders, and repents, he should be given an opportunity to atone. I would expect a Paladin to object to any order to kill the man after the fact.

And yes, a LG Kingdom doest practice capital punishment. Or slavery.

So your lawful good kingdom does what? Defers the problems for others? How does it deal with them, pat them on the back and tell them, "I'm sure you won't do it again, go be a good boy?" Does it lock them in a cell for the next sixty years (or until their henchmen break them free and do this all over again) while the taxes and tariffs pay for them, thereby forcing your population to continue to pay for every evil person you put away (as I'm sure your LG places won't just starve them).

Also, why doesn't every one of your villains -always- surrender and 'repent' before being killed then? If the paladin is going to advocate to give them another chance and opportunity to atone. Every bad guy -ever- would do this at least the very first time he's caught and god help him if it's a different paladin the second time he's going to do it again! He'll probably even do it if it is the exact same paladin because clearly he likes to help!

Also, the character in question was LE.

Malifice

2016-09-26, 11:08 PM

So your lawful good kingdom does what? Defers the problems for others? How does it deal with them, pat them on the back and tell them, "I'm sure you won't do it again, go be a good boy?" Does it lock them in a cell for the next sixty years (or until their henchmen break them free and do this all over again) while the taxes and tariffs pay for them, thereby forcing your population to continue to pay for every evil person you put away (as I'm sure your LG places won't just starve them).

The LG kindgom almost certainly does not have unjust laws or laws that lead to killing people.

It imprisons criminals, and seeks to redeem them with programs of rehabilitation, treating them humanely and with dignity.

A LN may have unjust laws (slavery, capital punishment).

A LE nation almost certainly does.

Also, why doesn't every one of your villains -always- surrender and 'repent' before being killed then?

We dont have capital punishment here in Australia and in Europe, and our (and their) police are required to arrest a suspect that has surredered and not just execute them on the spot. We give them the benefit of the doubt in court, and the rights to be treated as innocent till proven guilty, a trial by peers, and many other legal protections.

Why dont our criminals always surrender and repent? Why do many of them go down shooting?

Your question is (frankly) ridiculous. Its the sort of crap pulled by a **** DM just to troll the party Paladin.

If the paladin is going to advocate to give them another chance and opportunity to atone. Every bad guy -ever- would do this at least the very first time he's caught and god help him if it's a different paladin the second time he's going to do it again! He'll probably even do it if it is the exact same paladin because clearly he likes to help!

Rubbish. Look at the real world for examples. The society I live in gives criminals (including murderers) a chance to atone. In prison they are given access to education and health to help them deal with the issues that got them inside in the first place. Most of the enlightened world follows this exact system.

You've heard of rehabilitation right?

I mean some monsters cant be rehabilitated. They get (humanely) locked up for life to protect others.

Not killed. Not tortured. Not harmed. We can find a way to protect innocents from them, without killing them.

Also, the character in question was LE.

Clearly.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-26, 11:24 PM

WHAT!

This guy is literally murdering someone every three months, and condemning their souls to Hell as part of a dark pact!

Hes a serial killer, with over 40 innocent victims!

I give up. I dont know why I bother.
I specifically said it depends on who he's killing- as in there isn't enough information for me to make a final decision. Do you consider king's lawfully-appointed executioner to be "evil" just because of his job?

My take on good and evil is that three things go into the final determination: the act itself, the intent, and the outcome. Because of the latter two, a particular act might end up being less evil or less good (or alternatively, more of either) under certain circumstances.

Killing someone? Bad. Killing a random person for gits and shiggles? Really bad! Killing an evil person who had and/or was going to hurt other people? Less Bad. Maybe not preferable to stopping them, getting them to see the wrongness of their ways, and then having them atone or somehow make up for the damage they've caused, hopefully redeeming their soul. But acceptable most of the time. And the gods, who are WISE and MERCIFUL enough (most of the Good ones anyway) to understand how sentient humanoids function are willing to be reasonable when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Also, suppose for example you're in a situation where you need to sacrifice/kill/let-die a bunch of people to save some other people. Depending on your alignment, if your actions successfully save more people than would have lived without your intervention your deity might let it slide once, though you'll probably get a stern talking to.
Do the same action but fail to save anyone? Yeah you're up **** creek, buddy.

Based on this system, I think it's POSSIBLE that in that situation, the person in question isn't evil. I did say it would be very tricky to maintain (did you read my entire multi-paragraph answer or just the one line you quoted?) but I think it's possible.

I admit there are lots of people who don't like the fact that in my universe good and evil work on somewhat of a sliding scale, and that morality is sometimes linked competence. There are people who prefer not to have long, complex debates about the many shades of grey, and I've seen settings there there is very specific rules about good and evil. If this works for you, then fine, that's great- it's up the DM.

Personally though I prefer a system that is more adaptable, and this is what works for me. For kick-in-the-door bring-on-the-demon-horde I-saved-the-princess-gimme-loot type of players, so long as they don't act like a complete tosspot and aren't a total ****-up, they do fine. For the people who want to roleplay a character with a complex background and a variety of virtues and sinful traits mixed together (or, alternatively, someone as pure in some way as they possibly can be), there's a plenty of space all over the alignment spectrum.

Edit: The only people who my system doesn't work out so great for seems to be those people who WANT a very strict black-and-white/this-is-good-that-is-evil sort of system. In my limited experience, to me, this comes across as wanting play a "Good" character but not wanting to work very hard it. Like they want a formula that can be perfectly applied to each and every situation where X+Y*A/B = morality, and tells them where they are safe to break out the battleaxe or need to make diplomacy rolls. If that's the kind of game you want, I'd prefer to design the whole setting with that intent from the ground up, and get everyone on the same page during character creation to avoid as many hurt feelings as possible later on.

Kydo

2016-09-26, 11:31 PM

The LG kindgom almost certainly does not have unjust laws or laws that lead to killing people.

It imprisons criminals, and seeks to redeem them with programs of rehabilitation, treating them humanely and with dignity.

A LN may have unjust laws (slavery, capital punishment).

A LE nation almost certainly does.

So, then lets look at the story of King Arthur. Him and the knights of the round table should probably provide a pretty decent setting for LG. He still sentences Guinevere to burn at the stake for adultery.

We dont have capital punishment here in Australia and in Europe, and our (and their) police are required to arrest a suspect that has surredered and not just execute them on the spot. We give them the benefit of the doubt in court, and the rights to be treated as innocent till proven guilty, a trial by peers, and many other legal protections.

Why dont our criminals always surrender and repent? Why do many of them go down shooting?

Your question is (frankly) ridiculous. Its the sort of crap pulled by a **** DM just to troll the party Paladin.

No, it's a logical reaction if it is going to save your life. It's called self-preservation. Lets say you are in a LE kingdom but you -know- this guy over here is a LG paladin from the neighboring kingdom and you aren't ready to die. The other guys are right on your heels. What do you do?

Answer: Run to the paladin and throw yourself on his mercy and surrender to him. Why, because he's going to do everything he can to keep you alive.

Rubbish. Look at the real world for examples. The society I live in gives criminals (including murderers) a chance to atone. In prison they are given access to education and health to help them deal with the issues that got them inside in the first place. Most of the enlightened world follows this exact system.

You've heard of rehabilitation right?

I mean some monsters cant be rehabilitated. They get (humanely) locked up for life to protect others.

Not killed. Not tortured. Not harmed. We can find a way to protect innocents from them, without killing them.

So in this medieval society that D&D takes place in I'm going to just guess that you assume that peasants are all educated then. Because if they are not educated like the usual level of peasant isn't then committing crimes because very good for them. Do something wrong, get caught, then get to learn things be well fed and have a place to sleep.

On that same note, in D&D you have elves and dwarves. Just how long are you going pay for them? Twenty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? You realize that a hundred years locked in room where you are 'no longer a threat to society' is a torture of it's own. Do your LG kingdoms build jails where the prisoners can mingle so they don't go insane from solidarity?

Malifice

2016-09-26, 11:58 PM

I specifically said it depends on who he's killing- as in there isn't enough information for me to make a final decision.

It doesnt matter who he's killing (and in the example they were required to be innocents in any event). He's a serial killer, condemning souls to hell.

It is the vilest of crimes. He is evil through and through.

Do you consider king's lawfully-appointed executioner to be "evil" just because of his job?

I'd struggle to see how he could be anything 'higher' than LN.

Few LG people could ever bring themselves to kill others in such a manner on any regular basis. LN maybe. LE definately.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 12:11 AM

It doesnt matter who he's killing (and in the example they were required to be innocents in any event).
I don't recall seeing that in the original description- can you please quote it for me?

Few LG people could ever bring themselves to kill others in such a manner on any regular basis. LN maybe. LE definately.
I think that depends entirely on your view of capital punishment, but I never specified lawful. In fact killing someone strikes me as the more chaotic-good solution (quickly and effectively getting to the point), whereas I think it would be entirely in-character for a lawful-good character to preach at criminals for weeks or months on end, trying to make them all convert to the worship of Pelor or something like that.

If you'd prefer I can ask the question another way- if you track someone down, restrain them (by force if necessary), then drag them off to sit in a small, windowless room for the next few decades, are you an evil kidnapper or part of the justice system?

Kydo

2016-09-27, 12:30 AM

I'd struggle to see how he could be anything 'higher' than LN.

Few LG people could ever bring themselves to kill others in such a manner on any regular basis. LN maybe. LE definately.

But they could, have and will continue to. I think it's fairly clear that you prefer the lawful stupid paladin vs the LG one.

Also, enjoy the way that you didn't rebut any of my last statements.

If you'd prefer I can ask the question another way- if you track someone down, restrain them (by force if necessary), then drag them off to sit in a small, windowless room for the next few decades, are you an evil kidnapper or part of the justice system?

Well worded.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 12:54 AM

I think that depends entirely on your view of capital punishment, but I never specified lawful. In fact killing someone strikes me as the more chaotic-good solution (quickly and effectively getting to the point),

In DnD Evil is defined as killing and harming people.

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

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

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Capital punishment is the unecessary killing of someone (presumably 'guilty') pursuant to a codified law. It is a Lawful [Evil/Neutral] thing to do.

Chaotic good people do good (thet show mercy and compassion, and avoid killing and harming people) regardless of laws. They follow their own personal convictions, are quick to improvise, are loathe to follow orders, dont care (or rebel) against family and tradition. But they're still good - they avoid killing or harming others, and actively practice mercy, compassion and kindness.

Anakin Skywalker as a Jedi is CG. He is impulsive, follows his own convictions, ignores orders constantly, breaks his word, breaks with tradition, and is impossible to control (even by his master). He is however a good man (he helps others, is kind, merciful and compassionate).

When Sidious told him to kill Dooku (a helpless prisoner) were you in any doubt that this was wrong? That it was evil? Lucas intentionally set this scene up to show his temptation into evil by Sidious, and his willingness to do evil. That he instantly showed remorse is telling.

As Darth Vader, he is CE by the way.

If you'd prefer I can ask the question another way- if you track someone down, restrain them (by force if necessary), then drag them off to sit in a small, windowless room for the next few decades, are you an evil kidnapper or part of the justice system?

Why am I tracking them down? Are they a murderer who has killed someone, and I am taking them to face justice for their crimes? Am I a police officer? If so, Im most likely LN (but could be of any alignment so far).

I need more information.

But they could, have and will continue to. I think it's fairly clear that you prefer the lawful stupid paladin vs the LG one.

Nah bro. You seem to view Paladins as zealots that would make Daesh or the Inquisition blush.

Also, enjoy the way that you didn't rebut any of my last statements.

How could I? You need to provide me with context.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 01:09 AM

Still waiting for that quote that said they had to be innocent souls, by the way.

In DnD Evil is defined as killing and harming people.
Tell me- did you actually read any of my longer posts? I'm pretty sure I said that killing is bad. The difference is that I'm willing to allow players to take the least-bad (or a less-bad) option in some situations without forcing them off the deep end of the alignment pool.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Fine. It does NOT say that a good character won't kill if they feel it's necessary or just.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
I've got no objections to that- but it doesn't say that all character who kill have to be evil.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
And I'm not sure how this is relevant at all.

Capital punishment is the unnecessary killing of someone (presumably 'guilty') pursuant to a codified law. It is a Lawful [Evil/Neutral] thing to do.
It's only inherently evil if you believe that all killing is inherently evil. I'm willing to allow that there are some people (at least in fantasy stories) that are so dangerous and/or unrepentant that there is no harm in ending their life instead of expending the resources to keep them locked up until they die of natural causes.

Chaotic good people do good (they show mercy and compassion, and avoid killing and harming people) regardless of laws. They follow their own personal convictions, are quick to improvise, are loathe to follow orders, dont care (or rebel) against family and tradition. But they're still good - they avoid killing or harming others, and actively practice mercy, compassion and kindness.
In your campaignsdo good aligned character never kill or even deal lethal damage to any other creature?

Why am I tracking them down? Are they a murderer who has killed someone, and I am taking them to face justice for their crimes? Am I a police officer? If so, Im most likely LN (but could be of any alignment so far).
Yes, that was the implication- you are the police. The point is that the exact same physical actions can be in some circumstances good, and in some circumstances evil. I don't think a person's morality is completely defined by their job.
How exactly would you propose that a Lawful-Good society keep the peace and punish (or reform) criminals in a Lawful-Good manner?

I need more information.
That's what I said about the whole "sacrifice a soul to the demon" example.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 01:13 AM

In DnD Evil is defined as killing and harming people.

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

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

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Capital punishment is the unecessary killing of someone (presumably 'guilty') pursuant to a codified law. It is a Lawful [Evil/Neutral] thing to do.

Chaotic good people do good (thet show mercy and compassion, and avoid killing and harming people) regardless of laws. They follow their own personal convictions, are quick to improvise, are loathe to follow orders, dont care (or rebel) against family and tradition. But they're still good - they avoid killing or harming others, and actively practice mercy, compassion and kindness.

Yet good people can do bad things. Just because my job is to carry out the law, which in this case happens to be killing this guy doesn't make me N or E. Sure, it may wear on my -good- conscience but it doesn't make me evil.

Anakin Skywalker as a Jedi is CG. He is impulsive, follows his own convictions, ignores orders constantly, breaks his word, breaks with tradition, and is impossible to control (even by his master). He is however a good man (he helps others, is kind, merciful and compassionate).

When Sidious told him to kill Dooku (a helpless prisoner) were you in any doubt that this was wrong? That it was evil? Lucas intentionally set this scene up to show his temptation into evil by Sidious, and his willingness to do evil. That he instantly showed remorse is telling.

As Darth Vader, he is CE by the way.

Vader is probably closer to LE realistically considering he follows the orders of the person who is recognized as the primary leader of most of the galaxy. As a Jedi though by your previous statements he wouldn't be good. He -kills- Darth Maul, yes, it was fight. He doesn't ever give him the chance to surrender however, he just hunts him down and kills him.

There are also -all- the sand people... men, women, children, all of them.

There is also anyone and everyone that got infront of him on Geonosis. He also cut down a vast number of robots, but in SW they give the appearance that robots possess conscious thought as well.

Nah bro. You seem to view Paladins as zealots that would make Daesh or the Inquisition blush.

"A dwarf crouches behind an outcrop, his black cloak making him nearly invisible in the night, and watches an orc war band celebrating its recent victory. Silently he stalks into their midst and whispers an oath, and two orcs are dead before they even realize he is there.

Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at least his light overcomes its hideous darkness."
- Direct quote from the players handbook under paladin.

No, do you surrender. No questions asked. Death.

Yes, that was the implication- you are the police. The point is that the exact same physical actions can be in some circumstances good, and in some circumstances evil. I don't think a person's morality is completely defined by their job.
How exactly would you propose that a Lawful-Good society keep the peace and punish (or reform) criminals in a Lawful-Good manner?

Hugs and kisses, maybe a pat on the back. He's mostly ignored this and the cost of keeping them there every time I've posed the question. But that teleporting sorcerer is free again already. Also, I'm guessing spells that result in the desired outcome would also be evil because it's forcing someone to change and doing things to them against the will.

CONTEXT
So in this medieval society that D&D takes place in I'm going to just guess that you assume that peasants are all educated then. Because if they are not educated like the usual level of peasant isn't committing crimes becomes very good for them. Do something wrong, get caught, then get to learn things be well fed and have a place to sleep.

On that same note, in D&D you have elves and dwarves. Just how long are you going pay for them? Twenty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? You realize that a hundred years locked in room where you are 'no longer a threat to society' is a torture of it's own. Do your LG kingdoms build jails where the prisoners can mingle so they don't go insane from solidarity?

Mrglee

2016-09-27, 01:22 AM

Just want to note what makes murder a murder is it being an unlawful premeditated killing.
Which isn't necessarily evil or good, it falls on the lawful/chaotic spectrum, as it doesn't care about most justification, self defense typically being the only one and even that only goes so far. Murder is only evil if killing is evil, which is where things get muddy.
Malifice wants to draw this line at sentience, which I don't feel is a terrible place for it. But in a fantasy world, I don't think this is too much out of possibility. (http://imgur.com/gallery/I71V6) And to be clear, this is murder, Wolverine didn't get some go ahead, or a court order. He premeditated killed someone who at that point wasn't causing harm but had the potential to just by existing. What about mercy killings? Still gonna be murder, but the person is suffering and might not have other options*.
And quite frankly, at least by the section on alignment, what separates good from evil is the justification. Evil operates on feelings of hatred and greed, good operates on the needs of others at the expense of their own needs.
I share a similar base opinion with Malifice, but I don't think the rules for good and evil support it very much. Also, wouldn't lay my hands on another person's character sheet cause that is kinda a jerkish thing to do.

*Overlooking raise dead. Maybe they are old or something.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 01:28 AM

Still waiting for that quote that said they had to be innocent souls, by the way.

Why would it matter?

Fine. It does NOT say that a good character won't kill if they feel it's necessary or just.

It doesnt say that a good character wont rape if they feel its necessary or just.

If your 'Good' character feels raping and killing is necessary or just, you're not a good character.

I've got no objections to that- but it doesn't say that all character who kill have to be evil.

And I'm not saying all are. Im saying its not evil to kill when killing is the only reasonable option open to you to save lives.

It's only inherently evil if you believe that all killing is inherently evil.

Read it again: Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

Ergo (logically) the only time it's OK to kill, is when doing so is the only means you reasonably have to stop others from being killed.

Examples:

Town being terrorised by a dragon. You can stalk the beast to its lair and confront it, slaying it if necessary
Member of an [Armed force/ army/ resistance] engaged in offensive actions to repel a foreign invader.
Police officer shooting dead armed suspect who is imminently about to kill others
PCs storming a Goblins villiage to rescue kidnapped children.
Armed intruder breaks into your house. You confront him and demand he drop his weapon and surrender, he refuses and charges you. You can kill that sucker dead.
On your way home your paladin notices a little old lady being robbed. You break up the robbery to bring the criminal to justice when he draws a knife on you and goes to stab you. Hack away at that fool till he surrenders or dies.

Use reasonable and necessary force in response to an immminent threat to save the lives of others. If the situation can reasonably be resolved without the use of lethal force, then do that instead.

I'm willing to allow that there are some people (at least in fantasy stories) that are so dangerous and/or unrepentant that there is no harm in ending their life instead of expending the resources to keep them locked up until they die of natural causes.

Thats likely because you (in DnD terms) are not Good. You're almost certainly Neutral. You direcly advocate killing a man over imprisoning him, for no other reason that becuase keeping him alive costs more money.

Which is clearly not a good thing to say.

In your campaignsdo good aligned character never kill or even deal lethal damage to any other creature?

Dont be ridiculous.

Yes, that was the implication- you are the police. The point is that the exact same physical actions can be in some circumstances good, and in some circumstances evil.

Rubbish. In a world with objective alignment this is clearly false.

How exactly would you propose that a Lawful-Good society keep the peace and punish (or reform) criminals in a Lawful-Good manner?

With a series of just laws, that do not bring about evil (Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others). The laws of such a place respect the dignity and sanctity of life (no capital punishment or slavery).

Humane imprisonment for the wicked, a chance of redemption and atonement. Life sentences for the irredeemable.

Just want to note what makes murder a murder is it being an unlawful premeditated killing.
Which isn't necessarily evil or good,

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another.

It is by definition a chaotic, and evil act.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 01:50 AM

Yet good people can do bad things.

Of course they can. I dont disagree.

Alignment isnt a straight jacket. Im never going to tell a player how to play their character, and there are variations on all alignments (there arent 9 seperate personality types, one for each alignment).

But if your PC is killing others 'for the greater good' or frequently engaging in killing, harming or oppressing others, when other options reasonably present themselves I (as DM) am changing his alignment to reflect your actions.

Just because my job is to carry out the law, which in this case happens to be killing this guy doesn't make me N or E.

I cant beleive youre actually using the Neurenberg defence here.

'Im not evil becasue I raped and killed all those people; I was just following orders!'

Vader is probably closer to LE realistically considering he follows the orders of the person who is recognized as the primary leader of most of the galaxy.

Utter bull****. The Sith have one rule (the Rule of Two), and he even broke that by training a secret apprentice. He betrayed the Emperor (and the Empire) by pegging him down a shaft at his moment of triumph.

CE people follow orders remember, but only if forced to out of fear. See also: CE churches and other other orginisations.

The implication was the Emperor was kinda keeping him alive, and Vader was kinda scared of him. By killing the Emperor he was killing himself.

Vader basically toured the Galaxy doing whatever the **** he wanted to, to his own agenda. He answered to one man (the Emperor) only (and even betrayed him) and existed outside of any formal heirachy in the Empire. He acted with arbitrary violence according to his own anger and hatred (unless you think choking Imperial officers to death was proscribed in Imperial regulations somewhere!).

He was very CE. All the unpredictablity and unconventional nature of Anakin skywalker, but none of the good and benevloent kindess of Anakin and only evil, hatred and anger in its place.

As a Jedi though by your previous statements he wouldn't be good. He -kills- Darth Maul, yes, it was fight.

Darth Tyrannus actually. Obi Wan killed Maul. The first time.

He doesn't ever give him the chance to surrender however, he just hunts him down and kills him.

What?

Anakin doesnt 'hunt down and kill' either Tyrannus or Maul.

There are also -all- the sand people... men, women, children, all of them.

Evil. Absolutely evil. Even though they had killed (and tortured) his mother, Evil.

Were you in any doubt during this scene, or later when he is darkly revelling in the detailes later on to Padme that this was an utterly evil thing to do?

There is also anyone and everyone that got infront of him on Geonosis.

Wut? He was rescuing Obi wan, and the Genosians attacked him.

He also cut down a vast number of robots, but in SW they give the appearance that robots possess conscious thought as well.

Dont want to break it to you, but you cant harm or kill a robot, anymore that you can harm or kill a telephone.

A dwarf crouches behind an outcrop, his black cloak making him nearly invisible in the night, and watches an orc war band celebrating its recent victory. Silently he stalks into their midst and whispers an oath, and two orcs are dead before they even realize he is there.

Sounds like a Vengance paladin. Most of those guys are LN or even LE.

Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at least his light overcomes its hideous darkness."

The elf is in combat with a giant that is (presumably) trying to kill him. Lethal force authorised. He's not just dancing around a helpless giant and torturing it.

Whats he supposed to do. Stand there and get killed?

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 01:51 AM

Why would it matter?
Because you claimed they had to be innocent souls, which would clearly be an evil act. If they are evil souls, I feel like it's more of a grey area.

It doesnt say that a good character wont rape if they feel its necessary or just.

If your 'Good' character feels raping and killing is necessary or just, you're not a good character.
I'm having a lot more trouble picturing how you would (oh god this sentence is awful) reluctantly rape someone for the greater good than kill someone for the greater good. Killing someone who is evil stops them from committing more evil. Raping someone who is evil accomplishes...what exactly?
Hence why my morality system includes considerations for intent and outcome.

And I'm not saying all are. Im saying its not evil to kill when killing is the only reasonable option open to you to save lives.
....
Rubbish. In a world with objective alignment this is clearly false.
I'm not sure how you make these two statements mesh then- they seem to be entirely contradictory.

Ergo (logically) the only time it's OK to kill, is when doing so is the only means you reasonably have to stop others from being killed.
I have absolutely no objection to that sentiment.

Thats likely because you (in DnD terms) are not Good. You're almost certainly Neutral. You direcly advocate killing a man over imprisoning him, for no other reason that becuase keeping him alive costs more money.
I'm pretty sure I never said that- what I said was that I give players the freedom to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis. And so long as they show evidence that they are trying to be good and heading the guidance of their deities, I'm not going to go out of my way to throw them into sticky moral quandaries or otherwise screw them over.

Dont be ridiculous.
I asked that because you said "But they're still good - they avoid killing or harming others, and actively practice mercy, compassion and kindness." You never added any caveats under which a good character could justifiably kill or harm another without stopping being good. You've expanded on it in this post a bit, but it wasn't immediately obvious that was what you meant. Especially in light of your other comments about killing and harm always being evil.

With a series of just laws, that do not bring about evil (Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others). The laws of such a place respect the dignity and sanctity of life (no capital punishment or slavery).

Humane imprisonment for the wicked, a chance of redemption and atonement. Life sentences for the irredeemable.
But you just said that the police are Lawful Neutral for arresting and imprisoning people, so how can these same actions be lawful good?
Also I fail to see how a "life sentence for the irredeemable" is less evil than execution. I'm not arguing that execution is better, but life-imprisonment basically means your life is over anyway, barring a few decades (or a few centuries for some races) of boredom.

You seem to have a very absolutist view of morality and good and evil. If you've read my other posts (I honestly can't tell- you seem to ignored several of them entirely) then you'll see this is diametrically opposed to how I prefer to do things. If you want to make your gameworld like that, then that's fine. I'd even run a game like that for a group if everyone wanted. However in my experience (and I admit to not having played extensively with every type of player ever) very few people object to being given more flexibility and freedom when it comes to alignment.

Xetheral

2016-09-27, 02:18 AM

I'm not totally sure I'm tracking the question. I wouldn't really assign alignments to polities -- just the people that comprise them. Obviously, absent controls, the alignments of the people in power will largely determine the collective actions of the polity. But I don't think chaotic goods are typically going to be "bent on freeing their oppressed neighbors," depending on how you define "neighbors." Mal Reynolds isn't much concerned about overthrowing the tyrannical Alliance and liberating the core worlds. He just wants them to leave him and his alone. As a rule of thumb, I'd say a chaotic good character would be increasingly less interested in "liberating" someone the further away from himself that person was: self, family, clan, community, tribe, nation........foreign nation. If you make it across those ellipses, the "good" -- your moral compass -- is really starting to outweigh your political alignment and you're at least headed toward "neutral good." If you make "the liberation of others, everywhere" the cause of your life, you're well into "lawful good."

I'm not even sure that answered your question. :smallbiggrin:

Interestingly, I may have taken your initial idea and run with it in a direction of my own rather than what you originally intended. :) I'm not sure I can agree that a CG individual is less likely to want to intervene to stop the oppression of others. As for at the polity level, you've given me a lot to think about, so thank you!

First let me ask: Are there any other options reasonably available to you in the circumstances to resolve the issue without violence and killing, or allowing innocents to die?

Hmm. Let's go with two more-specific scenarios:

You have no idea why the potential foes are waiting in ambush, but it is obvious that they are and that they intend to use lethal force. Having scouted ahead and not been observed, you have the option to change your route to avoid the ambush or instead pre-emptively attack the would-be ambushers. Would you consider it self-defense (or otherwise justifiable as not-murder) to preemptively kill them? You know the potential foes are waiting to ambush you specifically, and you know they intend to use deadly force, but you also know they aren't a threat to anyone else. Having scouted ahead and not been observed, you have the option to change your route to avoid the ambush or instead preemptively attack the would-be ambushers. Would you consider it self-defense (or otherwise justifiable as not-murder) to preemptively kill them?
In both cases let's say that the balance of forces is such that deliberately triggering the ambush (or revealing yourself to attempt a parley) would put you at great risk of death, but that attacking preemptively would give you an insurmountable advantage.

My understanding of the law of self-defense in common-law countries is that it would not apply in either situation if you attacked preemptively. So I'm curious whether you feel such preemptive action is not justifiable (in keeping with the law), or whether you feel preemptive action is morally justifiable even if in common-law countries it isn't legally justifiable.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 02:22 AM

Nah bro. You seem to view Paladins as zealots that would make Daesh or the Inquisition blush.

.....

Sounds like a Vengance paladin. Most of those guys are LN or even LE.

The elf is in combat with a giant that is (presumably) trying to kill him. Lethal force authorised. He's not just dancing around a helpless giant and torturing it.

So only Vengeance paladins are zealots then? This was all I was replying to with my quote.

Of course they can. I dont disagree.

Alignment isnt a straight jacket. Im never going to tell a player how to play their character, and there are variations on all alignments (there arent 9 seperate personality types, one for each alignment).

But if your PC is killing others 'for the greater good' or frequently engaging in killing, harming or oppressing others, when other options reasonably present themselves I (as DM) am changing his alignment to reflect your actions.

So PC's in any D&D game ever, got it. Goblins, check. Orcs, check. Dragon, check. Weird creature that existed before humanity ever become a thing, check. Beings existing on higher planes of the universe, check.

Utter bull****. The Sith have one rule (the Rule of Two), and he even broke that by training a secret apprentice. He betrayed the Emperor (and the Empire) by pegging him down a shaft at his moment of triumph.

CE people follow orders remember, but only if forced to out of fear. See also: CE churches and other other orginisations.

The implication was the Emperor was kinda keeping him alive, and Vader was kinda scared of him. By killing the Emperor he was killing himself.

Vader basically toured the Galaxy doing whatever the **** he wanted to, to his own agenda. He answered to one man (the Emperor) only (and even betrayed him) and existed outside of any formal heirachy in the Empire. He acted with arbitrary violence according to his own anger and hatred (unless you think choking Imperial officers to death was proscribed in Imperial regulations somewhere!).

He was very CE. All the unpredictablity and unconventional nature of Anakin skywalker, but none of the good and benevloent kindess of Anakin and only evil, hatred and anger in its place.

Also Vader killed Palpatine not for power or prestige, not out of fear of the man himself, not out of some concept he would rise to new heights of power. He killed Palpatine in order to SAVE HIS SON. That's a pretty reasonable reason to kill someone, he is currently in the middle of murdering my child. His GOOD side took over again and he saved Luke.

Wut? He was rescuing Obi wan, and the Genosians attacked him.

Ok, so you're right about Maul but still the rest of it stands. Did he ever give them the option of surrender? Did he ever even offer the concept or did they just run around cutting them down?

Dont want to break it to you, but you cant harm or kill a robot, anymore that you can harm or kill a telephone.

So sentience can only be achieved in flesh and blood huh?

Also I see you still haven't touched how a kingdom actually operates or treats those prisoners that it has. How much of a burden becomes to much on the population etc.

Xetheral there is a really good example of that in Horde of the Dragon Queen in the second adventure where a group of dragon cult members are hiding behind a bunch of rocks on the only road, if you don't spot them at all it's pretty much going to be a TPK as they push the giant rocks down on top of you. if you do spot them you can do the ambushing yourself or can just totally avoid them, leaving them to push rocks onto some other group that doesn't know they are there.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 02:24 AM

I'm having a lot more trouble picturing how you would (oh god this sentence is awful) reluctantly rape someone for the greater good than kill someone for the greater good.

The Elf Paladin of Corellion decides that instead of masacarring the Female Drow POW's, it would be more humane to instead enslave them. He then 'gives' them to his men as comfort women in order to 'breed the Drow out of them'.

Genocide quite often contains similar abhorrent features. Without getting into it, the Red army when they occupied Berlin in WW2 was one example.

I'm pretty sure I never said that- what I said was that I give players the freedom to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis. And so long as they show evidence that they are trying to be good and heading the guidance of their deities, I'm not going to go out of my way to throw them into sticky moral quandaries or otherwise screw them over.

Im sorry, when did I advocate anything of the sort?

You never added any caveats under which a good character could justifiably kill or harm another without stopping being good. You've expanded on it in this post a bit, but it wasn't immediately obvious that was what you meant. Especially in light of your other comments about killing and harm always being evil.

LG Paladins of god of mecy carry sword and train in the arts of war for a reason. Devils and Demons go on rampages killing, torturing and harming others. They cant be reasoned with or negotiated with. Undead creatures are not alive, so can be put down at will (you cant kill that which isnt alive). Evil humanoids and humans attack and kill others, and often force (inluding lethal force) is the only reasonable, proportionate and practical tool at your disposal to stop those forces from killing or harming people.

The line is 'Is lethal force reasonably needed here to protect people from being killed? Are there any other reasonable options available to me to prevent the loss of life other than by using lethal force?'

The line is not 'is my proposed victim evil/ guilty' (as you propose it is). A LN person might very well execute the guilty for crimes. A LG person (who seeks to minimise killing and avoid harm) would almost certainly not execute people for crimes. A LE person certainly would (including for trivial offences, or simply as a teror tactic to shore up his own power).

Putting prisoners to the sword is not 'Good'. Torture is not 'Good'. Rape and slavery are not 'Good'.

But you just said that the police are Lawful Neutral for arresting and imprisoning people, so how can these same actions be lawful good?

No, I said that LN is the most likely alignment for a police officer or a judge or similar. They enact the law without fear or favor. Its by all means not the only alignment.

Seen the TV show The Wire? Detective McNulty is a classic case of CG.

Also I fail to see how a "life sentence for the irredeemable" is less evil than execution. I'm not arguing that execution is better, but life-imprisonment basically means your life is over anyway, barring a few decades (or a few centuries for some races) of boredom.

You're probably an American. If you cant see the difference bewtween humane imprisonment with the opportunity for redemption and reflection, and the terror of a State sanctioned killing of a person, then I cant help you.

You seem to have a very absolutist view of morality and good and evil.

Its DnD. There are literally creatures that come from 'planes' comprised of the stuff. If a devil started to be merciful and charitable and nice to people, and stopped killing and harming others, it would cease to be a devil.

Alignment in DnD is objective (and subjective - to the person who holds it).

In a universe with objective good and evil, you need objective standards of good and evil. The individual can exersize moral relativism all he wants (he may think he has a different alignment to what he actually objectively holds).

Your 'LG' paladin could (in reality) be CG, or even LE. He wont (and cant) ever know for sure.

For example, my LE paladin worships Bane (an evil god). He genuinely thinks that Torm (a LG deity) is evil and his followers are deluded into thinking Torm is 'good'. The Paladin seeks to bring about a theocratic fascist regime under Bane to end all wars, unify Faerun, and bring a long lasting peace - unifying the realm under the glorious and benevolent rule of Bane.

He is prepared to send apostates and heretics to the pyre. He is prepared to engage in torture, genocide and wars to bring about this society for the 'greater good of Faerun'. He genuinely thinks he is a good man, just doing what needs to be done for peace and prosperity.

He is (of course) utterly evil in alignment.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 02:38 AM

So only Vengeance paladins are zealots then? This was all I was replying to with my quote.

Seeing as the oath they follow wouldnt be out of place among the adherents of ISIS or the Inquisition, yes.

I mean, it actively promotes genocide with a certain reading. My Vengance Paladin is LE, and you dont want to know how he interprets 'by any means necessary' and 'show no mercy'.

Also Vader killed Palpatine not for power or prestige, not out of fear of the man himself, not out of some concept he would rise to new heights of power. He killed Palpatine in order to SAVE HIS SON. That's a pretty reasonable reason to kill someone, he is currently in the middle of murdering my child. His GOOD side took over again and he saved Luke.

Yep. He redeemed himself (on the E-G) spectrum with Palpys murder. It says nothing about him on the (L-C) spectrum

Ok, so you're right about Maul but still the rest of it stands. Did he ever give them the option of surrender? Did he ever even offer the concept or did they just run around cutting them down?

You either dont know Star Wars, or arent expressing yourself well ehre, as I have no idea what youre talking about.

If youre talking about Annakins killing of Dooku, it was clearly and unabiguously an evil act. Dooku was helpless, badly wounded and a prisoner.

Anakin even conceeded as much seconds afterwards.

So sentience can only be achieved in flesh and blood huh?

Evil = killing and harming others. You cant kill or harm a toaster. Good = concern for the dignity of living things. Toasters arent alive.

Robots dont count. Neither do undead or constructs. Feel free to smash an Iron Golem to bits if you want; it aint evil (although wandering around smashing up golems or robots for no good reason might inicated a certain level of being a bit unhinged).

Also I see you still haven't touched how a kingdom actually operates or treats those prisoners that it has. How much of a burden becomes to much on the population etc.

Look man, I dont have to. These debates have been done to death in the elightened world and it has overwhelmingly come out in favor of 'Death penalty is wrong and evil'. The rest of the world didnt just abolish the abhorrent practice on a whim you know?

There is only one developed and enlightened nation that still practices it (and even then its not universally practiced in all jurisdictions) and that particular nation is an outlier for a great many things. Without getting into politics, it maintains a sense of 'exceptionalism' that is all too often mirrored in its population, and has a nasty love of violence and a terrible reputation for looking after its own people.

Unfortunate, because that nation also does a great many good things to go along with a great number of very bad things. Its one of my most favorite places to visit.. I'd place it as 'N' on the alignment scale.

Nazi Germany would be 'E'. If you want a place that is 'G', I'd probably put forward New Zealand.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 02:45 AM

The Elf Paladin of Corellion decides that instead of masacarring the Female Drow POW's, it would be more humane to instead enslave them. He then 'gives' them to his men as comfort women in order to 'breed the Drow out of them'.
Except that doesn't work, and therefor fails the "effectiveness" test in my morality system, and so it's evil anyway.
In my system you can't just intend for something to be good, it actually has to have a GOOD outcome.

The line is 'Is lethal force reasonably needed here to protect people from being killed? Are there any other reasonable options available to me to prevent the loss of life other than by using lethal force?'

The line is not 'is my proposed victim evil/ guilty' (as you propose it is). A LN person might very well execute the guilty for crimes. A LG person (who seeks to minimise killing and avoid harm) would almost certainly not execute people for crimes. A LE person certainly would (including for trivial offences, or simply as a teror tactic to shore up his own power).
I'm pretty sure (again) that I expressed similar sentiments a few posts back with my "a LG character would rather preach at someone than execute them" comment. So what exactly are we disagreeing over?

No, I said that LN is the most likely alignment for a police officer or a judge or similar. They enact the law without fear or favor. Its by all means not the only alignment.
Then you should probably be more clear about that.

Seen the TV show The Wire?
I have not.

If you cant see the difference bewtween humane imprisonment with the opportunity for redemption and reflection
But you just said they were irredeemable.

Its DnD. There are literally creatures that come from 'planes' comprised of the stuff. If a devil started to be merciful and charitable and nice to people, and stopped killing and harming others, it would cease to be a devil.
But D&D is played by people who live and think in the real world, and who are most frequently playing humanoids who are not made of an objective alignment.

In a universe with objective good and evil, you need objective standards of good and evil. The individual can exersize moral relativism all he wants (he may think he has a different alignment to what he actually objectively holds).

Your 'LG' paladin could (in reality) be CG, or even LE. He wont (and cant) ever know for sure.
I'm really losing the thread of your argument here. I think we both believe in standards for good and evil, and what we're disagreeing on is how to apply them to player-characters.

I'm going to step back for a moment and return to the thing that kicked off this whole discussion (and then I'm going to bed). The character that was described had his soul condemned to hell through absolutely no fault of his own. I'm not sure how you want the souls of unborn babies to work in your world, but presumably not all souls are doomed to eternal damnation until they sufficiently prove otherwise. So either a soul came in to existence only to go to hell in 14 years, or it was a soul bound for somewhere else that was diverted to hell in 14 years. And you seem to think that the gods of Good, with all their wisdom and mercy and justice and compassion, would look down on this scene and say "the best possible outcome is for this young teenager to lay down on his 14th birthday and let Beelzebub take him". Is that what you're telling me?

I could see the characters MOTHER going to hell- she is the one who made the deal with the demon in the first place after all. But it strikes me that there should be some opportunity for this character to save themselves. Obviously the demon is hoping the character will choose the easy (and evil) way out and sacrifice whoever is most convenient to take their place.
But imagine if the character instead devotes themselves to hunting down the most vile and wicked souls it can find, and sending them to the demon instead, all the while searching for a way to free themselves from their curse. In this manner they cleanse the land of evil and avoid killing innocents. Are you telling me that in your world the gods would look down on this and say "yup, totally evil, this character deserves to rot in hell"? What other method would you suggest for this character to avoid eternal damnation?

Because that's not a world in which I think I can ever get my sense of good to match whatever it is you're pushing.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 02:55 AM

The Elf Paladin of Corellion decides that instead of masacarring the Female Drow POW's, it would be more humane to instead enslave them. He then 'gives' them to his men as comfort women in order to 'breed the Drow out of them'.

So what would have been the better solution here then? Lock them away until they die the drow out of them? I'm not saying give them out to be abused, but they are drow if they are free they are going to continue to try to kill more elves it's what they do. Drow fear and follow their goddess with a fervor unknown to most and she says kill surface elves so by the gods they are going to kill surface elves when not killing one another.

You're probably an American. If you cant see the difference bewtween humane imprisonment with the opportunity for redemption and reflection, and the terror of a State sanctioned killing of a person, then I cant help you.

First and foremost I find your response a touch insulting. Second, I don't see the the difference when in a medieval society. One person to a room, locked there forever, alone. It's torture enough on its own.

READ IT / RESPOND TO IT
So in this medieval society that D&D takes place in I'm going to just guess that you assume that peasants are all educated then. Because if they are not educated like the usual level of peasant isn't committing crimes becomes very good for them. Do something wrong, get caught, then get to learn things be well fed and have a place to sleep.

On that same note, in D&D you have elves and dwarves. Just how long are you going pay for them? Twenty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? You realize that a hundred years locked in room where you are 'no longer a threat to society' is a torture of it's own. Do your LG kingdoms build jails where the prisoners can mingle so they don't go insane from solidarity?

Evil = killing and harming others. You cant kill or harm a toaster. Good = concern for the dignity of living things. Toasters arent alive.

Robots dont count. Neither do undead or constructs. Feel free to smash an Iron Golem to bits if you want; it aint evil (although wandering around smashing up golems or robots for no good reason might inicated a certain level of being a bit unhinged).

Sounds dangerously like you have a very narrow definition of what is moral. Ever watched iRobot? Was Sunny alive? How about Johnny 5? How about Cybermen? If it is consciously thinking and acting you -can- hurt and kill it. Sure, mindless constructs whatever.

Look man, I dont have to. These debates have been done to death in the elightened world and it has overwhelmingly come out in favor of 'Death penalty is wrong and evil'. The rest of the world didnt just abolish the abhorrent practice on a whim you know?

There is only one developed and enlightened nation that still practices it (and even then its not universally practiced in all jurisdictions) and that particular nation is an outlier for a great many things. Without getting into politics, it maintains a sense of 'exceptionalism' that is all too often mirrored in its population, and has a nasty love of violence and a terrible reputation for looking after its own people.

Unfortunate, because that nation also does a great many good things to go along with a great number of very bad things. Its one of my most favorite places to visit.. I'd place it as 'N' on the alignment scale.

Nazi Germany would be 'E'. If you want a place that is 'G', I'd probably put forward New Zealand.

Posted again for your viewing pleasure. Try actually reading it this time. I want to know how your limited kingdoms deal with things like this. Nothing in D&D is a developed and enlightened nation anyway. Waterdeep while impressive is tiny compared to modern society. They don't have the resources to keep every criminal they take imprisoned. Nor does any other major city in the setting. Worse yet, said criminal gets free they have far fewer ways than we do to communicate with local cities who he was, what he looked like, what his crimes were. Guy gets away, makes it to a new city and gets to start over.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 03:06 AM

Except that doesn't work, and therefor fails the "effectiveness" test in my morality system, and so it's evil anyway.
In my system you can't just intend for something to be good, it actually has to have a GOOD outcome.

Hes looking to eradicate the Drow.

What about if (after leading an expedition force into the underdark, and vanquishing the Drow army) he tosses the Drow children into the fire as they scream in terror?

His genocide has a clearly good outcome.

But D&D is played by people who live and think in the real world, and who are most frequently playing humanoids who are not made of an objective alignment.

No, but they hold an objective alignment, or weild powers granted by beings who do so, or both, and this alignment in part determines their final fate on death.

If alignmentis strictly subjective, then moral relativism rules the roost, and as long as my character thinks he's good, he is, regardless of his evil actions or savagery.

I'm going to step back for a moment and return to the thing that kicked off this whole discussion (and then I'm going to bed). The character that was described had his soul condemned to hell through absolutely no fault of his own.

Yep

I'm not sure how you want the souls of unborn babies to work in your world, but presumably not all souls are doomed to eternal damnation until they sufficiently prove otherwise. So either a soul came in to existence only to go to hell in 14 years, or it was a soul bound for somewhere else that was diverted to hell in 14 years. And you seem to think that the gods of Good, with all their wisdom and mercy and justice and compassion, would look down on this scene and say "the best possible outcome is for this young teenager to lay down on his 14th birthday and let Beelzebub take him". Is that what you're telling me?

No, Im telling you that one soul going to hell, is better than hundreds of souls going to hell.

In fact, if the PC refrained from taking a life, and self sacrificed himself instead, he wouldnt (or shouldnt) go to hell either.

I could see the characters MOTHER going to hell- she is the one who made the deal with the demon in the first place after all. But it strikes me that there should be some opportunity for this character to save themselves.

I agree. Again, if the PC was good, and he demonstrated it by refusing to take a life, he doesnt (or shouldnt) go to hell. Only evil people do so.

In my view the whole thing is a scam.

Obviously the demon is hoping the character will choose the easy (and evil) way out and sacrifice whoever is most convenient to take their place.

Condemning himself in the process.

But imagine if the character instead devotes themselves to hunting down the most vile and wicked souls it can find, and sending them to the demon instead, all the while searching for a way to free themselves from their curse.

Strengthening hell with every soul he sends there. You miss the point.

Good vs Evil is not just a game of football with two opposing sides playing by the same rules but wearing different jumpers. Its two sides playing by totally different rules. Everytime a Good person commits an act of evil, he increases the evil in the world.

In this manner they cleanse the land of evil and avoid killing innocents.

No, in this manner they become a serial killer.

Are you telling me that in your world the gods would look down on this and say "yup, totally evil, this character deserves to rot in hell"?

No, I am saying in my world Good souls go to Heaven and Evil souls go to Hell. If a person under a curse to kill others or have his soul taken to hell refuses to do so, and dies a good man instead of a monster, he goes to Heaven instead.

What other method would you suggest for this character to avoid eternal damnation?

Refuse to kill. Stare evil in the face and take the higher path. Be a good man.

In a world with real Gods and afterlives, and punishment for the wicked, and the reward of paradise for the righteous, (and an overgod monitoring the whole process) he gets into heaven.

Mrglee

2016-09-27, 03:07 AM

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another.

It is by definition a chaotic, and evil act.

Says that nowhere in the PHB. Literally no where. The closest you get is arbitrary violence spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust. And that is going to cover most killing. But things like mercy killings are still murder in a lot of places, and I would argue that isn't necessarily evil, but it is still going to be killing and classified as murder.

I'm not saying give them out to be abused, but they are drow if they are free they are going to continue to try to kill more elves it's what they do.
Drizzit's existence proves it is a choice. Thus, maybe they can be rehabilitated, and no matter the odds, I feel one should try.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 03:12 AM

Drizzit's existence proves it is a choice. Thus, maybe they can be rehabilitated, and no matter the odds, I feel one should try.

Drizzit is also the single largest Mary Sue in all of D&D.

Mrglee

2016-09-27, 03:14 AM

Drizzit is also the single largest Mary Sue in all of D&D.

And?
Also, the PHB explicitly points out races like orcs can be good. They have to struggle with inner demons, but they have that ability, that choice.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 03:16 AM

Says that nowhere in the PHB. Literally no where.

5E uses paraphrased 3E alignments.

Found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)).

The implication from that (and from the wording used inthe PHB to describe alignments in 5E) is Evil = harming, killing and opressing others, and Good = altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

The closest you get is arbitrary violence spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Youre describing CE alignment generally (note the same wording as the 3 and 3.5 PHB).

But things like mercy killings are still murder in a lot of places, and I would argue that isn't necessarily evil, but it is still going to be killing and classified as murder.

I agree mercy killings may not be evil (killing to put the person out of their misery, either because they are in extreme agony and will die anyway and there is nothing else you can do for them, or via euthenasia when they beg you to).

In Brat Pitts Troy, when Hector kills Patroculus (Achillies cousin) by putting him out of his misery after mortally wounding him, that wasnt evil. Hector is portrayed as LG in that film and (should he have been a Paladin) I wouldnt have made him fall. The only other option was walking away and leaving him in agony, unable to breathe and choking on his own blood.

For the record, Achilles is CN in that film. Odyseuss is LN (and Sean Bean doesnt die!). Hector LG. Agamemnon is LE. Paris is NG (possibly CG).

Drizzit's existence proves it is a choice. Thus, maybe they can be rehabilitated, and no matter the odds, I feel one should try.

Considering even outsiders like angels, titans and demons (and maybe a god or two) can change alignment, then of course its a choice.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 03:18 AM

Drizzit is also the single largest Mary Sue in all of D&D.

Raistlin Majere wishes to subscribe to your newsletter.

Mrglee

2016-09-27, 03:45 AM

5E uses paraphrased 3E alignments.

Found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)).
The implication from that (and from the wording used inthe PHB to describe alignments in 5E) is Evil = harming, killing and opressing others, and Good = altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
The 3.X descriptions are fine and all, but have no direct baring on 5e. They may shape your home game, but that doesn't actually mean they have any affect. It doesn't say "check these against the 3.5 PHB." They say arbitrarily hand out violence based on selfish emotions. Granted, this is the book that say CG is acting on your conscious which is the stupidest description I have seen for CG, since all it is saying is you do what you think is right, that not it actually is.
I will also note, at least one book in 3.X pointed out that several "IRREDEEMABLY EBIL" creatures can be murdered and considered a good act.

Youre describing CE alignment generally (note the same wording as the 3 and 3.5 PHB).
I was quoting 5e. Cause that half a sentence is the closest you will find to actually calling it out.

I agree mercy killings may not be evil (killing to put the person out of their misery, either because they are in extreme agony and will die anyway and there is nothing else you can do for them, or via euthenasia when they beg you to).
In Brat Pitts Troy, when Hector kills Patroculus (Achillies cousin) by putting him out of his misery after mortally wounding him, that wasnt evil. Hector is portrayed as LG in that film and (should he have been a Paladin) I wouldnt have made him fall. The only other option was walking away and leaving him in agony, unable to breathe and choking on his own blood.
Which is sorta the point I was getting at. That is going to be considered murder in quite a large chunk of the world. In fact, only places with Right to Die laws are Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. So in most of the world, that is going to be tried as murder, and people will go to jail for it. But your statement was a concrete, murder is evil, even though there is at least one exception.
And I in no way seriously encourage the murder of goblinoid babies, that is real messed up.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 04:12 AM

The 3.X descriptions are fine and all, but have no direct baring on 5e.

Seeing as the 5e alignments are paraphrased directly from 3E, I would say the 3E definitions are more than useful guides in interpreting the context of what Evil and Good mean in 5E.

Its like constitutional interpretation. You go back and look at surrounding text and earlier drafts and debates to see what words in the current draft mean.

Which is sorta the point I was getting at. That is going to be considered murder in quite a large chunk of the world. In fact, only places with Right to Die laws are Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. So in most of the world, that is going to be tried as murder, and people will go to jail for it.

Yeah nah. People engage with assisted suicide of the terminally ill all the time and dont get tried for murder (because the State elects not to prosecute).

In any event its not relelvant. What the State views as good or evil are not the objective definitions. In many places its a crime to leave a religion, have a relationship with someone of the same gender or whatever. Abhorrent practices like slavery and 50 year old men marrying 9 year old girls is still legal in many places of the world.

Assisting the terminally ill to end their lives with dignity is not the same thing as murdering someone. Euthenasia is easing suffering, to someone who willingly desires it, not causing suffering on someone who doesnt (murder).

Legal definitions notwithstanding.

Asmotherion

2016-09-27, 04:18 AM

Of course they're still good aligned! Being tricked into releasing a demon in an effort to save others selflessly is in no way evil.

I would assume those Good PCs would be wracked with guilt, and would proceed to do everything in their power to undo their mistake.

Innocent to whom, and whose greater good?

Remember, from Hitler and the German peoples perspective, Jewish people, and indeed most of Europe and the world were conspiring to destroy Germany. There was a 'Zionist conspiracy' where 'the Jews' were aligned with both the 'American and European banks' and 'Russian communists' to destroy 'the noble Arayan culture and race.'

From Hitlers POV, he was acting for the 'greater good'. Just like with every genocial madman ever. Pol Pot in Cambodia only did what he did (slaughter millions) for 'the greater good'. Hundreds of thousands of people were vaporised at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for 'the greater good'. Terrorists and IS throw people off bridges, and barbarically massacre people daily for 'the greater good'. The guys flying the planes on 9/11 did it for 'the greater good'. Japan only invaded China and the rest of Asia (and Pearl Harbor) to create an 'East Asian Co-prosperity sphere' for the 'greater good'. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Im not saying any of these acts were good. I'm just saying every single mass horrific act done ever was done 'for the greater good' by a man who genuinely thinks he is the good and righteous man, and his victims are evildoers, or 'sad but necessery victims in his quest for the greater good'.

Inocents as defined by whom exactly? By the one doing the killing? Or is there some objective standard that applies?

On this we agree.

Its not murder if its a lawful killing.

Im saying that a Paladin should reject laws that are unjust. He is not compelled (for example) to go along with laws that mandate slavery, or laws that strip a woman of all rights and allow her to be raped at will.

If a villian surrenders, and repents, he should be given an opportunity to atone. I would expect a Paladin to object to any order to kill the man after the fact.

And I rubutted that argument. The Paladin generally should seek to help them if possible, and should show genuine sympathy and kindness. But he's not required to help every starving orphan he walks past, just like an evil person isnt required to murder every person he walks past.

Thats because it is. There is a reason why every single developed and enlightened nation in the world (barring one) has done away with it.

LG kingdoms are very rare. Most tend towards LN.

And yes, a LG Kingdom doest practice capital punishment. Or slavery.

Robert wasnt LG. If anything, he's depicted as CN.

Innocense is defined as "non partakers".
You are good if, in a war, you only kill enemy soldiers when they have an equal fighting chance. (this would also be Lawfull good... for chaotic good, it's enough that they are soldiers and that you know that, in a reverse situation they would do the same.)
Killing an enemy soldier with a gun, wile he is unarmed, is neutral at best.
Killing a civilian is evil. Killing someone who has no responsibility in the war, and chose not to fight is evil.

It doesn't matter what you believe in your own madness (as per the Hitler example). There is such a thing as a line. Actually 2 lines. Line A (the line between good and evil) is crossed when you harm someone who has not crossed Line B (the line of being responsible for deaths of others).

Line B can be viewed as "Innocence" versus "Endering the Power Game/Taking Responsibility" The more responsible you are, the less innocent you are. Irresponsible is not the antythesis of Responsible, it is the lack of the ability to take responsibility for your actions; You are still responsible for them, you just hide from your responsibility like a coward.

For example:
Subject 1: A Civilian (I am talking about your average civilian, not a murderer etc)
-Had no say in starting the war
-Did not cause or participate in a battle
-Only wants/hopes to survive the war, to continue his life

Subject 2: Hitler
-Had the choice to never start a war, but still did
-Did not participate in a battle, but caused one more than once
-Hopes to win the war, knowing that there is the risk of loss.

Subject 3: Random Nazi Soldier or Commander
-Had a say to prevent the war, or at least quit his job/run away.
-Did participate in battle
-Hopes to win the war, either being brainwashed into thinking he is in a just cause or for the honor of being a "hero".

Subject 1 is innocent (at least in reguards to the war). Subject 2 and 3 are not innocent, and deserve to be treated as such in combat (same goes to the Alliance Generals and Combatants, I'm not being biased on Nazi). They hold responsibility on the situation, they are wariors. A warior is meant to crush or be crushed.

So, in the same example, the line between Good and Evil is drawn (and will be crossed) if someone was to kill subject 1. Killing subject 2 or 3 can be either good or neutral, depending on the situation.

Neutral is what one could call "moral grey". You do not cross the line to true evil, yet you are not good either.

That said, let's talk capital punishment:

I dissagree that capital punishment is evil. On the contrary, it is good. It might be impractical, as, it must be used only when enough evidence is there to prove the guilt of the punished. However, if someone was a child-rapist or a mass murderer (definitly crossed the line of both not being inocent and of being evil), killing him is a good act:
A) Releaves the citizens of the chance of the same person either being freed or escaping via a prison break, thus being released and starting over, potentially causing dammage to more inocents.
B) It is not different from how, let's say, a soldier kills an enemy soldier in morality. If you can accept that killing can be good, then capital punishment is definitelly a good act. I can hear arguements that killing as a whole is evil, and, wile I do not accept it, I can respect that. But if you are willing to accept that killing can be a good act, the best, and purest good act of killing is capital punishment.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 04:27 AM

How are you going to rehabilitate a drow? When someone goes in to talk to them they might get stabbed in the neck repeatedly. Brainwash them, pretty sure that's evil right? Magic, see brainwashing.

Also, you are going to take them away from their homes and their religion as well as their way of life. You are going to lock them away in a jail somewhere and then tell them how they should live and why they should live that way yes? Sounds like slavery to me. BUT we all know this is the good and lawful thing to do. Rehabilitate, not kill.

Just want to be sure that you all realize that being jailed is pretty much like slavery. You get locked somewhere of your captors choosing, told when to eat, what to eat, when to do whatever they want you to do. Even in most prisons people have jobs to do, so there's your labor.

SOUNDS LIKE SLAVERY TO ME.

Arrest as defined by legal terms.
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty.

Yes, it's done by the given lawful authority of a given land. But being arrested in Thay is the same as being arrested in Waterdeep. Who does it where doesn't change the end result that you are no longer free.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 04:44 AM

Innocense is defined as "non partakers".
You are good if, in a war, you only kill enemy soldiers when they have an equal fighting chance. (this would also be Lawfull good... for chaotic good, it's enough that they are soldiers and that you know that, in a reverse situation they would do the same.)

No way. You can kill enemy soldiers when they are at a marked disadvantage (such as in an ambush or outnumbered and overwhelmed). When they surrender though, you treat them with mercy and kindness, take them prisoner, and are always seeking (via your leaders) to end the war without bloodshed via peace talks.

I dissagree that capital punishment is evil. On the contrary, it is good.

In no way is killing a helpless and unarmed man, who doesnt want to die, when other options are available to you, good.

It might be impractical, as, it must be used only when enough evidence is there to prove the guilt of the punished. However, if someone was a child-rapist or a mass murderer (definitly crossed the line of both not being inocent and of being evil), killing him is a good act:

No, it is not.

Releaves the citizens of the chance of the same person either being freed or escaping via a prison break, thus being released and starting over, potentially causing dammage to more inocents.

Killing someone because they could escape is ridiculous. Im not even going to dignify this with an answer.

B) It is not different from how, let's say, a soldier kills an enemy soldier in morality.

Yes, it is. The enemy solder is actively trying to kill you. The prisoner in your dungeon is not, and even if he is, he has no practical means of doing so.

You're killing a helpless and unarmed man.

If you can accept that killing can be good, then capital punishment is definitelly a good act.

No, its not. It is evil. It is unambiguously evil.

How are you going to rehabilitate a drow?

Ask Elistraee. Or Drizzt. Or Corellion. Or any of the othe good aligned Drow.

Only Shevrash advocates the killing of the Drow and he's CN. Even his dogma doesnt support wholescale genocide (although the CE clerics of his faith certainly do).

Asmotherion

2016-09-27, 04:53 AM

No way. You can kill enemy soldiers when they are at a marked disadvantage (such as in an ambush or outnumbered and overwhelmed). When they surrender though, you treat them with mercy and kindness, take them prisoner, and are always seeking (via your leaders) to end the war without bloodshed via peace talks.

In no way is killing a helpless and unarmed man, who doesnt want to die, when other options are available to you, good.

No, it is not.

Killing someone because they could escape is ridiculous. Im not even going to dignify this with an answer.

Yes, it is. The enemy solder is actively trying to kill you. The prisoner in your dungeon is not, and even if he is, he has no practical means of doing so.

You're killing a helpless and unarmed man.

No, its not. It is evil. It is unambiguously evil.

Ask Elistraee. Or Drizzt. Or Corellion. Or any of the othe good aligned Drow.

Only Shevrash advocates the killing of the Drow and he's CN. Even his dogma doesnt support wholescale genocide (although the CE clerics of his faith certainly do).

So, you are saying that killing a regular soldier in his sleep (who could potentially have not killed anyone yet), without giving his a fighting chance is a good act, but killing a monster that kills and rapes children (not necesseraly in that order) is evil, just because he is restrained by some chains (wile, given the chance, he would probably brutally murder you, and then rape your dead body). Your logic is beyond be. And kinda contradictory.

If you are willing to argue that killing is a bad thing altogether, I might dissagree, but I can accept that. What you are saying however is unacceptable by my standards.

In any case, killing someone instead of torturing him (having someone locked up is clearly torture) for the rest of his life is the good thing to do. And more humane. What good does ever come from emprisoning someone?

-statistics show that prisoners who finish their sentance and are released, more often than not end up in prison for the same crime in the next 2 years
-That means that you do put more people in danger as long as you release a prisoner.
-on the other hand, emprisonment for life (or till the person is in his late 70s or early 80s) is also a fate worse than death. You are either living all your life in a cell, with no hope of getting out, or, when he hits 80 they give him a farewell card saying "Enjoy the last couple years of your life". If that's not sadistically evil, what is evil really?
-On the other hand, Capital Punishment is more functional: You did something bad enough to be a threat, thus unwanted in our society, and we are sure that, given the chance, you'll do the same all over again-> We remove you from that society. No taxes will be used to feed you, home you and wash your clothes.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 05:09 AM

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 05:22 AM

Because you claimed they had to be innocent souls, which would clearly be an evil act. If they are evil souls, I feel like it's more of a grey area.

Even the blackest soul still has a natural way to follow, messing with that is still considered the greatest sin anyone can do, there is no mitigating factors at all (by D&D standards, if you want to make it that in your world messing and destroying an evil soul isn't evil then go ahead).

Corran

2016-09-27, 05:36 AM

-on the other hand, emprisonment for life (or till the person is in his late 70s or early 80s) is also a fate worse than death. You are either living all your life in a cell, with no hope of getting out, or, when he hits 80 they give him a farewell card saying "Enjoy the last couple years of your life". If that's not sadistically evil, what is evil really?

Putting someone through the agony of knowing that on that time of that day s/he is going to die, which I suspect is growing stronger wtth every passing day, hour, minute, second.

Malifice

2016-09-27, 05:39 AM

You've never been in war have you?

Yes, I have. 2002.

Ive seen exactly where your 'its for the greater good' or 'its OK for us to do this because they're the bad guys' arguments lead, and I want nothing to do with them.

So, you are saying that killing a regular soldier in his sleep (who could potentially have not killed anyone yet), without giving his a fighting chance is a good act,

No, I am not. Killing is never a good act. It is (at best) neutral.

If you are willing to argue that killing is a bad thing altogether,

Now youre getting there. Killing is never good. A good person only resorts to it when it is the only reasonable option open to him to save the life of another (i.e. self defence or the defence of others, as a reasonable and proportionate response and as a last resort)

In any case, killing someone instead of torturing him (having someone locked up is clearly torture) for the rest of his life is the good thing to do. And more humane. What good does ever come from emprisoning someone?

Might as well nerve gas all the prisoners now then. What is this, North Korea?

-statistics show that prisoners who finish their sentance and are released, more often than not end up in prison for the same crime in the next 2 years

Mate. Im gonna stop you there. You have no idea what you're talking about and its getting embarrassing.

I'm a Lawyer IRL, and what you're saying is frankly rubbish. You might as well be trying to convince me that katanas can slice through anvils, or some other equally inane roleplayer logic. You're advocating for some rather ridiculous an ill informed stuff.

We dont order the execution of prisoners for convenience (its gonna cost too much to keep them alive, and the bullet is only 5 cents!), and we dont default to the death penalty just becuase 'you think its more humane to kill prisoners than lock them up for life'.

Its not more humane to kill a prisoner because you think it is. Talk to prisoners with life sentences and ask how many want to be transfered to death row and killed off.

You know what. This is getting beyond ridiculous now.

I hate arguing with 'roleplayers' about this stuff. It just winds up with the same old ridicuous arguments from the same old 'roleplayer/ DnD crowd' that as long as [your victims are evil] or you [act for the greater good] then not even genocide, murder, torture, infanticide, human sacrifice, pacts with Lucifer, State sanctioned mass murder of its entire prison population, demon worship, or whatever are evil.

**** this. Unsubscribed.

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 06:12 AM

And this is why you should never have a morality argument where D&D is the base (or morality arguments in general over the internet but especially one where real world and fantasy morality are clearly different).

JackPhoenix

2016-09-27, 06:12 AM

Drizzit is also the single largest Mary Sue in all of D&D.

Nah. I mean, in the same setting, there's Elminster...

Kydo

2016-09-27, 06:23 AM

I'm a Lawyer IRL, and what you're saying is frankly rubbish. You might as well be trying to convince me that katanas can slice through anvils, or some other equally inane roleplayer logic. You're advocating for some rather ridiculous an ill informed stuff.

Clearly so are you, nor will you answer half the questions posted. Do your magical medieval dungeons have toilets? Do they have sanitary places to go relieve yourself? Those dungeons are grimy and filthy. You refuse to address this because in your game you probably just hand waive it and say your prisons or whatever are all good and happy in your LG kingdoms. The amount of upkeep that would require is incredible.

Each city state or nation would have to build it's own prisons to not sentence people to solitary confinement if they were going to be able to mingle and do anything outside of walk around like they can in modern society. If torture is evil these are things that require answering in a LG kingdom but you still won't even touch it.

We dont order the execution of prisoners for convenience (its gonna cost too much to keep them alive, and the bullet is only 5 cents!), and we dont default to the death penalty just becuase 'you think its more humane to kill prisoners than lock them up for life'.

Its not more humane to kill a prisoner because you think it is. Talk to prisoners with life sentences and ask how many want to be transfered to death row and killed off.

Eventually yes. In a society where people don't die for hundreds if not thousands of years eventually you have to do -something- to create room. Sure, you can build more and more and more and more and more and more prisons. You can have the prison nation and others can send you their prisoners!

But on a more on topic note how much taxing your own people into the floor is to much so that you can continue to have these prisons and provide for the people inside of them? How far into poverty do your people have to fall so that you can provide a reasonable standard for those who did the evil thing?

You know what. This is getting beyond ridiculous now.

I hate arguing with 'roleplayers' about this stuff. It just winds up with the same old ridicuous arguments from the same old 'roleplayer/ DnD crowd' that as long as [your victims are evil] or you [act for the greater good] then not even genocide, murder, torture, infanticide, human sacrifice, pacts with Lucifer, State sanctioned mass murder of its entire prison population, demon worship, or whatever are evil.

**** this. Unsubscribed.

It's ok, you've been there for a minute now and we stuck it out.

Also... bye?

Asmotherion

2016-09-27, 07:50 AM

Yes, I have. 2002.

Ive seen exactly where your 'its for the greater good' or 'its OK for us to do this because they're the bad guys' arguments lead, and I want nothing to do with them.

No, I am not. Killing is never a good act. It is (at best) neutral.

Now youre getting there. Killing is never good. A good person only resorts to it when it is the only reasonable option open to him to save the life of another (i.e. self defence or the defence of others, as a reasonable and proportionate response and as a last resort)

Might as well nerve gas all the prisoners now then. What is this, North Korea?

Mate. Im gonna stop you there. You have no idea what you're talking about and its getting embarrassing.

I'm a Lawyer IRL, and what you're saying is frankly rubbish. You might as well be trying to convince me that katanas can slice through anvils, or some other equally inane roleplayer logic. You're advocating for some rather ridiculous an ill informed stuff.

We dont order the execution of prisoners for convenience (its gonna cost too much to keep them alive, and the bullet is only 5 cents!), and we dont default to the death penalty just becuase 'you think its more humane to kill prisoners than lock them up for life'.

Its not more humane to kill a prisoner because you think it is. Talk to prisoners with life sentences and ask how many want to be transfered to death row and killed off.

You know what. This is getting beyond ridiculous now.

I hate arguing with 'roleplayers' about this stuff. It just winds up with the same old ridicuous arguments from the same old 'roleplayer/ DnD crowd' that as long as [your victims are evil] or you [act for the greater good] then not even genocide, murder, torture, infanticide, human sacrifice, pacts with Lucifer, State sanctioned mass murder of its entire prison population, demon worship, or whatever are evil.

**** this. Unsubscribed.

And I am a robotics engeneer. PHD. Which has absolutelly nothing to do with the conversation. Trying to enhance your own credit by mentioning your proffesion (which is doubtfully a honest mention, and as far as I'm concerned I doubt you're even adult), as a means to appear as a "specialist" in the subject is a means used in debates by the loosing party. You may as well put a hat that says obey, and start arguing "I'm always right because I'm always right"... how many people will take you seriously is an other matter.

I have my personal view on the matter. Capital punishment is still practiced in some states in the usa (however this is only in extream cases, but those are the extream cases I am talking about). I do not live in one of those states, or in usa for that matter. I just believe that this is the right thing to do. When someone has murdered your child, you want them dead. As a tax paying cittizen, you are not happy to know that, part of the taxes you pay go to feed your child's murderer. You would however gladly spend the money for their execution.

One is free to disagree with me ofcource. And I'm not going to try and convince them. That said, when someone falls as low as "cretit to one's self" and "discredit the other partie's arguements without any explaination, other than "your arguements are invalid because I don't like them" I just need to point out that they are merelly out of arguements, unable to continue debate on a serious level, so the only this they have left is discredit of the caliber "you are using Role player logic and I am a serious lawyer-honest-truth" and "you have no idea what you're talking about, because I said so. I could prove you are wrong if I really wanted, I am just too important to be bothered. Also I left my daddy's law book in my mansion, guarded by our pet dragon, and I've run out of dragon-cookies to feed him"
:3

PS: Oh, this is precious... I just noticed you've also been to war... was it before or after law school? XD Maybe you also became a Brain Surgeon in the meanwile? XD And a teenage mutan ninja turtle wile you're at it.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-27, 08:41 AM

Asmotherion

2016-09-27, 08:51 AM

smcmike

2016-09-27, 08:55 AM

It's interesting that Malifice is willing to argue for hours that capital punishment is absolutely evil, but has yet to provide justification for that assertion. And the thread was actually going somewhere interesting last page.

I tend to agree with Mal about capital punishment.

On the other hand, I don't see how "humane rehabilitation" is an realistic option in most premodern states. If you are playing a medieval-style world, the resources for this sort of system simply don't exist. Maybe that makes all medieval rulers evil. I don't know.

I'm more interested in the question about ambushes, which I didn't see a clear answer on. If you spot a deadly ambush, is it moral to drop a fireball on the ambushers, when you could just go a different way?

EvilAnagram

2016-09-27, 09:04 AM

I tend to agree with Mal about capital punishment.
And I'm against as well, but I can justify my position. There are practical concerns with evidence, our conviction rates of innocents, and the simple fact that incarceration is often cheaper that execution.

However, he is asserting that it is evil, regardless of all other facts, and he has not supported this claim other than by saying modern Western societies have banned it.

Well, technically he said, "every single developed and enlightened nation in the world (barring one)" has banned it, which has the troubling implication that a society's enlightenment is not tied to its laws, but rather to some other aspect.

On the other hand, I don't see how "humane rehabilitation" is an realistic option in most premodern states. If you are playing a medieval-style world, the resources for this sort of system simply don't exist. Maybe that makes all medieval rulers evil. I don't know.

I'm more interested in the question about ambushes, which I didn't see a clear answer on. If you spot a deadly ambush, is it moral to drop a fireball on the ambushers, when you could just go a different way?

He is proposing a vague sense of morality that lacks any practicality in a D&D world. It seems logically inconsistent, and it does not have supporting justification.

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 09:08 AM

It's interesting that Malifice is willing to argue for hours that capital punishment is absolutely evil, but has yet to provide justification for that assertion. And the thread was actually going somewhere interesting last page.

Can you even provide justification for what it is basically an opinion? Unless you mean that he should expound more on his feelings on the matter.

I'm more interested in the question about ambushes, which I didn't see a clear answer on. If you spot a deadly ambush, is it moral to drop a fireball on the ambushers, when you could just go a different way?

Do you know for certain that the ambush is for you? Are the creatures that compose the ambush composed of acceptable targets?

It is just as moral to drop a fireball as it is to rush into melee and start stabbing the enemies. You can also go on about how leaving the enemies means that they can cause trouble later (especially if they were organized enough to try and stop you specifically so they might be able to hinder you in other ways down the line).

So in other words, if this is actual D&D and you have a band of of bandits or orcs that you know are in it to kill you and you got the drop on them then you probably ain't doing anything wrong by sneak attacking with a fireball

Asmotherion

2016-09-27, 09:19 AM

Can you even provide justification for what it is basically an opinion? Unless you mean that he should expound more on his feelings on the matter.

Do you know for certain that the ambush is for you? Are the creatures that compose the ambush composed of acceptable targets?

It is just as moral to drop a fireball as it is to rush into melee and start stabbing the enemies. You can also go on about how leaving the enemies means that they can cause trouble later (especially if they were organized enough to try and stop you specifically so they might be able to hinder you in other ways down the line).

So in other words, if this is actual D&D and you have a band of of bandits or orcs that you know are in it to kill you and you got the drop on them then you probably ain't doing anything wrong by sneak attacking with a fireball
Agreed. In a sence, it's their fault for not being vigilant enough. They are out to kill you, and they are definitelly not civilians.

smcmike

2016-09-27, 09:20 AM

Do you know for certain that the ambush is for you? Are the creatures that compose the ambush composed of acceptable targets?

Define "acceptable targets."

The example was carefully worded a couple of times up the thread, but if it matters who the ambush is for or how much knowledge the party has, you can draw your own distinctions. Maybe it's better if the ambush is specifically for you, but maybe not - aren't you equally justified in attacking an ambush that is meant for the first traveler to walk along the road?

So in other words, if this is actual D&D and you have a band of of bandits or orcs that you know are in it to kill you and you got the drop on them then you probably ain't doing anything wrong by sneak attacking with a fireball

I agree. I'm curious if Malifice does.

RickAllison

2016-09-27, 09:21 AM

I'd just like to make quick notes about 5e alignment, though someone already called out Malifice's blatant refusal to consider the alignment actually used in favor of a system that reinforces his tyrannical tendencies.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

The right thing as expected by society. That is pretty dang subjective as every society has its own concepts of what is "right". Good Goliaths, for example, might consider it a Good act to prevent the town guard from aiding a villager in a fight on the grounds that it is Good to allow people to continuously test themselves (a major component of Goliath society). Interceding before he is beaten into the dirt deprives him of that opportunity.

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.

This one is very vague, but simple. If you do your best to help others in need without regard for society's expectations or personal conscience, this is probably it. I like the idea of this for a divination wizard or a cleric of some fate/divination deity. They see the future of a person and help them according to what they need, not necessarily what they want at the time.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.

Act as their conscience directs... If someone listens to their Jiminy Cricket and does as it says, they fit in here.

Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.

The law, no matter what. They don't use the law for the benefit of the others or for themselves, they just follow it. Most executioners probably fall here. They don't get a thrill out of the job (then they are probably E), they just acknowledge there is a job to do and someone has to be the headsman.

Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.

This is basically what it has always been.

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

Where LN just cares about law, CN just cares about freedom. Nothing much more to say.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.

They use the law for personal gain, or seek personal gain within the law. Notably, this means that the act of donating to charity in order to get a tax break is an LE act. Which makes sense, the person doesn't actually care about the orphans but just losing as little money as possible.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.

Nothing much to say.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

Yeah, we know what falls here.

No mention of murder or charity, anything. 5e alignment is about the intentions and manner of the acts, rather than the acts themselves. The guy who kills to keep himself alive is still Evil because he ends lives for selfish reasons, the Punisher (interestingly) is now CG. While he was originally motivated by vengeance, Frank Castle found new motivation after defeating his family's killers by ensuring that other innocents would not suffer the same way. He is helping others according to his conscience, even if his methods are rather grisly. This does not actually help for most genocidal people as "the greater good" is usually a cover for personal gain, though a mentally ill person may truly think they are acting for such a goal.

So maybe this is why Malifice rubs so many wrong. He is simply not thinking of 5e alignment at all!

mrumsey

2016-09-27, 09:22 AM

This has been an interesting thread. I've read quite a bit, but I am at work. I don't know if any of you have heard of Philip Zimbardo of the Princeton Prison Experiment and Analysis of Abu Ghraib. His TED talk on the psychology of evil (google it!) is pretty interesting when talking about the boundaries of good and evil, especially in the scope of a single human mind.

I suggest nearly everyone watch it, but it seems particularly on topic for this thread.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-27, 09:34 AM

Can you even provide justification for what it is basically an opinion?
...Yes.

Of course you can. That's what philosophy is: the rigorous application of logic in order to arrive at true and valid beliefs. If you say that x is immoral, but you cannot explain why x is immoral, then your beliefs have no logical basis, and you're just spouting nonsense. I mean, you ask yourself why something is right or wrong, correct? You don't just accept that something feels icky, and that makes it wrong.

And, furthermore, moral beliefs should not merely be opinions. They should be rigorously thought out and justified long before you get in an hours-long argument online.

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 10:11 AM

Define "acceptable targets."

Goblins, kobolds, orcs, illithids, demons, devils, chromatic dragons and so on are acceptable targets by D&D. Basically killing them might not put you in the wrong because their very being tends towards the wrong anyway. Read up on some of the MM descriptions of monstrous races and you will see a very negative picture painted by the book. Of course the book says that there are exceptions and not all orcs, goblins and what have you are evil but that the great majority is evil and you probably will be very justified if you decide to kill a raging pack of orcs because they are most definitely evil and will not be changed because their very being tends towards evil, there is no such thing as rehabilitation for these guys.

The example was carefully worded a couple of times up the thread, but if it matters who the ambush is for or how much knowledge the party has, you can draw your own distinctions. Maybe it's better if the ambush is specifically for you, but maybe not - aren't you equally justified in attacking an ambush that is meant for the first traveler to walk along the road?

So basically you can put in the "Help, protect the caravan from bandits that waylay the path!" trope that is as common as saving the princess or the adventurers meet at a tavern?

Personally it sounds more like it would be more acceptable if when you find the ambush you ruin the surprise and then attack as if to give the other side a sporting chance. Which kinda translates to "Having surprise actions is evil".

If the ambush would've happened, would you be justified in killing them?

...Yes.

Of course you can. That's what philosophy is: the rigorous application of logic in order to arrive at true and valid beliefs. If you say that x is immoral, but you cannot explain why x is immoral, then your beliefs have no logical basis, and you're just spouting nonsense. I mean, you ask yourself why something is right or wrong, correct? You don't just accept that something feels icky, and that makes it wrong.

And, furthermore, moral beliefs should not merely be opinions. They should be rigorously thought out and justified long before you get in an hours-long argument online.

I don't want to belittle you but your point kinda falls a bit hollow when we are talking about fantasy elf land beliefs. My character might believe that killing all orcs is good but that doesn't translate to me saying that the apartheid is great. When real life starts to get mixed with fantasy elf land then I can only shake my head.

Why is something right or wrong? Because the book says so. If you want a real life discussion I have no desire to delve into such topics, especially here.

smcmike

2016-09-27, 10:19 AM

Goblins, kobolds, orcs, illithids, demons, devils, chromatic dragons and so on are acceptable targets by D&D. Basically killing them might not put you in the wrong because their very being tends towards the wrong anyway. Read up on some of the MM descriptions of monstrous races and you will see a very negative picture painted by the book. Of course the book says that there are exceptions and not all orcs, goblins and what have you are evil but that the great majority is evil and you probably will be very justified if you decide to kill a raging pack of orcs because they are too far along.

Let's say the potential ambushers are humans, then, to eliminate the "evil race" question.

So basically you can put in the "Help, protect the caravan from bandits that waylay the path!" trope that is as common as saving the princess or the adventurers meet at a tavern?

Personally it sounds more like it would be more acceptable if when you find the ambush you ruin the surprise and then attack as if to give the other side a sporting chance. Which kinda translates to "Having surprise actions is evil".

If the ambush would've happened, would you be justified in killing them?

Yes, that is the question, whether it is permissable for a good character to kill them before they have a chance to spring the ambush, when there is no immediate peril to the party or anyone else.

I think you are saying that it would be be permissable. I agree.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-27, 10:22 AM

I don't want to belittle you but your point kinda falls a bit hollow when we are talking about fantasy elf land beliefs. My character might believe that killing all orcs is good but that doesn't translate to me saying that the apartheid is great. When real life starts to get mixed with fantasy elf land then I can only shake my head.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Fantastical stories began as ways to explore real life questions that tied intimately to what is right and wrong, and they certainly continued that tradition through Tolkien and beyond. You can dismiss fantasy elf land with a sneer, but I've seen more nuanced approaches to morality in fantasy elf lands than I have in most people I've known.

Your character's beliefs are only relevant to his or her actions, but if you, the person known here as Shaofoo, feel comfortable identifying groups of thinking creatures as perfectly moral to kill, then I find that troubling, and I would not call you a moral person.

You may feel that real life morality has no place in fiction, but then what is fiction for? Why did he tribal storytellers tell tales of right action rewarded by the gods? Why do we have stories of faithfulness to family, kindness to strangers, of simple honesty resulting in mystical aid in our time of need? Why do Tolkien and Elliot show us worlds dominated by the sword, juxtaposed with self-sacrificing heroes? If you can show me a better treatise for moral action than Terry Pratchett's complete works, I'd love to read it.

Why is something right or wrong? Because the book says so. If you want a real life discussion I have no desire to delve into such topics, especially here.
I would say that you should absolutely delve into such topics, but I have confined myself to the morality of the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, and I shall continue to do so.

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 10:31 AM

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Fantastical stories began as ways to explore real life questions that tied intimately to what is right and wrong, and they certainly continued that tradition through Tolkien and beyond. You can dismiss fantasy elf land with a sneer, but I've seen more nuanced approaches to morality in fantasy elf lands than I have in real world politics.

Your character's beliefs are only relevant to his or her actions, but if you, the person known here as Shaofoo, feel comfortable identifying groups of thinking creatures as perfectly moral to kill, then I find that troubling, and I would not call you a moral person.

Yes, cause me thinking that my character that I am pretending as likes killing fantasy creatures that does not affect in any way shape or form the real world means that I am an abhorrent person.

Also like I said, this isn't me saying it, this is the actual makers of the game saying things as well. Go read the Monster Manual and read up on those various "evil" races.

You want to expound deeper philosophical diatribe then go ahead but I wouldn't put stock in a world where they say "killing orcs is okay because they are pests". Make sure you know where you are fighting your battles.

You may feel that real life morality has no place in fiction, but then what is fiction for?

For a lot of reasons, but mainly I don't feel that real life morality has a place where morality is defined so rigidly. And certainly I wouldn't want real life to get into too much of my fantasy now.

I would say that you should absolutely delve into such topics, but I have confined myself to the morality of the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, and I shall continue to do so.

Considering the fact that you have attacked my very person for saying such horrible things as "My character thinks that killing fantasy orcs is okay" then I truly question your distinction to even separate fantasy and reality, you certainly are not in the D&D morality if you think that we should spare orcs because they are thinking beings.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-27, 10:32 AM

I think you are saying that it would be be permissable. I agree.

Well, they were good brigands, waiting to ambush an evil caravan transporting an evil artefact made of anti-cake. The world ends as orphans crawl up to the smouldering corpses of the ambushers, whimpering "Whyyyy?" Good job!

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 10:39 AM

Well, they were good brigands, waiting to ambush an evil caravan transporting an evil artefact made of anti-cake. The world ends as orphans crawl up to the smouldering corpses of the ambushers, whimpering "Whyyyy?" Good job!

You know I would truly consider the group that does not question what was in the caravan to be good, could've been full of weapons and drugs for a much more grounded example. If they are a "Don't ask don't tell" kind of adventurer that the only thing is the reward at the end then they might not care if the world ends with anti cake orphans. The good brigands could've appealed to the group that didn't know instead of just attacking on the spot.

but also killing good people isn't inherently evil just like killing evil people isn't inherently good. There is no karma system that awards points for offing the opposite alignment.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 10:46 AM

Hes looking to eradicate the Drow.

What about if (after leading an expedition force into the underdark, and vanquishing the Drow army) he tosses the Drow children into the fire as they scream in terror?

His genocide has a clearly good outcome.
I don't know about your world, but in mine non-adult sentient humanoids (aka children) are NEVER irredeemably evil- they might lean one way or the other on the Law/Chaos axis but with they proper amount of nurture and care anyone can be raised to follow any alignment.
And if the Paladin stopped to pray for guidance, his god(s) would happily inform him of such.

Eradicating someone other race's culture? Probably not great.
Eradicating a wicked culture that increases suffering and misery and produces many evil adults? It's a nasty job but someone's got to do it. As you've pointed out though, there are different ways to go about it that different types of characters would favor. I think the difference between us is that I'm willing to let different types of good (or neutral) characters pursue different strategies without handing down dictates from on high that condemn some of them.

If alignment is strictly subjective, then moral relativism rules the roost, and as long as my character thinks he's good, he is, regardless of his evil actions or savagery.
I never said alignment is "strictly subjective"- in fact I think I laid out several scenarios of stuff that's bad.

No, I'm telling you that one soul going to hell, is better than hundreds of souls going to hell.
Is one innocent soul going to hell better than hundreds of wicked souls going to hell?

In fact, if the PC refrained from taking a life, and self sacrificed himself instead, he wouldnt (or shouldnt) go to hell either.
...
I agree. Again, if the PC was good, and he demonstrated it by refusing to take a life, he doesnt (or shouldnt) go to hell. Only evil people do so.

In my view the whole thing is a scam.
That's an interesting take on it, but IMO it shouldn't be the only viable outcome. Essentially you seem to be condemning a character for NOT KNOWING that they were being lied to.

Strengthening hell with every soul he sends there. You miss the point.
Just a few lines later though you say that:

No, I am saying in my world Good souls go to Heaven and Evil souls go to Hell.
So those wicked souls are going to end up there anyway, he's just expediting the process and at the same time, allowing those souls to commit less evil on the material plane.

Good vs Evil is not just a game of football with two opposing sides playing by the same rules but wearing different jumpers. Its two sides playing by totally different rules. Everytime a Good person commits an act of evil, he increases the evil in the world.
But in my version of things the sum-total of actions are from both the act itself, the intent, and the outcome. As a good person you would prefer NOT to kill. But if you kill someone who is evil, and in turn stop them from committing more evil, then that is a net-Good act and decreases the amount of evil in the world.

Also, while redeeming someone's soul is the ultimately best action, you could make the argument that for someone who is not trying to be good and shows no inclination to turn good, that every evil action only condemns their soul further. You could say that by killing them you "saved" them from a worse fate than if you allowed them to keep committing evil.
Now, this kind of moral justification is of course a SUPER-SLIPPERY SLOPE, and would probably at least trigger a vision (warning) from some deity. But if a character wants to try walking that moral tightrope over a pit of dire-tarrasque-level ethical dilemmas, I'm willing to let them try. In fact I'd be very impressed if they have the roleplaying chops to pull it off.

If a person under a curse to kill others or have his soul taken to hell refuses to do so, and dies a good man instead of a monster, he goes to Heaven instead.
....
Refuse to kill. Stare evil in the face and take the higher path. Be a good man.
I think we've already covered this, and the only different between you and me is that I'm willing to allow for a greater number of paths that lead to goodness.

In a world with real Gods and afterlives, and punishment for the wicked, and the reward of paradise for the righteous, (and an overgod monitoring the whole process) he gets into heaven.
Personally I've never been fond of the cosmology that says everyone knows exactly what happens to you once you die and/or that the strength of armies of demons and angles are reliant on how many souls each group has managed to capture (go poke-soul-ball!) I have trouble seeing why anyone would actively choose evil for it's own sake knowing that they will burn for eternity at their death, so the only believable outcomes seems to be good characters and well-intentioned extremists. Because I don't like the limits it creates, I prefer things to be a little more ambiguous.

Sure, clerics and priests will TELL you they know what happens, but even with a direct line to the gods a lot of them never quite seem to agree. Good clerics tell you that good souls go to eternal paradise and wicked souls to eternal damnation, but since they all serve different gods the exact plan for being "good" jumps around a lot. Evil clerics will tell you that good clerics are lying, or not to worry about it, or that thanks to your devotion to Slaanesh or whoever you will be protected from the lake of fire, but anyone who comes back from the dead has only the vaguest memories so its impossible to confirm who's right and wrong.

This ambiguity allows for a fair amount of different character types and actions from players that I don't believe you get in a more rigid and absolutist system. I don't think I've ever had a player complain I wasn't being tough enough on someone else (and I probably wouldn't listen anyway) and if a player wants me to make them feel guilty for their actions then that's some sort of weird emotional masochism that I'm not prepared for in a tabletop game.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-27, 10:49 AM

Yes, cause me thinking that my character that I am pretending as likes killing fantasy creatures that does not affect in any way shape or form the real world means that I am an abhorrent person.
I'm not sure what you're responding to, as I did not say that. I said, "if you, the person known here as Shaofoo, feel comfortable identifying groups of thinking creatures as perfectly moral to kill," then I do not believe you are a moral person.

Note the conditional: If x, then y. My stating a conditional does not imply that I am stating the conditions have been fulfilled. I am merely saying that if x is true, then y is true.

I also explicitly distinguished between your character's beliefs and your own. I honestly don't know where you found all that straw.

Also like I said, this isn't me saying it, this is the actual makers of the game saying things as well. Go read the Monster Manual and read up on those various "evil" races.
On page 7 the MM states that orcs are "almost uniformly evil." This implies that orcs are not uniformly evil, so the game is against your assertion.

You want to expound deeper philosophical diatribe then go ahead but I wouldn't put stock in a world where they say "killing orcs is okay because they are pests". Make sure you know where you are fighting your battles.
Where does it state that? Page number, please. Also, this isn't really a diatribe.

For a lot of reasons, but mainly I don't feel that real life morality has a place where morality is defined so rigidly. And certainly I wouldn't want real life to get into too much of my fantasy now.
It's understandable to want to keep your hobbies out of real life, but a game like D&D can easily include real moral dilemmas, and I have no trouble drawing on real moral justifications.

Considering the fact that you have attacked my very person for saying such horrible things as "My character thinks that killing fantasy orcs is okay" then I truly question your distinction to even separate fantasy and reality, you certainly are not in the D&D morality if you think that we should spare orcs because they are thinking beings.
Again, reread what I said. I explicitly distinguished between your character's beliefs from your own. Your post would be a very effective counterargument if anyone had actually made the argument you're countering.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 10:55 AM

I missed this bit the first time through, and I wanted to respond.

I tend to agree with Mal about capital punishment.

On the other hand, I don't see how "humane rehabilitation" is an realistic option in most premodern states. If you are playing a medieval-style world, the resources for this sort of system simply don't exist. Maybe that makes all medieval rulers evil. I don't know.
It might make them evil by modern standards, but whose standards are they being judged by? I'd argue that you have to allow for certain limitations in character ability, and you shouldn't immediately punish people who failing to achieve something if they tried their best AND couldn't be reasonably expected to pull off another outcome.
Personally I prefer a world that, thanks to magic, is more like a modern world anyway. I think I can keep the feel of fantasy without needing to play every setting as a crapsack dung-age.

However, not everyone wants to do that, and here's the kicker. THIS IS A FANTASY WORLD. IT IS NOT REAL, AND HAS ONLY AS MUCH RELATIONSHIP TO THE REAL WORLD AS WE WANT IT TO. If the GM wants to design a world in which capital punishment is evil, they are free to do so. Alternatively, a GM is also free to design a world in which capital punishment is NOT evil. So long as they are clear to their players on what is good and what is evil, that's all that you really need.

A PLAYER SHOULD NOT DEMAND THAT EVERY FANTASY SETTING MATCHES UP EXACTLY WITH THEIR REAL WORLD SENSE OF MORALITY. THAT IS BAD ROLEPLAYING.

Has anyone here ever played an "evil" campaign or an "evil" character? Have you heard of someone who has? Presumably those players aren't evil, they are ACTING. By the same token, people can play characters who are better (more good) in a game than they are in real life; I know I have.

If you tell me that in your world capital punishment is evil, if I am playing as a character who relies on having a good alignment, then I will fight against capital punishment REGARDLESS of what I actually believe. If your world's sense of morality differs to greatly from my own, I'll probably just avoid classes who rely on meeting your standards- I'll stick to Fighters, Rogues, Wizards, and maybe the occasional Druid.

What I don't like is someone else demanding that my SETTING subscribe to their personal sense of right and wrong.

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 11:01 AM

On page 7 the MM states that orcs are "almost uniformly evil." This implies that orcs are not uniformly evil, so the game is against your assertion.

Read the orc part of the book, I can't give a page but if we were supposed to take that somehow orcs are somewhat redeemable then they do a piss poor job at it; also I wouldn't consider to take stock that "almost all are evil" to be something in your favor. It'd be like saying "not all *insert actual real life race here* are thieves, scumbags, liars, leeches, etc.. but almost all of them are" you kinda don't come out of it thinking that was a fair shake on *insert actual real life race here*. If "almost all orcs are evil" is enough to placate you for equality to orcs then you have very low standards my friend.

Where does it state that? Page number, please. Also, this isn't really a diatribe.

See above

It's understandable to want to keep your hobbies out of real life, but a game like D&D can easily include real moral dilemmas, and I have no trouble drawing on real moral justifications.

Just because you can't doesn't mean you should. Feel free to make direct real life parallels if that is what you want but I usually find such actions to fall flat most of the time that I don't think most people should bother or at the very least not be so heavy handed. Also like I said in a place where real life morality and the actual written morality clashes then making any discussion will fall flat more often than not, feel free to add them to your games.

Again, reread what I said. I explicitly separated your character's beliefs from your own.

I also explicitly distinguished between your character's beliefs and your own. I honestly don't know where you found all that straw.

By then attacking me in saying that I am making strawmen. Protip: Don't belittle people in the same sentence that you are trying to get them to understand. Seems kinda two faced.

Sabeta

2016-09-27, 11:13 AM

http://pm1.narvii.com/6160/d1dfe78761c561fd0ada4de72916a388273c1f1b_hq.jpghtt p://pm1.narvii.com/6160/e873aa850b1c3bd73626ed42cb82827c63f5f9f8_hq.jpg

Goblin Slayer is Chaotic Good.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-27, 11:34 AM

You know I would truly consider the group that does not question what was in the caravan to be good, could've been full of weapons and drugs for a much more grounded example. [...] The good brigands could've appealed to the group that didn't know instead of just attacking on the spot.

Unless I'm missing something, the scenario as given was that the PCs discover some people lying in ambush, and ambush them in turn. The PCs don't know what the brigands are doing, and the brigands aren't given the choice to appeal to anyone before toasting in hellfire.

Xetheral

2016-09-27, 11:42 AM

Unless I'm missing something, the scenario as given was that the PCs discover some people lying in ambush, and ambush them in turn. The PCs don't know what the brigands are doing, and the brigands aren't given the choice to appeal to anyone before toasting in hellfire.

At Malifice's request I expanded on the basic scenario here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21245704&postcount=185).

CNagy

2016-09-27, 11:54 AM

Let's say the potential ambushers are humans, then, to eliminate the "evil race" question.

Yes, that is the question, whether it is permissable for a good character to kill them before they have a chance to spring the ambush, when there is no immediate peril to the party or anyone else.

I think you are saying that it would be be permissable. I agree.

If I had a group of players who thought this way, they'd end up killing agents of the crown who received intelligence that a notorious outlaw would be using this road to travel on such and such a day. You spotted them because you are a group of adventurers (at least one of whom has proficiency in Perception, perhaps more) and you nuked them because they were an ambush waiting to spring. Maybe their ambush is sanctioned; perhaps this road now has a toll that travelers (sometimes heavily armed and poorly-tempered) are more willing to pay when a handful of fellows step out of the shadows after the first one makes himself and the fee for passage known.

In a scenario where you are not certain of the hostility of the other party, the caravan/wagon/group should come to a stop. Defensive positions should be taken. The potential ambushers become aware that they have been seen. People who lay an ambush, by definition, are not looking for a straight-up fight. They have to either retreat or parley, because the longer you sit there in the road, the greater the risk of their intended target coming along and their ambush being spoiled by virtue of you pointing out. If they've got a legitimate reason to be there, they will send someone over to talk. If they are brigands they may retreat, preferring less vigilant and well-guarded targets. But they might just retreat because they can't have anyone being able to identify them or their purpose.

And sometimes, yeah, you basically turn a fight that would have been an ambush against you into a straight-up fight. You do lose the advantage of a pre-emptive strike. But that's the cost of being a moral person who understands the gravity of killing another intelligent being; you don't kill on maybes and what-ifs.

smcmike

2016-09-27, 12:15 PM

If I had a group of players who thought this way, they'd end up killing agents of the crown who received intelligence that a notorious outlaw would be using this road to travel on such and such a day. You spotted them because you are a group of adventurers (at least one of whom has proficiency in Perception, perhaps more) and you nuked them because they were an ambush waiting to spring. Maybe their ambush is sanctioned; perhaps this road now has a toll that travelers (sometimes heavily armed and poorly-tempered) are more willing to pay when a handful of fellows step out of the shadows after the first one makes himself and the fee for passage known.

In a scenario where you are not certain of the hostility of the other party, the caravan/wagon/group should come to a stop. Defensive positions should be taken. The potential ambushers become aware that they have been seen. People who lay an ambush, by definition, are not looking for a straight-up fight. They have to either retreat or parley, because the longer you sit there in the road, the greater the risk of their intended target coming along and their ambush being spoiled by virtue of you pointing out. If they've got a legitimate reason to be there, they will send someone over to talk. If they are brigands they may retreat, preferring less vigilant and well-guarded targets. But they might just retreat because they can't have anyone being able to identify them or their purpose.

And sometimes, yeah, you basically turn a fight that would have been an ambush against you into a straight-up fight. You do lose the advantage of a pre-emptive strike. But that's the cost of being a moral person who understands the gravity of killing another intelligent being; you don't kill on maybes and what-ifs.

Meanwhile, I've used this same logic as a player, assuming that the representatives of the local lord might pause to discuss the situation before setting us on fire. Almost lost a good party that way. If your DM isn't in the habit of only providing fair fights, not striking first can be fatal.

It sounds like you enjoy setting moral traps for your players. That sounds annoying. As your player, I'd feel bad about the mistake, but not that bad. Mistakes happen, and armed ambushers are setting the table for a fight.

Let's say, though, for the sake of argument, that you have strong reason to believe that the ambushers will attack you if you walk along the road. Maybe you've heard reliable rumors of a bandit gang, and they meet the description.

Tanarii

2016-09-27, 12:45 PM

I'd just like to make quick notes about 5e alignment, though someone already called out Malifice's blatant refusal to consider the alignment actually used in favor of a system that reinforces his tyrannical tendencies.I'm shocked I tell you, shocked! to see someone in this establishment paying attention to what the rules actually have to say about alignment in 5e. :smallbiggrin:

No mention of murder or charity, anything. 5e alignment is about the intentions and manner of the acts, rather than the acts themselves. The guy who kills to keep himself alive is still Evil because he ends lives for selfish reasons, the Punisher (interestingly) is now CG. While he was originally motivated by vengeance, Frank Castle found new motivation after defeating his family's killers by ensuring that other innocents would not suffer the same way. He is helping others according to his conscience, even if his methods are rather grisly. This does not actually help for most genocidal people as "the greater good" is usually a cover for personal gain, though a mentally ill person may truly think they are acting for such a goal.Personally, I look at it as: 5e Alignment is about providing a player with an additional single sentence motivation they can consider, along with the rest of their personality trait motivations, when making in-character decisions (aka Roleplaying).

Now that is my personal opinion, because it's not explicit. But it matches up with the explicit rules telling us that:
1) Alignment is about moral and social personal attitudes*. This is explicitly the definition of 5e Alignment.
2) Alignments have associated typical behaviors, but they are not required, nor are they perfect or consistent. ie not all of a creatures behavior is the result of alignment. This is explicitly the result of 5e Alignment.
3) It's NOT determined by, nor the cause of, individual actions, per #1 & #2.

So maybe this is why Malifice rubs so many wrong. He is simply not thinking of 5e alignment at all!He brings his own campaign rules, which appear to be heavily based on a combination of previous edition thinking and his own personal views on right and wrong, to the forum over and over again despite them directly contradicting both what the 5e rules have to say about alignment and the apparent reason for them existing in the first place.

Personally I don't have a problem with him or anyone else wanting to argue the minutia of something in great detail over and over again because damn it you KNOW you're right, and who cares if it takes a discussion on a tangent every time. Because I do that myself regularly. But he's not right in this edition. He's stuck in 3e Alignment mode.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Edit:

*Note that attitudes does necessarily mean consciously expressed beliefs. A good definition (pulled from online with a quick search) is: "a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior." A character's attitudes, and resulting behavior, may not match up with their consciously expressed beliefs. Similarly, being about attitudes does not in any way imply that Alignment must be subjective.

PapaQuackers

2016-09-27, 01:03 PM

So this entire thread is pretty neat and also an awesome source for an essay on morality.

The crux of the issue on all sides, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, is intent vs. result.

If a man is in pursuit of the right things then his results are inconsequential, he is a good man.

If a man commits a good act in the pursuit of self gain, he is an evil man.

If a man in pursuit of the right things commits a good act, he is a good man.

If a man in pursuit of the wrong things commits an evil act, he is an evil man.

I don't know how everyone else feels about things but I prescribe to the idea that actions are only as consequential as the results they produce. Intent and justification can be found in every man for every action he takes because when it comes down to it people do not commit acts they believe to be evil.

I know that sounds crazy but bare with me, I don't think people consciously partake in an act they believe is evil. A soldier doesn't believe himself to be a murderer because it's his duty, even if he would never murder someone before he joined the war, (Note: I do not think soldiers are bad people, please don't hate me) A rapist doesn't believe he's harming a women most of the time and if he does it's because he thinks she deserves it so it's just. (Note: Rapists are bad people and I know men can be raped, please don't hate me)

If you follow my logic, and I'm sure not everyone agrees, then we can come to the reasonable conclusion that you are evil if the results you produce are evil.

So we have a problem here, if we don't consciously engage in evil acts then how are we getting to evil conclusions? This is where I encounter difficulty. We are human, we judge people based on what resides within us, no man is evil in isolation. There is no one to judge us when we are alone, if I dropped a man in a box devoid of any of his peers or betters and he sets out to murder thoughtless, unconscious dummies that he believes to be living breathing humans he is not evil because there is no one to pass judgement upon him.

Morality is determined by those around you, it is not internal because we are not born moral creatures, children are taught murder and mayhem as easily as they are taught compassion and order.

My conclusion: I have no idea how to settle this argument, but here's some food for thought.

GlenSmash!

2016-09-27, 01:13 PM

Discussions like these always make me think that it's time for alignment to go the way of the dodo. And not just because you might get into an long argument about what they mean.

Alignment is Lazy and Boring. You don't need alignment to tell you how the inhabitants of your gameworld will react to an Elf murdering a goblin child because their god said so. You just don't. You as the DM can decide how your goblins and Elves will react, and If you are a good DM you'll see a variety of reactions even among the same race. As a player you can decide how your character would react. Once again different characters will act differently.

My next game will be using 5e and Adventures in Middle-Earth. Thankfully players don't have alignments. All players are assumed to be not allied with the Forces of Evil, with delightful rules for becoming corrupted. I imagine it will lead to far more interesting storytelling and memorable adventures than Alignment ever has for me.

Tanarii

2016-09-27, 01:23 PM

Alignment is Lazy and Boring.I strongly disagree in regards to 5e Alignment.

It's an extremely useful tool for character motivations. It's one of a 5 categories of character motivations covering a spectrum of possible motivations, that may be emphasized to whatever degree the player decides. If utilized correctly, that results in a character far more diverse, and more importantly NOT the player, than many other alternative methods.

For example, the 5e personality system is far superior to the average "backstory" approach most players choose to use. That's typically just a checklist of 'how I got my various features' along with a little history of the character, as opposed to motivations. And motivations are what makes in-character decision making (aka roleplaying) someone that isn't youself possible.

Edit: That's not to say you can't eliminate it, or replace it with a different category of motivations. Especially since "Ideal" already exists as a category. For example, "Faction" is an okay replacement for Alignment, so long as it comes with associated motivations/behaviors.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 01:39 PM

Personally I don't have a problem with him or anyone else wanting to argue the minutia of something in great detail over and over again because damn it you KNOW you're right, and who cares if it takes a discussion on a tangent every time. Because I do that myself regularly. But he's not right in this edition. He's stuck in 3e Alignment mode.
Now hang on a sec- I also see myself as a 3.5e person, but I've almost always seen the alignment descriptions as more guidelines than as hard rules. Hence my whole flexible morality system.

I believe that some of the modifications or scaling-back of the morality system in later editions is because people took the 3e/3.5 grid and went places with it the designers may not have intended.

The crux of the issue on all sides, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, is intent vs. result.

(1) If a man is in pursuit of the right things then his results are inconsequential, he is a good man.

(2) If a man commits a good act in the pursuit of self gain, he is an evil man.

(3) If a man in pursuit of the right things commits a good act, he is a good man.

(4) If a man in pursuit of the wrong things commits an evil act, he is an evil man.
I numbered these just to help keep them straight

Personally I think that the action itself has some place in there as well- how you go about achieving your goals is important. For the rest, I'd like to unpack these a little more.

(1) Isn't that morality at it's most subjective? It feels like a really flimsy justification for a lot of things. "Sure I burned down the orphanage and killed 37 people but I was really just trying to get rid of the plague-rat infestation so everything ok, right?". It feel (IMO) that this doesn't go far enough.

(2) That only follows if you believe self-gain is itself evil. If you gain at the expense of someone else, particularly in an unlawful or unfair manner yeah that's probably not good. But I don't see people trying to improve their lot in life to be bad. By the same token, if an act is good and accomplishes something good, and at the same time benefits the actor, I don't think that that absolutely lessens the goodness of the act.

(3) What is defined as a "good act" exactly? Admittedly I'm having trouble coming up with an example where a good act done with good intent could have bad consequences (maybe accidentally letting the sealed-evil-in-can loose?) but mainly I feel like the issue here is with definitions.

(4) This seems the most obvious of all your comments, though I'd be curious to see how people reacted to bad acts done for bad reasons that have good outcomes (one bad guy betrays another and kills them, etc).

smcmike

2016-09-27, 01:45 PM

The crux of the issue on all sides, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, is intent vs. result.

Intent v result is a fundamental question, isn't it?

If a man is in pursuit of the right things then his results are inconsequential, he is a good man.

Or perhaps an inconsequential man. But not a bad one.

If a man commits a good act in the pursuit of self gain, he is an evil man.

I don't think so. What's so wrong with gain, anyways?

If a man in pursuit of the right things commits a good act, he is a good man.

If a man in pursuit of the wrong things commits an evil act, he is an evil man.

Sure, though this is a bit circular.

I don't know how everyone else feels about things but I prescribe to the idea that actions are only as consequential as the results they produce.

This is a linguistic nitpick, perhaps, but the way you state this is also circular. Actions are as consequential as their results - well, yeah. Actions without results are inconsequential, by definition.

Perhaps you mean that the morality of an action should be determined only by its consequences?

Intent and justification can be found in every man for every action he takes because when it comes down to it people do not commit acts they believe to be evil.

This is empirically false. People commit acts that they believe to be evil all the time. If they didn't, would guilt be a human emotion?

I agree that people also commit evil acts while believing that they are either justified or not evil, though. Maybe that's enough for your argument.

If you follow my logic, and I'm sure not everyone agrees, then we can come to the reasonable conclusion that you are evil if the results you produce are evil.

I don't buy it. If I am driving and suffer a sudden and unexpected stroke, causing my car to veer off the road and kill a child, I have produced terribly evil results through my actions. I am not morally at fault, though. I had no intent to drive off the road or to drive recklessly.

So we have a problem here, if we don't consciously engage in evil acts then how are we getting to evil conclusions? This is where I encounter difficulty. We are human, we judge people based on what resides within us, no man is evil in isolation. There is no one to judge us when we are alone, if I dropped a man in a box devoid of any of his peers or betters and he sets out to murder thoughtless, unconscious dummies that he believes to be living breathing humans he is not evil because there is no one to pass judgement upon him.

The man can judge himself.

Assuming there is a judge present, though, isn't it true that the man has proven himself to be morally suspect, despite the lack of any consequence? Isn't attempted murder, even without any negative result, a black mark against someone?

Morality is determined by those around you, it is not internal because we are not born moral creatures, children are taught murder and mayhem as easily as they are taught compassion and order.

This is another debate entirely, but I'm not so sure. Children are surprisingly self-motivated.

Tanarii

2016-09-27, 01:45 PM

Now hang on a sec- I also see myself as a 3.5e person, but I've almost always seen the alignment descriptions as more guidelines than as hard rules. Hence my whole flexible morality system.

I believe that some of the modifications or scaling-back of the morality system in later editions is because people took the 3e/3.5 grid and went places with it the designers may not have intended.It's possible that 3e didn't have an Alignment system that was (explicitly or implicitly) derived from actions, and I'm not remembering it correctly. But certainly 1e and 2e did. So yeah, I shouldn't have called out 3e. I should have said "older editions thinking".

My point was 5e is NOT about Actions --> Alignment, with possible extension like older editions of --> In game & Mechanical consequences.

It's explicitly, per the 5e rules PHB description, about Attitudes --> Alignment --> General (but not required) Behaviors.

PapaQuackers

2016-09-27, 01:57 PM

Intent v result is a fundamental question, isn't it?

Or perhaps an inconsequential man. But not a bad one.
Sure, I'm willing to concede that as it basically aligns.

I don't think so. What's so wrong with gain, anyways?

I'm just using examples given from the thread itself, I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with the pursuit of personal gain.

Sure, though this is a bit circular.

Yeah, the nature of this conversation is difficult if you attempt to speak without bias and personal belief. Saying good is good and evil is evil is of course circular but I couldn't think of another way to frame it.

This is a linguistic nitpick, perhaps, but the way you state this is also circular. Actions are as consequential as their results - well, yeah. Actions without results are inconsequential, by definition. [Quote]

The importance of an action is only as consequential as it's result. What I'm saying is that if a man attempts to cure world hunger by feeding one child off the street everyday are we judging him by his results or his intent.

[Quote] Perhaps you mean that the morality of an action should be determined only by its consequences?

Yes, this is closer to what I was articulating. I'm saying that the consequence of an action carries more weight than the intent behind it but I'm certainly willing to bend given certain circumstances.

This is empirically false. People commit acts that they believe to be evil all the time. If they didn't, would guilt be a human emotion?

I agree that people also commit evil acts while believing that they are either justified or not evil, though. Maybe that's enough for your argument.

I will acknowledge the existence of guilt as a mechanism for morality to hold ramification on a person. Though I do not believe people make acts they think are unjustifiable and the question was whether intent is enough to absolve someone.

I don't buy it. If I am driving and suffer a sudden and unexpected stroke, causing my car to veer off the road and kill a child, I have produced terribly evil results through my actions. I am not morally at fault, though. I had no intent to drive off the road or to drive recklessly.

This is a situation where you would feel guilt even though you had done nothing wrong, earlier you stated that guild is proof that we have inherent belief in good and evil. This is a tricky situation and I myself would not label you as evil, but the situation also takes you out of the equation. You don't have control over that action but your consequence, none the less, is evil.

The man can judge himself.

Assuming there is a judge present, though, isn't it true that the man has proven himself to be morally suspect, despite the lack of any consequence? Isn't attempted murder, even without any negative result, a black mark against someone?

There is not a man on earth who judges himself without bias.

As for the for the idea that he is morally suspect that is by your own definition, not his own. As you are not there to judge him then where is the evil?

This is another debate entirely, but I'm not so sure. Children are surprisingly self-motivated.

They sure are, and genetics is an important factor. I will concede that children make a lot of their own decisions but I cannot deny that many behaviors and moral systems are learned and not innate.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 01:59 PM

It's possible that 3e didn't have an Alignment system that was (explicitly or implicitly) derived from actions, and I'm not remembering it correctly. But certainly 1e and 2e did. So yeah, I shouldn't have called out 3e. I should have said "older editions thinking".
Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound accusatory or like a challenge- I was really just trying to keep thins a little more lighthearted.

I actually think the 3.5e alignment system was more complex than people give it credit for. Players and GMs, however, have a tendency to focus in on only certain elements of it, and not always the same elements.
So it seems reasonable that the designers may have decided to go with a newer system that was less comprehensive but also had less pitfalls where people could misstep.

Tanarii

2016-09-27, 02:05 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound accusatory or like a challenge- I was really just trying to keep thins a little more lighthearted.

I actually think the 3.5e alignment system was more complex than people give it credit for. Players and GMs, however, have a tendency to focus in on only certain elements of it, and not always the same elements.
So it seems reasonable that the designers may have decided to go with a newer system that was less comprehensive but also had less pitfalls where people could misstep.Similarly, I shouldn't make it sound like I'm accusing older editions of somehow doing Alignment 'wrong'.

My point is really that 5e Alignment isn't the same as previous editions, yet some folks insist on thinking that it is. And that's a point that was probably true for each of those previous editions, in their own way, when they were released.

smcmike

2016-09-27, 02:18 PM

I will acknowledge the existence of guilt as a mechanism for morality to hold ramification on a person. Though I do not believe people make acts they think are unjustifiable and the question was whether intent is enough to absolve someone.

I do things that I consider unjustifiable on a fairly frequent basis. It sucks, even though they are fairly small things, and even when no one else notices.

As for whether intent is enough to absolve someone, maybe not completely, but it matters. If I kill someone in the honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that doing so is necessary to preserve my own life, I am in a far different moral position than if I kill someone just to watch him die.

Shaofoo

2016-09-27, 02:43 PM

At Malifice's request I expanded on the basic scenario here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21245704&postcount=185).

I think this is a perfect example of people confusing morality with honor.

The main problem doesn't seem to be "Would killing these people is wrong?" but rather "Would killing these people with their back turned is wrong?" if "Would killing these people but giving them ample time to prepare?" would somehow make it right then I don't think this relates to alignment anymore.

Of course a person that places high value in honor would probably declare such acts of subterfuge to be evil (would probably even think that Rogues as a whole be evil). As an example you reach the top of the BBEG tower and the BBEG congratulates you for coming up so much, the BBEG is all about the honor and wanting a fair fight unleashes a Mass Heal that restores you completely; that action is only for the benefit of his ego and internal code, he will be more than happy to tear you limb from limb if you don't provide a good enough challenge.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-27, 03:12 PM

Read the orc part of the book, I can't give a page but if we were supposed to take that somehow orcs are somewhat redeemable then they do a piss poor job at it; also I wouldn't consider to take stock that "almost all are evil" to be something in your favor. It'd be like saying "not all *insert actual real life race here* are thieves, scumbags, liars, leeches, etc.. but almost all of them are" you kinda don't come out of it thinking that was a fair shake on *insert actual real life race here*. If "almost all orcs are evil" is enough to placate you for equality to orcs then you have very low standards my friend.
"Almost all," implicitly means, "not all." If not all orcs are evil, then that casts doubt on the inherency of their evil, which means a species-wide genocide is not a good or even neutral act. They may have violent natures, but the implication is that nurture can do quite a lot to change that, and the nature might not be so overwhelming.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the real world comparison. Are you implying that the book is racist against orcs? I mean, that's an interesting critique if you want to go that way, but it turns the discussion further towards the interrelation between the game and real world moral quandaries, which you seem eager to avoid.

Just because you can't doesn't mean you should.
I think games like D&D are fun places to toy around with complex themes thanks to the possible interactions between different players. If you prefer simpler games, that's fine. There is no badwrongfun.

By then attacking me in saying that I am making strawmen. Protip: Don't belittle people in the same sentence that you are trying to get them to understand. Seems kinda two faced.
No one's attacking you. I dissected your argument because it made false claims about my post. I wasn't belittling you by simply pointing out your straw man. I was being honest about what you wrote. Your misreading my original post and my pointing it out do not make you less intelligent, less capable, or even wrong about the general subject. It simply means you made a bad argument. There's no reason to get upset about that. If you find yourself being that sensitive to criticism, maybe take a step back and count to ten.

Deepbluediver

2016-09-27, 03:23 PM

My point is really that 5e Alignment isn't the same as previous editions, yet some folks insist on thinking that it is. And that's a point that was probably true for each of those previous editions, in their own way, when they were released.
How do they classify alignment in 5th edition? Can you give me just a quick rundown?

Recently I've decided I don't really like that we use "neutral" for both the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axis. I would prefer if we had a different term for one of them, like maybe "unaligned" for someone who isn't particularly good or evil. I just think it would clarify some things.

I do things that I consider unjustifiable on a fairly frequent basis. It sucks, even though they are fairly small things, and even when no one else notices.
He admits to eating an entire package of frosted cinnamon buns in a single sitting! For the crime of gluttony we must shun him!
SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!! !!!!!! :smallbiggrin:

As for whether intent is enough to absolve someone, maybe not completely, but it matters. If I kill someone in the honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that doing so is necessary to preserve my own life, I am in a far different moral position than if I kill someone just to watch him die.
That's what most modern legal systems are based on anyway. Murder is a different crime than manslaughter.
And "Attempted Murder" is a different crime yet again.

Kydo

2016-09-27, 03:24 PM

I tend to agree with Mal about capital punishment.

On the other hand, I don't see how "humane rehabilitation" is an realistic option in most premodern states. If you are playing a medieval-style world, the resources for this sort of system simply don't exist. Maybe that makes all medieval rulers evil. I don't know.

It's not. The cost and upkeep are incredible and actually promotes your lower populace, peasants and similar, to commit crimes in order to be taught and learn something that might help them rise out of their lower life style. Further in D&D you have to deal with elves and dwarves that are going to take up space and money for hundreds of years or more.

I do things that I consider unjustifiable on a fairly frequent basis. It sucks, even though they are fairly small things, and even when no one else notices.

As for whether intent is enough to absolve someone, maybe not completely, but it matters. If I kill someone in the honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that doing so is necessary to preserve my own life, I am in a far different moral position than if I kill someone just to watch him die.

This is mens rea and acutus reus. The guilty mind and the guilty act have to both be there for someone to actually be guilty of a crime. You can 'wish that guy got hit by a care' all day long but you haven't actually done anything wrong. We all do this all the time. Likewise, because of a sudden and unexpected stroke (using an example from earlier) you swerve off the road and kill a man neither are you guilty of a crime.

At the same time if you had history of things that could impair or hamper your ability to drive and you did it anyway you could be held responsible because you already knew the result was a possibility.

However you are an adventurer without a rank and knock over a log pile that kills the lord son, with no intent to do so, likely hood you are going to be brought up on charges? Very high. Also mens rea and actus reus are modern measurements and certainly not medieval ones.

I think this is a perfect example of people confusing morality with honor.

The main problem doesn't seem to be "Would killing these people is wrong?" but rather "Would killing these people with their back turned is wrong?" if "Would killing these people but giving them ample time to prepare?" would somehow make it right then I don't think this relates to alignment anymore.

Of course a person that places high value in honor would probably declare such acts of subterfuge to be evil (would probably even think that Rogues as a whole be evil). As an example you reach the top of the BBEG tower and the BBEG congratulates you for coming up so much, the BBEG is all about the honor and wanting a fair fight unleashes a Mass Heal that restores you completely; that action is only for the benefit of his ego and internal code, he will be more than happy to tear you limb from limb if you don't provide a good enough challenge.

Half this debate though was clarifying those actions. Should killing others be avoided when it can be, absolutely. HOWEVER if such is required what constitutes it as wrong. Killing the murderer who's punishment by law is death, even after he has surrendered to the party? Going back to the kingdom and having them do it for you so you can casually wipe your hands and say the blood isn't on you for it? How about those murderous illithids, is just killing them outright evil? How about a construct that has achieved sentience, is killing that evil because it was never 'alive'?

Mainly this continued because Mal would just flatly disagree with anything that wasn't directly his way (though he floundered around objectivity and subjectivity constantly) nor was he capable of seeing anything without the filter of his modern societal views. He wouldn't explain how his LG kingdoms were going to provide for those people they wouldn't kill, how far was to far, what happened when his kingdom faded to dust because they ran out of money and locations to store people who were evil etc.