PDA

View Full Version : Good and Evil. What it is and what it isn't.



Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 10:43 AM
Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

I agree with you in this regard. Sadly some people (like Wizards forums regular Furryhowler) believe that Evil means selfishness. They also tend to believe that Good (especially Exalted status) entails utter disregard for your own well being to the point of self-hatred and willing self destruction. To this group, Good also means the belief that there is no such thing as the Self and that all people are interchanageable parts for lack of a different term.

These are some examples of Furryhowler's thinking.


Egocentricism is the very essence of Evil and it hides in no end of ways (often in "I'm MAKING it better for everyone" - which is the pride/arrogance that often makes Paladins fall).

Egolessness is the very essence of Good.

The difference is in how we see ourselves. Evil sees itself as an end in itself, whilst Good sees itself as a means to an end. Evil then seeks to be master whilst Good seeks to be servant. This doesnt mean Good promotes abuse though as Good is also about hope and there is no hope found in abuse. It does mean though that Good means to serve something higher than the mortal.

Evil serves the mortal, the Ego. It seeks aggrandizement in the face of mortal vulnerability (and all creatures are "mortal" in that all of them can be killed; even arch devils and greater gods) as an attempt to "cure" this vulnerability. This is why Evil is so obsessed with power. Good however doesnt seek aggrandizement as a response to mortal vulnerability. It embraces its lesser status and understands this means it is here to serve not rule. How could this possibly be a message of hope and not abuse? When what it serves is the fundamental truth of who you are :) so in a sense its spiritual collectivism/Oneism; that we are all one in truth. Evil does not see this oneness; instead it sees seperation and vulnerability, is terrified by it and seeks to undo/offset it through power.

Most people are evil. This isnt an irreversable/beyond-the-pale state though :D


Hello Cant :D

I think you'll find there is a LOT more to altruism than simply positive action ("enhancing the quality of that life by proactive involvement"). It requires a whole mindset of "there is no you or me, only us". Egoless service to something greater than the personal. This is further backed up by the notion of "making personal sacrifices". And none of this is from the Books of XD, just the PHB and a dictionary :D

Which means, if Good and Evil are opposites, that Evil is as I defined above ;)


Did you not read the quote from dictionary.com?

"1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism)."



Self-aggrandizement means to put yourself above others; THAT is the essence of what Evil is/does. Evil puts themselves first and sees others thus as subordinate to that need. That is what self-aggrandizment means and that is the opposite of Altruism (see above for definition of Altruism).



Where do you get the notion of "deserve" from in this definition of Altruism? And which part of "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others" do you not see as being about egoless service? :confused:

Of course I realise what the real problem here is; that folks dont like to think that what they call moral is in fact "Evil".

Solo
2007-10-22, 10:44 AM
Ok...... are you here to complain about the person, present us with information regarding Good and Evil, or ask a question? I think it's the first one, but I'm not entirely sure, as I don't see a pointin complaining here about someone who posts on a different forum.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 10:59 AM
Ok...... are you here to complain about the person, present us with information regarding Good and Evil, or ask a question? I think it's the first one, but I'm not entirely sure, as I don't see a pointin complaining here about someone who posts on a different forum.

I simply want to state that I don't automatically equate selfishness with Evil nor selflessness with Good, though some (mercifully few if any on this forum) do. I also want to have a discussion on the matter, if any one disagrees with me.

Duke of URL
2007-10-22, 11:05 AM
The short version:

Good = altruistic Neutral = individualistic Evil = abuser

The long version:

"Evil" may be one of the most misunderstood concepts in D&D. Most people seem to think of "evil" as "homicidal maniac", also known as "stupid evil". True evil is "selfish" as opposed to the "self-centric" of neutrality. An evil person/creature will not hesitate to use or abuse others in pursuit of their own goals. So, while the homicidal maniac is, naturally, evil, so is the pimp or drug pusher who makes their living off of exploiting others. So is the ruthless politician who does whatever it takes to win elections or triumph over his opponents. Not all "evil" is end-of-the-world stuff.

"Neutral" has selfish tendencies, but with a certain amount of responsibility thrown in. They will, in general, not use or abuse others without need, often great need. People are responsible for their own choices. Action harming innocents is unacceptable, however inaction in the face of protecting (i.e., leaving them to their own fate) them is acceptable, especially if risk is involved.

"Good" puts the benefit of others above one's own self.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-22, 11:16 AM
1) It seems weird to have a conversation debunking a wizards board member here, but, ok.

2) Let's clarify: will this be a debate about real-world good and evil, with examples drawn from real life, or a debate about the d&d definition of good and evil, with evidence drawn from the PHB?

Let's decide up front and not mix back and forth.

Kompera
2007-10-22, 11:17 AM
I both agree with you in general terms and disagree with Furryhowler's thesis in general terms.

If the character has merely the Alignment of good or evil, those can be played in a very wide variety of ways which are outside of how Furryhowler describes good and evil. If, however, the character is subject to some code of conduct in addition to their Alignment restrictions (exalted status, Paladins vows, etc), then there can be some very narrow paths enforced upon the player of this character. The player should not try to skirt the letter of the law,for this violates the very precepts under which such a character should operate. Any attempt to role play mere lip service to such a code of conduct should be considered grounds for the immediate loss of the advantages gained by the assumption of the code of conduct.

That said, the GM should probably make it clear to the player that his/her actions are coming close to violating the code. The character would know this, but in a role play environment it takes the GM to be sure that this information is communicated.

meet shield
2007-10-22, 11:26 AM
I also have problem with Good, Evil and my DM. For example, one of my player do what is necessary to do for save his Nation in oneother nathion, and kill a lot of person in a civil war for establish again the order in the state and destroy the warfounder part of this nation... only for save other people of are important for him. For me is a CN, fo my DM is CM. What about you?

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 11:28 AM
1) It seems weird to have a conversation debunking a wizards board member here, but, ok.

2) Let's clarify: will this be a debate about real-world good and evil, with examples drawn from real life, or a debate about the d&d definition of good and evil, with evidence drawn from the PHB?

Let's decide up front and not mix back and forth.

It's about Good and Evil in D&D not in real life.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 11:31 AM
I also have problem with Good, Evil and my DM. For example, one of my player do what is necessary to do for save his Nation in oneother nathion, and kill a lot of person in a civil war for establish again the order in the state and destroy the warfounder part of this nation... only for save other people of are important for him. For me is a CN, fo my DM is CM. What about you?

I'd say this character is Lawful Evil. Just me opinion.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-22, 11:46 AM
Meetshield's example sounds like by-the-book neutral. "committed to others by personal relationships... may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but not for strangers".

Also, remember, killing people is not necessarily evil in D&D, if it's for a good cause.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-22, 11:46 AM
In response to Rex Blunder: A debate about real world goodness and badness is much better than D&D Good and Evil. The second kind drags a lot.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-22, 11:53 AM
Could be, but the worst kind of debate is where some people are debating D&D and others are debating real life, and they don't understand why they can't agree on anything. I just want to avoid that. I don't deny that that can't a be lively discussion, though... :smallwink:

Riffington
2007-10-22, 12:03 PM
If you want your D&D campaign to look at all realistic, you will make people act according to human nature. Now, you may not wish this; you might prefer campaigns with very clear-cut battles between good and evil.

If you want it to be realistic, you must then decide: should people be split more or less evenly amongst the 9 alignments, or should evil be pretty rare among humans. This will determine what you as a playing group count as evil.

If you want evil to mean "Charles Manson", you'll have very few evil humans; this is fine.
If you want 30% of humans to be evil, then mean-spirited gossip is an evil act. This is also reasonable.

Leicontis
2007-10-22, 12:32 PM
I tend to treat the 9 alignments as having rather fuzzy boundaries, myself. While spells and other game mechanics don't take this into account, I also tend to operate on alignment as a sliding scale, not a bunch of boxes. In general, the more willing one is to put the good of others ahead of their own, the more good they are. The more willing they are to sacrifice the good of others for their own benefit, the more evil they are. In general, your average human is going to be True Neutral, with some smaller portion equally divided among NG, NE, LN, CN, and an even smaller portion equally divided among CG, LG, CE, LE.

Saph
2007-10-22, 12:46 PM
I like to split it fairly evenly between the alignments, something like:

40% of humans are Neutral
10% are Neutral Good
10% are Neutral Evil
10% are Lawful Neutral
10% are Chaotic Neutral
And CG, CE, LE, and LG have 5% each.

The alignments are also an x-y axis rather than nine boxes. If you're in the central box you read as Neutral, but you can be a goodish Neutral, a lawful goodish Neutral, or anything else.

- Saph

kamikasei
2007-10-22, 01:26 PM
Self-interest is a Neutral trait. Sacrificing your self-interest for the sake of others is perhaps Good, though you can do a lot of it without needing to be Good-aligned (such as doing things for your family or friends, which is merely Neutral). In general, being Good requires being willing to incur a loss - to come out worse in some transaction - to benefit people you don't necessarily have real ties to, or to go beyond what's expected for people you do. Running into a burning building to save your child is Neutral, though heroic. Doing the same to save a stranger's child is Good. Not doing the latter is not Evil, precisely because it's going beyond expectations.

Evil, on the flip side, is generally trying to come out ahead even at the (unnecessary) expense of others. While obviously your average merchant wants to make more off a sale than the item was worth, that's not enough to be Evil. Rather, an Evil person has little or no compunction about causing harm, directly or indirectly, if it profits him. A Neutral character doesn't much care if the traveling merchant who sells spices in the village goes out of business, but he won't conspire to put him out of business without a compelling reason (they're in competition and the Neutral guy's own livelihood is on the line, for example). An Evil character would be quite willing to destroy the merchant's source of income with no thought for what will happen to him, for as little reason as payment from the merchant's rival, or a grudge held over a casual insult. Essentially an Evil person lacks the empathy that holds Neutral characters back from unnecessarily harming others, while Good characters have an overabundance of empathy that drives them to prevent or undo harm that isn't even their fault or responsibility.

Two complicating factors are selflessness and responsibility. An Evil character can be selfless! A Lawful Evil minion who's totally dedicated to his master and would die to protect him is being selfless - but he's willing to murder hundreds of innocents at his master's command, which is Evil. Also, all of these guidelines are modified by what falls within a character's personal responsibility. It's not Evil to profit from the fact that someone else has caused suffering - say, by selling medicine at a reasonable markup to a village whose well has been poisoned. (It would be Evil to gouge the villagers on the price, adding to the harm for your own gain, just as it would be Good, if perhaps stupid, to give away all the supplies you had free of charge.) It's Good to help a little boy whose father is dying by searching out and finding the rare flower that can cure him, known to grow in the Swamp of Death of No Return; but it's not Evil to refuse, because it's not your responsibility to help. A paladin who said "your story touches me deeply, but I am sworn to defeat the cult of Kerrash before the next full moon to prevent them summoning their dread master into this world. I cannot turn aside, or risk falling on your quest and leaving the cult unopposed" should not fall. If you have a sample of the flower already, and tell the boy you'll give it to him if he signs over all his family's possessions in exchange, you're being Evil.

I would probably treat most people in a setting as Neutral, with roughly equal proportions Good and Evil, but with Good people much more visible since you don't need to rein in your Good behavior to avoid punishment. Evil people would mostly be restrained by societal norms and fear of punishment, and/or channel their Evil tendencies into arenas where they're more acceptable (consider reports that you'll find a lot of sociopaths in the higher levels of business, for example, where ruthlessness and lack of empathy is rewarded).

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 02:32 PM
Self-interest is a Neutral trait. Sacrificing your self-interest for the sake of others is perhaps Good, though you can do a lot of it without needing to be Good-aligned (such as doing things for your family or friends, which is merely Neutral). In general, being Good requires being willing to incur a loss - to come out worse in some transaction - to benefit people you don't necessarily have real ties to, or to go beyond what's expected for people you do. Running into a burning building to save your child is Neutral, though heroic. Doing the same to save a stranger's child is Good. Not doing the latter is not Evil, precisely because it's going beyond expectations.

Evil, on the flip side, is generally trying to come out ahead even at the (unnecessary) expense of others. While obviously your average merchant wants to make more off a sale than the item was worth, that's not enough to be Evil. Rather, an Evil person has little or no compunction about causing harm, directly or indirectly, if it profits him. A Neutral character doesn't much care if the traveling merchant who sells spices in the village goes out of business, but he won't conspire to put him out of business without a compelling reason (they're in competition and the Neutral guy's own livelihood is on the line, for example). An Evil character would be quite willing to destroy the merchant's source of income with no thought for what will happen to him, for as little reason as payment from the merchant's rival, or a grudge held over a casual insult. Essentially an Evil person lacks the empathy that holds Neutral characters back from unnecessarily harming others, while Good characters have an overabundance of empathy that drives them to prevent or undo harm that isn't even their fault or responsibility.

Two complicating factors are selflessness and responsibility. An Evil character can be selfless! A Lawful Evil minion who's totally dedicated to his master and would die to protect him is being selfless - but he's willing to murder hundreds of innocents at his master's command, which is Evil. Also, all of these guidelines are modified by what falls within a character's personal responsibility. It's not Evil to profit from the fact that someone else has caused suffering - say, by selling medicine at a reasonable markup to a village whose well has been poisoned. (It would be Evil to gouge the villagers on the price, adding to the harm for your own gain, just as it would be Good, if perhaps stupid, to give away all the supplies you had free of charge.) It's Good to help a little boy whose father is dying by searching out and finding the rare flower that can cure him, known to grow in the Swamp of Death of No Return; but it's not Evil to refuse, because it's not your responsibility to help. A paladin who said "your story touches me deeply, but I am sworn to defeat the cult of Kerrash before the next full moon to prevent them summoning their dread master into this world. I cannot turn aside, or risk falling on your quest and leaving the cult unopposed" should not fall. If you have a sample of the flower already, and tell the boy you'll give it to him if he signs over all his family's possessions in exchange, you're being Evil.

I would probably treat most people in a setting as Neutral, with roughly equal proportions Good and Evil, but with Good people much more visible since you don't need to rein in your Good behavior to avoid punishment. Evil people would mostly be restrained by societal norms and fear of punishment, and/or channel their Evil tendencies into arenas where they're more acceptable (consider reports that you'll find a lot of sociopaths in the higher levels of business, for example, where ruthlessness and lack of empathy is rewarded).

Do you mind if I put this in one of my signatures. Thank you.

kamikasei
2007-10-22, 03:30 PM
Do you mind if I put this in one of my signatures. Thank you.

!

Other people might. It is quite long.

But if it's the sort of thing you want to say, fire away.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 03:34 PM
!

Other people might. It is quite long.

But if it's the sort of thing you want to say, fire away.

I can't fit in any of my signatures. Maybe I should just post a link to it.

Dhavaer
2007-10-22, 03:47 PM
I think Furryhowler has done a very good job of describing the extreme aspects of Law.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-22, 03:53 PM
And the lunacy of atempting to slot alllll moral behaviour into nine slots, which really boil down to three slots and a bizarre axis of foolishness. goodness and Evil can't be boiled down to a set of static criteria, they can't be simplified to encompass all acts into a comprehensive framework of moral imperatives... ethics are a complicated system of personal opinion based on a plethora of motivations, outcomes, value judgements and societal norms. the world is a complex place with all manner of differing judgements of what's acceptable, what's normal and what could be considered moral, and that should be true in a campaign world.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in Furryhowlers world, it just seems tooo much like Kant's Catagorical imperative for me, and that just leeds to craziness.

Runa
2007-10-22, 04:09 PM
I both agree with you in general terms and disagree with Furryhowler's thesis in general terms.

If the character has merely the Alignment of good or evil, those can be played in a very wide variety of ways which are outside of how Furryhowler describes good and evil. If, however, the character is subject to some code of conduct in addition to their Alignment restrictions (exalted status, Paladins vows, etc), then there can be some very narrow paths enforced upon the player of this character. The player should not try to skirt the letter of the law,for this violates the very precepts under which such a character should operate. Any attempt to role play mere lip service to such a code of conduct should be considered grounds for the immediate loss of the advantages gained by the assumption of the code of conduct.

That said, the GM should probably make it clear to the player that his/her actions are coming close to violating the code. The character would know this, but in a role play environment it takes the GM to be sure that this information is communicated.

Emphasis added by me. This depends entirely upon the exact character construction we're talking about, actually.

For instance, for a traditional (Lawful Good) Paladin, yes you would not want to "skirt the letter of the law" - because they are inherently meant to be Lawful (which is why playing Lawful Good is so difficult sometimes - see below).

But there are variants of classes including Paladin, or particular dieties, where "skirting the letter of the law" may or may not be actually be quite acceptable, if not outright encouraged in many cases, in order to follow a higher (divine/moral) imperative - it's all in how your alignment, and class, and deity (if you have one) are reconciled with each other.

Take as an example for instance, one of my current characters. She's a drow Bard//Pal of Freedom (which requires a CG alignment) who is a devout follower of Elistraee (CG goddess), who, being a social type, became a Paladin largely because she wanted to help people (simplifying a little of course, but you get the idea). To me, the Paladin variants are useful for just this kind of character - one who worships a non-Lawful deity that values personal freedom (and thus values personal freedom themselves), and who considers doing Good to be more important than some earthly laws. So long as she does not go against Elistraee's relatively loose moral and behavioral codes, there's no reason she CAN'T "skirt the letter of the law" so long as it it means doing the right thing.

Not that she's had to, so far, but it wouldn't be automatically against her deity's moral code so long as she was doing it to serve appropriate Good purposes, and thus she would NOT necessarily lose her special abilities received from being a Paladin of Freedom.

But, if we distilled your argument down to "it matters what the other half of the alignment is, because you can still get a variety of behaviors from simple Good and Evil alignments, and the previously cited views do seem a little narrow compared to the reality of alignment-appropriate behavior" it still works, and I'd be in agreement. :smallsmile: I just wanted to point out that not all classes with "codes of conduct" necessarily mean a moratorium on "skirting the letter of the law". It depends largely on what laws you're skirting, what they're meant to do, what they really do, and why you're skirting them in the first place, not to mention the exact requirements of the class you chose.

I think kamikasei actually sort of came close to hitting the nail on the head when they said Evil lacks empathy - note they did not say "sympathy". Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes emotionally. Deliberately choosing or consciously deciding NOT to empathize in cases where your actions (or inaction) could cause another harm or pain somehow (as opposed to understanding what they're going through fully but deciding you and your loved ones come first)... does sort of reek of Evil, even if it's not necessarily enough to knock your alignment to it. Whereas considering how another person could be hurt before you take an action is at least Neutral, as I think most people are at least capable of this, and most of us I think would do it at least some of the time. Deciding to consciously put that other person ahead of you though, even when they are, for instance, a stranger, leans Good and outright is good if it means you don't get anything out of it and are taking a risk for their sake.

That's always kind of been my take on that half of the axis - like kamikasei said, it's about meeting or not meeting, exceeding or not exceeding, reasonable expectations of behavior. A Paladin will die in the act of protecting the poor villagers being ravaged by the massive orc army if that's what it takes to save them; most people wouldn't take that kind of risk, and some wouldn't even if it was their own village - and if their life's at stake, you can't entirely blame them, as the entire reason they exist is because their ancestors had an instinct for self-preservation.

That's why D&D was never just "Good or Evil", IMO - because on average, people aren't very strongly one or the other, at least to start, and a rational person will often have behavior that's somewhere between the two; we're almost all selfish to some degree, and most of us have a mean streak or a line between "can tolerate or have any sympathy for this person" and "cannot tolerate or have any sympathy for this person" - yet, unless we're particularly messed up, most of us won't actively and consciously try to hurt people most of the time.

In fact, come to think of it, I would actually outright state that most of the time true Evil or true Good are born of extremes; extreme disregard for others (presumably because of either an inborn sociopathy, or being hurt a few too many times in the past), versus extreme regard for others (giving something up or risking injury or even death for the sake of another's safety, for instance, which wouldn't even be an issue without them being at risk or in danger to begin with). I think there was an interesting-sounding book not too long ago that I didn't get the chance to read, called The Lucifer Effect, which actually pretty much stated that this was the case even in real life - that many times, extreme situations will bring out the horrific side of human nature, but also "move people to become more heroic".

Yeah yeah, I know this is a debate on the use of the terms in D&D and "not real-life". But the D&D concept COMES from somebody's concept of the two in real life, and given the kinds of situations D&D tends to put characters in (where they have to make a moral decision of when to use violence and when to use words, for instance), the idea that they're "extremes" of human (or elven, dwarven, etc.) behavior, born from or exhibited during "extreme" situations, is not I think all that strange.

-Runa

Blanks
2007-10-22, 04:10 PM
If you want it to be realistic, you must then decide: should people be split more or less evenly amongst the 9 alignments, or should evil be pretty rare among humans. This will determine what you as a playing group count as evil.

If you want evil to mean "Charles Manson", you'll have very few evil humans; this is fine.
If you want 30% of humans to be evil, then mean-spirited gossip is an evil act. This is also reasonable.
That is a very insightfull way to think of it. I always assumed that my larger towns in "normal countries" would have something like 80% LG, 19% NG+CG and 1% evil.
That doesn't sound like a lot, but consider the fact that whenever you're at a sports event, there a couple of hundreds who will be willing to kill with little or no provocation :smalleek:

EDIT:
If we only discuss D&D, substitute jousting match for sports event :smallsmile:

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 04:26 PM
I think Furryhowler has done a very good job of describing the extreme aspects of Law.

Unfortunately Furryhowler confuses extreme Law with Good and Chaos of all sorts with Evil. I tried to start a reasonable discussion about alignment and Furryhowler is trying to turn it into his or her own personal rant on D&D and real life morality. At least the people here try to be reasonable.

Leicontis
2007-10-22, 04:29 PM
That is a very insightfull way to think of it. I always assumed that my larger towns in "normal countries" would have something like 80% LG, 19% NG+CG and 1% evil.
That doesn't sound like a lot, but consider the fact that whenever you're at a sports event, there a couple of hundreds who will be willing to kill with little or no provocation :smalleek:

EDIT:
If we only discuss D&D, substitute jousting match for sports event :smallsmile:
What about the hundreds or thousands more that trample other spectators to death, destroy property, attack each other, etc. during sporting riots? Those who blindly trample others while fleeing I would classify as probably Neutral, while those who gang up on and attack opposing fans are almost certainly Evil.

....
2007-10-22, 04:34 PM
It seems as if my group is the only one in the world that dosn't have a huge problem with good and evil in D&D...

I never understood why people try to make it so damn complicated. Good and Evil are in D&D because D&D is about heroes fighting villains. Whats the big deal?

kamikasei
2007-10-22, 04:40 PM
It seems as if my group is the only one in the world that dosn't have a huge problem with good and evil in D&D...

I never understood why people try to make it so damn complicated. Good and Evil are in D&D because D&D is about heroes fighting villains. Whats the big deal?

DMs who penalize paladins for what the player considers an entirely non-Evil act.

Players who insist that an NPC who didn't ping on Detect Evil clearly was evil, and the DM is being unfair by calling him Neutral.

Players who commit what the DM considers clearly Evil acts but don't want to have them treated as such or suffer a change of alignment.

Any number of other situations that arise when you step outside a simplistic model of "the PCs are clearly Good heroes in shining armor who look for ugly or black-hat-wearing types, clear Evil villains, and kill them FOR GREAT JUSTICE", and start considering whether third parties, minions, lesser villains, well-intentioned antagonists, and for that matter non-baby-eating villains and non-orphan-adopting heroes are necessarily Good or Evil.

....
2007-10-22, 04:58 PM
DMs who penalize paladins for what the player considers an entirely non-Evil act.

Players who insist that an NPC who didn't ping on Detect Evil clearly was evil, and the DM is being unfair by calling him Neutral.

Players who commit what the DM considers clearly Evil acts but don't want to have them treated as such or suffer a change of alignment.

Any number of other situations that arise when you step outside a simplistic model of "the PCs are clearly Good heroes in shining armor who look for ugly or black-hat-wearing types, clear Evil villains, and kill them FOR GREAT JUSTICE", and start considering whether third parties, minions, lesser villains, well-intentioned antagonists, and for that matter non-baby-eating villains and non-orphan-adopting heroes are necessarily Good or Evil.

Sounds like Monster: The Angst to me.

kamikasei
2007-10-22, 05:57 PM
For instance, for a traditional (Lawful Good) Paladin, yes you would not want to "skirt the letter of the law" - because they are inherently meant to be Lawful (which is why playing Lawful Good is so difficult sometimes - see below).

But there are variants of classes including Paladin, or particular dieties, where "skirting the letter of the law" may or may not be actually be quite acceptable, if not outright encouraged in many cases, in order to follow a higher (divine/moral) imperative - it's all in how your alignment, and class, and deity (if you have one) are reconciled with each other.

I skimmed this post initially, but I think you've got the wrong end of things here. I don't think Kompera was saying a character who has a code of conduct is required to obey the laws of the land according to their intent and spirit; I think what he meant was that a character who has some strict standard of behavior has to adhere to it, not just stay within it on a technicality. Thus, any paladin may look for loopholes or ways to work within the letter of an awkward law (of the passed-by-the-legislature, found-on-the-statute-books sort) in order to achieve some good end, but should not try to find loopholes and technicalities in her own code. And I think that's entirely fair - if you're swearing yourself to some code or standard, you should be adhering to its full spirit and intent, not merely to the technicalities of its wording.

Runa
2007-10-25, 09:52 AM
I skimmed this post initially, but I think you've got the wrong end of things here. I don't think Kompera was saying a character who has a code of conduct is required to obey the laws of the land according to their intent and spirit; I think what he meant was that a character who has some strict standard of behavior has to adhere to it, not just stay within it on a technicality. Thus, any paladin may look for loopholes or ways to work within the letter of an awkward law (of the passed-by-the-legislature, found-on-the-statute-books sort) in order to achieve some good end, but should not try to find loopholes and technicalities in her own code. And I think that's entirely fair - if you're swearing yourself to some code or standard, you should be adhering to its full spirit and intent, not merely to the technicalities of its wording.

I realized only later that that was probably what he meant. I think it stems from my associating "separation of church and state" and law and all that in real life - I would have referred to say, a Paladin's class restrictions as more "rules" than "laws" (even though, admittedly, they are divine laws). ^^;; My bad.


-Runa

Quietus
2007-10-25, 11:04 AM
I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in Furryhowlers world, it just seems tooo much like Kant's Catagorical imperative for me, and that just leeds to craziness.

To me it sounds more like the Imperial Order from the "Sword of Truth" series. The entire point of the Imperial Order is that the individual must sacrifice for the Greater Good of the Order - which is followed through to its extreme (which Furryhowler, without examples, might consider the pinnacle of good). As a result, not only do the citizens of the Order believe themselves to have no right to their own lives, wellbeing, or interests if it serves someone else, but they also see people from outside the Order as horrible creatures fighting the Creator's will, fit only to be used as slaves or worse, if not killed for their insolence.

PaladinBoy
2007-10-25, 06:50 PM
Let me say, first, that I agree with most of your post. Your definition of Good and Evil is, IMHO, close to the mark.

I do disagree on two points, however, which I have quoted below.

(Note: When I debate about morality, my mind blurs the lines between D+D and real world morals, but generally I argue for what I believe to be good in both worlds. There aren't usually so many differences that it's a problem.)


Running into a burning building to save your child is Neutral, though heroic. Doing the same to save a stranger's child is Good. Not doing the latter is not Evil, precisely because it's going beyond expectations.

The point I'm not so sure about is that not helping is not Evil. To be honest, I'm really not sure. I certainly think that if I stood by next to a burning building while somebody died inside and did nothing.......... I don't think that would be a happy memory. Which, IMHO, would be the dividing line between good and evil here. A good person will curse his helplessness and regret that he could do nothing, where an evil person will go "Whew! Glad it's not my job to go in there. Hey, what's that screaming?" And a really good person will try the rescue.


It's Good to help a little boy whose father is dying by searching out and finding the rare flower that can cure him, known to grow in the Swamp of Death of No Return; but it's not Evil to refuse, because it's not your responsibility to help. A paladin who said "your story touches me deeply, but I am sworn to defeat the cult of Kerrash before the next full moon to prevent them summoning their dread master into this world. I cannot turn aside, or risk falling on your quest and leaving the cult unopposed" should not fall. If you have a sample of the flower already, and tell the boy you'll give it to him if he signs over all his family's possessions in exchange, you're being Evil.

And there it is again. This is almost a different situation, however. This becomes having the paladin decide which is most Good, when personally, I think it is a paladin's job to do Good wherever he can. Deciding that you can't, because you have more important things to do then help, seems to me to be drifting towards arrogance and lack of empathy. And that is the type of moral failing that will lead to a paladin's downfall. Most of this is very situation-specific, however, and if the paladin made the decision to leave because it was just three days until the full moon and he thought the father could hold on........ no, I probably wouldn't make him fall. I probably wouldn't even require an atonement....... although if the player roleplayed severe guilt on the paladin's part and asked for an atonement, I'd find some way to reward him for what seems to be extreme Good. If he showed no remorse whatsoever........ I still probably wouldn't make him fall, but I'd be watching him, and he might end up with some angry villagers who didn't like the paladin that was too high-and-mighty to help.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-28, 05:23 PM
To me it sounds more like the Imperial Order from the "Sword of Truth" series. The entire point of the Imperial Order is that the individual must sacrifice for the Greater Good of the Order - which is followed through to its extreme (which Furryhowler, without examples, might consider the pinnacle of good). As a result, not only do the citizens of the Order believe themselves to have no right to their own lives, wellbeing, or interests if it serves someone else, but they also see people from outside the Order as horrible creatures fighting the Creator's will, fit only to be used as slaves or worse, if not killed for their insolence.

Chaotic Goods would believe that individuals are live for their own sake, not for the needs of the group. Therefore you should help others to live their own lives if they truly need such help. Sacrifice for . All indviduals have the right to do as they please, provided they cause no unprovoked harm to others, either by intent or negligence. Individualism, love of freedom, personal responsibilty and concern for the well being of others are all part of being Chaoric Good. Those of Chaotic Good alignment would leave other people to thier own devices, unless they need and will accept help. They will not interfere with the dreams and goal of others unless those dreams and goal infringe upon the rights of others.

Is that a pretty good definition of Chaotic Good or not.

P.S. I included a few posts from Furryhowler in part due to the fact that I was the one who started that thread on the Wizards forum. I'm now begining to regret it.

Tequila Sunrise
2007-10-28, 06:28 PM
I agree with you in this regard. Sadly some people (like Wizards forums regular Furryhowler) believe that Evil means selfishness. They also tend to believe that Good (especially Exalted status) entails utter disregard for your own well being to the point of self-hatred and willing self destruction. To this group, Good also means the belief that there is no such thing as the Self and that all people are interchanageable parts for lack of a different term.

These are some examples of Furryhowler's thinking.

Yeah, evil can mean abuse but it can also mean selfishness. Neutral and even good people can and are often selfish too, but the difference is that they don't act on any extreme selfishness, whether because they fear the law or because they know it is wrong. For example, a man wins the lottery and immediately tells three of his friends. All three friends have the opportunity to kill him and take his winning ticket to become rich. The Good friend doesn't do it because he knows it would be wrong. The Neutral freind doesn't do it because it's probably wrong and because he decides that it's not worth the risk of getting caught. The Evil friend actually does it because he's selfish and has no compunction about killing his 'friend'. Killing is a form of abuse, but the Evil friend kills out of selfishness not because he enjoys killing.

At least, that's how I feel. Any particular reason that you are sad that I equate selfishness with evil?

PS I don't like the other guy's definition of Good, as if you need to be some kind of LG divine-slave-to-the-machine saint .01% of the human population to be considered Good.

Neon Knight
2007-10-28, 06:39 PM
Chaotic Goods would believe that individuals are live for their own sake, not for the needs of the group. Therefore you should help others to live their own lives if they truly need such help. Sacrifice for . All indviduals have the right to do as they please, provided they cause no unprovoked harm to others, either by intent or negligence. Individualism, love of freedom, personal responsibilty and concern for the well being of others are all part of being Chaoric Good. Those of Chaotic Good alignment would leave other people to thier own devices, unless they need and will accept help. They will not interfere with the dreams and goal of others unless those dreams and goal infringe upon the rights of others.

Is that a pretty good definition of Chaotic Good or not.

P.S. I included a few posts from Furryhowler in part due to the fact that I was the one who started that thread on the Wizards forum. I'm now begining to regret it.


If all you desire of law and chaos is for chaos = libertarianism/anarchism and law = fascism/authoritarianism/communitarianism, then that is a pretty good definition.

If you desire more, then it is not.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-28, 07:12 PM
If all you desire of law and chaos is for chaos = libertarianism/anarchism and law = fascism/authoritarianism/communitarianism, then that is a pretty good definition.

This is what I think about Law vs. Chaos. Chaos=libertarianism (at both Good and Neutral)/anarchism (both Neutral and Evil) while Law=fascism (Evil)/authoritarianism (often Neutral)/communitarianism (Any but can be combined with fascism or authoritarianism). Thats why I don't get most class-based alignment restrictions. What's so libertarian or anarchistic about going into a berserker's rage or singing and what's so fascistic, authoritarian, or communitarian about combining mysticsm, self-discipline and martial arts training.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-28, 07:38 PM
My post in my other thread.


Wow, you really are a narrow minded control freak aren't you. With words like "superficial sense of goodwill - making a licentious society" you sound like a Magna Carta hater. Do you consider the concepts of inherent and natrual rights "licentious"? Just about everything you said about "pure Good" can be applied to extreme Law in all its forms, even Lawful Evil. I'm sorry but I wanted this thread to be sane, rational and courteous, not to be used to insult other people for not following your exact view points. This also goes for IRememberCecil and his comments on rape.

P.S. "Mahoia Bonaven, Mahoia Bonaven, Mahoia Bonaven" never was funny, isn't funny and never will be funny. It's a thread hijacking method, nothing more nothing less.

The response by Furryhowler


Erm, no. :) And that's hardly "courteous" is it :rolleyes:

Rights are an ego-"thing". They are demands made by the "spoiled brat" of the psyche who, in denying the inherently good things wants to compose its own version.

Then kindly follow that line yourself and dont assume a different opinion is an example of "narrow minded control freak[ery]".....:P

Post by calronmoonflower


I happened across two interesting terms. dystopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia) and anti-utopia.

dystopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia) is (or at least can be) law snuffing out individuality and ranks among the most evil, vile, oppressive concepts of government that I have run across.

Anti-utopia however is an flawed attempt at utopia. In the end the flaw is enough to pervert the whole concept away from good. In the end a anti-utopia can be evil from purely good intent.

If you are good, then you are altruistic,
You are altruistic
therefor
you are good.

^ That looks familiar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).

If it is a dog it has a tail, fur, and four legs.
A cat has a tail, fur, and four legs
therefor
A dog is a cat.

If you want to prove the connection you must do so in another way.

Also you give selflessly to an evil cause, guess what you are EVIL through altruism.

Also egotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism) lends itself well to both neutrality and evil. I'll admit however, it doesn't mix with good.

Also you might want to read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego#Ego

Actually they can know it is evil and do it anyway.

It was a joke of sorts. I used it because whether you realized it or not you defined chaos as evil. However, I will admit is was kind of childish and I really shouldn't have.

Chaos is ego (Premise)
Evil is ego (Premise)
Therefore
(Chaos is Evil) (Implicit Conclusion)

The conclusion would have to be true if both premises is true. However, under the Rules As Written chaos ≠ evil, so one or both of the premises must be wrong.

Response by Furryhowler.


I already said that altruism was necessary but not sufficient for a definition of Good and so that Egoism is necessary but not sufficient for a definition of Evil. Please try to address the matter at hand rather than trying to find smart-seeming counters that really do not apply.

"did IQs drop sharply whilst I was away, I already said that...." ;)

1, Where did you find that nice "doesnt equal" sign? :D

2, To address the point at hand....If altruism is inherent to Good then it follows that the opposite of altruism (Egotism) is inherent to the opposite of Good (Evil), doesnt it?

Both Chaos and Evil are based on Ego but Evil contains something more. Chaos is pure Ego, pretty much. It rests solidly on the whole "follow their consciences, resent being told what to do"...which is pure Ego. Evil is Ego with something else added. You could even make an argument that CN is the true middlepoint, logically, between Good and Evil....and would probably make a better description of much Animal Alignment too.

Now you see why I hate dealing with this "Furryhowler" fellow.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 04:35 AM
Re: Selfishness.
So many people mean different things by selfishness.
If, like Rand, you mean "focusing on yourself, and doing what is in your enlightened self interest, including promoting the goals your rationality leads you to" then selfish = good.
If, like some, you mean "indulging your own pleasures and ignoring others in a nonmalicious way", then selfish = neutral.
If, like others, you mean "treating others as means", then selfish = evil.

re: Furryhowler. So far he has not posted on this board as far as I can tell. It is not fruitful to copy and paste entire screeds of his. If he makes a specific point that makes you wonder "is this true" or "help me find the flaw in this", it makes sense to post that specific point.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 04:47 AM
There are a variety of evil people who commit murder, and only some do so for selfish or egotistical reasons. (obviously, deeds other than murder may be evil, and a nonevil murder is at least plausible; this post merely talks about evil murder).

A racist or terrorist can murder people he hates, seeing in it a "greater goal". He may personally sacrifice a lot, and find the experience unpleasant, but feel it must be done. This type of murderer is evil.

A person with anger management issues may murder people in the heat of the moment. If he knows of his problem and recklessly puts himself in positions where he'll become angry and kill, then he's evil.

A person may take pleasure in murder; this is also evil

A person may murder out of (mis)calculated self interest, this is also evil.

Love for another may blind you, and cause you to altruistically murder for the sake of the person you love. Still can be evil.

I don't see any one common thread in evil, because evil is a perversion of goodness. There are many ways to pervert goodness and be evil.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-29, 06:48 AM
Good and Evil as defined by the books WotC gives us might as well be called Red and Blue. Of course, half the people here will tell you that X is Good and Y is Evil based on their own personal moral philosophy and try to impose it on the rest of us without any basis in the books.

On another thread, I actually went into some detail comparing what the books tell us, and demonstrated that it couldn't really objectively tell us that rape (the example I used) was Evil without contradicting itself.

For a short example, let me put it this way: the essential crime in rape is theft of choice. You force someone to do something disconcerting to them against their will. You add into that the infliction of pain, both physical and emotional. So it is with casting Dominate on some Evil guy and making him kill all his friends in a terribly brutal manner (heck, it's easy to argue that as being a WORSE case of the same). Except Dominating an evil guy and making him kill all his friends is described as a potentially GOOD thing to do (a good act), as long as the other guys are EVIL. Of course, there is no cultural taboo against domination because the issue doesn't come up in our culture, so small-minded people whose moral compasses are dominated primarily by enculturation don't care (and unfortunately, enculturation being as powerful a force as it is and humans not being quite such free thinkers as they often make themselves out to be, is a very large denomination of people). They're more likely to be offended by someone eating dogflesh, because there's a cultural taboo against that.

Cultural taboo is not a good basis for Good and Evil, people.

Another example: The books tells us poison is Evil because it causes unnecessary pain to the enemy and so on and so forth. Of course, poisons can be quite painless compared to, say, burning the skin off your foes and letting them lay dying after a Fireball, but no one has problems with that. Clearly, searing the skin off of someone is going to hurt more than a dose of your favorite quick-killin' toxin. So is setting someone on fire for multiple rounds with alchemist's fire. Or bludgeoning people with maces. Anyways, if that's not enough for you, the BoED goes on to emphasize this point further, then gives us the Ravages: "They hurt WAY MORE, but they ONLY WORK ON EVIL PEOPLE, so it's Good now." Of course, the reason they gave for poisons being bad was that they caused so much pain, regardless of who you used it on. Yeeeaaah.

Law vs Chaos is totally worse. They're almost the same danged thing, seperated only by semantics. Basically, if you WORD AN ACT DIFFERENTLY (but it's the same exact actual act) then it can be Chaotic or Lawful. Right.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 07:05 AM
No, rape is more than that. It adds in sex, and you can't ignore that.
If I force you to drink acid, or eat feces, or stick you with mind-altering medications... it's not as bad as rape. Not even close. The difference is not physical pain, or difference in choice, or emotional distress - raping a sleeping or comatose person (who has no ability to make choices anyway) without causing them pain, harm, or emotional distress... is evil.

A DM should rule many uses of Domination to be evil by the way. Making him kill his friends (even evil ones) is evil. If you don't make your D&D evil at least relate to the real world, you're doing it wrong.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-29, 07:06 AM
No, rape is more than that. It adds in sex, and you can't ignore that.

So according to you, sex is the key point that makes rape evil.

Sorry, but not a lot of philosophers are going to take your side there. (Edit: Well, okay, that's not exactly true. Lots of them think sex is evil... I just thoroughly disagree with those people)



If I force you to drink acid, or eat feces, or stick you with mind-altering medications... it's not as bad as rape. Not even close. The difference is not physical pain, or difference in choice, or emotional distress - raping a sleeping or comatose person (who has no ability to make choices anyway) without causing them pain, harm, or emotional distress... is evil. Actually, they are having the choice taken from them of whether or not to engage in sex. They don't have the ability to control the choice... you're forcing it on them by raping the comatose person.

So... I think you have a bit of a misconception on the whole choice thing :-\

Riffington
2007-10-29, 07:08 AM
Any smart one will.
If I work with an unconscious patient, I have every right to move her arm for my convenience. I have no right to have sex with her. Even if I cause no pain, no harm, she never finds out, etc. It's still evil.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-29, 07:10 AM
Any smart one will.
If I work with an unconscious patient, I have every right to move her arm for my convenience. I have no right to have sex with her. Even if I cause no pain, no harm, she never finds out, etc. It's still evil.

Is moving the arm particularly disconcerting to her? Nope. Again, you're ignoring the definition. And again, the crime in your example is primarily theft of choice, unless the actual act of sex is somehow evil. Which it's not, so long as you have consent. The crime of rape is that you *don't* get consent. And honestly? You're saying it's worse to not get consent for SEX more than DESTROYING EVERYTHING DEAR TO YOU. To the point where it's a difference between a Good and Evil act. Not even neutral to Evil or anything. You're actually going from "murder all your own friends = Good" to "Having sex = Evil." In both cases, the act of consent is taken away, but you claim that that's not the factor. If you take away lack of consent and pain, then rape is just having sex. And it's not rape anymore, because it requires (by definition) that there is no consent.

To make it abundantly clear, the definition of rape is:

&quote dictionary.com

any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

There are two elements to the defintion. 1) Sex, and 2) forcing it upon a person. You're saying that part two is not the primary crime, as I have suggested. That means you find 1 to be the crime.


It's still evil.

Wow, when did I ever say it wasn't? In fact, when did I ever pass ANY moral judgment on ANY act? I have been speaking in terms of what the D&D books tell us on morality, not giving my own opinions on morality.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 07:16 AM
But she has no choice. She's unconscious. She has no choice in anything I do to her. Yet I'm allowed to do certain things, and not others.
It can't be that it's painful or disconcerting, because she's unconscious. Let's say she'll never find out that it happened. Still wrong.

So why am I allowed to do some things without asking (in fact, I can do certain things that will hurt if/when she wakes up, and I can do things specifically contrary to her previously expressed desires), and not sex? If not for the fact that sex is special and always requires real consent due to its specialness.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 07:17 AM
IYou're saying it's worse to not get consent for SEX more than DESTROYING EVERYTHING DEAR TO YOU. To the point where it's a difference between a Good and Evil act. Not even neutral to Evil or anything. You're actually going from "murder all your own friends = Good" to "Having sex = Evil."

Umm, I said that making someone destroy everything dear to them is evil. You must be confused.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-29, 07:20 AM
But she has no choice. She's unconscious. She has no choice in anything I do to her. ...Yes, hence "theft of choice." It's not a hard concept.
Yet I'm allowed to do certain things, and not others. Again, I gave the qualifier that the act be disconcerting. Like, say, killing all your friends. Unless you think you're totally allowed to do that.


It can't be that it's painful or disconcerting, because she's unconscious. Let's say she'll never find out that it happened. Still wrong. Then you are positing that it is evil because it WOULD be disconcerting to her if she were to find out. That doesn't counter or contradict my point in any form.


So why am I allowed to do some things without asking (in fact, I can do certain things that will hurt if/when she wakes up, and I can do things specifically contrary to her previously expressed desires), and not sex? If not for the fact that sex is special and always requires real consent due to its specialness.

And... murdering all your friends isn't special? And it's okay for you to do that without consent? What kind of sick logic is THAT?! :smallconfused:

Edit: Since you added in a new response while I was typing:


Umm, I said that making someone destroy everything dear to them is evil. Then that means you AGREE with me, and you're arguing for no reason. At all.


A DM should rule many uses of Domination to be evil by the way. Making him kill his friends (even evil ones) is evil. If you don't make your D&D evil at least relate to the real world, you're doing it wrong.

...You realize, I said that that was what the D&D BOOKS define as Good and Evil. Not me. (In fact, to date, I have never on any message board given a single opinion as to whether something was morally right or wrong with respect to a D&D character's actions. I make a point of it, because trying to impose your moral views arbitrarily on someone else's game is stupid in my opinion.) And that's the only remotely common ground this can be discussed on, since everyone has different morals. And I was pointing out a CONTRADICTION in the alignment system as defined by WotC, meaning the alignment system of WotC fails. And then you say "but that alignment system fails" as if that's an argument against me, instead of *in agreement with me.*

That's a logical error by you.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 07:28 AM
I am allowed to do disconcerting things to people. Against their will. I do them all the time.

[eliminated unnecessary sentence]

But I make babies hold still while I put tubes in their nose, while they scream and cry. I stick needles in their arms. I hold masks over their faces. But I don't have sex with them. They wouldn't mind the sex nearly as much as the things I do. Nevertheless, the sex is evil. A needle (even if were for my convenience, and not absolutely vital) is not.

I make crazy, drunk, and ill people hold still while they think they're going to die. Some think I am deliberately torturing them. Some would way rather I had sex with them instead. But holding them still and inserting a tube somewhere is not the same as holding them still and inserting a penis. They lose the same amount of choice. But one of them is something that they OUGHT to have choice over, regardless of their own feelings on the matter.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 07:31 AM
Oh. Well, I was arguing against the point that rape is wrong just because it eliminates choice. It is wrong for other reasons as well. I'll grant that WOTC messes up good/evil. BOED should be discarded immediately, for example. If you just mean that RAW screws up good/evil, then yes, I agree.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-29, 07:32 AM
I am allowed to do disconcerting things to people. Against their will. I do them all the time.

Not (for the third time) making them kill their friends. If you again claim I didn't call that evil, I'm going to call you dirty names.

But I make babies hold still while I put tubes in their nose, while they scream and cry. I stick needles in their arms. I hold masks over their faces. But I don't have sex with them. They wouldn't mind the sex nearly as much as the things I do. Nevertheless, the sex is evil. A needle (even if were for my convenience, and not absolutely vital) is not.

I make crazy, drunk, and ill people hold still while they think they're going to die. Some think I am deliberately torturing them. Some would way rather I had sex with them instead. But holding them still and inserting a tube somewhere is not the same as holding them still and inserting a penis. They lose the same amount of choice. But one of them is something that they OUGHT to have choice over, regardless of their own feelings on the matter.

A better argument. This demonstrates that my wording of "disconcerting" was perhaps a bit misleading, since, obviously, anyone could end up being bothered by absolutely anything ("Oh my god, please don't wear yellow, oh god it's the most horrible torture ever why are you forcing me to see yellow you horrible evil monster!?") Still, I'm sure you realize what I meant by that, and that still doesn't break my point (The fact that controlling someone to kill all their friends = Good means that rape can't necessarily be Evil in all cases, since it has all the same basic crimes involved and then some! And as a result, the D&D alignment system doesn't make sense, contradicts itself, and might as well be Red vs Blue, because it's really hard to justify any moral code where forcing someone to commit horrible murders of their own friends is a Good Thing To Do, so long as the other guy is Evil for, I don't know, fighting his enemies with poison instead of searing their skins off). I just need to better define that crime so as not to include acts such as "holding down the crazy guy to administer medical help."

Edit: Since ya ninjaed the post again...
Oh. Well, I was arguing against the point that rape is wrong just because it eliminates choice. It is wrong for other reasons as well. I'll grant that WOTC messes up good/evil. BOED should be discarded immediately, for example. If you just mean that RAW screws up good/evil, then yes, I agree.

There we go. Yes, my point is that RAW screws up Good / Evil (let's not even talk Law / Chaos), so all these alignment discussions are totally pointless because you can totally justify an act as both Good and Evil and then it just falls to people arguing things like "well I think this is morally right" "No, I think THIS is morally right." "Screw you, I have the moral high ground."

...That's why alignment discussions about whether something is really good or evil or chaotic or lawful or neutral are pointless. The system we have is contradictory, and so everyone who doesn't realize that just sees whatever they WANT to in it, then tells everyone else they're absolutely right and get into huge, pointless arguments where neither side can win or accomplish anything.

Jayabalard
2007-10-29, 09:01 AM
I make crazy, drunk, and ill people hold still while they think they're going to die. Some think I am deliberately torturing them. Some would way rather I had sex with them instead. But holding them still and inserting a tube somewhere is not the same as holding them still and inserting a penis. They lose the same amount of choice. But one of them is something that they OUGHT to have choice over, regardless of their own feelings on the matter./shrug

both "of them is something that they OUGHT to have choice over."

doing something "for their own good" doesn't make it a good thing.

Riffington
2007-10-29, 10:20 AM
/shrug

both "of them is something that they OUGHT to have choice over."

doing something "for their own good" doesn't make it a good thing.


Really? Heck, last night a guy was brought in drunk, after having wrapped his car around a telephone pole. He kept saying that he needed to be on his side so he could breathe better, and wanted to be left alone. He didn't understand when we told him he'd just make his rib fractures worse. It's a good thing we held him down long enough to figure out he had a splenic laceration that would have killed him if we just left him alone like he wanted.

You think it was wrong for us to save his life? Now, if he was calm/rational/not drunk and wanted to die, that would be a different scenario. But this guy, you think I should have let him alone?

Jayabalard
2007-10-29, 10:27 AM
You think it was wrong for us to save his life? Now, if he was calm/rational/not drunk and wanted to die, that would be a different scenario. But this guy, you think I should have let him alone?Yes.
(I have to write more or it won't let me reply)

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-29, 10:43 AM
That would be pretty Exalted, but not Good, indeed. Letting someone die, when they have something worth living for is always a bad idea. Now, if they really destroyed everything they could possibly love, with no chance of bringing it back, letting a person die would be the most good act.


Now, this whole debate had made me wonder. What EXACTLY does Law, Goodness, Chaos, and Evil represent? I've always seen it as Ethics (Law and chaos) being means to an end unless we speak of LN and CN, in which they're means AND end, and the Moral Axis as being the Goal, and not the means, unless we talk about NG and NE.

Fishy
2007-10-29, 10:47 AM
D&D, guys.

As described, the 9 alignments system doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Every DM ought to take it on themselves to work out what Good/Evil and Law/Chaos means in *their* game. For some games, a cartoonishly exaggerated morality works just fine: If philosophy isn't the focus of the game and would just get in the way. Some players and DMs like to entertain these sorts of questions, and might paint the world with more shades of gray, or dispose of the system entirely. There's not one answer.

I presonaly prefer the 'All Dwarves are created equal, all Elves are created free' interpretation of Law/Chaos, and I've got no problem with Good/Evil being Selfless/Selfish.

Jayabalard
2007-10-29, 11:01 AM
Every DM ought to take it on themselves to work out what Good/Evil and Law/Chaos means in *their* game. Agreed. It doesn't really matte what the RAW interpretation is, or what some other group interprets it as... you should do what works for your group.


That would be pretty Exalted, but not Good, indeed. Letting someone die, when they have something worth living for is always a bad idea. No, it's not. letting someone die because they choose to (even if they have something worth living for in your opinion) is not a bad thing.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-29, 11:04 AM
It's a long debate, but in resume, if they have anything to live for that could bring peace to their tortured souls, people shouldn't die. You stop them from reaching that peace if you don't stop their deaths.

Interestingly, no comments on my viewpoint of WHAT the axis' mean.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-29, 12:07 PM
[T]he worst kind of debate is where some people are debating D&D and others are debating real life, and they don't understand why they can't agree on anything. I just want to avoid that.

MISSION FAILED! :smallsmile:

I think Azerian is right. The evidence from RAW is so tenuous and contradictory that it is not very fruitful to debate about it. It's like discussing continuity errors in Scooby Doo or something: the creators didn't think it important to try to get it right, so why should we? AS far as I can see, all alignment is good for is that it allows one person of a group (the DM) to impose his views of morality on the other people in the group. I'm glad it's getting phased out of the mechanics in 4e.

Jayabalard
2007-10-29, 12:18 PM
MISSION FAILED! :smallsmile:

I think Azerian is right. The evidence from RAW is so tenuous and contradictory that it is not very fruitful to debate about it. it's just not fruitful to debate the RAW of good vs evil... but it can be useful to talk opinions and philosophy.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-29, 02:35 PM
Re: Selfishness.
So many people mean different things by selfishness.
If, like Rand, you mean "focusing on yourself, and doing what is in your enlightened self interest, including promoting the goals your rationality leads you to" then selfish = good.
If, like some, you mean "indulging your own pleasures and ignoring others in a nonmalicious way", then selfish = neutral.
If, like others, you mean "treating others as means", then selfish = evil.

re: Furryhowler. So far he has not posted on this board as far as I can tell. It is not fruitful to copy and paste entire screeds of his. If he makes a specific point that makes you wonder "is this true" or "help me find the flaw in this", it makes sense to post that specific point.

First, I'm looking for help finding and exposing the flaws in Furryhowler's logic without getting hostile or upset. Second, by Furryhowler's definition all forms of selfishness are evil, both in D&D and in real life. Maybe I should ask him about the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40,000.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-29, 02:45 PM
It's a long debate, but in resume, if they have anything to live for that could bring peace to their tortured souls, people shouldn't die. You stop them from reaching that peace if you don't stop their deaths.

Interestingly, no comments on my viewpoint of WHAT the axis' mean.

I also agree with you on this point. It's better to find peace in life than to kill yourself, or allow for your own death, because of whatever problems you may have.