Killing and Morality (alignment thread)

[Fixer]

Another thread got me to thinking about characters killing other characters (PC or NPC). Specifically the debate over whether or not killing was evil or good or whatnot.

I would like to propose a fairly simple breakdown of the moralities of murder.
{table]Good Murder
Aggressor attempts harm after offered surrender (accepted or refused).
Killing an aggressor when necessary to defend someone and offering surrender is not available.[/table]

{table]Neutral Murder
No personal emotional involvement.
No desire to cause excessive pain or harm.
No mercy for the fallen.
Intent on consuming your target as part of natural diet to sustain health/life.[/table]

{table]Evil Murder
Actively attempting to cause excessive pain or harm.
Killing for its own sake and not towards some purpose.[/table]

Are there some other things I am not thinking of off the top of my head?

[Morty]

The way I see it, murder is all in itself Evil. Murdering in self-defense or to defend or save others can make in Neutral, but not Good.

[13_CBS]

The way I see it, murder is all in itself Evil. Murdering in self-defense or to defend or save others can make in Neutral, but not Good.

So when the paladin goes forth to destroy the pack of evil goblins....that's not murder?

[Morty]

So when the paladin goes forth to destroy the pack of evil goblins....that's not murder?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If paladin kills evil goblins/bandits/whatever then he's defending others, so it's Neutral act, assuming those goblins/bandits/whatever present actual threat for population. I meant "murder" as every act of killing someone, maybe that wasn't the best choice of a word.

[Tengu]

I agree with M0rt here. Paladins usually kill goblins because, you know, those goblins raid villagers and kill people. Even if Goblins (the webcomic) wants you to think otherwise - and it doesn't, because it's stated there that not all tribes are as peaceful as the protagonists' one.

And Fixer, maybe I misunderstand you, but judging from your table, someone who kills others for a living, but without any emotional attachment, is committing neutral, not evil actions. Which I disagree with.

[TheThan]

Ok lest put this into perspective.

Murder is committed out of anger, rage, hatred simple evil (killing just to watch someone die), or simple greed (take over a business, kill off someone’s spouse etc).

Killing to defend your home, people who can’t defend themselves or to stop some other grievous crime (such as killing a serial killer) is not murder, it may not be right, but its not murder. The taking of life can be justifiable, regardless of the morality of the situation (look at all the debates that goes on about the death penalty).

The big question is whether you’re PCs can deal with that morality. If a paladin is given the (rather vague) charge of “destroy all evil”, then he either needs to make his own judgment calls (which can easily lead to fallen paladins) or have some other way of deciding who deserves to be killed and who deserves a second chance.

One paladin might feel its his duty to try to make others see their evil ways and repent, sparing them the sword until it’s evident that they will not change. Another paladin might decide that all non-good races are to be destroyed at any cost, regardless of the circumstances. The difference is in the details of the event and the mindset of the player and his character.

Ultimately it comes down to each individual DM, I’ve DMed games in which all monsters were inexorably evil and were incapable of changing, and I’ve also Dmed games where things were not as they seem. I suggest all players need to sit down and have a long talk with their DM over this issue. Particularly if their playing a Paladin or some other class with a moral alignment.

[Mewtarthio]

I think there's a confusion of terms. Murder depends on local laws and such: Chopping the head off a helpless man who offended your mob boss is murder, while dropping a guillitone on a prisoner is not (unless, of course, you weren't authorized to perform said execution). Change that term to "killing" or "homicide" to clarify things.

[MrNexx]

As others have said, I make a distinction between killing and murder. A killing mean there has been a death, usually by violence, but one that is acceptable for some reason or another. A murder is a death that is not acceptable.

To that end, I'm "correcting" your table, Fixer; I'm making some changes to better fit my view of it.

{table]Good Killing
Aggressor attempts harm after offered surrender (accepted or refused).
Killing an aggressor when necessary to defend someone (including oneself) and offering surrender is not available.
Killing as an act of mercy when healing/recovery is not possible.[/table]

{table]Neutral Killing
No personal emotional involvement (beyond self-preservation and associated emotions).
No desire to cause excessive pain or harm.
No mercy for the fallen.
Mercy may or may not be extended.
Killing as a more expedient solution when others are not practical.
Intent on consuming your target as part of natural diet to sustain health/life.[/table]

{table]Evil Murder
Actively attempting to cause excessive pain or harm.
Killing for its own sake and not towards some purpose.
Killing as a more expedient solution when others are practical.
No mercy for the fallen.[/table]

[Nerd-o-rama]

And Fixer, maybe I misunderstand you, but judging from your table, someone who kills others for a living, but without any emotional attachment, is committing neutral, not evil actions. Which I disagree with.Welcome to the basic assumptions of D&D. This is what the traditional adventurer does, although it's usually in the interest of protecting someone. That someone just happens to be compensating them, so there's not necessarily an emotional attachment.

[Tengu]

MrNexx - great modification. I agree with it in 100%.


Welcome to the basic assumptions of D&D. This is what the traditional adventurer does, although it's usually in the interest of protecting someone. That someone just happens to be compensating them, so there's not necessarily an emotional attachment.

That "protecting someone" part changes a lot of things here, though. It's like the difference between a professional bodyguard and a mafia soldier.

[Nerd-o-rama]

More like between a mercenary hired to clear out violent crooks in a world with no real police force, but yes, there is a difference I suppose.

[Leicontis]

A distinction should also be made between killing creatures like humanoids and monstrous humanoids (who are capable of change) and killing undead and outsiders (whose alignments are generally fixed beyond the ability of anything but powerful magic to change). Killing an evil outsider is permanently destroying a being of unmitigated, unredeemable evil, and thus removes a small portion of evil from the multiverse. I would call that a Good act, wouldn't you?

Destroying an undead creature (other than from one of the few categories capable of nonevil alignment) is similarly removing a wholly malignant force from the world, and possibly also allowing a tormented soul to find rest. While it could also be argued that this is not technically killing per se, it is (IMO) certainly a Good act.

What about nonsentient creatures, like plants, animals, etc? I'd say that there are certainly some distinctly Evil forms of killing (like intentionally making them suffer for your amusement). On the one hand, they aren't sentient. On the other hand, that means that (in most cases) they are incapable of being any alignment but Neutral, so you can't partially justify the act through it being removal of a malign being. It could still be a dangerous animal, and the world is safer with it dead, but it was never actively malicious.

[Alyosha]

What about permitting people to die? In other words, how would different alignments treat a person who is dying? If a person were to commit suicide, how would characters of certain alignments react?

As for Permitting people to die: I tend to think that a Good character would try to save a person's life regardless of any personal risk or injury involved. Those who are extraordinarily merciful might even extend this kindness to enemies. A good character who witnesses an evil person being mortally wounded might allow them to die as a karmic or otherwise divine punishment. A Good character might make an exception if the person wanted to die as a means of overcoming severe physical suffering from illnesses and the like.

Neutral characters would try to save a person's life if he or she thought the risk of personal injury or loss was low. They might even try to save a person's life regardless of risk if the person in danger could be made use of or if that person was very close to the Neutral character. I don't think Neutral characters would ever try to save an enemy from death. A Neutral character might be more likely to assist a person in suicide if the person wanted to die in order to overcome suffering from illnesses and conditions.

Evil characters would never save a person's life (except maybe to prolong the victim's suffering). An Evil character might even hasten that person's death.

As for people bent on suicide: In my mind, Good characters will always try to prevent a person from taking their own life. I figure a good character always affirms life and will try to convince depressed or negative people to continue living. A Good character will also prevent a person from killing themselves if they are attempting suicide as a means for atoning for crimes.

Neutral characters will not prevent a person from suicide, but at the same time will not encourage it. I think a Neutral character would support a person's freedom of choice and will choose to respect that choice once it's made.

Evil characters would actively encourage suicide and try to cut a person down to make them more likely to commit suicide. They might even assist a person with their suicide, but never if suicide is treated as a solution to suffering from illness. I think an evil character might try to prolong the person's life in order to make the person suffer even more.

[MrNexx]

More like between a mercenary hired to clear out violent crooks in a world with no real police force, but yes, there is a difference I suppose.

Remember, in this case, the characters often are the official police force. They are frequently hired by town leaders (be they noble or elected) to dispose of a threat to the town; though they're not formally sworn in, they're effectively a deputized posse in a Western film... only they don't need no steenkin' badges. :smallamused:

[Yami]

Alyosha, you seem to be confusing good with lawful at points. "Save a person's life regardless of any personal risk or injury."? Lawful good, I'd agree, but not so much with the choatic good. As a general rule, Lawful characters are more inclinded to selfless acts, and chaotic to selfish ones. Hence the whole Paladin's must be lawful, rouges are often chaotic thing.

Now for my take on the murder thing, I'm going with the definition of murder as killing someone outside of combat.

Good:
They pose a threat to other good aligned peoples.

Neutral:
They pose a threat to you

Evil:
They do not pose a threat.

It's a simple rules system and it's easy for one's players to learn.

[Worira]

No, lawful characters are more inclined to respect the law. Lawful and Chaotic has nothing to do with selfishness. Anyway, if anyone really cares that much, grab the Book of Exalted Deeds.

[GoC]

And Fixer, maybe I misunderstand you, but judging from your table, someone who kills others for a living, but without any emotional attachment, is committing neutral, not evil actions. Which I disagree with.

By neutral murder he ment the way wolves and bears "murder".

[Azukius]

killings ok if theyve got green skin

[Prometheus]

It passes the test, a case study with wolves and ghouls:
Wolf "Chaotic neutral", Ghoul "Chaotic Evil". Libris Mortis makes it clear that the latter's hunger for flesh is just as essential for its sustenance. You could say ghouls are more aggressive, but a wolf only attacks humans so infrequently because it relies on other food sources, if a ghoul was out of corpses and a wolf was out of other animals, both would attack humans for the same reason - sustenance. While you could say a ghoul delights in eating flesh, whereas a wolf doesn't, but how different really different is that from a wolf's sense of taste? The answer, unlike wolves, ghouls are aware (Int 13 Wis 14 Cha 12) of the harm they cause intelligent living beings and are not in the least troubled by it - and here's the important part "Killing as a more expedient solution when others are practical."

As for when killing can be good: You have to assume a Utilitarian value system, absolute morality may be considered within a good alignment, but isn't restricted to such. The Paladin is justified in killing goblins provided that he/she does so because of the belief that those goblins would many kill others, therebye saving lives.

Although it does raise the question: Lets say those were 8 goblins killed. Would the paladin still be justified if they were going to kill only 4 commoners? Technically it is less lives, but on the other hand, the lives that are spared are innocent ones. So I think D&D includes an element of justice, perhaps pertaining more to law or chaos than good. This does run into grey territory (neutral territory?) however, because what if the commoners supported the adventurers who the goblins knew would be the death of them? Couldn't the goblins be seen as acting in self-defense? Hence uncertainty involved in relativity. Maybe its best to let God, or in this case, the DM decide.

[EvilElitest]

So when the paladin goes forth to destroy the pack of evil goblins....that's not murder?

yes it is, just justified if it is to save others, that is neutral not good
from,
EE

[Alyosha]

Alyosha, you seem to be confusing good with lawful at points. "Save a person's life regardless of any personal risk or injury."? Lawful good, I'd agree, but not so much with the choatic good. As a general rule, Lawful characters are more inclinded to selfless acts, and chaotic to selfish ones. Hence the whole Paladin's must be lawful, rouges are often chaotic thing.



The point was not to "confuse" lawful with good. Rather, I wanted to couple lawful to good and chaotic to good. I always figured that whether a good person was Lawful or Chaotic, they would want to help people.

Robin Hood wants to help people, but he does it by thieving.

King Arthur wants to help people, and he does it by enforcing a law that allows people to live in peace.

I don't think Robin Hood would refuse to help the same person King Arthur wants to help because Robin Hood does not follow the law. But his motivations might be different.

I don't equivocate Lawful with Selflessness and Chaotic with Selfishness.

I always viewed Lawful people as ones who were ordered and disciplined and Chaotic people tended to only create the loosest of plans if they had to but otherwise flew by the seats of their pants.

Good people must be selfless to a degree or at least interested in promoting the well being of others. That's what makes them Good, after all.

Evil people invest themselves in making people's lives worse either for the sake of ruining people's lives or for purely selfish motives. Some of the most Evil characters in ancient and modern cultures are portrayed as selfish people who will step on or crush anyone who stands in the way of their path to power, riches, or glory.

Paladins are Selfless not only out of the character archetype, but because that's how people tend to stereotype the class.

Rogues are selfish sneak thieves for the same reason. People just plain expect rogues to be in it for themselves.

[Mewtarthio]

Evil characters would never save a person's life (except maybe to prolong the victim's suffering). An Evil character might even hasten that person's death.

[...]

Evil characters would actively encourage suicide and try to cut a person down to make them more likely to commit suicide. They might even assist a person with their suicide, but never if suicide is treated as a solution to suffering from illness. I think an evil character might try to prolong the person's life in order to make the person suffer even more.

You're getting this backwards. A character who refuses to save lives except to prolong torment is Evil, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Your average Evil person won't really care if a person lives or dies, but will kill someone if they've got something to gain out of it and think they can get away with it. Obviously, exceptions are extended to the Evil person's loved ones and close friends, but outside of that, everyone's expendable.

[Hallavast]

Where does killing someone in a blind, jealous rage fall? How about vengeance for slaughtered loved ones? Got a nice neat little box to put those in?

[Jayabalard]

So when the paladin goes forth to destroy the pack of evil goblins....that's not murder?nope.

murder is a very specific subset of killing... all murder is evil, but not all killing is murder.

[TheOOB]

I would contend that killing another being is never an inherently good act(except maybe a mercy killing...maybe). It can have good intentions, and the results of the death can be good, but the actual act of killing is not good. Don't get me wrong, defeating the evil warlord who is terrorizing the nation is a good act, though it's not because you killed them, but because you risked your life to protect others from tyranny(the killing itself is a neutral component of a much greater good).

Killing is evil whenever you kill an innocent(eg. someone whom to your knowledge has done nothing wrong), or when you kill for personal gain(killing said evil warlord because you want his awesome magical sword would in fact be evil, even if most people would think of you as being good for doing so).

A perfect ally good person never kills anything, they avoid violence whenever possible and if violence is necessary they incapacitate their foes and try to redeem them later. That said, perfectly good people make horrible adventurers.

[Tengu]

Don't get me wrong, defeating the evil warlord who is terrorizing the nation is a good act, though it's not because you killed them, but because you risked your life to protect others from tyranny(the killing itself is a neutral component of a much greater good).

A good example, but I have a question - would the act be less good in your book if I didn't risk my life by defeating the warlord (because, for example, I'd be completely immune to his and his minions' attacks)?



A perfect ally good person never kills anything, they avoid violence whenever possible and if violence is necessary they incapacitate their foes and try to redeem them later. That said, perfectly good people make horrible adventurers.

Unless they happen to be named Vash the Stampede.

[13_CBS]

nope.

murder is a very specific subset of killing... all murder is evil, but not all killing is murder.

M0rt would disagree.

See, as many have pointed out already, "murder" can mean lots of things. Most people think it simply means, "unlawful killing", but then that raises questions of "lawful according to what? Local laws? Universal laws? Do Universal laws exist?"
etc.

There are also those who have different ideas on murder. In certain philosophies, for example, just being angry at someone counts as murder.

[Jayabalard]

M0rt would disagree.Actually...


I meant "murder" as every act of killing someone, maybe that wasn't the best choice of a word.Sounds like it's quite likely that he might not disagree.

The piece that sets murder apart from other killing (lawful or unlawful) is the "malice aforethought" bit, which is the part that specifically makes murder evil.

[Project_Mayhem]

As for people bent on suicide: In my mind, Good characters will always try to prevent a person from taking their own life. I figure a good character always affirms life and will try to convince depressed or negative people to continue living. A Good character will also prevent a person from killing themselves if they are attempting suicide as a means for atoning for crimes.

Neutral characters will not prevent a person from suicide, but at the same time will not encourage it. I think a Neutral character would support a person's freedom of choice and will choose to respect that choice once it's made.

Evil characters would actively encourage suicide and try to cut a person down to make them more likely to commit suicide. They might even assist a person with their suicide, but never if suicide is treated as a solution to suffering from illness. I think an evil character might try to prolong the person's life in order to make the person suffer even more

hmmm, I disagree. I don't think this really falls under the good/evil axis. I can see CG thinking that an unhappy person has the right to not face life, while a LN could adhere uncompramisably to the law.

For another example , a similar situation is the big arguement about volentary euthanasia. While I do see your point with evil, according to your arguement, the people in favour of mercy killings and the like would be neutral while the people against would be good.

IMO, I think this partly relates more to the Law/Chaos axis - with chaotics more in favour of freedom of choice.

[Felius]

But also depends on the code of honor of the lawful persons involved. If it's something like the Samurai's Bushido, he might encourage someone killing himself for atoning for his faults.

[Telonius]

"Murder" probably isn't the best word for killing, since it implies a chaotic element. "Murder" is defined by a legal system. Killing somebody might not always be considered murder. There's justifiable homicide and manslaughter, in the modern context. But if it's murder, that means it's against some law. It's (almost) always chaotic and (almost) never lawful. (I put in the "almost," because there are probably very particular cases, like if you don't accept the law as legitimately applicable; but those are very weird and debatable themselves). Anyway, I don't think the law/chaos axis is really what you want to get at here.