The morality of using Belkar's MoJ as a signal

[Doran]

Anyone else surprised by both Haley's and Celia's reaction to using belkar's MoJ?
As far as they know, Belkar's MoJ has not been activated yet and he is already sick; the combination of both could kill him or incapacitate him further. From a practical point of view they could lose a level 13 fighter.

Yes, as stated in the comic, Celia doesn't care about Belkar, still it seems rather odd they are so ready to do it.

[holywhippet]

I think it's mostly a case of stuff happens, might as well make the best of it. Unless they closely monitor Grubwiggler's place they can't prevent the mark from going off. Of course, actually tracking down where Roy's corpse is will be difficult - all the mark would tell them is that it's now exactly past the allowable range.

[GrandMasterMe]

I dont think they really have a choice. following their current plan of action would, if the took Belkar with them, activate his MoJ so it isnt like they are being malicious about it. Really i think by leaving him it is more a matter of he's a liability in a situation that requires speed and accuracy. It seems to me like they are leaving him in a position where they can benifit tacticly and leaving him where he is least likley to hurt himself or others

[NENAD]

There's little choice in the matter, besides which Belkar doesn't deserve their sympathy, not after killing an innocent gnome for kicks.

[Spiky]

Haley is a thief.
Celia is a lawyer.

And you have questions about their morality? Should be pretty obvious.

[ChickenDancer]

That was very well put Spikey.

If I was actually in the group I would do much the same to Belkar. He's a liability and at the moment completely useless. So it would be the only logical way to get a use out of the little monster.

[Kato]

Oh come on, stop kicking the ill dog. B's a victim here ^^

I for my part can't believe goody two shoes Celia wants to save hobgoblins who'd probably kill her where she stands but sacrifices Belkar who was part of the people saving her from an eternity being a statue.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This is proof. Celia must be Lawful Neutral. :smalltongue:

[David Argall]

While their willingness to endanger Belkar does them no credit, it's not easy to see a plan that does not endanger him. They have to keep him in town. And to do so is to keep him in dangerous territory.

[MrEdwardNigma]

You know, if the mark hadn't gone off yet this would be a lot like begging Belkar to stab them in their sleep. As soon as they leave town, off course.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Their plan to to use Belkar's mark as a signal is an evil plan because it involves causing suffering as an integral component. If they tried and failed to avoid setting off the mark that would be different but here they are willing to allow it to happen.

Is this a problem?

Nope.

Neither is a Paladin. They can do an evil act and there will be no negative upshot, so long as it does not become a habit. If a Paladin suggested this plan, issues may be raised. If a cleric suggested this plan, eyebrows may be raised. Otherwise, besides the fact that the mark already went off, this is a sound plan.

[Borris]

And it's not like either of the girls is intentionally planning to activate Belkar's mark of justice. The reason why they're not willing to head for Cliffport with him is specifically so they don't activate it uselessly. By staying in Greysky City near Grubwiggler's mansion, Belkar should be safe. And if Roy's body would happen to be the one to move out of the one-mile range, there's little they can do about it, and may as well use any small advantage the situation can give them. The only other option would be to pay a cleric to remove Belkar's mark of justice, and since it was put there for what they believe was a good reason in the first place, they'll make sure Shojo's magical failsafe stays where it is.

[Doran]

Your explanations all make sense, but aren't actually stated in the comic.
Basically I was thinking that the complete absence of any rationalisation of their acts was odd. They don't mention it being a dubious but practical plan, and instead their only (brief) excuse is that they don't like Belkar.

Oh well, it's only a minor issue anyway.

[Linkavitch]

They are using him as a tool, but he can't complain, cause he's delirious, but he is a *real* person, so it isn't exactly moral... and they could lose a high level fighter/tracker, which they would need in the first place to even try tofind Roy's body/golem. So, in short, it is not a very bright idea, which coinsides with Celia's current mindstate. They (Celia and Belkar) should just stay and watch the building, while Haley goes to get some people.

[sikyon]

Belkar is clearly of evil alignment.

In D&D, killing evil creatures, regardless of circumstance, is not an evil act.

[NENAD]

Sikyon has a point. Though that makes D&D alignment rather ruthless.

[Shatteredtower]

In D&D, killing evil creatures, regardless of circumstance, is not an evil act.False. Killing prisoners for your own amusement is always an evil act, even if they're evil. A demon that's never met anything but another demon is still evil if all it does to other demons is attempt to kill them on sight.

[David Argall]

Belkar is clearly of evil alignment.

In D&D, killing evil creatures, regardless of circumstance, is not an evil act.

This would be incorrect. Finding them to be evil can easily justify a lot more casual attitude about killing them, but "Evil=kill it" is still evil. The evil bandits attack you. You kill them, and any survivors. The non-evil bandits attack or the evil bandits don't attack. Killing out of hand is not acceptable. You of course kill in self-defense and you likely kill when the evil bandits resist arrest, but you do not have blanket moral authority to kill merely for being evil.



Basically I was thinking that the complete absence of any rationalisation of their acts was odd. They don't mention it being a dubious but practical plan, and instead their only (brief) excuse is that they don't like Belkar.
Their rationalizations are assumed in the text. Note Haley says she can't take Belkar with her since that would put him outside the range of the Mark. She doesn't say so, but she clearly means that she feels she has a duty not to set off the Mark. It seems to be a minor duty, easily overcome by others, but she doesn't want to set it off without reason.

[Morty]

Belkar is clearly of evil alignment.

In D&D, killing evil creatures, regardless of circumstance, is not an evil act.

Not true. A person can be evil and it'd still be an evil act to kill this person without strong justification.
Now, in this case, Belkar deserves this -though it's a bit like sinking down to his level- but evil=free to be killed is false.

[AceOfFools]

They had to chose between:
a) Leaving a very sick man with an unfair amount of treasure in a city full of thieves.
b) Dragging a very sick man into a situation where he will get much, much worse
c) Staying with Belkar and trying to recover the body on their own until they receive confirmation that it's to late to do anything about it.

a and b aren't actions I'd be comfortable taking if I was a good aligned character.

This took me about 2 seconds to realize and would have bothered explaining it if I was in the girls shoes.

[AceOfFools]

Their plan to to use Belkar's mark as a signal is an evil plan because it involves causing suffering as an integral component. If they tried and failed to avoid setting off the mark that would be different but here they are willing to allow it to happen.

Is this a problem?

Nope.

Neither is a Paladin. They can do an evil act and there will be no negative upshot, so long as it does not become a habit. If a Paladin suggested this plan, issues may be raised. If a cleric suggested this plan, eyebrows may be raised. Otherwise, besides the fact that the mark already went off, this is a sound plan.

I apologize for the double post, but...
They aren't enacting a plan to cause suffering in anyone. They are trying to find a plan that would actually prevent Belkar further suffering, while not planning to overlook any useful information that the suffering would give them.

They might be being a bit callous about Belkar's suffering, but they are hoping to prevent it.

[Samurai Jill]

Their plan to to use Belkar's mark as a signal is an evil plan because it involves causing suffering as an integral component. If they tried and failed to avoid setting off the mark that would be different but here they are willing to allow it to happen.
How, exactly, are they supposed to avoid setting off the mark of justice short of following around Grubwiggler's Bone Golem 24/7- a preposterously dangerous precaution on behalf of someone who has done nothing to deserve this consideration?

Belkar is clearly of evil alignment.

In D&D, killing evil creatures, regardless of circumstance, is not an evil act.
Not exactly. Killing evil creatures to prevent further evil acts on their behalf (which would, in themselves, be worse than the isolated act of killing)- is a non-Evil act. Killing an evil creature for the heck of it is exactly as Evil as gratuitous murder of any other sentient creature. The fact Evil races spend most of their sadism and aggression against eachother- ie., other Evil beings- does not make them even slightly closer to morally Neutral.
Motives matter.

You of course kill in self-defense and you likely kill when the evil bandits resist arrest, but you do not have blanket moral authority to kill merely for being evil.

A person can be evil and it'd still be an evil act to kill this person without strong justification.
Uh, people... Evil creatures, by definition, hurt, kill and oppress others on a pretty regular basis. As long as your motives are to prevent further death, pain and/or oppression, that's a fair justification right there. In fact, that's pretty well the real definition of Evil- 'doesn't deserve to live.' The logic only breaks down in the above example of an entire society of evil creatures. What are you supposed to do here? Protect sentient beings from being killed, hurt and oppressed by... killing the people that were most in danger of it?

[David Argall]

Evil creatures, by definition, hurt, kill and oppress others on a pretty regular basis.
Evil creatures by definition Want to hurt, kill and oppress. They frequently find they can't. [Even Xykon probably has to go for days without killing somebody.] For any of a variety of reasons, they find they have to avoid evil acts. The obvious reason is that somebody bigger and meaner is threatening them if they try it. But the old saying "you can't have chicken for dinner if you want eggs for breakfast" also applies. Some victims are just too valuable to harm and you may have to actively try to help them for your own good. [It is, in fact, quite possible to posit a society entirely made up of evil people who do zero evil deeds because such hurt themselves more than anyone else. Indeed, that is not far from the standard model of economics.]



that's pretty well the real definition of Evil- 'doesn't deserve to live.'
That definition misses a lot of evil, particularly of the smaller varieties, and produces problems in just who decides this.

[Spiky]

You are all missing a more pertinent point. And it keeps coming up in related threads, obviously some forum members just haven't read OOTS enough.

The MoJ does not kill Belkar!

But a question. And this really goes to the comic, itself. So it won't be answered until tomorrow, whenever that may come.... How does any of this matter? It has already been activated. What, leaving Roy's remains will make him sicker? Sicker than delirium, vomiting his own body weight in moments, going hours without mayhem or crude sexual comments? The boy is already sick, folks.

[David Argall]

The MoJ will do nothing further to Belkar, but Roy and the Oracle are the only ones who know that. The rest assume Belkar is still under a threat.

[TreesOfDeath]

Belkars a jerk and doesn't really desrve anything. Under normal circustances, I'd say it would be wrong, but meh, I defineatly can't blame them, particurly as Belkar has cotnirbuted to all their problems

[Morty]

Uh, people... Evil creatures, by definition, hurt, kill and oppress others on a pretty regular basis. As long as your motives are to prevent further death, pain and/or oppression, that's a fair justification right there. In fact, that's pretty well the real definition of Evil- 'doesn't deserve to live.' The logic only breaks down in the above example of an entire society of evil creatures. What are you supposed to do here? Protect sentient beings from being killed, hurt and oppressed by... killing the people that were most in danger of it?

Do they? Really? So it's impossible to have someone who, deep down is evil like hell, but doesn't actually do anything evil because he or she feels the potential gain isn't worth the risk or fears the authorities? Are good people supposed to kill that person because of what s/he wants do do? I also object the notion that evil means killing and opressing. It makes more sense when evil might mean simple selfishness and looking out for yourself and yourself alone- in other words, that you can be a "fine, upstanding citizen" and still be evil.

[Jorrath_Zek]

Belkar is smarter than that... Not a lot smarter, but I'm sure he's smarter than that.

Odds are that our dear friend Belkar chopped off a chunk of Roy and has been keeping it in his pocket just in case he was some how seperated from the team.

I don't think he'd have much issue with lopping off a finger to suit his needs. Pack it in a ball of clay to keep the stink down, and he's set!

If the stupid Oracle hadn't screwed him, then he'd have been able to lead a fairly normal Chaotic Evil life of violence and murder outside of town, and there wouldn't be a lot that people could have done to stop him...

[Samurai Jill]

Evil creatures by definition Want to hurt, kill and oppress. They frequently find they can't.
But frequently manage it anyway.

That definition misses a lot of evil, particularly of the smaller varieties, and produces problems in just who decides this.
Uh... the basic premise of the D&D alignment system is that no-one 'decides' this, because D&D morality is not subjective, it's a basic facet of the universe. You've either got an Evil aura, or you don't. End of debate.

(Now, if you're talking about from the DM's perspective, sure, it can get complicated, but IMHO this probably the best guideline you can give them.)

Do they? Really? So it's impossible to have someone who, deep down is evil like hell, but doesn't actually do anything evil because he or she feels the potential gain isn't worth the risk or fears the authorities?
Yes, in fact. It is impossible to have an Evil character without actually committing to plenty of Evil acts. I mean, ask yourself: Imagine a character who "deep down really wants to do Good", but never gets around to it out of fear of the authorities, or because they feel the personal risk isn't worth it??? Is that a 'Good' character? No! It's a spineless, lickspittle coward who would be lucky to be called neutral!

Besides, this is a strawman argument. If you're really, truly committed to doing harm to others, you'll find a way to either circumvent the system or subvert it to your purposes- And if you lack the intelligence and discipline to do that, you'll eventually lash out regardless of the personal consequences (Belkar is a case in point.)

It makes more sense when evil might mean simple selfishness and looking out for yourself and yourself alone- in other words, that you can be a "fine, upstanding citizen" and still be evil.
If you can (somehow) manage this without harming others, then no, you're not actually Evil. You certainly can't be Good, but there's an entire alignment bracket between these extremes.

[Morty]

Yes, in fact. It is impossible to have an Evil character without actually committing to plenty of Evil acts. I mean, ask yourself: Imagine a character who "deep down really wants to do Good", but never gets around to it out of fear of the authorities, or because they feel the personal risk isn't worth it??? Is that a 'Good' character? No! It's a spineless, lickspittle coward who would be lucky to be called neutral!

Uh huh. So someone who doesn't commit good acts because he's being ruled by a ruthless Lawful Evil overlord who'll punish him and all his friends and family is a "pathetic coward"? Riiight. That said, the difference between Good and Evil is that Good is supposed to be about self-sacrifice and evil about self-indulgence. Which is why an Evil character can go around not doing anything Evil simply because it's not useful for him/her at the moment.


Besides, this is a strawman argument.

Just so you know, "argument I don't agree with" isn't the same as "strawman argument", no matter how nice it sounds.


If you're really, truly committed to doing harm to others, you'll find a way to either circumvent the system or subvert it to your purposes

Who said you are? Maybe the person is just a bastard who would screw everyone over if it suited him- but at the moment, it doesn't. Not every Evil person is a Blackguard.


And if you lack the intelligence and discipline to do that, you'll eventually lash out regardless of the personal consequences (Belkar is a case in point.)

Not everyone who's Evil is as crazy as Belkar.


If you can (somehow) manage this without harming others, then no, you're not actually Evil. You certainly can't be Good, but there's an entire alignment bracket between these extremes.

So if someone has no regard for the well-being of others and the only things that prevents him from becoming a murderer is cowardice or laziness -two certainly non-good traits- this person is happily Neutral?
And finally, there's a boatload of Evil acts which don't deserve a death sentence.

[Donald]

not after killing an innocent gnome for kicks.

and a mule AND a candy bar. Totally justifiable.

[Samurai Jill]

Uh huh. So someone who doesn't commit good acts because he's being ruled by a ruthless Lawful Evil overlord who'll punish him and all his friends and family is a "pathetic coward"?
Yes! The fact that pathetic cowardice is effectively mandated by law here doesn't make it any less pathetic or cowardly! 'Understandable' and 'justified' are different things!

That said, the difference between Good and Evil is that Good is supposed to be about self-sacrifice and evil about self-indulgence.
Go read the definition of the alignment: Hurting. Killing. Oppressing. --Not 'self-indulgence.'

Who said you are? Maybe the person is just a bastard who would screw everyone over if it suited him- but at the moment, it doesn't.

...So if someone has no regard for the well-being of others and the only things that prevents him from becoming a murderer is cowardice or laziness -two certainly non-good traits- this person is happily Neutral?
Yes, in fact. If you do not hurt, kill, or oppress others Then You Are Not Evil.

I mean, c'mon- give me one example of a real-life character with no regard for others and/or actively wanted to hurt/kill/oppress them and still managed to get through life without hurting/killing/oppressing others. Almost by definition there's no evidence they even exist!

Just so you know, "argument I don't agree with" isn't the same as "strawman argument", no matter how nice it sounds.
A strawman argument is when you make up a supposed counterexample so unlikely that it practically doesn't matter. Which you did.

And finally, there's a boatload of Evil acts which don't deserve a death sentence.
An individual Evil act won't make you Evil. It takes repeated, serious acts of Evil in order to ave an Evil alignment.

[Morty]

Yes! The fact that pathetic cowardice is effectively mandated by law here doesn't make it any less pathetic or cowardly! 'Understandable' and 'justified' are different things!

So understandable fear of authority is still pathetic cowardice? And how about a person who's a poor peasant and whose life consists of nothing but hard work to sustain him/herself and has no real opportunity to help others even if s/he really wants to? Is this person not Good?


Go read the definition of the alignment: Hurting. Killing. Oppressing. --Not 'self-indulgence.'

If you insist, for reasons elusive to me, on using straight definitions right from the SRD, let me quote you another line: "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
It directly implies that the first sort of evil creatures won't kill if doing so is inconvenient. Which in many instances it is. And do you really think evil isn't about self-indulgence because SRD doesn't say so?


Yes, in fact. If you do not hurt, kill, or oppress others Then You Are Not Evil.

See above. And once more, following SRD to the letter seems pointless to me, given that "[Alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other." Which is a quote straight from the SRD.


I mean, c'mon- give me one example of a real-life character with no regard for others and/or actively wanted to hurt/kill/oppress them and still managed to get through life without hurting/killing/oppressing others. Almost by definition there's no evidence they even exist!

First, applying real-life definitions to D&D alignments is silly, because alignments by definition are unrealistic and abstract. Second, what do you mean by "no evidence"? Many crimes are commited by people you can meet on the street and not look twice. Would they still commit them if they had no "reason" or opportunity to do so?


A strawman argument is when you make up a supposed counterexample so unlikely that it practically doesn't matter. Which you did.

To quote Wikipedia:


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

I did nothing of the sort, because all the time I've been refuting your claim that you can't be evil and not deserve death.


An individual Evil act won't make you Evil. It takes repeated, serious acts of Evil in order to ave an Evil alignment.

Sorry, but says who? SRD says that evil creatures have no qualms or respect for other's dignity, well-being and life, but speaks nothing of the magnitude of immoral behavior required to have an Evil alignment.
In short: alignment system allows many interpretations. Each one is valid, but let's not shove our interpretation of alignment in other's faces, m'kay?

[Samurai Jill]

So understandable fear of authority is still pathetic cowardice?
If it leads you to betray your own heart-felt principles, then yes, it is!

And how about a person who's a poor peasant and whose life consists of nothing but hard work to sustain him/herself and has no real opportunity to help others even if s/he really wants to? Is this person not Good?
NO, they are NOT! They are Neutral at best!

It directly implies that the first sort of evil creatures won't kill if doing so is inconvenient.
But they still manage to do it plenty of the time! Belkar doesn't suddenly revert to True Neutral during the brief time when he isn't gutting innocents

If you insist, for reasons elusive to me, on using straight definitions right from the SRD...
Oh, whereas you just invent whatever definition of alignment you want to justify your own arguments.

And do you really think evil isn't about self-indulgence because SRD doesn't say so?
No! I think Evil is about hurting, killing and oppressing others! Geez!

"[Alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other."
For example, there are a great many ways for you to hurt, kill and oppress others! The possibilities are endless!

First, applying real-life definitions to D&D alignments is silly, because alignments by definition are unrealistic and abstract...
Your definitions of alignment are unrealistic and abstract, because you bring up on this imaginary strawman fantasy of people who are secretly Evil yet somehow never harm another living soul!

Many crimes are commited by people you can meet on the street and not look twice. Would they still commit them if they had no "reason" or opportunity to do so?
1. Acts of crime =/= acts of Evil. (Often, but not always.)
2. 1 act of Evil =/= Evil alignment.
3. No act of Evil == no Evil alignment.

And what the hell does 'looking twice' have to do with it?

I did nothing of the sort, because all the time I've been refuting your claim that you can't be evil and not deserve death.
You described a position that 'superficially resembled mine, but was 'easier' to refute', then claimed it refuted my position. You were not talking about an Evil character at all! That is a strawman argument!

Sorry, but says who? SRD... speaks nothing of the magnitude of immoral behavior required to have an Evil alignment.
Oh, so Belkar became LG the moment he decided to help rescue Elan, and Haley became CE the moment she tried to cheat the rest of the party out of a cut of the treasure. That makes perfect sense.

[Morty]

If it leads you to betray your own heart-felt principles, then yes, it is!

Even if you're more concerned about the well-being of your friends and family than yours?


NO, they are NOT! They are Neutral at best!

So you can't be good if you're in disadvantageous situation -which is by no means your fault- that disallows you to do anything significant?


But they still manage to do it plenty of the time! Belkar doesn't suddenly revert to True Neutral during the brief intervals when he isn't gutting innocents!

I love it how you're proving my point. Yes, Belkar doesn't revert to True Neutral during the not so brief interval when he's not gutting innocents, because the only thing that prevents him from doing so is MoJ. Note also that Belkar is Chaotic Evil. A Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil person might not necessarily be a murderous psychopath such as Belkar and wouldn't need so strong restrictions to be prevented from killing.


Oh, whereas you just invent whatever definition of the alignment you need in order to justify your own arguments.

Alignment by its definition is open to multiple interpretations. Which is a good thing, because it means it can fit many different types of story.


No! I think Evil is about hurting, killing and oppressing others! Geez!

Was that ever the question? You think it is, I think it can be, but not always is.


Yeah! By example, there are a great many ways for you to hurt, kill and oppress others! The possibilities are endless!

And do all of them deserve being killed for them? An Evil person who can't do anything more, or isn't evil enough to do more, might bully others and generally be a jerkass. Does this warrant death sentence?


Your definitions of alignment are unrealistic and abstract, because you bring up on this imaginary strawman fantasy of people who are secretly Evil yet somehow never harm another living soul!
My definitions are crystal clear!

:smallsigh: If you're going to berate other people's definition of alignments on account on them being different than yours then the discussion is pointless. Do you see me calling your definition of alignments inferior in any way?


1. Acts of crime =/= acts of Evil. (Often, but not always.)
2. 1 act of Evil =/= Evil alignment.
3. No act of Evil == no Evil alignment.

And what the hell does 'looking twice' have to do with it!

It means that Evil person need not be a dedicated villain. It might be a normal person just like you and I, but who's selfish, has no respect for other's dignity and well-being and is generally mean, but not be smite worthy. A petty, cowardly thief who doesn't have the guts to do anything more than steal things is still Evil.


You described a position that superficially resembled mine, but was 'easier' to refute, then claimed it was applicable to my own position. When it wasn't! That is a strawman argument!

Your position is that one can't be Evil without frequently commiting serious and despicable acts. I argued against it. Where's the strawman here?


Oh, so Belkar became LG the moment he decided to help rescue Elan, and Haley became CE the moment she tried to cheat the rest of the party out of a cut of the treasure. That makes perfect sense. Why bother even having alignments if they can seesaw between every quarter of the moral compass based on your sudden whims?

:smallconfused:And you accuse me of strawman arguments? I said nothing of the sort. My argument from the start was that one can be evil and not deserve immediate death. And now you claim I encourage alignment swaps based on single actions.
It'd also help if you didn't finish every sentence with an exclamation mark.

[NENAD]

First off, to some extent, I agree with Samurai Jill. Specifically, I think that if someone allows their morals to be compromised because doing the right thing would be against the law, they are Neutral, however if their particular brand of Good just places higher priority on keeping your friends and family safe and thus they do not break the law because they know it would bring bad things for them (even though they weren't actually involved in the crime), then they're Good (the real question here being was that really their highest priority or did it suddenly become their highest priority when their old one got dangerous? But that's a case-by-case situation).

Even a peasant living on a farm will have the chance to do something Good. Give food to struggling neighbors, or some such. Being that he has so little to work with, being anything better than Neutral would be unusually difficult, yes, but the opportunity to be Good will present itself eventually (unless he's really, really unlucky and the gods are apathetic to his position), and if he takes it, that'd make him Good.

However it is possible to be Evil without deserving death. Being a thief, as
M0rt pointed out, doesn't deserve a death sentence, even though it makes one decidedly Evil (unless you steal only from Evil entities, theoretically, but that's besides the point). And I definitely agree that putting an exclamation point on the end of every sentence makes your argument seem childish, somehow.

[Morty]

First off, to some extent, I agree with Samurai Jill. Specifically, I think that if someone allows their morals to be compromised because doing the right thing would be against the law, they are Neutral, however if their particular brand of Good just places higher priority on keeping your friends and family safe and thus they do not break the law because they know it would bring bad things for them (even though they weren't actually involved in the crime), then they're Good (the real question here being was that really their highest priority or did it suddenly become their highest priority when their old one got dangerous? But that's a case-by-case situation).

I can agree with this. However, this is not the case with Evil, because evil is the opposite of good in this aspect as well. If someone wants to do good but doesn't because of lazniess or cowardice, this someone is Neutral. If someone wants to do evil but doesn't for the same reasons, this person remains evil, if in a minor way. Especially since doing some minor evil is much easier than doing some minor good.


(Unless you steal only from Evil entities, theoretically, but that's besides the point)

I'd argue against that. If someone is Evil, but earned something legally without hurting anybody in the process, it's still Evil to steal it. Well, unless you do this to punish this person rather than for personal gain, I guess.

[Sabre13]

Being a farmer whose barely struggling by doesnt mean theyre neutral or good or evil. They dont have time to do anything.The only deciding factor would be their morals, not anything they do or neglect

Thieves arent nessicarily evil. Look at Haley:haley: She is a world class thief, and when Miko Detected Evil on her, she came back as Not Evil. Thievery itself is not evil, no matter how confusing the forces at work are:smallconfused:

[Samurai Jill]

Even if you're more concerned about the well-being of your friends and family than yours?
Firstly, "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." Secondly, if you're more concerned about the welfare of others than yourself, you would back it up with action, or it doesn't count.

So you can't be good if you're in disadvantageous situation -which is by no means your fault- that disallows you to do anything significant?
You ARE 'allowed' to do something significant- you'll just die or suffer horribly as a result. A choice between 'alive coward' and 'dead, but Good' is still a choice.

SoD spoiler:
:xykon: "You do, in fact, have a choice. But unlike Right-eye here, you're too chicken**** to ever make it."

I love it how you're proving my point. Yes, Belkar doesn't revert to True Neutral during the not so brief interval when he's not gutting innocents, because the only thing that prevents him from doing so is MoJ.
This has nothing to do with the MoJ, and applied before he was ever subject to the spell- we could go for 3, 4 strips at a time without him gutting anyone. The reason why Belkar is Evil is because he's brought pointless death to dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent people, and has never repented or tried to atone.

Do you see me calling your definition of alignments inferior in any way?

Was that ever the question? You think it is, I think it can be, but not always is...

Alignment by its definition is open to multiple interpretations.
What is the other interpretation for "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)?

'Evil' IMPLIES hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

A petty, cowardly thief who doesn't have the guts to do anything more than steal things is still Evil.
If you steal things, you may be depriving other people of a livelihood, and thereby hurting them. If you hurt them enough to become outright Evil-aligned, then you ARE smite-worthy. If you do not hurt them enough to become Evil, or if your thefts caused no significant long-term harm, then you are NOT Evil-aligned.

Your position is that one can't be Evil without frequently commiting serious and despicable acts. I argued against it. Where's the strawman here?

...And now you claim I encourage alignment swaps based on single actions.
Then where, exactly, do you draw the line between Evil and neutrality?

[Morty]

Firstly, "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." Secondly, if you're more concerned about the welfare of others than yourself, you would back it up with action, or it doesn't count.

What if action is impossible?


You ARE 'allowed' to do something significant- you'll just die or suffer horribly as a result. A choice between 'alive coward' and 'dead, but Good' is still a choice.

SoD spoiler:
:xykon: "You do, in fact, have a choice. But unlike Right-eye here, you're too chicken**** to ever make it."

And I feel that a coward who lives with shame for his/her own actions can still be a good-aligned coward.


This has nothing to do with the MoJ, and applied before he was ever subject to the spell- we could go for 3, 4 strips at a time without him gutting anyone. The reason why Belkar is Evil is because he's brought pointless death to dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent people, and has never repented or tried to atone.

Yes, it is the reason. Your point is? Honestly, I don't see how Belkar's behavior is relevant here. He's the perfect example of active evil, but that doesn't mean there are no other kinds of evil.


What is the other interpretation for "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)?

'Evil' IMPLIES hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

The other interpretation is "hurting and opressing that isn't violent enough to be smite-worthy still counts as Evil. Being willing to hurt and oppress is enough as well.".


If you steal things, you may be depriving other people of a livelihood, and thereby hurting them. If you hurt them enough to become outright Evil-aligned, then you ARE smite-worthy. If you do not hurt them enough to become Evil, or if your thefts caused no significant long-term harm, then you are NOT Evil-aligned.

If you're willing to steal from others to become wealthy and don't care about how will this affect their life, you're evil no matter how much you actually steal. Of course, a thief who isn't brave enough to do any serious stealing -but that's the only reason he doesn't do it- is still not worthy of death penalty in the eyes of the law.


Then where, exactly, do you draw the line between Evil and neutrality?

It's a thin line. To expand on the stealing metaphor:
-A good person won't steal unless in very dire or unusual circumstances, even if it means starving or something similiar
-A neutral person is uncomfortable with stealing but will do so if he or she has to
-An evil person will steal if given the opportunity
Of course, this is a gross generalization. Also, I belive Neutrality is very often a result of good and evil mixed in equal proportions rather than apathy. For example, someone might abhor stealing, cheating and similiar activities, but be fine with lying to others and exploiting their naivete for his/her own gain. Such a person is neutral.

[AceOfFools]

Many sources note that the majority of the human population is neutral aligned simply because they lack they are willing to go through life doing no harm but not trying to help...

Consider a traveler wandering through a poor region of a fantasy world. Say he is looking for a family member that has gone to some distant city.

One evening as it grows dark he comes across a peasant's home, and knocks on the door, begging food and a place to spend the night. The woman who lives there is fearful of this stranger, but takes pity on him. She has nothing to offer him but scraps from her own evening meal, but she gives these to the traveler. She then pulls off one of the ratty, worn blankents from her bed and bids him curl up on her hearth, before returning to sleep to rise early for the next day of toil.

The next evening the traveler finds another home after dark and against knocks on the door begging for food and a dry place to sleep. The woman who lives there tells him she hasn't enough food for her own family, and refuses to let him in. Because of the weather the travel pleads to at least be allowed to sleep in the barn. Reluctantly the woman agrees and locks him into the barn for the evening.
When he awakens the next day, and the woman unlocks the barn and offers to trade some of her chicken's eggs if he will help her son gather firewood. While he is off with the lad she searches her barn to make sure nothing is stolen. When she finds that all is well, she gives the man a single boiled egg and bids him a terse farewell.

That evening he again comes to a peasant's home, this time in a light rain. Again he knocks on the door and begs for a meal and place to stay. The woman who lives in this house tells him that she has no food for beggars, and that he should take himself elsewhere. Again he pleads to at least be allowed to sleep in the barn, and the woman demands to know what he will give her for this privilege.
"I am but a poor traveler," the man pleads, "I have nothing but the clothing on my back. Please, if you do not let me get out of the rain I will become ill."
"Then rot in the rain," the woman bids him, "You'll find no sympathy here." She then goes back to bed. The next day she rises to toil to feed herself and her family.

Regardless of your situation and circumstances, you will be given opportunities to act on the alignment you posses in some way.

[Tredrick]

Wait, Samurai Jill, are you saying that someone who waits for a better opportunity to strike is not Good?

Say your town is taken over by an evil overlord. He is marching through the street surrounded by his bodyguard, wearing his nigh impenetrable armor and letting everyone know who is in charge. You have a pocketknife. Are you saying that if you do not charge the overlord and try to kill him, you are a coward and, by definition, not Good? That is what I am reaidng from you, let me know if I have it wrong.

If so, you are confusing *Blank* Good with *Blank* Stupid. Lawful Good waits until there is an actual chance for success. Lawful Stupid-Good charges in with the pocketknife and dies achieving nothing.

A Neutral Evil dirt farmer may want to lie, cheat and oppress his neighbors, but cannot because the Lord's watch patrols the town. A Neutral Stupid-Evil character would try and set himself up as the local dictator only to be carted off for trying to usurp the Lord's authority.

Now, the Lord is attacked by a neighboring Lord and his patrols stop coming. If the wannabe dictator does nothing, he is not Evil and his alignment should change. If he sets himself up as the local representative of the Lord, starts collecting taxes in the name of the Lord, hoarding it for himself, then he is Evil and finally free to do what he wants.

[Taekwondodo]

Oooooh philosophical...

[EvilMulder]

Consider a possible real-life scenario.

There is a man who has been thinking about murdering women since his childhood. He longs for it, even dreams about it. He thinks society has failed him and that if he can't be rich and famous, everyone else might as well suffer for it. He meets this one particular girl and starts making plans to kill her. And on a certain evening he goes out, finds the girl where he knew she would be, and stabs her. This man, without any doubt, is evil.

Now consider the same scenario, but this time the murderer has a hearth attack the very night he intented to commit his crime. Is that same man now suddenly neutral? I certainly don't think so.

[Morty]

Regardless of your situation and circumstances, you will be given opportunities to act on the alignment you posses in some way.

You're right, and that was a good example. However, does the second woman deserve death? Certainly not. She's likely an evil person, but her evilness isn't really punishable by anything more than scorn.

[Warren Dew]

You're right, and that was a good example. However, does the second woman deserve death? Certainly not. She's likely an evil person, but her evilness isn't really punishable by anything more than scorn.

Huh? She's nicer than the third woman, and the third woman seems the definition of neutral. Evil would be taking the traveller in, then murdering him in his sleep to sell the corpse to Grubbie.

You're free to have your own definition of evil, of course, but in the context of the comic, it makes sense to use the AD&D definition, which Samurai Jill seems to be accurately describing.

[Warren Dew]

[Even Xykon probably has to go for days without killing somebody.]

I agree with your basic point, but not this example. Xykon has tens of thousands of hobgoblins at his beck and call. If he goes for even one day without killing someone, it's out of choice, not because he has to.


It is, in fact, quite possible to posit a society entirely made up of evil people who do zero evil deeds because such hurt themselves more than anyone else. Indeed, that is not far from the standard model of economics.

The standard model of economics is based on voluntary trade, which is pretty clearly neutral, and as far from evil as it is from good. Or are you talking about some standard model of D&D economics here?

[Inhuman Bot]

[QUOTE=Jorrath_Zek;4632794].
Odds are that our dear friend Belkar chopped off a chunk of Roy and has been keeping it in his pocket just in case he was some how seperated from the team.
QUOTE]

That would be lethal damage that is (likely) within city limits. And roy would probly notice...

EDIT: oh right, and for those who were debating:

Evil. Adj. Wicked; unfortianate; Evil is a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical judgment, often used to describe intentional acts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes intentional acts that are kind, just, or unselfish.
thanks to websters dictionary.

Does that ever mention mass murder?

And m0rt, that peasent could throw himself self infront of a soldiers spear so anothrer doesnt die! well, for another half minute or so

And if you do not pour your heart and soul to the betterent of others, your evil too! as opposed to the definition of good, where it is entirely possible to be a good person, withought such through devotion. The man who does a little good deed every week is still good, if he doesn't preform larger amounts of evil. Evil is the depths of villany, whereas good is being just and kind, even if only a little

The fact your arguent contains absolutely NO goodness eans you are: A) Scu who is barely neutral or B) Evil! Either way: CLEANSE! PURGE! KILL!of course, this is a joke.

[NENAD]

We are discussing D&D alignments here, making websters dictionary irrelevant.

[Morty]

Huh? She's nicer than the third woman, and the third woman seems the definition of neutral. Evil would be taking the traveller in, then murdering him in his sleep to sell the corpse to Grubbie.

You're free to have your own definition of evil, of course, but in the context of the comic, it makes sense to use the AD&D definition, which Samurai Jill seems to be accurately describing.

Ugh, I meant third woman here. A typo, there. Anyway, I don't see how the third woman can't be Evil. She refuses to help a man in need while help wouldn't cost her much. It's an Evil thing to do. if she doesn't do significantly Good things on another occasion, she's evil, if in a minor way.

[Mastikator]

Celia is clearly more good than evil. But she's not a being of pure good, she's not an angel.

[Warren Dew]

if she doesn't do significantly Good things on another occasion, she's evil, if in a minor way.

Not according to the D&D rules. In D&D, there's a whole big range of "neutral" in between "good" and "evil". If you actively do good things, you're good. If you actively do evil things, you're evil. If you don't do either one, you're neutral.

Refusing to help someone in need isn't an evil thing in this system, it's just refusing to do a good thing. That's neutral, not evil.

[ericgrau]

Anyone notice a striking similarity between Haley's and Celia's treatment of Belkar and Xykon's and Redcloak's early treatment of the hobgoblins? Regardless of motivations, Belkar is risking his life to help save the world. At the very least he is a valuable tool that shouldn't be chucked aside so carelessly.

Beyond that, an attempt at peaceful measures that keep creatures alive and well is what seperates good from evil. What makes the paladins that mass-slaughtered the goblins any better than the hobgoblins that mass-slaughtered them? What makes Haley any better than Xykon when they mistreat their "lessers"?

In the end, this is just a war between two equally moral countries who call eachother "evil"... unless the good side shows that they kill only as necessary: to reduce the killing of others, to save the world from enslavement, w/e. We assume that the goblins killed by paladins were raiding villages, raping babies or w/e... I may have compressed that description a bit too much. They had to be stopped. But if they were living peaceful goblin lives (I seriously doubt it) then, well, the paladins commited horrific mass genocide on a Nazi level of morality. Simple as that.

But risking Belkar's life merely for personal amusement or mild convenience? That's just evil. And saying you're better than him is a rather lame excuse. I've heard that one before in history. Calling him more of a liability than a help? Sure, except you forgot the word "recently". Overall that's far from true, and who can say that he can't be helped later. But even if he has lost his usefulness, there's no reason to hurt him more than you need to. A lift to the nearest city where he can die peacefully is far from unreasonable; it's not like he'll even be able to come back as a villian. He doesn't have the gold nor the access to clerics. Not even Azure City had such casters for hire, and he already blew his chances with team Xykon, assuming they'd even find him or remember his name for that matter.

I think Rich is just trying to make Belkar look worse to help justify killing him off. But Rich has already done too much to show Belkar's usefulness, showing how he's still preferable to Miko even. Up to this point there really hasn't been the greatest reason for the OotS to do anything except Roy's plan: contain and harness the evil. Honestly Rich, just slit Belkar's throat in his sleep and get it over with. I'd at least prefer comments like "Well, he was far from the nicest demi-human around, but it's too bad he had to go." A little reluctant sorrow, y'know? To show some human decency.

[David Argall]

Anyone notice a striking similarity between Haley's and Celia's treatment of Belkar and Xykon's and Redcloak's early treatment of the hobgoblins? Regardless of motivations, Belkar is risking his life to help save the world.
Regardless of talking about ignoring motivations and then talking about them, Belkar is doing nothing of the sort. He is risking his life to kill those who have annoyed him, or would be fun to hurt, and judges the risk by those standards. Saving the world is an incidental, and if he got to be the one who destroyed the world, the world had better have its will made out.


At the very least he is a valuable tool that shouldn't be chucked aside so carelessly.
He is also a very dangerous tool [see gnome & kobold for recent examples] and while he is likely to be quite useful at times in the future, the idea that he will be overall of benefit is at least subject to challenge. Recall here that a major reason for Roy wanting him in the party is because he is scared of what Belkar would do outside the party.


What makes Haley any better than Xykon when they mistreat their "lessers"?
For starters, Xykon considers mistreating his lessers as a goal. Haley at most can be considered to not give adequate consideration to Belkar.


But risking Belkar's life merely for personal amusement or mild convenience?
Belkar's life was being risked anyway. Celia's plan is to risk it in a more useful manner, not to increase the risk.



even if he has lost his usefulness, there's no reason to hurt him more than you need to. A lift to the nearest city where he can die peacefully is far from unreasonable;
Assuming you are talking about before they hit the memory wipe, the nearest village was right there. No need to put up with the disgusting creature for a week or more. And while the magic should keep him harmless, there is the chance he will now murder them in their sleep. "Unreasonable" is still a cost, and why should they pay that cost? Because he is likely wanted for murder in the village? So why should they want to prevent him from suffering his due punishment?

If you talk about in Greysky, what is the alternative? AFATK, taking Belkar to any other city is automatic damage to him.


I think Rich is just trying to make Belkar look worse to help justify killing him off.
Done long ago, and our writer has dealt with a lot less justified deaths.


I'd at least prefer comments like "Well, he was far from the nicest demi-human around, but it's too bad he had to go." A little reluctant sorrow, y'know? To show some human decency.
Belkar's demise should be greeted by unrestrained celebration by all who knew him. He may be fun to watch, but he is poisonous slime.

[AceOfFools]

Huh? She's nicer than the third woman, and the third woman seems the definition of neutral. Evil would be taking the traveller in, then murdering him in his sleep to sell the corpse to Grubbie.

You're free to have your own definition of evil, of course, but in the context of the comic, it makes sense to use the AD&D definition, which Samurai Jill seems to be accurately describing.

About the third woman; there is a good chance that the traveler will get sick from spending all night out in the rain. He has no money, no relevant friends, and lives in a world where health care isn't common.

The point was she was scornfully and knowingly putting someone into a situation where there is a very real possibility that the person would die simply because she couldn't profit from him.
___________
There is a very good reason for why the paladins targeted the goblins, hinted at in the main comic and explicitly stated in SoD: The goblins actively seeking to gain control of the gates even then. "The Plan" that Xykon and Redcloak are now pursuing has been the active agenda of the Dark One's clergy for decades prior to Redcloak's birth.

They feared that even a single, insignificant goblin might one day gain control of the snarl. Considering that when they started their campaign Redcloak was just an acolyte unable to cast second level spells, this belief was not without merit.

Not that it excuses genocide, but it explains why they felt it was necessary.

[SoC175]

Uh, people... Evil creatures, by definition, hurt, kill and oppress others on a pretty regular basis.
The evil merchant who mercilessly abuses his market power to make the life miserable for both his suppliers and customers and his employees might be evil, yet killing him would still be an evil act. Sure, he's an ******* and he's hurting and oppressing others yet he doesn't directly kill.

Do they? Really? So it's impossible to have someone who, deep down is evil like hell, but doesn't actually do anything evil because he or she feels the potential gain isn't worth the risk or fears the authorities?
I would even they that this describes the majority of evil member of civilized races.

They would kill others without a second thought if they could get an advantage from doing so and get away with it, yet they go through all of their lives without ever having such an opportunity. So they might pass by the starving begger without sparing a coin or loaf of bread for him, cheat their business partners and that's all of their evil they ever get to let out.

Is that a 'Good' character? No! It's a spineless, lickspittle coward who would be lucky to be called neutral!
That's because being good is always harder than being evil. That's also why so many chose evil over good

If you're really, truly committed to doing harm to others, you'll find a way to either circumvent the system or subvert it to your purposes
Evil doesn't mean doing evil just for sake of being evil

[reignofevil]

Lets try this scenario,
Guy X gets a large amount of property from his uncle, who passed away.
A small child comes up to him, as well as a well dressed man.
The child begs to be able to live on the property, and promises to live a good life, worship the good gods, attempt to make a living and never cross guy X.
The well dressed man promises guy X a BIG BAG'O'GOLD to be allowed to live there.
Needless to say he picked the well dressed man. And the small child ended up passing away from the pox a few months later.
Is Guy X evil?
He made the only financially responsible decision, he didnt kill the child, and he was totally within the confines of the law.

[WoodStock_PV]

Maybe The Giant is giving us a hint of what the future holds us, I mean, with this new plan they're so certain that the mark will go off in the probable event of ray's corpse getting out of the range that they can actually lose track of ist body easily and thus adding tons of strips to this ressurect-roy-side-quest.

Sorry about the bad english.