Dreaded Alignment question

[Guilliaume]

I hate to fan the flame, but this is something I've been thinking about all day.
Let me explain...No. There's too much. Let me sum up. I've been thinking about child assassins. Semi common trope in fantasy. Are they evil? Raised since a very young age to murder, tortured when good or bad, emotions removed. But Evil? Do they have the wherewithal to choose?

I guess the only parallels I can draw in fiction are Damian Wayne, and Cassandra Cain. Both child assassins, one who shuns killing (for a time) and one who revels in it. I mean I guess it comes down to person to person, but I have trouble casting a top-down all assassins are evil characterization like DnD likes to do.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

[Eloi]

If they kill people without regard for anything, they are evil, no matter the upbringing or age category.

[hamishspence]

There is Champions of Ruin's comment on evil characters of the "natural born evil" where the person is raised in an evil society from birth:

"learned to deceive as soon as they learned to walk, and probably committed their first truly vile act before they were 10 years old"

It also pointed out that these people may change on contact with a good society, even if they are likely to fear and hate them at first.

The "child assassin" may qualify as this.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

Actually, its the other way round:

A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly) that all of the townsfolk are demons. Is that evil? Yes.

A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character puts poison in that water supply. Is that evil? Probably not, at least not in the context of the rest of the character's actions and the circumstances involved, Still, good characters shouldn't commit even remotely questionable acts on a large scale unless they're absolutely sure there's no other way to succeed. It's rarely a good idea to destroy a town of evil people, because there might be at least a few good people in the town as well.

[Snake-Aes]

Alignments demand the actor being intelligent enough to be capable of moral questioning and empathy. By the rules, that means int 4+. Yes, kids doing evil things are evil.

[Another_Poet]

I tend to agree with Eloi (apparently this happens a lot).

D&D takes intent and context out of moral alignment. Creatures who cause needless pain, havoc or death are evil because of their actions. That includes children if they are habitually that way. An accident or being tricked into murdering someone might not make a kid evil, but assassin behaviour will.

One thing I would allow is that a child assassin has a much higher chance for being redeemed (i.e. changing back to Neutral or Good alignment) than an adult assassin. This is because a kid is still developing and they are highly impressionable. A paladin who captures an 8 year old assassin should really consider trying to rear that child and teach him about morals, rather than executing him or turning him over to someone who will.

So in other words I would rule that the child is evil but would tempt Good characters with the possibility of reform the child rather than simply vanquishing him.

ap

[DoodlesD]

Alignments demand the actor being intelligent enough to be capable of moral questioning and empathy. By the rules, that means int 4+. Yes, kids doing evil things are evil.

I have to agree. Despite the fact that the children may have been raised in an environment in which murder and violence are expected of them, they still have a choice whether or not to commit these violent acts. Those who do so willingly are most definitely evil. Those who do so unwillingly may be characterized as Lawful Neutral, though most would still be considered evil because they still choose to hurt and kill. Finally, those that choose not to kill could be considered good, but at the same time would lose that status of assassins.

Though it may seem like the children don't have a choice, they really do. Fear may cause them to choose to kill, but the bottom line is that they make that choice.

[hamishspence]

CoR did say that of the evil tropes, "natural born evil" (of the Raised By Villains type) is more likely to change, on contact with other cultures.

This probably requires the evil character to be treated with kindness and understanding, though.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

So, to answer the question more directly, if the child assassins gleefully kill people who don't look like them and poison the meat so that it's no good, even for carrion-eating animals, they're basically the paragon exemplars of moral righteousness, as far as I can tell.

[Eloi]

The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

So, to answer the question more directly, if the child assassins gleefully kill people who don't look like them and poison the meat so that it's no good, even for carrion-eating animals, they're basically the paragon exemplars of moral righteousness, as far as I can tell.

[[citation needed]]

Please cite sources in accordance with Wikipedia's OoTS's forum citation policy to back up your arguments.

[Aeromyre]

The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

So, to answer the question more directly, if the child assassins gleefully kill people who don't look like them and poison the meat so that it's no good, even for carrion-eating animals, they're basically the paragon exemplars of moral righteousness, as far as I can tell.

I agree with you on one level, but just because they're practical with their kills doesn't mean they're not evil. Anyone who kills anything is evil, with the exceptions of if it is for survival.
Honestly if a paladin were to kill a person that he could have avoided killing he has committed an evil act. Killing an orc simply because he is an orc, is evil.
I agree that Gnolls could be considered neutral if they stay in their lairs slaying only intruders and eating them. But Gnolls raid villages kill and rape women and children...They are evil...

Children willfully killing people are evil. Those children choose not to kill are neutral, children deciding to work against their masters for the good of others, are good.

[hamishspence]

The reason gnolls are particularly evil is that they take pleasure in the sufferings of their food:

MM page 130:

A gnoll is a nocturnal creature, preferring intelligent creatures for food because they scream more.

Even then, Races of the Wild mentions gnoll tribes which are exceptions, and which are trying to move away from the savagery of their kin.

As to "evil children"- those raised from childhood to have different values from Neutral or Good beings, while still evil- may deserve more sympathy than other evil beings- since its very hard to resist the pressure of an evil culture if you're raised in it from birth.

the PHB points out that a human raised by CE beings is likely to become CE.

[Steward]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I like eating meat, but I don't eat it specifically so I can get off on the screaming of the calves as their mothers are ripped away from them and torn to shreds in my claws.

[Maerok]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I like eating meat, but I don't eat it specifically so I can get off on the screaming of the calves as their mothers are ripped away from them and torn to shreds in my claws.

But that's where the best flavor comes from! </gnoll>

[hamishspence]

Honestly if a paladin were to kill a person that he could have avoided killing he has committed an evil act.

Sadly, the only book that's pretty overt about this, is BoED, which while good about some things, does have more than a few flaws.

Its emphasis on mercy, and on the idea that its not always Good to kill evil beings, makes it pretty atypical.

[DoodlesD]

If you're having a problem understanding Alignment, this website is a great resource that explains things in detail.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

[Aeromyre]

Sadly, the only book that's pretty overt about this, is BoED, which while good about some things, does have more than a few flaws.

Its emphasis on mercy, and on the idea that its not always Good to kill evil beings, makes it pretty atypical.

Never read Exalted deeds but i did read
http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html
A great site to be an expert on Alignment, also for tracking.

[Aeromyre]

If you're having a problem understanding Alignment, this website is a great resource that explains things in detail.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Hahaha love you bro :D

[hamishspence]

I've cited that site a few times in other threads- it's pretty good.

When it comes to alignment-centric splatbooks, I like Champions of Ruin and its list of various evil types (Driven to Evil, I Am Not Evil, There Is No Evil, Better to Reign in Hell, and so on)

as well as Savage Species's "Evil people can be loving, loyal, etc without affecting their evilness- because they compartmentalize"

[Devils_Advocate]

I've been thinking about child assassins. Semi common trope in fantasy. Are they evil? Raised since a very young age to murder, tortured when good or bad, emotions removed. But Evil?

That's seems like too broad a description for only a single alignment to apply. I'd guess generally somewhere from Lawful Evil to Neutral. So if what you're saying is that you don't think that they'd be necessarily Evil, I'm inclined to agree. Indeed, I question whether adult assassins are necessarily Evil.

Take, for instance, the Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild. Recognizing that assassinations are going to happen, as there's a market for them, they try to ensure that people are only killed for money, and even then only for a great deal of money, this being about as much of a limit as is practical. (Assisted suicide is of course the major exception, as preventing it is popularly recognized as wildly infeasible.) Their general attitude may be seen in sharp contrast to that of Teatime, who of course is (rather unambiguously) Evil.

Do they have the wherewithal to choose?

"Free will" is a contradiction in terms, insofar as "will" refers to a force that determines our actions and the term "free" denies any such determination. To value unpredictability in this context seems to me absurd. Are we to regard voluntary action as morally significant if and only if the cognitive processes involved in decision-making include the equivalent of a random number generator?

One might say that it is the whatever-it-is that directs an individual's willful actions that has an alignment, even if it turns out to be a very different sort of thing than the whatever-it-is that directs the next guy's willful actions.

the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

As hamishspence points out, it's actually the reverse. But the fact that you could remember it being the other way around is sort of illustrative of the problem here. Precisely reverse the book's assessment and the result still makes as much sense as what the book actually said, i.e. no sense at all.

Since the morally relevant factors seem to be the same in both cases -- dude kills people 'cause he thinks they're demons, but they're not -- we're left to guess at the basis on which the author is drawing a distinction. Is it a matter of what how a "reasonable person" would perceive things, meaning that if the crazy guy was right by wild coincidence and the townsfolk just so happened to be demons, he'd still be Evil, because his choice would be Evil were he sane, and the fact that he actually isn't sane is discounted for some bizarre arbitrary reason? Could be. Who knows? It seems hypothetically possible, if unlikely, that these two cases are treated differently on some basis that many people would agree with. But how can the author expect readers to adopt the philosophical position at work when that basis isn't even given? Certainly it's not self-evident.

D&D takes intent and context out of moral alignment

Eh? The Good and Evil of deeds are definitely context-dependent. Flooding a valley knowing that no one is in it is very morally different from flooding the valley knowing that there's a town full of people in it. Swinging your sword in front of you becomes morally different depending on whether someone is standing there (and, if so, who). The context in which an action occurs totally matters. Whether something even constitutes e.g. "killing" depends on its consequences -- e.g whether it results in any deaths -- which are as much a result of the circumstances in which the action is taken as of the physical nature of the act itself.

why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste?

The relevant difference seems to be that the gnolls will happily harm "innocents", but Good characters won't. So a Good adventurer can invade an enemy tribe, kill anyone who puts up a fight, and take their valuables -- standard dungeon-crawl operating procedure, in other words -- but he won't also mow down a bunch of cowering women and children, spit on their remains, and salt the earth. Evil adventurers (who are about as common as non-Evil adventurers, both generally and among humans) can and will do those things, of course.

So "your money or your life" is, generally speaking, a perfectly morally legitimate challenge to issue to the wealthiest people in D&D, because that's how they got their wealth in the first place, and if they whine when that gets turned back around on them, they're just being poor sports. Dragons and kings can get away with having great big piles of gold just because those capable of taking such vast treasure hoards don't want to deal with the high-level equivalent of mountains of pennies. That they could swoop in and take them whenever the hell they wanted to means that they'll just leave that loot where it is until they actually need it for something, which isn't likely, since there are more efficient ways of acquiring what they actually want: very expensive magic items.

[SpekterofDavid]

More details pleese. Plus my quote "It depends on the hands that use it" But generally not better than nutral

[Mystic Muse]

In D&D? Yes they're evil.

In real life? Depends entirely upon your point of view. Can Children fully comprehend the moral consequences of their actions? I've heard of several adults who aren't capable of that. (Although, I won't name names.)

Of course, children can be smarter than adults even if they aren't child prodigies. Which is kind of sad.

[Escheton]

In D&D? Yes they're evil.

In real life? Depends entirely upon your point of view. Can Children fully comprehend the moral consequences of their actions? I've heard of several adults who aren't capable of that. (Although, I won't name names.)

Of course, children can be smarter than adults even if they aren't child prodigies. Which is kind of sad.

Well, you are born with set stats. During your life you only get skillpoints. Not much you can do about a low int-roll.

[Serpentine]

Let me explain...No. There's too much. Let me sum up.

[/Inigo Montoya] Have an Internet.

I've been thinking about child assassins. Semi common trope in fantasy. Are they evil? Raised since a very young age to murder, tortured when good or bad, emotions removed. But Evil? Do they have the wherewithal to choose?

I would say they're redeemably Evil, because repeated Evil acts overwhelm any other considerations, or else Neutral-teetering-on-the-edge-of-Evil to take into account that, by our standards, children cannot be held accountable for their actions.

...but I have trouble casting a top-down all assassins are evil characterization like DnD likes to do.

Absolutely, me too. It is very, very easy for me to envisage a Good assassin, and I do not consider the use of poisons to be Evil in my games.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

Apparently this isn't correct anyway. But personally, I look at it thusly: Evil acts performed under false pretenses, insanity or with Good intentions are still Evil, but not as Evil as if performed by a reasonable, sane, well-informed individual. Enough of these actions and they become Evil aligned, but not as quickly. Once they are Evil, they can be redeemed relatively easily. In the case of insanity, I would treat the illness like a magical alignment-switching effect - as soon as the mental illness is removed, they will revert to their normal alignment and behaviour. People who do Evil with Good intentions will probably be harder to redeem (see: Miko).

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, you are born with set stats. During your life you only get skillpoints. Not much you can do about a low int-roll.

There's totally something you can do about a low Int roll - level up to a level divisible by 4!

Also, aging effects. According to D20 Modern, children under 12 have a penalty to Intelligence.

Anyway. yes, a child who willingly commits Evil actions is Evil. If he's doing it due to peer pressure, he's Neutral or Lawful Evil - if he's doing it ebcause he's just a bully and enjoys hearing people scream, he's Chaotic Evil.

As he's a child, his alignment is probably easier to change, but it would require the attentions of a good (and Good) parent figure.

[Snake-Aes]

[/Inigo Montoya]
I would say they're redeemably Evil, because repeated Evil acts overwhelm any other considerations, or else Neutral-teetering-on-the-edge-of-Evil to take into account that, by our standards, children cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Accountance only requires a minimum amount of int to the point where they can metathink. By game rules that's anything smarter than normal animals, which definitely fits for children.

It's hard not to be partial because everyone seems to hold some sort of saintly image about the innocence of a child, but that doesn't really have a representation in game terms. If a child is an assassin, that child is evil. There's no real way around its status there. If you really really really want to get around that...alignments are fluid. People change alignments every now and then, it's usually part of a major revision of their life styles and ethos.

[Serpentine]

By "by our standards", I meant, well, real-life considerations, as an optional factor to include.
Really, I think a lot of kids - at least very young ones - are pretty damn evil.

[Yuki Akuma]

Children don't learn empathy at all until about five years old, and it tends not to mature fully for quite a few years after that, so... yeah.

Ever heard of a game called Witch Girls Adventures? There's a reason why some people pretend it's a horror game.

[Snake-Aes]

Children don't learn empathy at all until about five years old, and it tends not to mature fully for quite a few years after that, so... yeah.

Ever heard of a game called Witch Girls Adventures? There's a reason why some people pretend it's a horror game.

And that's when sociopathic tendencies are first noticed anyway. As far as game rules care, that's probably the minimum age at which they gain the necessary 4+ int to have an alignment.

[Starbuck_II]

The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

Sorry, eating sentients is evil if you gain pleasure/power (vile spell) from it.

Gnolls should stop liking it.

[Telonius]

I have trouble casting a top-down all assassins are evil characterization like DnD likes to do.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

D&D doesn't characterize all assassins as evil. It characterizes all Assassins as evil. There's a fine but very important difference. The class requires someone to kill for absolutely no reason other than to join. A regular old assassin? Could have noble intentions; there might really be no other way around it; might refuse to kill the innocent or only target the guilty. Basically somebody *could* be (at least arguably) Neutral with regard to good and evil and still carry out assassinations.

For the second, I think BoVD was using "maniac" kind of loosely. Moral agency is generally based on freedom to act. An insane person isn't in charge of their own actions. A truly crazy person is about as much at fault as a dog is for biting somebody who kicks it, or a rock for following the law of gravity when it hits somebody on the head. That's why there's such a thing as an insanity plea.

A duped person is less free than a person who has good information, but is still responsible for doing the deed. If you decide to kill, you ought to be really, really sure. If you don't take the care to find out? That doesn't suggest respect for life.