[3.5] Logic and Alignment Statements

[hamishspence]

If logic is applied to various PHB alignment statements, what logical conclusions can be deduced? And are they valid conclusions?

Assuming that "are willing to" is inserted, in order to account for creatures born with a listed alignment:

"Good characters make sacrifices to help others":
"Good characters are willing to make sacrifices to help others":
Possible conclusions to be drawn:

1: All good characters are willing to make sacrifices to help others
2: All beings that are willing to make sacrifices to help others are good
3: No beings that are unwilling to make sacrifices to help others are good

"Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help others"
(revised using the PHB example to:)
"Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help strangers"
Possible conclusions to be drawn:

1: All Neutral characters have these two traits
2: All beings with both of these two traits are Neutral
3: No being without both of these traits is Neutral

"Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit"
"Evil characters are willing to debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit"
Possible conclusions to be drawn:

1: All beings willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit are Evil
2: No being unwilling to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit is Evil

One of the problems with applying this kind of logic though, is the assumption that the statements are absolute rather than general.

For example: Statement: "Birds have feathers" (generally true):
Deductions:

1: All creatures with feathers are birds (refuted by presenting theropods like Dilong or Therizinosaurus).
2: No creature without feathers is a bird (refuted by presenting a plucked chicken)

Applied to the deduction "No being unwilling to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit is evil":
(refuted by presenting the MM Skeleton and MM Zombie- since neither are willing to do anything for fun or profit- since they have no initiative or volition of their own- but only do acts they are commanded to.)

[Sir Swindle89]

(refuted by presenting the MM Skeleton and MM Zombie- since neither are willing to do anything for fun or profit- since they have no initiative or volition of their own- but only do acts they are commanded to.)

The idea of mindless creatures even having alignments is kind of silly.

You could also logically conclude that Zombies are not evil. Assuming that that primary definition of alignment is incorrect doesn't sound like a good start. Additionally you have no idea what goes on in a zombie's head. maby they relish the idea of hurting others but that simply cannot act without commands because of the spell animating them.

[Zombimode]

Applied to the deduction "No being unwilling to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit is evil":
(refuted by presenting the MM Skeleton and MM Zombie- since neither are willing to do anything for fun or profit- since they have no initiative or volition of their own- but only do acts they are commanded to.)

This only shows that there are inconsisties in the description of aligment and its aplication.
Mind you that in 2e zombies and skellies where in fact listed as neutral.


Im not sure if I get your point. Are you searching for necessary or defining qualities of the aligments (like mortality for humans)?

[prufock]

Even if you assume absolutes, your #2 (good), #2 (neutral), and #1 (evil) are not logically valid. Compare:
"Dentists work with teeth" does not mean all people who work with teeth are dentists. The statement characterizes the subject, not the object. That is "A dentist is one who works with teeth."

Your later point "Birds have feathers" if you provide evidence in #2, doesn't make the conclusion invalid. Two possibilities exist: a plucked "bird" is not a bird, or "birds have feathers" is not accurate (any moreso than "birds fly").

The issue with the logic here is actually that we don't take these statements in a vacuum; alignment is relative. Therefore you should have all three alignment statements as premises, then draw your conclusions. As the statements are somewhat mutually exclusive, you can draw better conclusions, however keep in mind that they aren't necessarily exclusive. For instance:

1. "Good characters make sacrifices to help others"
2. "Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit"
3. "Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help others"

You can, technically, have a character that both destroys the innocent for profit, but also makes sacrifices to help others.

[Sir Swindle89]

1. "Good characters make sacrifices to help others"
2. "Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit"
3. "Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help others"

You can, technically, have a character that both destroys the innocent for profit, but also makes sacrifices to help others.

Yes you could, he would be Neutral per the slight variation in wording for neutral given by the OP.

[hamishspence]

The point I was trying to make is that saying things like

"RAW, no evil being is unwilling to harm the innocent"

is not entirely logically sound.

If "Evil beings destroy the innocent for profit" is equivalent to "all beings that destroy the innocent for profit are Evil" though, then the person who both makes sacrifices, and destroys innocents for profit, would be evil rather than Neutral.

It's not too hard to break two of the Neutral related conclusions though:

"Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help others"
(revised using the PHB example to:)
"Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help strangers"

1: All Neutral characters have these two traits
3: No being without both of these traits is Neutral

where one of the traits is "has qualms about harming the innocent"- even if you restrict yourself to Int 3+ MM creatures:

Arrowhawk (Int 10): "They attack almost any other creature they meet, seeking a meal or trying to drive away a rival"
Dragon Turtle (Int 12) "generally attack any creature that threatens their territory or looks like a potential meal"
Wyvern (Int 6) "They attack nearly anything that isn't obviously more powerful than themselves"

Doesn't appear like any have "qualms about harming the innocent".

[prufock]

Yes you could, he would be Neutral per the slight variation in wording for neutral given by the OP.

That's not true at all.

1. "Good characters make sacrifices to help others"
2. "Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit"
3. "Neutral characters have qualms about harming the innocent but are unwilling to make sacrifices to help strangers"

You can still have a character who makes (or is willing to make) sacrifices to help others, even strangers, but still destroys the innocent for profit. They would not fit the Neutral category either, because they DON'T have qualms about helping the innocent and they are NOT unwilling to make sacrifices to help strangers. Therefore, they could be good or evil, or both according to this. Since it's a continuum, we would probably say "meet you halfway" and call it neutral, but by these three statements it isn't logically implied.

The point I was trying to make is that saying things like

"RAW, no evil being is unwilling to harm the innocent"

is not entirely logically sound.

By the statements you have provided, it is.

Arrowhawk (Int 10): "They attack almost any other creature they meet, seeking a meal or trying to drive away a rival"
Dragon Turtle (Int 12) "generally attack any creature that threatens their territory or looks like a potential meal"
Wyvern (Int 6) "They attack nearly anything that isn't obviously more powerful than themselves"

Doesn't appear like any have "qualms about harming the innocent".

However, it wouldn't necessarily fit with "for fun or profit," either. Driving away a rival or protecting territory is not for profit. We aren't given any information on WHY the wyvern attacks, so it's impossible to make a judgment.

Attacking for food could however be seen as "for profit," so I can kind of see your point, there.

[hamishspence]

Yup- it becomes a case of "which takes precedence"?

In the splatbooks though (particularly Champions of Ruin) there's a strong theme of "willingness to commit evil acts outweighs willingness to commit good acts"

And the splatbook Heroes of Horror ignores the "unwilling to make sacrifices to help strangers" bit of Neutral alignment-

suggesting that a combination of willingness to make sacrifices for strangers + committing evil acts for a good end, make for a "flexible Neutral" character.

In this case it's probably "Has qualms about harming the innocents- but does so anyway given the right circumstances"

the example given was an inquisitor launching an evil-destroying campaign that harms innocents along the way.

By the statements you have provided, it is.

"Evil characters are willing to debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit"
2: No being unwilling to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit is Evil

Conclusion 2 doesn't actually automatically follow from the basic statement.

For a parallel:

"Dentists are willing to perform dental surgery"
"No-one who is unwilling to perform dental surgery, is a dentist"

it fails to take into account that a dentist might not want to perform dental surgery (maybe because their hands have grown shaky with age).

[Godless_Paladin]

For example: Statement: "Birds have feathers" (generally true):
Deductions:

1: All creatures with feathers are birds (refuted by presenting theropods like Dilong or Therizinosaurus).
2: No creature without feathers is a bird (refuted by presenting a plucked chicken)

Whoa whoa what!? That is, in point of fact, not how deductive logic works, my friend.

"Birds have feathers" does not lead to "creatures with feathers are birds" any more than "dogs have legs" leads to "creatures with legs are dogs."

A valid deductive argument is in the form such that, if its premises are true, its conclusion is necessarily true (This means that you can make a valid deductive argument based on false premises. It just wouldn't be sound). If your deduction does not fit this form, it is not a valid deduction.

There are actually hard and fast rules about exactly what you are allowed to derive from deductive logic, and this breaks them. You know, disjunctive syllogisms and all that noise.

[Marnath]

I always thought the reason zombies and skeletons are evil is because necromancy is evil, and the powerful necromantic energy radiating from the animated corpse is what makes them detect as evil, not because they themselves are evil.

[hamishspence]

Whoa whoa what!? That is, in point of fact, not how deductive logic works, my friend.

"Birds have feathers" does not lead to "creatures with feathers are birds" any more than "dogs have legs" leads to "creatures with legs are dogs."

A valid deductive argument is in the form such that, if its premises are true, its conclusion is necessarily true (This means that you can make a valid deductive argument based on false premises. It just wouldn't be sound). If your deduction does not fit this form, it is not a valid deduction.

true- it was just that the argument I was given was both that:

"Evil creatures are willing to do X" leads to "Creatures willing to do X are Evil"

and that:

"Evil creatures are willing to do X" leads to "Creatures not willing to do X are not Evil"

(Where X is "debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit")

I suspected the logic was flawed, but wasn't sure.

Not only that- but it does not follow that the statement "Evil creatures are willing to do X" automatically means "All evil creatures are willing to do X".

[Godless_Paladin]

I suspected the logic was flawed, but wasn't sure.

Indeed, the logic is flawed. It breaks the hardcoded rules of deductive reasoning.

[Kuma Kode]

I always thought the reason zombies and skeletons are evil is because necromancy is evil, and the powerful necromantic energy radiating from the animated corpse is what makes them detect as evil, not because they themselves are evil.

Someone else summed it up better than I can...

Skeletons are evil because they literally RUN ON EVIL. They don't have moral values, its they just happen to be powered by the tears of orphans.

[Godless_Paladin]

Hence the polygraph test model.

[hamishspence]

Indeed, the logic is flawed. It breaks the hardcoded rules of deductive reasoning.

I'm not sure if this is exactly the post that presented the argument- but it's one of them:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=19

[Ditto]

Not sure why you'd assume you can replace 'make evil choices' with 'willing to make evil choices'. Evil creatures destroy life. D&D is focused heavily on the ends when it comes to defining alignments. (Paladins get stuck having to rely on good means AND good ends, which is where they get into trouble...)

Also, alignment is a tendancy, not an absolute description of every act that creature makes. "ALL Evil characters GENERALLY debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit, MOST OF THE TIME."

[hamishspence]

Not sure why you'd assume you can replace 'make evil choices' with 'willing to make evil choices'.

it's for evil creatures which have not yet made any choices- such as people newly changed by a Helm of Opposite Alignment, or newborn chromatic dragons.

Saying they "debase or destroy the innocent" is a bit of a misnomer when they haven't done it yet.

It derives from the PHB suggestion that "alignment is general personal and moral attitudes" so a person can have "moral and personal attitudes" consistant with evil without having (yet) done something evil.

"ALL Evil characters GENERALLY debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit, MOST OF THE TIME."

The "not every evil character is willing to do that" argument comes from the fact that many antiheroes with a code against harming the innocent, but a tendency to go way overboard against the "not-innocent" - torturing them, taking pleasure in their sufferings, murdering them for fun, and so on.

Dexter, the Punisher, and so on.

[DonEsteban]

Whoa whoa what!? That is, in point of fact, not how deductive logic works, my friend.

"Birds have feathers" does not lead to "creatures with feathers are birds" any more than "dogs have legs" leads to "creatures with legs are dogs."

A valid deductive argument is in the form such that, if its premises are true, its conclusion is necessarily true (This means that you can make a valid deductive argument based on false premises. It just wouldn't be sound). If your deduction does not fit this form, it is not a valid deduction.

There are actually hard and fast rules about exactly what you are allowed to derive from deductive logic, and this breaks them. You know, disjunctive syllogisms and all that noise.

This is perfectly true and this kind of mistake (deducting things like "creatures with legs are dogs") is very common.

However, it is quite common practice to state definitions like "a square is a regular quadrilateral", although strictly speaking this sentence doesn't rule out the possibility that there might be regular quadrilaterals that aren't squares. But it is common convention to silently add "and vice versa" to this kinds of definition.

So "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life" probably means: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life and all creatures who protect innocent life are good". So it is possible that the statement actually does imply both #1 and #2.

I'm not sure, however, if applying classic logic to alignment definition leads very far, because it's such a fuzzy subject.

[hamishspence]

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life and all creatures who protect innocent life are good". So it is possible that the statement actually does imply both #1 and #2.

A counterexample might be a character who seeks to protect innocent life (and does so) but does so many evil things (but not against the innocent) that calling them Good becomes a little iffy.

Because Good "respect life" and "respect the dignity of sentient beings" and this character in a sense, doesn't.

If an "act-based" morality (like that in BoVD and Champions of Ruin is used, it could even be said that the character, by doing evil deeds a lot for personal gratification- is evil.

[Jayabalard]

If logic is applied to various PHB alignment statements, what logical conclusions can be deduced? And are they valid conclusions?

Assuming that "are willing to" is inserted, in order to account for creatures born with a listed alignment:

"Good characters make sacrifices to help others":
"Good characters are willing to make sacrifices to help others":
Possible conclusions to be drawn:

1: All good characters are willing to make sacrifices to help others
2: All beings that are willing to make sacrifices to help others are good
3: No beings that are unwilling to make sacrifices to help others are good

#1 and #3 follow from your hypothesis, but #2 does not. The language there says that "good characters" is subset of "people who are willing to make sacrifices to help others" but but there's not enough info there to show whether or not it's a strict subset, or if the two sets are equal.

Same goes for the Neutral example.

Edit: you could also be looking at it as logical implication (the logic lines up for subsets fairly well iirc), ie:
"Good characters" -> "make sacrifices to help others"

• true: If the character is good, and it will make sacrifices to help others
• false: If the character is good, and not it will make sacrifices to help others
• true: If the character is not good, and it will make sacrifices to help others
• true: If the character is not good, and not it will make sacrifices to help others

"Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit"
"Evil characters are willing to debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit"
Possible conclusions to be drawn:

1: All beings willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit are Evil
2: No being unwilling to debase/destroy the innocent for fun or profit is Evil

Here, #2 follows, but #1 does not.

For example: Statement: "Birds have feathers" (generally true):
Deductions:

1: All creatures with feathers are birds (refuted by presenting theropods like Dilong or Therizinosaurus).
2: No creature without feathers is a bird (refuted by presenting a plucked chicken)

Here you've shown that your assumption ("Birds have feathers") was false. If you don't start with true assumptions, then you're kind of wasting your time with logic, since F -> T and F -> F both evaluate to true.

[hamishspence]

Here, #2 follows, but #1 does not.

Maybe, but:

"My Neutral character debases and destroys the innocent for fun and profit"

seems to me to be a bit more outrageously against the alignment system than

"My Evil character does not debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit"

[DonEsteban]

#1 and #3 follow from your hypothesis, but #2 does not. The language there says that "good characters" is subset of "people who are willing to make sacrifices to help others" but but there's not enough info there to show whether or not it's a strict subset, or if the two sets are equal.

I just argued that this is not the case if the statement "Good characters are willing to make sacrifices to help others" is meant as a definition. In that case "good characters" is not just a subset, but in fact equals the set of "people who are willing to make sacrifices to help others" and #2 does follow.

[Jayabalard]

Maybe, but:

"My Neutral character debases and destroys the innocent for fun and profit"

seems to me to be a bit more outrageously against the alignment system than

"My Evil character does not debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit"

perhaps... but the point is #2 is a valid logical deduction given only the assumption "Evil characters are willing to debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit" ... #1 is not. If you want to add in more assumptions, then you might be able able to show #1 as well, but it requires more information than that single assumption.

[DonEsteban]

A counterexample might be a character who seeks to protect innocent life (and does so) but does so many evil things (but not against the innocent) that calling them Good becomes a little iffy.

Possibly, but from the definition alone there are no evil things except "debasing and destroying innocent life" and this is the opposite of "protecting innocent life" (moral dilemmas aside). And so your counterexample can't exist.

[Jayabalard]

I just argued that this is not the case if the statement "Good characters are willing to make sacrifices to help others" is meant as a definition.

The language chosen doesn't show equivalence, only logical implication; it's the same as "a character is Good if it is willing to make sacrifices to help others" or "If a character is Good then it is willing to make sacrifices to help others". This is a unidirectional statement. There is not enough information to prove that they are equivalent from that alone.

Now, you could write the sentence so that this is the case; it would need to be: "A character is good if and only if it is willing to make sacrifices to help others" ... but that doesn't match up with what was in the OP. This is a MUCH stronger statement than the one in the OP.

[hamishspence]

Now, you could write the sentance so that this is the case; it would need to be: "A character is good if and only if it is willing to make sacrifices to help others" ... but that doesn't match up with what was in the OP. This is a MUCH stronger statement than the one in the OP.

I consider the evil counterpart of this statement:

"A character is evil if and only if it is willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit"

more than a little too strong- but it's hard to give a formal logical reason why.

Possibly, but from the definition alone there are no evil things except "debasing and destroying innocent life"

But there are things stated to be evil (such as rebuking undead) elsewhere in the PHB.
Problem is, that's about the only such act.

Every other source that specifies evil acts, is a splatbook.

[DonEsteban]

The language chosen doesn't show equivalence, only logical implication; it's the same as "a character is Good if it is willing to make sacrifices to help others" . There is not enough information to prove that they are equivalent from that alone.

Now, you could write the sentance so that this is the case; it would need to be: "A character is good if and only if it is willing to make sacrifices to help others" ... but that doesn't match up with what was in the OP. this is a MUCH stronger statement.

This is true and I understood this the first time you wrote it. But the statement from the PHB is a definition. (Well, probably. There is no way to be absolutely sure.)

[kyoryu]

I look at those statements more as the common responses of good/neutral/evil characters, rather than the definition of them.

In other words, they're more like saying that dogs bark than anything. Yes, typically dogs bark, but barking does not make one a dog, and if a dog for some reason (no vocal cords? training) doesn't bark, that doesn't make it less of a dog.

[hamishspence]

In other words, they're more like saying that dogs bark than anything. Yes, typically dogs bark, but barking does not make one a dog, and if a dog for some reason (no vocal cords? training) doesn't bark, that doesn't make it less of a dog.

This. Especially in the case of Neutral and Evil characters.

Rephrasing:

Yes, typically Neutral characters both have qualms against harming the innocent + lack the commitment to help strangers.

But having qualms against harming the innocent + lacking the commitment to help strangers does not make a character Neutral.

And if a Neutral character has the commitment to help strangers for some reason, that does not make them not Neutral.

Yes, typically Evil characters are willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit.

But if an Evil character is not willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit for some reason, that does not make them not Evil.

[Jayabalard]

I consider the evil counterpart of this statement:

"A character is evil if and only if it is willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit"

more than a little too strong- but it's hard to give a formal logical reason why.

That's the relationship necessary to show that #1 follows as a logical deduction.

This is true and I understood this the first time you wrote it. But the statement from the PHB is a definition. (Well, probably. There is no way to be absolutely sure.)

I'm not sure where you're getting this. There's nothing that I'm aware of that prevents a definition to be made up of relationships other than logical equivalence. Nor is anything in that section clearly written up as a logical equivalence. Clearly, this is not the case; it is especially clear when you look at it in context: "Good" implies <snip> ... "Evil" implies <snip> ... these are a collection of logical implications, not equivalences. There are also the following two statements in the SRD entry:

• Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
• Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

If you make the argument that these are logical equivalence, then (transitive property): "Protect innocent life" is logically equivalent to "make personal sacrifices to help others."

Which is false, since it is possible to protect innocent life without making personal sacrifices and it is possible to make personal sacrifices without protecting innocent life.

Therefore, that statement cannot be a logical equivalence.