PDA

View Full Version : Is sacrifice evil if it saves the greater good?



randomhero00
2010-11-22, 02:20 PM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Another situation might be at the end of the campaign, you get an option to turn yourself into some kind of mighty elder evil, but in so doing you can save an entire world or continent. Is that really evil? Is being a martyr evil?

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 02:26 PM
By DnD alignment standars, yeah, it is. And the less we verge into real life discussion, the better. Or alignment discussion, where this thread is headed sooner or later.

Ichneumon
2010-11-22, 02:28 PM
In all honesty, I think there is no easy answer to that question and philosophers and politicians have been asking the same question for thousands of years.:smallsmile:

Personally, I'd say it is even wrong to sacrifice 1 to save a million without that one's consent, but I also know people who'd think differently. it's possible to give good arguments for both views.

bloodtide
2010-11-22, 02:33 PM
This is where Alignment breaks down.

Alignment only works if A is evil and B is good and C is neutral.


Once you start down the road of 'anything can be anything', then alignment is meaningless.

Any action can be called 'good or 'evil'. If you kill 1/2 the people in town, then the other half will have more food...good or evil?

And you get all the sneaky stuff....the elves will never attack the halflings.....but if 'suddenly' the halfings were shown to blow up the elf tower...then the elven army would invade in no time. Good or bad?


--
In D&D alignment, killing a mass number of people is Evil. No matter the reason. You might have a ;good; reason to do it, but it's still Evil. And a good person would have figured out another way to 'save everyone'.

And it's evil to turn yourself into evil, even for a good reason.

Telonius
2010-11-22, 02:36 PM
This debate is at least several hundred years old. There are (mainly) two sides to the argument.

The first debater (let's call him Manny) says yes, evil is based on the act itself, not its consequences. An evil act is an evil act, and no amount of excuses or justifications can turn evil into good. (This is the default position of the D&D universe).

The second debater (Johnny) says no, acts are best judged by the results they have. It makes no sense to sacrifice a billion people to save a million. The suffering of the many outweigh the suffering of the few.

Personally I line up more with Manny than with Johnny, but that's mainly because I don't consider dying to be the worst thing that can happen to someone.

agahii
2010-11-22, 02:37 PM
Id probly call the situation Neutral not evil or good.

John Doe
2010-11-22, 02:38 PM
D+D has always seemed pretty Kantian in it's out look. The action in itself has to be good, not merely the means to a good end.

Terumitsu
2010-11-22, 02:38 PM
Generally, I take a bit of an odd view when it comes to killing. It works though.

Think of the butterfly effect. You kill a person here and now, negating their future influence. Say they could have had a kid. And then that kid would have grown up to have children. And so on and so forth. In effect, you have potentially murdered countless individuals by denying their existence right here and now.

It's a bit of an extreme example but you'd be surprised how well it works in deflecting a conflict when the party paladin is getting guff for just knocking the person out rather than running them through. It shows dedication at least.

Sir Swindle89
2010-11-22, 02:39 PM
not sacrificing thousands to save millions IS sacrificing millions to save thousands. That being said some times good people have to do evil things, thats why we have the attonment spell.


On the elder evil thing, No one ever argues that martyrdom is any thing but a selfless good act. even if you are sacrificing yourself to become an elder evil, as long as you are doing it selflessly rather than selfishly it's good.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-11-22, 02:42 PM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Another situation might be at the end of the campaign, you get an option to turn yourself into some kind of mighty elder evil, but in so doing you can save an entire world or continent. Is that really evil? Is being a martyr evil?

I'd say the first is most definitely an Evil act, Good consequences do not make an act Good. Edit: I will add that if you know that you can sacrifice thousands to save millions but instead leave everyone to die then that is also evil.

The second is (probably, I'd need more details to be sure) Neutral for turning into the elder evil and Good for saving the world or continent.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 02:42 PM
Well the conclusion I seem to be coming to is that evil isn't truly "evil" in the way we understand it. It's simply an unpleasant option. Sometimes its better to be unpleasant and save as many as you can rather than be pleasant and watch the world suffer.

Second question, do you think, in general, we should keep the black and white alignments of D&D or use more real world alignments? Does anyone do that?

Kaww
2010-11-22, 02:45 PM
Personally I hope I have the guts to do evil for the greater good. Never had to, hope I will never have to.

My personal opinion on morality of it is this:

What you did is evil, no matter why you did it. You have done it and now you have to live with it. This is a fact with which, for instance, every person that killed other human being/s has to live with. I think I wouldn't have an easy time living like that...

bloodtide
2010-11-22, 02:48 PM
not sacrificing thousands to save millions IS sacrificing millions to save thousands. That being said some times good people have to do evil things, thats why we have the attonment spell.

A good person would never, ever(all most) sacrifice even one person. They would find another way to do things that did not involve killing. Only in the most extreme situation would a good person sacrifice one person....and thousands is out of the question.



No one ever argues that martyrdom is any thing but a selfless good act. even if you are sacrificing yourself to become an elder evil, as long as you are doing it selflessly rather than selfishly it's good.

So being a martyr to cause great evil is still a selfless good act? If you kill yourself so a demon can be born or such. How about you only save evil people with your martyr act, is it still a good act?

ScionoftheVoid
2010-11-22, 02:51 PM
Well the conclusion I seem to be coming to is that evil isn't truly "evil" in the way we understand it. It's simply an unpleasant option. Sometimes its better to be unpleasant and save as many as you can rather than be pleasant and watch the world suffer.

Capital "E" Evil just has to reduce the quality of someone's life, end it unnessecarily, or otherwise show a lack of respect for life. So I'd probably agree here.


Second question, do you think, in general, we should keep the black and white alignments of D&D or use more real world alignments? Does anyone do that?

D&D doesn't have black and white alignments. It just has shades of grey with labels at certain intervals. I think there are certainly people who use more "realistic" alignment systems, as well as people who don't use alignment in any form.

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 02:52 PM
So being a martyr to cause great evil is still a selfless good act? If you kill yourself so a demon can be born or such. How about you only save evil people with your martyr act, is it still a good act?

I believe the answer to that last one is "yes". You did a good work. That the result of it was, shall we say, less then desirable has no effect on this.

Got to admit, I'm a little confused when it comes to judging action vs. result. Does DnD consider the former more good or the later? Personally, I would consider sacrificing yourself to save evil people a good act. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but if somebody did it, I certainly wouldn't consider them evil. Stupid maybe, but certainly not evil.

bloodtide
2010-11-22, 03:02 PM
I would consider sacrificing yourself to save evil people a good act.


This is where it gets tricky. Do you judge the single act, or the consequences?

Is saving a life always, automatically a good act? Even if the life is evil?

This is the classic one from the movies....bad guy dangles off cliff and begs for the good guy to save him. Good guy saves him. Then bad guy pulls out gun and shoots the girl! Nooooo! Screams good guy and he shoots bad guy five times and throws him off the cliff. But....if he would have just let him fall in the first place, then good girl would still be alive.

And what about monsters that are not people? Is it a good act to save a demon that will slaughter everyone on your world?

Telonius
2010-11-22, 03:07 PM
This is where it gets tricky. Do you judge the single act, or the consequences?

Is saving a life always, automatically a good act? Even if the life is evil?

This is the classic one from the movies....bad guy dangles off cliff and begs for the good guy to save him. Good guy saves him. Then bad guy pulls out gun and shoots the girl! Nooooo! Screams good guy and he shoots bad guy five times and throws him off the cliff. But....if he would have just let him fall in the first place, then good girl would still be alive.

And what about monsters that are not people? Is it a good act to save a demon that will slaughter everyone on your world?

Subverted in Mighty Max.

Spike: You can't kill me! If you do, you'll be no better than me!
Norman: ::drop:: I can live with that.

Swordguy
2010-11-22, 03:08 PM
Something that never seems to come up in these discussions is forgiveness. It is in the nature of Good to forgive a transgression under certain circumstances.

Assuming the lack of consent, the sacrifice of thousands of save millions, or even all of existence (which is a fantasy trope and thus more common to us than it is to the actual denizens of the fiction universes in question) is unquestionably evil. In fact, not only is it an evil act, it is indeed an Evil one, with all the ramifications and consequences thereof.

But part of the intrinsic nature of Good is that of forgiveness. If there truly was nothing else to be done, if all other methods had been tried, then it is more in keeping with the nature of Good to accept and forgive the action rather then damn the perpetrator for an act that had no other solution except to perpetrate an even greater evil.

But this is where the rules themselves break down. The rules are there to cover the vast majority of actions, but NO rules can cover ALL actions or circumstances. An action of this magnitude is not part of "normal play"...it is a Plot Point, and thus something that must be tailored to the group and campaign in question. In short, whether the entities of Good would look upon this act with understanding and forgiveness is a decision that MUST rest solely on the part of the DM. RAW is not the answer here. A player Paladin, wrestling with himself and finally making this hellish decision, must be judged not by the auspices of RAW, but by the forces which he serves - and the whims of those forces are shaped by the DM of the game. Did the Paladin exhaust all other options? Did he walk into this expecting that the forces of Good would forgive him (ie, Miko)? Did he walk into this knowing that there truly was no other option, and be willing to sacrifice his own paladinhood - everything that makes him, him - to save as many as he could? All of these questions (and more) should be considered by the DM, and a thought-through, intelligent, and appropriate decision made...not simply a reference to a book and a binary "if-than" statement spat out.

Perhaps, in the end, even once the fallen paladin meets his end, if he has kept the faith through all he was witnessed and done...in the next world, in the next world he might be restored and allowed into the realms of Good. Forgiveness, after all, need not be immediate.

tl;dr? There is no right answer. The answer is determined by the attitudes of the player, character, DM and the needs of the game. For plot-centric, major events upon which a campaign may swing in the balance, be willing to look beyond RAW.

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 03:12 PM
This is where it gets tricky. Do you judge the single act, or the consequences?

Is saving a life always, automatically a good act? Even if the life is evil?

This is the classic one from the movies....bad guy dangles off cliff and begs for the good guy to save him. Good guy saves him. Then bad guy pulls out gun and shoots the girl! Nooooo! Screams good guy and he shoots bad guy five times and throws him off the cliff. But....if he would have just let him fall in the first place, then good girl would still be alive.

And what about monsters that are not people? Is it a good act to save a demon that will slaughter everyone on your world?

No one said anything about tying the bad guys up :smalltongue: But yeah, all life is sacred, even an evil one. It's the premise of being good. You don't kill it unless you can avoid it. You don't kill it because it's easier. That's what evil folks do.

As for demons... they are beings of ultimate evil. Evil personified, if you will. Killing them is not evil, it's common sense, since pretty much anybody knows you can't expect anything but more damage and evil from them.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 03:12 PM
I think sacrificing/killing obviously evil creatures like demons and devils for the greater good is always at least a neutral act, if not a good act.

Supposedly everyone can be redeemed. But come on, whens the last time a pit fiend was redeemed and turned good?

My character's tend to be more pragmatic. The ends justify the means. If there is a village of starving people who are about to be over run by a ruthless army, its better to make them into undead to gain strength for your army in beating the even more evil army, for the greater good. Or use them for something, since you know they will be suffering a lot and be destroyed.

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 03:16 PM
Supposedly everyone can be redeemed. But come on, whens the last time a pit fiend was redeemed and turned good?

Eludecia (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) would like to have a word with you.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 03:31 PM
Sacrificing thousands to save millions is definitely an evil act. It's just that the alternative is even worse. Would it cause alignment drop, though? That depends on your character's reaction. Did he pursue alternatives, and did this only because there was no other way? Does he feel regret in his action? If yes, then he probably stays good (I assume we're talking about a good character here). If he emotionlessly decides "it's better to kill a few than many" and feels no regret whatsoever, drop to neutral. If he enjoyed it and thinks he did a good job, he might even drop to evil. No matter the reaction, though, a paladin would still fall - because in a world where paladins can fall for performing a single evil act, there is always a good alternative to every action, and if you don't see any it's because you haven't looked hard enough. Redemption might be easy, though.

Also, read Watchmen. Same dilemma.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 03:36 PM
As for demons... they are beings of ultimate evil. Evil personified, if you will. Killing them is not evil, it's common sense, since pretty much anybody knows you can't expect anything but more damage and evil from them.

I'm pretty sure the BoED says differently IIRC.


Eludecia would like to have a word with you.
Sorry, that's really long. Can you summarize that for me? I'm having trouble concentrating due to some RL issues.

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 03:38 PM
Sorry, that's really long. Can you summarize that for me? I'm having trouble concentrating due to some RL issues.

*sigh* In a nutshell, a succubus paladin.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 03:43 PM
I don't believe it is evil. Those millions of people are still alive because of you. If your DM thinks otherwise get Atonement and move on. It's horrible to have to sacrifice people, but it isn't evil if the alternative is worse.

I particularly liked the poster who flat out stated that any action the person took would be evil! Your my favorite!

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 03:44 PM
I don't believe it is evil. Those millions of people are still alive because of you. If your DM thinks otherwise get Atonement and move on. It's horrible to have to sacrifice people, but it isn't evil if the alternative is worse.

I particularly liked the poster who flat out stated that any action the person took would be evil! Your my favorite!

What's atonement?


*sigh* In a nutshell, a succubus paladin.

how does that work?

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 03:47 PM
What's atonement?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 03:49 PM
how does that work?

It's the power of love :smalltongue: Here, I'll c/p the important part for you. It's not that long and I hope you'll find time to read through it anyway.


Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin

In worlds where magic is common, powerful wizards sometimes use their dweomers to warp and change creatures for their own purposes. However, even more profound changes sometimes stem from the natural forces in the multiverse. One of those forces is love, and love somehow found the succubus known as Eludecia.

She does not talk about what happened, but during one of her many quests to tempt souls and bring them to the Abyss, she met a beautiful angel, and something unimaginable happened -- she fell in love. Eludecia fought against the unfamiliar emotion for a long time but finally realized that she could not win. So she sought out the angel and confessed her feelings for him, though she did not understand them.

When Eludecia asked for help in redeeming herself, the angel was only too happy to accommodate her. After all, the succubus was extremely beautiful, and he could not help but be attracted to her. Furthermore, the accomplishment of redeeming a demon would certainly make him well known in the angelic hierarchy and advance him in his master's service.

Redemption sometimes comes in a flash, but more often it takes years and years of painful work -- and so it was in this case. Born to evil, Eludecia found it hard even to understand goodness, let alone embrace it. However, she persevered until she finally achieved a shaky redemption. She then dedicated herself fully to the cause of good and took on the mantle of paladin, although no deity was willing to be her special patron.

Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably.

Zeful
2010-11-22, 03:50 PM
My character's tend to be more pragmatic. The ends justify the means. If there is a village of starving people who are about to be over run by a ruthless army, its better to make them into undead to gain strength for your army in beating the even more evil army, for the greater good. Or use them for something, since you know they will be suffering a lot and be destroyed.

This attitude is Nuetral Evil, at best. These people are starving and about to be overrun and all you do to fix the problem is kill them all and raise their bodies as undead? You couldn't think to kill the enemy commanders? Evacuate the people? Hide them?

Telonius
2010-11-22, 03:50 PM
It's the power of love :smalltongue: Here, I'll c/p the important part for you. It's not that long and I hope you'll find time to read through it anyway.

DM fiat from WotC, basically.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 03:55 PM
This attitude is Nuetral Evil, at best. These people are starving and about to be overrun and all you do to fix the problem is kill them all and raise their bodies as undead? You couldn't think to kill the enemy commanders? Evacuate the people? Hide them?

Sorry, forgot to mention that evactuation wasn't possible (time/speed constraints.) Hiding them wouldn't work either.

Edit this actually happened, not to me, but in another campaign my friend was in. Rather than let them become the enemies slaves, he released their souls and turned them into our own army to try and stave off armageddon.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 03:56 PM
Actually, it's not entirely DM fiat- the MM explicitly states "Always X" creatures can sometimes not have that alignment. And also, specifies what happens when a creature with an Alignment subtype, but an alignment not matching it, is affected by magic that affects beings of a particular alignment more strongly.

Also Expedition to the Demonweb Pits has Cambions (the offspring of tieflings and demons)

Technically Demons, and being Extraplanar Outsiders with the Evil subtype, they are Fiends. Yet, their alignment is only Often Chaotic Evil (Usually Evil) and their description explicitly states that 10% of them are Neutral or Good.



Assuming the lack of consent, the sacrifice of thousands of save millions, or even all of existence (which is a fantasy trope and thus more common to us than it is to the actual denizens of the fiction universes in question) is unquestionably evil. In fact, not only is it an evil act, it is indeed an Evil one, with all the ramifications and consequences thereof.

On sacrifice, in Complete Scoundrel, the Order of Illumination (a paladin-centric Lawful Good/Lawful neutral order, with PRCs that you have to be LG to join, has the doctrine that sacrificing innocent people may sometimes be the morally right thing to do, if it's the only way to contain an Evil threat.

The example given, was destroying a village, to prevent a demon hidden in the village from spreading the taint of evil.

Also, when a group is certain to die without some of them being sacrificed, doing so may be less morally dubious, than sacrificing people who aren't in danger, to save people who are.

This is an example from the short story Mistworld, in Simon R. Green's Deathstalker Prelude.
Captain Starlight, of the starship Balefire, has rescued some refugees from the scorching of the planet Tannim by the Imperial Fleet, & brought them to the rebel planet Mistworld:
"How many refugees have you brought us, Captain?"
"There were fifteen thousand. Most are dead now."
"What happened?" asked Topaz.
"I killed them." said Captain Starlight.
.....
"Tannim was already under attack when I raised ship," said Starlight, moving slowly along the narrow walkway, which now showed itself to be set high up on the cargo bay wall. Steel and Topaz followed close behind him. Within the nearest cylinders, they could just make out a few of the refugees, floating like shadows in ice.

"The Imperial Fleet was dropping out of hyperspace in its hundreds. Refugee ships were being blasted out of the sky all around me. The Balefire was under attack, and my shields were giving out. I needed more power, so I took it from the sleep cylinder support systems. I had no choice."

Steel frowned thoughtfully. Even with the extra power, the Balefire shouldn't have survived long enough to drop into hyperspace. He shrugged; maybe she just got lucky. It happened. Then the significance of what Starlight had said came home to him, and he looked at the Captain of the Balefire with a slow horror.

"How much power did you take from the cylinders, Captain? How much?"

Starlight leaned out over the walkway's reinforced barrier, and tried for a life support readout on the nearest sleep cylinder. None of the lights came on. Starlight dropped his hand, and turned back to face Steel and Topaz.

"The ship needed the power. I couldn't return it until the Balefire was safely into hyper. By then it was too late."
"How many?" asked Topaz. "How many of your refugees survived the power loss?"

"Two hundred and ten," said Captain Starlight softly, bitterly. "Out of fifteen thousand, two hundred and ten."

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 04:01 PM
Sorry, forgot to mention that evactuation wasn't possible (time/speed constraints.) Hiding them wouldn't work either.

Then organize a defense and buy enough time to let them run away, or something. There are many ways to solve this without sacrificing those people.

A character who believes in ruthless pragmatism and that end justifies the means is almost never good. At best, he's neutral.

AstralFire
2010-11-22, 04:03 PM
If you truly have no knowledge of other options, and have gone beyond a reasonable level to exhaust attempts at finding other options, then I say it is not. But this is a question debated by philosophers and priests since the day the ideas of good and evil first dawned in our brains...

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 04:05 PM
Then organize a defense and buy enough time to let them run away, or something. There are many ways to solve this without sacrificing those people.

A character who believes in ruthless pragmatism and that end justifies the means is almost never good. At best, he's neutral.

Agreed about the neutral part. But in that particular campaign there was no other way. They took who they could.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:07 PM
For the actual Order of Illumination quote:


Along with their comrades, (as members of the order call themselves) the shadowbane stalkers, inquisitors find and confront evil wherever it hides. Unlike shadowbane stalkers, however, inquisitors purge evil rather than finding it.

Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel.

The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread.

Although inquisitors remain devoted to the cause of good, this conviction allows them to use their abilities against enemies regardless of their alignment.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 04:09 PM
Very interesting hamisphere. I wonder if the same rules can be applied to non members of that order? Or does it only apply to them?

PS also thinking of atonement, what's to stop someone from being evil, getting atoned, being evil, getting atoned, etc. ?

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 04:13 PM
Agreed about the neutral part. But in that particular campaign there was no other way. They took who they could.

Then what I said before stands. A good character forced to do such a thing will feel regret and do it only if there's no other way. Also, do note that creating undead might or might not be an evil act on its own, depending on how they work in the specific setting.


For the actual Order of Illumination quote:

Wow. This is supposed to be a primarily LG organization? Whomever wrote this group had no ideas about how alignments work. Self-righteous belief that you're always right no matter what does not make you good. Just ask Miko.

Mordokai
2010-11-22, 04:15 PM
DM fiat from WotC, basically.

Basically, yes. I find the idea and the concept itself interesting enough. I actually quite like it. But I find the reason behind it quite shallow.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:16 PM
Very interesting hamisphere. I wonder if the same rules can be applied to non members of that order? Or does it only apply to them?

PS also thinking of atonement, what's to stop someone from being evil, getting atoned, being evil, getting atoned, etc. ?

It may possibly apply to any particularly hardline Good faction.

the Shadowbane Inquisitor does get powers (including a Smite) that can work on targets of any alignment though. And, while you have to be LG to take the class, and take levels in it, changing alignment will not lose you any of your PRC powers.

Plus, it stacks with paladin levels, for determining what Blackguard abilities a Blackguard gets.

On Atonement- FC2 states that it isn't just the spell that's needed, in order to remove Corruption- you have to actually give up any personal gain from the evil act, apologize to beings wronged, and take a quest of some sort specifically to expiate the sin.

You can do all this without the spell and count as having atoned, if the corruption is low, but if it's higher, you need to do all this and have the spell cast on you.


Wow. This is supposed to be a primarily LG organization? Whomever wrote this group had no ideas about how alignments work. Self-righteous belief that you're always right no matter what does not make you good. Just ask Miko.

The difference here is between Sacrifice, and Murder.

And the class does say, that members are vulnerable to crossing the line, and becoming Evil. However, most who do so still strongly believe that they are still good.

Being able to smite beings of any alignment with your PRC Smite ability, doesn't mean it's never an Evil act to do so.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 04:22 PM
On Atonement- FC2 states that it isn't just the spell that's needed, in order to remove Corruption- you have to actually give up any personal gain from the evil act, apologize to beings wronged, and take a quest of some sort specifically to expiate the sin.

You can do all this without the spell and count as having atoned, if the corruption is low, but if it's higher, you need to do all this and have the spell cast on you.


What if its impossible to take back the act? Or apologize? A character did something "evil" (it was for the greater good and he was partially tricked) that can't be taken back or apologized for. Something that's actually releveant in a current campaign atm. Cause I'd love to atone. But I don't think I can take back the "evil" acts or the power that's been offered. Guess I'm SOL unless you know of other ways?

Kaww
2010-11-22, 04:23 PM
It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme—respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless. A good character must not succumb to that trap.

This is out there too... Problem with DnD related thing like this is that even the WotC don't have common opinion. It's as if they get drunk before writing the books...

Most of these are moral questions and they may be different in different cultures. If public orgies on Wednesdays were morally unquestionable somewhere that doesn't make them morally unquestionable where I live too. Public stonings/hangings are not different, just more serious examples...

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:27 PM
One option- it's only Corruption that requires this kind of apology and "give-away" of whatever benefit was gained.

So, if you have the Atonement spell cast on you- and you are genuinely repentant, the spell will work, even if it doesn't take away Corruption Points.

And even a high Corruption score doesn't guarantee permanent consignment to the Nine Hells.

According to FC2, if a being who would normally be condemned (say, because of high Corruption and a Lawful alignment?) dies genuinely repentant, they are reincarnated as a Hellbred, and given a second chance to redeem themselves.

Doing so requires something big though.

Possibly, if you take the view that the apology can be to "The Forces of Good" or the kin of the wronged being, or the soul of the wronged being, that might cover that part. And giving away something you earned, equivalent to what was gained by the Evil Act, might cover the other part.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 04:28 PM
One option- it's only Corruption that requires this kind of apology and "give-away" of whatever benefit was gained.

So, if you have the Atonement spell cast on you- and you are genuinely repentant, the spell will work, even if it doesn't take away Corruption Points.

And even a high Corruption score doesn't guarantee permanent consignment to the Nine Hells.

According to FC2, if a being who would normally be condemned (say, because of high Corruption and a Lawful alignment?) dies genuinely repentant, they are reincarnated as a Hellbred, and given a second chance to redeem themselves.

Doing so requires something big though.

Big? What do you mean? DM intervention or a big act of goodness?

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:31 PM
Big act of goodness.

Suggestions include:

Singlehandedly saving a city from invaders.
Destroying a duke or archduke of hell.
Annihilating a potent artifact of evil.

A hellbred who fails to achieve this before dying, has their soul consigned to Baator.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 04:32 PM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Another situation might be at the end of the campaign, you get an option to turn yourself into some kind of mighty elder evil, but in so doing you can save an entire world or continent. Is that really evil? Is being a martyr evil?

Sacrificing an unwilling victim is an Evil act.

A Good person may still choose to do so, if they truly believe that the ends justify it. If a Paladin, temporary Falling and atonement are probably in order.

If the victim was willing to give up their life for the good of everyone else, then it's not an Evil act any more - the "victim" clearly has the right to sacrifice themselves.

So, a truly Good person, in that scenario, would try to sacrifice themselves, or, if that wasn't possible, at least try to find a willing victim or convince the victim to, of their own free will, submit to the sacrifice.

Becoming a mighty elder evil isn't necessarily an Evil act, depending on the specifics. Acts done as the might elder evil will probably shift you towards Evil, of course. A Good person in that situation may try to arrange things so that immediately after their shift, they could be destroyed.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 04:32 PM
This is out there too... Problem with DnD related thing like this is that even the WotC don't have common opinion. It's as if they get drunk before writing the books...

Rule of the thumb - if it's alignment-related, no two WotC writers will agree about it on any point. No exceptions.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 04:34 PM
Big act of goodness.

Suggestions include:

Singlehandedly saving a city from invaders
Destroying a duke or archduke of hell
Annihilating a potent artifact of evil

hmmm, I wonder what my DM would consider? My character has always tried to do good, but being a martyr has ended up evil a lot (and switched back and forth a lot). Recently though (according to her) I seem to be irredeemably evil. What is an "evil" character to do? Especially when he is actively trying to do good anyways. Sometimes the opportunities just don't present themselves.

Dr.Epic
2010-11-22, 04:35 PM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Has no one made a Watchmen reference? Maybe they did and it was just 35 posts ago.:smallwink:

Logalmier
2010-11-22, 04:36 PM
To take it from Spock:

Spock: Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:42 PM
Rule of the thumb - if it's alignment-related, no two WotC writers will agree about it on any point. No exceptions.

Some things can be resolved by applying rulings.

Heroes of Horror says a character who does evil deeds toward Good ends, is probably neither Good nor Evil but a flexible Neutral. And of the Dread Necromancer, it says that while the class mandates performing evil acts, some balance their evil acts with good ends and intentions, and remain solidly Neutral.

Champions of Ruin says "Repeatedly committing many of these, is the mark of an Evil character" and lists the BoVD list of Evil acts.

Solution-

minor evil acts (casting Evil spells, Channelling Negative Energy (typically by Rebuking/Commanding undead), turning yourself into an undead over a period of 20 levels, Worshipping Fiends/Evil Gods, and so on) qualify as Not Enough For An Evil Alignment- in the presence of genuine Good deeds and Good intentions as well.

Whereas major evil acts (murder for pleasure, severe torture, etc) qualify as Enough To Ensure An Evil Alignment.

FC2 does have a list of Corrupt Acts- and casting [Evil] spells is one of the least evil, and murder for pleasure (along with the most severe torture) as the most evil.

And PHB does state that Channelling Negative Energy (in the form of a Rebuke/Command Undead attempt) is an evil act- but LN clerics of Wee Jas can only do this- they cannot Turn Undead. So it may not be all that evil.
Similarly, you can be a Cleric of an Evil Deity, and not be Evil.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 04:42 PM
To take it from Spock:

Spock: Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

There's real danger in that line of thinking. If you recall, Spock used that logic to justify his *own* sacrifice, not that of others.

Most of the times that people pull that trump card, they do not include themselves in "the few."

I prefer to draw a line between Good/Evil people and Good/Evil acts. Good people may perform Evil acts, given sufficient justification. That doesn't necessarily make them Evil. However, it also doesn't make the act Good.

Stealing is wrong (I'll admit there are circumstances where it isn't, but let's not get into that). Stealing bread from someone is wrong. Even a Good person may steal bread to feed their family however. That doesn't mean that stealing is suddenly Good - it means that the Good person does have a line which they will be willing to cross, given sufficient need. Now, a Good person should try to do everything else before stealing - asking for a loan, offering to work, begging, etc. But, if those fail, they may well be willing to resort to theft.

However, a truly Good person will not delude themselves into thinking that their theft was anything but Evil, as they know better. They carry that stain and guilt inside of them. In essence, that's what makes them Good - not that they won't ever perform an Evil act, but that they recognize that the act is, in fact, Evil.

An Evil person, on the other hand, would justify the theft by simply saying "I'm hungry" and getting on with it.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 04:46 PM
Has no one made a Watchmen reference? Maybe they did and it was just 35 posts ago.:smallwink:

Nah. Only 27.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:47 PM
There's real danger in that line of thinking. If you recall, Spock used that logic to justify his *own* sacrifice, not that of others.

Most of the times that people pull that trump card, they do not include themselves in "the few."

in Troi's test for command rank, she fails at first because she can't sacrifice another officer to save the ship.

After Riker tells her off, saying that sometimes, ordering someone else to sacrifice themselves, is necessary- and the bridge commander may not be doing the right thing if they try and do it themselves, she takes it again, sacrifices Geordi to save the ship- and passes.



I prefer to draw a line between Good/Evil people and Good/Evil acts. Good people may perform Evil acts, given sufficient justification. That doesn't necessarily make them Evil. However, it also doesn't make the act Good.

Which is pretty much what Champions of Ruin says: "Even Good people may be driven to some of these acts from time to time."


hmmm, I wonder what my DM would consider? My character has always tried to do good, but being a martyr has ended up evil a lot (and switched back and forth a lot). Recently though (according to her) I seem to be irredeemably evil. What is an "evil" character to do? Especially when he is actively trying to do good anyways.

Given that (on the WoTC site) even a demon has sought to redeem themselves- and managed to change alignment to Lawful Good, and become a paladin,

"There's rarely such a thing as irredeemably evil", may be valid here.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 04:52 PM
Has no one made a Watchmen reference? Maybe they did and it was just 35 posts ago.:smallwink:

hah, no they haven't. That's a good point. I like watchmen. Is it evil to sacrifice some to secure world peace? Seems like that would be a good thing to me. In modern society we sacrifice people all the time for evil acts (capital punishment.) Sure the good people sacrificed don't deserve it, but they're good, so they should be for sacrificing themselves for world peace...

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 04:55 PM
Main problem being, it's only a very temporary fix.

All it does, is turn the eyes of the superpowers, away from each other, for a moment, and toward a common threat- "aliens" in the comic "Dr Manhattan" in the movie.

It doesn't change any of the underlying attitudes.

In Watchmen, it's not really a "Sacrifice the Few to Save the Many" case,

it's "Murder the Few, to distract the Superpowers from fighting each other for a moment".

Dr.Epic
2010-11-22, 04:58 PM
hah, no they haven't. That's a good point. I like watchmen. Is it evil to sacrifice some to secure world peace? Seems like that would be a good thing to me. In modern society we sacrifice people all the time for evil acts (capital punishment.) Sure the good people sacrificed don't deserve it, but they're good, so they should be for sacrificing themselves for world peace...

What have I done? I just open a can of worms. The Rorschach/Ozymandias alignment debate is soon to follow.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 05:03 PM
What have I done? I just open a can of worms. The Rorschach/Ozymandias alignment debate is soon to follow.

We could try and think of cases of Sacrifice, where it might not qualify as Murder, and thus, might not qualify as Evil Act, rather than focussing on Watchmen.

And maybe see if we can get an idea of what kinds of Sacrifice most people think don't count as murder.

How about my Deathstalker example-
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816282&postcount=33

a refugee ship, with meat popsicle passengers, coming under attack from enemies with intent to destroy rather than capture, diverts power from the life support cylinders to the shields, to ensure the ship survives just long enough to jump into hyperspace?

Bruendor_Cavescout
2010-11-22, 05:12 PM
Yep, this is a total Adrian Viedt problem. Does performing a monstrous act automatically make one a monster? Can one be forgiven for something unforgivable? Do the ends truly justify the means, or are they just that - justifications for an untenable position?

Honestly, there's never going to be a concise answer to this - we're basically back to asking the same thing Socrates did when he asked whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods. Guess what - several thousand years later, we're really no closer to answering that question than when Socrates posed it.

Since we're talking within the context of a narrative, I think we need to look at the entirety of the actions, rather than the moment of decision. Was every other option investigated and discarded as ineffective? Is there a reason the thousands sacrificed were not informed of their impending doom? What reparations did the sacrificer make to those who were killed? And does the sacrificer realize his own damnation from this terrible decision he must make, and has made his peace with it?

Regardless of the answers to those questions, yes, it's evil by D&D standards, and probably by our own as well. But it's an interesting evil, one far more engaging than orc warlords or wizards that want to bring an end to all creation. I can see a paladin who has been forced into making this decision regretfully ordering the slaughter of thousands of people, then discarding his sword, shield and armor and living out the rest of his life as an itinerent monk (assuming that suicide is forbidden by his god). It makes for an interesting story, and that's probably why the question keeps coming back up - the answer intrigues us as much as it eludes us.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 05:16 PM
Yep, this is a total Adrian Viedt problem. Does performing a monstrous act automatically make one a monster? Can one be forgiven for something unforgivable? Do the ends truly justify the means, or are they just that - justifications for an untenable position?


Regardless of the answers to those questions, yes, it's evil by D&D standards, and probably by our own as well. But it's an interesting evil, one far more engaging than orc warlords or wizards that want to bring an end to all creation.

Even within D&D, there are blurred areas- situations where sacrificing others might not count as Evil (Order of Illumination seem to take this viewpoint).

And when acts are evil, a character may still be able to maintain a Neutral alignment.

And there's no specified examples of "unforgivable deeds"- with BoED stressing that the Powers of Good are indeed forgiving- as long as genuine repentance is present.

Callista
2010-11-22, 05:21 PM
D&D wasn't really written as a moral treatise. It wasn't written by philosophers. I mean, for heaven's sake, there are feats that involve being really fat or thin--and you have to be evil to take them! How ridiculous is that? Very few moral systems even address body size (unless you're fat because you're eating the poor people's food or some such, I suppose).

Fact is, it was written as an adventure game where people got together and killed monsters. When it started out, and even in the recent editions, they weren't bargaining on people wanting to tell deep, involved stories with moral dilemmas set in gray-to-black worlds where there often were no good options. It started out as a game of throwing fireballs and swinging swords, and the manufacturers haven't seemed to comprehend that morality is a huge part of it for many of us--whether that means trying to save the innocent or corrupt the world into your own dark twisted vision of the Abyss.

There will be contradictions. With many writers, you always get that. The best you can do is probably just stick to the Core descriptions--which are pretty consistent except for the poison issue. But you really do have to have some guideline for morality, ethics, personality, and decision-making, because if you don't, then it'll just devolve into a CRPG where the goal is to kill the monster and get the loot, and your character is a collection of stats and little else.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 05:27 PM
There will be contradictions. With many writers, you always get that. The best you can do is probably just stick to the Core descriptions--which are pretty consistent except for the poison issue. But you really do have to have some guideline for morality, ethics, personality, and decision-making,

I lean toward picking my favorite bits from every splatbook that mentions alignment, to cover areas where Core seems unsatisfying, or doesn't provide a helpful definition of a term.

But then, I like the "Monsters are people too" viewpoint of one of the campaign models in Savage Species- called With Malice Toward None (Chaotic/Accepting) as well as the similar view in the later BoED.

Bruendor_Cavescout
2010-11-22, 05:30 PM
To steal a phrase from the original Pirates of the Carribean movie, "Well, they're more like guidelines, anyway." I'm not sure if basing redemption exclusively on what essentially boils down to flavor text from BoED truly flies. After all, the gods are being played by your friendly neighborhood DM, and if he decides that the Consortium of Good Gods think that your actions are unredeemable, then no amount of sought-after repentence is going to work.

I'm not saying I disagree with you - merely that it boils down to the DM's game. Neutrality is certainly an option. In fact, I'd say that such an action, if balanced against a lifetime of good deeds, would probably end up placing the person squarely in the Neutral scheme of things, and probably with Good leanings.

That said, the only class prior to 4e that really cared about such things mechanically was the paladin. I personally know of a player whose DM had radically different ideas on how a paladin should be played than the player did. Not too surprisingly, he lost his paladinhood. I think it comes down to the players and the DM talking it out and figuring out what that ethos really is before the campaign gets to this point. That way, it doesn't look like you're screwing the player after the fact - just merely setting up events to make him squirm, which is the job of the DM. :)

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 06:13 PM
in Troi's test for command rank, she fails at first because she can't sacrifice another officer to save the ship.

After Riker tells her off, saying that sometimes, ordering someone else to sacrifice themselves, is necessary- and the bridge commander may not be doing the right thing if they try and do it themselves, she takes it again, sacrifices Geordi to save the ship- and passes.


Yes, and that makes sense - as Captain of a ship, those on the ship have agreed to be under her command, giving her the right to make those types of decisions. In essence, everyone under her command has already agreed to be a willing sacrifice if the situation requires it.

That's not the same as being willing to kill a random person.

(Conscript armies are, of course, an entirely different situation)

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 06:28 PM
Yes, and that makes sense - as Captain of a ship, those on the ship have agreed to be under her command, giving her the right to make those types of decisions. In essence, everyone under her command has already agreed to be a willing sacrifice if the situation requires it.

That might be an example of "pre-given consent" so to speak.

Imagine a setting where all epic-type spells, auto-mitigate themselves, that is, you pick the effect, and the spell drains life force in order to power itself (the more powerful the effect, the more people keel over and die when the spell is cast). And the caster dies first.

It's only ever used in a crisis- but a world-destroying event (an Elder Evil, or something similar) is approaching, and the only way to stop it, is to cast one of these spells.

And, after careful calculation, the caster has worked out, that when the spell is cast, 3 million people, randomly scattered across the world, will suddenly keel over and expire. But, the world-destroying threat will be permanently averted.

If they did it- would it be an evil act? How about if they got the consent of everyone in the world, before casting? And what if they couldn't?

It's a bit like the Ozymandias situation- but much more direct. Everyone will die, for certain, if the threat is not stopped- if it is- it will never be a problem again-

and their deaths aren't so much "intentional murders" as "a side-effect of the world-saving spell".

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 06:41 PM
I lean toward picking my favorite bits from every splatbook that mentions alignment, to cover areas where Core seems unsatisfying, or doesn't provide a helpful definition of a term.

But then, I like the "Monsters are people too" viewpoint of one of the campaign models in Savage Species- called With Malice Toward None (Chaotic/Accepting) as well as the similar view in the later BoED.

Right on, brother. Right on.

Core almost always seems unsatisfying to me when it comes to alignment. I like the "shades of gray" alignments. Sacrificing thousands to save millions may seem evil (because it is), but it's the end result that counts. I am a firm believer in the "needs of the many" philosophy.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 06:54 PM
That might be an example of "pre-given consent" so to speak.

Imagine a setting where all epic-type spells, auto-mitigate themselves, that is, you pick the effect, and the spell drains life force in order to power itself (the more powerful the effect, the more people keel over and die when the spell is cast). And the caster dies first.

It's only ever used in a crisis- but a world-destroying event (an Elder Evil, or something similar) is approaching, and the only way to stop it, is to cast one of these spells.

And, after careful calculation, the caster has worked out, that when the spell is cast, 3 million people, randomly scattered across the world, will suddenly keel over and expire. But, the world-destroying threat will be permanently averted.

If they did it- would it be an evil act? How about if they got the consent of everyone in the world, before casting? And what if they couldn't?


Well, the way I like to look at Good/Evil is based on rights. Rights generally means "the authority to make decisions regarding".

Individuals have the right to life. That means that others don't get to decide to kill them (with exceptions for self-defense, etc.).

So yes, killing 3 million people is an Evil act, as someone is making decisions about the life of others that they don't have the rights to make.

If everyone involved agreed consented to this, then the people making the decisions (the people that would die) are the ones that have the rights (the authority) to do so, and it ceases to be an Evil act.

Again - a Good person *still might cast the spell, knowing that it is Evil.* This doesn't mean their alignment *necessarily* slips. It does mean that the act should weigh heavily on the conscience (well, at least until they die moments later). It also means that they would search high and low to either gain that consent (basically, gather volunteers) or find an alternative fuel source until the last possible moment.

This is where I think I disagree with a lot of people. I believe that an Evil act is an Evil act. However, I don't think that a Good person can never perform an Evil act, or that the consequences of an Evil act make it non-Evil. As I've mentioned elsewhere, stealing is (barring certain circumstances) Evil. Stealing to feed your family doesn't make it any less Evil. A Good person needing to feed his family may well steal - but that will be his last resort, and doing so will still bother him. Even a Neutral person will act, roughly, in this way, though probably not to as great of an extent (they'll be willing to steal at a lower threshold, and not beat themselves up as badly afterward).

Where they differ is in how they think about the act - the Good person will steal only as a very last resort, have significant guilt about it, and try to compensate the victim after the fact. The Neutral person will steal as a last resort, but won't go to the lengths to avoid it that the Good person will. They'll also feel bad about it, but probably not as long or as much as the Good person. An Evil person will justify it in their head easily, and won't bat an eye or think about it for a second afterwards.

In other words, people seem to think that a Good person will only do Good acts, and therefore there must be some moral calculus that makes any act that a Good person would do, in fact, a Good act. I don't have that belief or requirement, and so I'm perfectly okay with drawing harder lines on an individual act being Evil, because in my view of things, that doesn't preclude a Good character from engaging in that act.

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 07:03 PM
Well, the way I like to look at Good/Evil is based on rights. Rights generally means "the authority to make decisions regarding".

Individuals have the right to life. That means that others don't get to decide to kill them (with exceptions for self-defense, etc.).

What about the case of the captain of the Balefire?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816282&postcount=33

In some sense, he's responsible for the wellbeing of the people on the ship. Does this mean he cannot ever draw on the ship's life support systems, for energy needed to protect the ship from destruction?

Would "killing them by failing to act" have moral weight here- if he knows he can save them by drawing away some of the power keeping them alive?

While I tend to agree with this:


This is where I think I disagree with a lot of people. I believe that an Evil act is an Evil act. However, I don't think that a Good person can never perform an Evil act, or that the consequences of an Evil act make it non-Evil.

it is still a tricky question about where the point of "rights-violation" begins- was the captain of the Balefire, violating the rights of the passengers- by drawing power from their life-support systems, to keep the ship from being destroyed?

Assuming for the moment that he was trying to keep as many passengers alive as possible.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 07:11 PM
What about the case of the captain of the Balefire?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816282&postcount=33

In some sense, he's responsible for the wellbeing of the people on the ship. Does this mean he cannot ever draw on the ship's life support systems, for energy needed to protect the ship from destruction?

The captain was within his rights. By boarding a ship, you surrender to the authority of the captain of the ship. This is pretty much a universal law (even today) for anything ship-like, including airplanes. As an example, if you've ever taken flying lessons, they drill it into you that, on the plane, the word of the captain is absolute authority.

While this isn't usually emphasized to passengers in most modern settings, it's still the way things actually run.


Would "killing them by failing to act" have moral weight here- if he knows he can save them by drawing away some of the power keeping them alive?

it is still a tricky question about where the point of "rights-violation" begins- was the captain of the Balefire, violating the rights of the passengers- by drawing power from their life-support systems, to keep the ship from being destroyed?

Assuming for the moment that he was trying to keep as many passengers alive as possible.

The captain did what he had to, and was within his rights. Boarding the ship is implied consent to be under the authority of the captain of the vessel.

And, note that the captain was still pretty torn up about what happened. A Good character, in such a situation, should be torn up by a decision like that - even if they're within their rights to make it (military/ship captain/etc.).

hamishspence
2010-11-22, 07:15 PM
When there's no captain though- it may get a little greyer.

How about, when the people awake, are civilians? If they choose to take responsibility for the ship- do they gain the same authority as the captain on "taking whatever actions are necessary to keep it from being destroyed"?



And, note that the captain was still pretty torn up about what happened. A Good character, in such a situation, should be torn up by a decision like that - even if they're within their rights to make it (military/ship captain/etc.).

Yup. What makes characters like Ozy different- is that they act like their intelligence, grants them the same "moral authority" to protect the world, as the captain's authority to protect the ship.

I could see a Paladin Ship Captain making that choice for his ship- and not Falling (but being very, very angst-ridden afterward).

Callista
2010-11-22, 07:18 PM
Authority only matters to Lawful people anyway, so adding it to the equation is causing more complications than are necessary.

Stealing=evil? Really? Always? What if you're stealing a slave from his rightful owner?

blackjack217
2010-11-22, 07:59 PM
*puts on fancy wig* We have here today two cases which we must determine whether the actions are evil or not:
Deliberately sacrificing soldiers to hold the line while the main army escapes : Verdict Not Evil
Deliberately Sacrificing A town full of civilians:
Verdict Evil

Swordguy
2010-11-22, 08:12 PM
*puts on fancy wig* We have here today two cases which we must determine whether the actions are evil or not:
Deliberately sacrificing soldiers to hold the line while the main army escapes : Verdict Not Evil
Deliberately Sacrificing A town full of civilians:
Verdict Evil

Now try: Deliberately sacrificing the town of civilians (not even trying to defend them, and with the full knowledge that they'll be wiped out) to the predations of the Evil Army to buy time for your own army to mobilize and stop aforementioned Evil Army.

Verdict:Depends on the GM in question. Oops.

blackjack217
2010-11-22, 08:17 PM
Not even warning them? EVIL

Eldonauran
2010-11-22, 08:24 PM
Authority only matters to Lawful people anyway, so adding it to the equation is causing more complications than are necessary.

Stealing=evil? Really? Always? What if you're stealing a slave from his rightful owner?

I support the stealing = evil opinion, BUT you have to define stealing first. You also have to define what basic rights everyone has. The 'basic rights' have to be defined in a way that even if a 'law' passed by a country (good/evil/neutral/lawful/chaotic) changes what is perceived as a basic right, that law can/is WRONG.

So, above, right to own a slave = WRONG. It is not stealing (READ EVIL) to free that slave. It may be considered stealing to the owner/country that passed the law but it does not violate the 'basic rights' of everyone.

Same goes for stealing bread from someone else. You have no 'rights' towards the bread unless you compensate the owner (beforehand) for his time/money that was put into earning that bread. For all you know, stealing that bread could have left the owner's family to starve for the night. Regardless, you damaged his quality of life (even if slightly) by stealing from him. After all, respecting the well being of others goes hand in hand with not actively seeking to harm them (physically, emotionally, finacially, etc).

:smallconfused: Hope that was clear enough to express my opinion.

Callista
2010-11-22, 08:44 PM
I think you just redefined "stealing" to include only "stealing when it's evil to do so". My definition: "Taking possession of something that either the law or the surrounding social norms have declared belongs to someone else."

You've got to look at the difference between the likely effects. If you're stealing the bread from a beggar because you were peckish for an afternoon snack, that's evil; on the other hand, if you're taking it out of the pantry of a wealthy fellow so you can feed the aforementioned beggar who hasn't had a meal in a week... well, there's a big difference.

Property rights are a Lawful concept that often intersects with Good; but I wouldn't call it intrinsically evil to violate them. Like you said, though, most of the time when you steal something, you're hurting somebody, if only very slightly, so it's usually evil--but not always. Sometimes it hurts no one, like when Robin Hood steals from the rich merchant who doesn't need the extra money. Sometimes it even helps people, like with the slave.

You could reason that, "But that man's owner paid money for him! I'm hurting him by not giving him the money he paid for the slave. But I can't; I haven't got the money to pay for him and anyhow I couldn't hope to buy every slave in the country. I should be working to change the government and outlaw slavery instead."

I think that's why I like the two-axis system--there's room for things that go against generally accepted "this is the way we do things", but that aren't evil. Chaotics often get judged for going against accepted tradition, social order, the general norms and such. Even in real life I think it's important to ask yourself whether something is a matter of good or evil, or whether it's simply a matter of the way your culture does things.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 08:57 PM
I think you just redefined "stealing" to include only "stealing when it's evil to do so". My definition: "Taking possession of something that either the law or the surrounding social norms have declared belongs to someone else."


This is pretty much why I put the caveat in there about stealing. No, it's not *always* Evil. But in most non-contrived scenarios, it is.

I base this, again, on rights. You have the right to life, which means additionally you have the right to the product of your life.

Since slavery denies rights, it's Evil. Note that I'm not talking Lawful or not here at all. I'm looking at theft on the Good/Evil axis, not the Lawful/Chaotic axis. Since freeing a slave is restoring his/her freedom, it is an act in defense of another's rights, and qualifies as Good.

Similarly, "stealing" something that was obtained through Evil acts (fraud, theft, coercion, etc.) may count as Neutral or Good, depending on what was done with the stuff afterwards (giving it to the rightful owner would probably be Good). The laws in the area aren't really relevant - let's say there was a law that if you attacked somebody and beat them up, that you could legally take all of the money they had on them. Turning around and stealing that money from the beater-upper, and giving it back to the "victim" wouldn't be legal, but it *would* be Good.




You've got to look at the difference between the likely effects. If you're stealing the bread from a beggar because you were peckish for an afternoon snack, that's evil; on the other hand, if you're taking it out of the pantry of a wealthy fellow so you can feed the aforementioned beggar who hasn't had a meal in a week... well, there's a big difference.

Yes, but it's a difference of degree, not of type. Stealing is Evil. Stealing from a rich merchant to feed a beggar is certainly *less* Evil than stealing from the beggar because you were feeling peckish. But it's still Evil. You violated property rights.

The exception, again, is if the merchant had acquired the bread through some kind of Evil act in the first place... and just being a businessman or making a profit doesn't count.

A Good character in this case would first attempt to convince the merchant to help, or offer to do work, or just buy the bread from him. Those are Good solutions. Saying that the theft, in this case, is Good removes any incentive for the Good character to not just go immediately to the solution of stealing.

Yes, it's more convenient to just steal the bread, but that's okay - Good is hard. It's supposed to be.

Edit:

Another way of looking at it - the stealer could have just bought a bread for a copper or whatever. If he didn't have a copper, he could sell something he owned. By choosing to steal rather than do this, he is making the decision that the merchant should sacrifice, rather than him. Making a decision that someone else should sacrifice strikes me as pretty solidly Evil.




Same goes for stealing bread from someone else. You have no 'rights' towards the bread unless you compensate the owner (beforehand) for his time/money that was put into earning that bread. For all you know, stealing that bread could have left the owner's family to starve for the night. Regardless, you damaged his quality of life (even if slightly) by stealing from him. After all, respecting the well being of others goes hand in hand with not actively seeking to harm them (physically, emotionally, finacially, etc).

Agreed entirely. (And of course, this is all just my opinion).

It's also interesting that those who would defend actions like "stealing bread to feed someone else" always seem to put themselves in the position of the one who is deciding where the greatest good is, and deciding who has "enough" and who doesn't. The cost of a magic sword can feed a whole village for quite a while - does that mean it's morally justifiable for an NPC to steal a PC's magic sword, sell it, and use the proceeds to feed a village?

Eldonauran
2010-11-22, 09:18 PM
***snip***

I pretty much agree with everything you said here. Mortal definition of Law and Chaos (ie, Laws and breaking the laws) can, and often are, counter productive to the actual forces of Law and Chaos, especially when you mix good and even together with them.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 09:21 PM
I pretty much agree with everything you said here. Mortal definition of Law and Chaos (ie, Laws and breaking the laws) can, and often are, counter productive to the actual forces of Law and Chaos, especially when you mix good and even together with them.

Yeah, I really see Law/Chaos as Order/Chaos. While laws are typically born out of a desire for Order, Order is really the core principle. Laws are an expression of Order, not the other way around.

Stephen_E
2010-11-22, 11:08 PM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

It's simpler if u get the terms right.
Do you want to kill/murder thousands to save millions? If so general view is that it's evil, unless the people that are getting killed are defined as the enemy, in which case the people on the dishing out end tend to claim it's justified or even good. Go figure.:smallsigh:


Another situation might be at the end of the campaign, you get an option to turn yourself into some kind of mighty elder evil, but in so doing you can save an entire world or continent. Is that really evil? Is being a martyr evil?

And once you have turned into some mighty elder evil just how much destruction terror and death are you going to bring about.......


Stephen E

TheMeMan
2010-11-22, 11:14 PM
not sacrificing thousands to save millions IS sacrificing millions to save thousands. That being said some times good people have to do evil things, thats why we have the attonment spell.


On the elder evil thing, No one ever argues that martyrdom is any thing but a selfless good act. even if you are sacrificing yourself to become an elder evil, as long as you are doing it selflessly rather than selfishly it's good.

Actually, one could make the argument that not sacrificing thousands to save millions is in actuallity sacrificing everybody, as those thousands who were "spared" will likely meet the same fate as those millions who will die.

Just making an observation, here.

kyoryu
2010-11-22, 11:19 PM
Actually, one could make the argument that not sacrificing thousands to save millions is in actuallity sacrificing everybody, as those thousands who were "spared" will likely meet the same fate as those millions who will die.

Just making an observation, here.

Well, depends on the situation, obviously.

It's the "kill one of the two, or I'll kill both of them" scenario, writ large. If you kill one, the murder is on your hands - if you don't, the murder of the two is on the hands of the murderer. You don't have the culpability for the acts of another.

Killing one is still an Evil act - but it's the kind of scenario where a Good character may choose to perform the Evil act anyway.

Callista
2010-11-22, 11:33 PM
I never got the sense of that scenario. Why would it remove all culpability from you if someone else did the actual killing? Why isn't he the one to blame if you kill someone because he forced you to do it by threatening to kill two people? Why are we so hung up on who provides the physical force necessary, when really the question should be, "Who made the decision that led to the death?"

olentu
2010-11-22, 11:35 PM
Well, depends on the situation, obviously.

It's the "kill one of the two, or I'll kill both of them" scenario, writ large. If you kill one, the murder is on your hands - if you don't, the murder of the two is on the hands of the murderer. You don't have the culpability for the acts of another.

Killing one is still an Evil act - but it's the kind of scenario where a Good character may choose to perform the Evil act anyway.


I never got the sense of that scenario. Why would it remove all culpability from you if someone else did the actual killing? Why isn't he the one to blame if you kill someone because he forced you to do it by threatening to kill two people? Why are we so hung up on who provides the physical force necessary, when really the question should be, "Who made the decision that led to the death?"


Well I would think that for that view it does not have anything to do with the killer being another person really or the situation would change if it was some sort of natural phenomenon. More along the lines of it is not evil to let one person die, one million people die, everyone in the multiverse die, allow evil to gain a victory (possibly caused by a natural phenomenon) tipping the cosmic balance irrevocably to the side of evil and leading all into an eternity of torment even if you could prevent it but it is evil to preform any evil act.

Callista
2010-11-22, 11:37 PM
...it is evil to preform any evil act.Deciding not to act can also be an evil act.

olentu
2010-11-22, 11:41 PM
Deciding not to act can also be an evil act.

Not in this view apparently.

Edit: This view probably sticks deciding not to get involved as neutral.

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 12:13 AM
Well I would think that for that view it does not have anything to do with the killer being another person really or the situation would change if it was some sort of natural phenomenon. More along the lines of it is not evil to let one person die, one million people die, everyone in the multiverse die, allow evil to gain a victory (possibly caused by a natural phenomenon) tipping the cosmic balance irrevocably to the side of evil and leading all into an eternity of torment even if you could prevent it but it is evil to preform any evil act.

Well, what I'm really saying is that to really look at whether it's evil or not, I'd need more details on the scenario, what the threat is, what the character's position in everything is, exactly what action is being used to save people, etc. If there's a flood, and 200 people, and a boat that can hold 10, you grab as many people as you can... you're not killing the rest of them, and so that's not Evil. Giving the boat and choosing to sacrifice yourself is Good, getting on the boat and taking as many as you could is Neutral-to-Good. Extorting them for money is Neutral-to-Evil.

But, yeah, an Evil act is Evil. A Good character may still perform it, and that doesn't (necessarily) make them Evil. It should, however, weigh heavily on their conscience, regardless of whatever good is done as a result.



I never got the sense of that scenario. Why would it remove all culpability from you if someone else did the actual killing? Why isn't he the one to blame if you kill someone because he forced you to do it by threatening to kill two people? Why are we so hung up on who provides the physical force necessary, when really the question should be, "Who made the decision that led to the death?"

Because you don't know what he really would do. You're not in his mind, you're not in his brain.

"It's not my fault I performed an Evil act" is a pretty good step towards getting people to slide from Good to Evil. Once you're convinced you have no culpability for Evil acts that were performed under duress or for some necessity, it's just a matter of sliding that "necessary" line further and further towards the trivial.

TheMeMan
2010-11-23, 12:34 AM
Well, depends on the situation, obviously.

It's the "kill one of the two, or I'll kill both of them" scenario, writ large. If you kill one, the murder is on your hands - if you don't, the murder of the two is on the hands of the murderer. You don't have the culpability for the acts of another.

Killing one is still an Evil act - but it's the kind of scenario where a Good character may choose to perform the Evil act anyway.

Ah, yes, of course. I was actually deliberately avoiding the Good-Evil thing(As frankly, my knowledge on the intricacies of the alignment system isn't very strong). I was merely pointing out the rather glaring flaw in the common argument to the situation(That being that the 1000s saved are inherently saved from whatever tragedy will befall the millions). Although I find the whole situation flawed to begin with, to tell the truth(The particulars kind of matter, methinks, to an extent).

The main point, however, is the question of whether or not doing nothing, when given the option to do something, is Good or Evil. I wouldn't argue its necessarily either, in truth(More close to neutral, if my gauge is correct). It sets up a no-win scenario in which either action you take results in a massacre. Simply allowing millions to die due to your moral high ground, in my mind, doesn't seem all that Good, whereas killing thousands to save millions obviously is an act of evil. Several question arise from the problem.

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 12:44 AM
Ah, yes, of course. I was actually deliberately avoiding the Good-Evil thing(As frankly, my knowledge on the intricacies of the alignment system isn't very strong). I was merely pointing out the rather glaring flaw in the common argument to the situation(That being that the 1000s saved are inherently saved from whatever tragedy will befall the millions). Although I find the whole situation flawed to begin with, to tell the truth(The particulars kind of matter, methinks, to an extent).

The main point, however, is the question of whether or not doing nothing, when given the option to do something, is Good or Evil. I wouldn't argue its necessarily either, in truth(More close to neutral, if my gauge is correct). It sets up a no-win scenario in which either action you take results in a massacre. Simply allowing millions to die due to your moral high ground, in my mind, doesn't seem all that Good, whereas killing thousands to save millions obviously is an act of evil. Several question arise from the problem.

There's also a huge difference between "allowing to die" and "killing."

Part of the reason I'm asking for more specifics is that these are usually highly contrived scenarios that are explicitly designed to endorse a Utilitarian view, which is a view I reject. If you (in general, not specifically you) are going to try to lead me down that path, I get to ask for enough specifics to suggest what I think an appropriate response *is*.

And at any rate, allowing people to die isn't Good. It's Neutral, at best.

TheMeMan
2010-11-23, 12:46 AM
Well, what I'm really saying is that to really look at whether it's evil or not, I'd need more details on the scenario, what the threat is, what the character's position in everything is, exactly what action is being used to save people, etc. If there's a flood, and 200 people, and a boat that can hold 10, you grab as many people as you can... you're not killing the rest of them, and so that's not Evil. Giving the boat and choosing to sacrifice yourself is Good, getting on the boat and taking as many as you could is Neutral-to-Good. Extorting them for money is Neutral-to-Evil.


Well, that is a good point, however such a situation involved only being able to save a cerain number of people. However, consider a different, but similar situation(Keeping with floods, but adding a bit of fantasy flavor):

Say there is some Water God who demands a sacrifice of, say, 10 people. Now, lets say that the majority of the people within a valley floor have no knowledge of this deity(A stretch, but for the point its necessary). Say there are 200 people. You, personally, are put in charge of obtaining these sacrifices, by any means necessary. Likewise, alert anyone, and the valley floods.

Although a stretch in real life, a similar even could play out in a game for some dramatic tension and such. And its fantasy.

Now, presented with two options(Which may not be the only options, in reality), what does one do? Sacrifice(I wanted to be literal) 10 people to save the remaining 200, or let the 200 die? Walking away from the situation merely means you have washed your hands-not that you did anything particularly "good". One could try to fight the water deity, however if the situation is one where the power is tipped heavily in his favor, you will more than likely lose, once again dooming 200 people to die due to your rather large amounts of hubris. Given the simple choice of 10 or 200, what is a Good character to do?

Note, I'm more curious than anything, as it would be a puzzing problem to be given. Either you effectively have blood on your hands through attempting to wash them of any guilt, or you have blood on your hands for what could be the greater good.

Likewise, the point isn't to be contrived, as I think it would add an interesting dilemma to games if done correctly(But not in the "Kill a ton of random people, to save zee worlds!" sense, as that really only leaves you with two opposing options. Keeping the idea small at least gives you leeway).

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 12:50 AM
Well, that is a good point, however such a situation involved only being able to save a cerain number of people. However, consider a different, but similar situation(Keeping with floods, but adding a bit of fantasy flavor):

Say there is some Water God who demands a sacrifice of, say, 10 people. Now, lets say that the majority of the people within a valley floor have no knowledge of this deity(A stretch, but for the point its necessary). Say there are 200 people. You, personally, are put in charge of obtaining these sacrifices, by any means necessary. Likewise, alert anyone, and the valley floods.

Although a stretch in real life, a similar even could play out in a game for some dramatic tension and such. And its fantasy.

Now, presented with two options(Which may not be the only options, in reality), what does one do? Sacrifice(I wanted to be literal) 10 people to save the remaining 200, or let the 200 die? Walking away from the situation merely means you have washed your hands-not that you did anything particularly "good". One could try to fight the water deity, however if the situation is one where the power is tipped heavily in his favor, you will more than likely lose, once again dooming 200 people to die due to your rather large amounts of hubris. Given the simple choice of 10 or 200, what is a Good character to do?

Note, I'm more curious than anything, as it would be a puzzing problem to be given. Either you effectively have blood on your hands through attempting to wash them of any guilt, or you have blood on your hands for what could be the greater good.

Likewise, the point isn't to be contrived, as I think it would add an interesting dilemma to games if done correctly(But not in the "Kill a ton of random people, to save zee worlds!" sense, as that really only leaves you with two opposing options. Keeping the idea small at least gives you leeway).

I agree that it's an interesting dilemna, which is exactly why my point on it is that it's an Evil act.... but Good characters may perform Evil acts in dire enough situations. That conflict makes for very interesting roleplaying.

What I won't do - ever - is allow any form of the "just following orders" defense - which is really what that boils down to.

In general, my position is that if an ultimatum (do X, or I'll do Y) is not followed, the results fall on the head of the person making the ultimatum. The culpability for the response falls on the responder. If someone says "Give me $10, or I'll kill her", and you don't have $10, you aren't guilty of murder.

In this situation, it gets fuzzier because the X and the Y are both the same 'type' of thing. But, as far as I can see, the basic responsibilities are the same.

Callista
2010-11-23, 12:52 AM
One thing a Good character would definitely do would be to try to find a third option. He wouldn't necessarily find one, but he would definitely try.

TheMeMan
2010-11-23, 12:55 AM
I agree that it's an interesting dilemna, which is exactly why my point on it is that it's an Evil act.... but Good characters may perform Evil acts in dire enough situations. That conflict makes for very interesting roleplaying.

What I won't do - ever - is allow any form of the "just following orders" defense - which is really what that boils down to.

True, as that defense is moreso related to rationalization(Or, in D&D terms justification for Evil acts), meant moreso to wash your hands of guilt than to actually consider the implications of your actions.

Zonugal
2010-11-23, 12:58 AM
Perhaps in such a situation one would recognize there being no good solution but comes to the understanding that they will have to perform a vile deed and than seek some sort of atonement or self-forgiveness.

We all can look towards a dire situation and judge the actions done within it as performed out of necessity but we also have to come to accept that the decisions were of a dark nature.

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 12:59 AM
Perhaps in such a situation one would recognize there being no good solution but comes to the understanding that they will have to perform a vile deed and than seek some sort of atonement or self-forgiveness.

We all can look towards a dire situation and judge the actions done within it as performed out of necessity but we also have to come to accept that the decisions were of a dark nature.

... and this is exactly my point. You may decide to sacrifice the 10 to the water god to save the 200... but that doesn't mean it wasn't an Evil act, and that doesn't mean that the equivalent of some kind of atonement isn't appropriate.

Cerlis
2010-11-23, 01:07 AM
it really depends on the situation. If there is 100% no other way (the god who never lies and cannot interfere tells you there is no other way, repeat cannot, not will not)

then you are NOT sacrificing thousands to save millions, you are saving as many people as can be saved.

However, in many situations you see, the situations are alot more maleable. its not "You got two seconds, press this button to kill these people or press this button to kill these other people", you often have those situations in movies and books. but more often than not there is one, many or thousands of other options.

Is saving as many people as you can evil? no, its good you are doing your best. Is taking many lives in your hands and judging that their lives arent worth you doing....SOMETHING to find another way evil? Yes. at least in the sense that you are sacrificing all their lives because you dont want (for whatever reason) to find another way.

For example, at the risk of bringing in a serious topic, I'd consider the Atom Bombing of WW2 necessary. But it was evil and always will be. Sacrificing thousands of lives to save thousands of other lives because you are afraid that if you dont stop the fighting now a few more lives MIGHT be lost, or your country might look weak..or whatever.

I hate subjects and questions where people ask "Would you rather do this or that" (Would you rather let your wife get shot or your Child"). I'm like WHAT? under what circumstances would i only have that choice? I'd fake something to stall long enough to stop the shooter or use myself as a shield for them as i take him down! There are some situations in fantasy where there is no other choice, but almost every other time there is SOME choice. If you have to be tortured for literally eternity to save those lives you do it. If necessary you ask hundreds of people to make the sacrifice, but you dont make the choice for others unless there is no choice to be made.

Zonugal
2010-11-23, 01:26 AM
I think a really good example of such a situation like that is the Matrix trilogy. Neo is told by the Architect about the destruction of Zion and his options, but Neo seeks out another way.

0mar
2010-11-23, 01:37 AM
On these sorts of questions, the alignment system breaks down.

There are a few real life examples to draw upon.

Was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good act or an evil act? It was, supposedly, the least evil of all options. It is a literal case of sacrificing thousands for millions. In the DnD sense though, there's no good answer. The other options were sacrificing a million American troops and millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Unfortunately, we don't know whether this worst case scenario would play out. Perhaps Japanese morale would plummet once Allied troops made landfall. Perhaps diplomacy might have worked. Yet, I'd argue that the atomic bombings weren't evil because given the history and time constraints, there were no other good options.

Likewise, Stalin's no-retreat no-surrender option was another case of sacrificing millions to save even more people. Any sane person would have surrendered in 1941 when German troops occupied the most important locations in Russia. Given the hindsight of history, we can see that Stalin's orders were the best option of a truly bad lot, but in the moment, it was suicidal. Was sending millions of young boys without sufficient training and sufficient arms evil? Many of the initial Soviet units during this period had casualty rates in the 80-90%. All because Stalin didn't want to lose. He didn't do it for his countrymen or for the greater good; it was literally because he did not want to lose. The vanity of one man doomed millions to their deaths and saved millions more.

Trying to analyze these two scenarios (and countless others) under the DnD system inevitably leads to the discussion going on here. We fuddle around with concepts of rights/authority and the greater good. DnD doesn't allow for any grayness; it's pretty much a black and white system. That's why, IMO, it has to be up to the DM. Of course, you need a learned DM...

olentu
2010-11-23, 02:06 AM
Well, that is a good point, however such a situation involved only being able to save a cerain number of people. However, consider a different, but similar situation(Keeping with floods, but adding a bit of fantasy flavor):

Say there is some Water God who demands a sacrifice of, say, 10 people. Now, lets say that the majority of the people within a valley floor have no knowledge of this deity(A stretch, but for the point its necessary). Say there are 200 people. You, personally, are put in charge of obtaining these sacrifices, by any means necessary. Likewise, alert anyone, and the valley floods.

Although a stretch in real life, a similar even could play out in a game for some dramatic tension and such. And its fantasy.

Now, presented with two options(Which may not be the only options, in reality), what does one do? Sacrifice(I wanted to be literal) 10 people to save the remaining 200, or let the 200 die? Walking away from the situation merely means you have washed your hands-not that you did anything particularly "good". One could try to fight the water deity, however if the situation is one where the power is tipped heavily in his favor, you will more than likely lose, once again dooming 200 people to die due to your rather large amounts of hubris. Given the simple choice of 10 or 200, what is a Good character to do?

Note, I'm more curious than anything, as it would be a puzzing problem to be given. Either you effectively have blood on your hands through attempting to wash them of any guilt, or you have blood on your hands for what could be the greater good.

Likewise, the point isn't to be contrived, as I think it would add an interesting dilemma to games if done correctly(But not in the "Kill a ton of random people, to save zee worlds!" sense, as that really only leaves you with two opposing options. Keeping the idea small at least gives you leeway).

Well it depends is the situation that the people can not be moved and so will all die the god is not able to be defeated and will not relent. Well I suppose you could ask for some sacrifices and if not then it looks like a lot of people are going to die or you decide whatever and do some evil to save the day.

Frosty
2010-11-23, 02:24 AM
If you truly have no knowledge of other options, and have gone beyond a reasonable level to exhaust attempts at finding other options, then I say it is not. But this is a question debated by philosophers and priests since the day the ideas of good and evil first dawned in our brains...
The debate really take sup too much energy and gets nowhere. People can call actions evil if they want. The hero will live with it because he's the hero. He makes the tough decisions and will bear the criticisms of those who sat safe on their high horses.

chiasaur11
2010-11-23, 02:38 AM
Generally not.

Winning a best town award for a bunch of years running doesn't justify a long history of brutal murder.

That's what Sgt. Angel taught me.

Well, that and firing 2 guns whist jumping through the air.

Cerlis
2010-11-23, 02:50 AM
On these sorts of questions, the alignment system breaks down.

There are a few real life examples to draw upon.

Was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good act or an evil act? It was, supposedly, the least evil of all options. It is a literal case of sacrificing thousands for millions. In the DnD sense though, there's no good answer. The other options were sacrificing a million American troops and millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Unfortunately, we don't know whether this worst case scenario would play out. Perhaps Japanese morale would plummet once Allied troops made landfall. Perhaps diplomacy might have worked. Yet, I'd argue that the atomic bombings weren't evil because given the history and time constraints, there were no other good options.

Likewise, Stalin's no-retreat no-surrender option was another case of sacrificing millions to save even more people. Any sane person would have surrendered in 1941 when German troops occupied the most important locations in Russia. Given the hindsight of history, we can see that Stalin's orders were the best option of a truly bad lot, but in the moment, it was suicidal. Was sending millions of young boys without sufficient training and sufficient arms evil? Many of the initial Soviet units during this period had casualty rates in the 80-90%. All because Stalin didn't want to lose. He didn't do it for his countrymen or for the greater good; it was literally because he did not want to lose. The vanity of one man doomed millions to their deaths and saved millions more.

Trying to analyze these two scenarios (and countless others) under the DnD system inevitably leads to the discussion going on here. We fuddle around with concepts of rights/authority and the greater good. DnD doesn't allow for any grayness; it's pretty much a black and white system. That's why, IMO, it has to be up to the DM. Of course, you need a learned DM...

Actually that (the bombing) would be an evil act for the greater good. Im pretty sure (i literally mean i'm not 100% sure, i'm not being snide) that most people here agree that just cus a particular act you do is evil, doesnt mean you'd be called evil. Just as paladins can commit minor Chaotic acts without becoming unlawful, good characters can perform some evil acts if its for good. The only thing that makes it an issue is good clerics and paladins who embody good and thus lose their embodyment of good by tainting themselves. (in such a scenario they would leave it up to their deities. See O-chul. He couldnt win against redcloak and had to leave it up to the Gods to save the citizens. Ochul is a fine example of a true paladin)

If you look at the intent rather than the literal words, the DnD system is fine for even this i think. you can commit good for evil, and evil for good. The action is still good or evil, and doing so doesnt automatically change your alignment.

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 02:55 AM
The debate really take sup too much energy and gets nowhere. People can call actions evil if they want. The hero will live with it because he's the hero. He makes the tough decisions and will bear the criticisms of those who sat safe on their high horses.

Pretty much exactly.

Except he'll also feel tremendous guilt for his actions. In the "kill one, or I kill both" scenario, he'll truly regret killing the one (if he chooses that). He'll probably need the equivalent of Atonement.

He may still do it, feeling that it is necessary. But he won't delude himself that it's a Good act. When he starts to feel no remorse for such actions is when the slide towards Evil begins.

Vizzerdrix
2010-11-23, 03:04 AM
I would say yes, it is Evil. However, sometimes the Evil thing can be the Right thing to do. If this brings a hoard of paladins down on you make sure you ask them what THEY would have done in your place.

JaronK
2010-11-23, 03:09 AM
I have an evil necromancer that loves moves like this (though it's more likely just raising dead heroes to fight for the same causes they fought for in life). Then he guilt trips paladins over the fact that they couldn't have saved the day.

JaronK

Winter_Wolf
2010-11-23, 03:14 AM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.


This is very much an "ends justify the means" mentality, which is specifically mentioned in at least one edition of D&D as being Evil.

But let's break this down into average D&D adventurer mentality: do those thousands have green skin and phat lewt? :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 05:09 AM
Authority only matters to Lawful people anyway, so adding it to the equation is causing more complications than are necessary.

I don't know about that. Personally, I would say that Authority can matter to chaotic people as well- only for them, it's moral authority rather than legal authority.

An elven soldier, will accept an order from his elven general to "Go In Harm's Way" as a distraction so as to ensure elven civilians can be evacuated while the soldier is fighting and dying to cover their retreat- because he accepts the moral authority of the general to give him that order.

That said, the idea that the captain of a ship, has the moral authority to sacrifice some of the passengers on the ship if it's the only way to save it- because they have given consent by boarding it, can run into issues.

What if some of the passengers are children?
And what if it was a generation ship, where people have been born aboard it and grown up (with each captain training people to become his successor, and appointing a successor from the best of the candidates)?

Then, you can apply such thinking to the Earth, and it's countries, as "the ultimate Generation ship". After all, a country can be referred to as "The ship of state".

Does a ruler (monarch, Elected Council, etc) have the same moral authority over the people of his country, as a Captain has over the passengers of his ship?

When "sacrifice is not always "An Evil Act" if it's "The Only Way", and done by people with the moral authority to make that kind of decision"

then all kinds of interesting questions can be raised, about when sacrifice violates people's rights, and when it doesn't violate people's rights.

Cerlis
2010-11-23, 05:47 AM
I don't know about that. Personally, I would say that Authority can matter to chaotic people as well- only for them, it's moral authority rather than legal authority.

An elven soldier, will accept an order from his elven general to "Go In Harm's Way" as a distraction so as to ensure elven civilians can be evacuated while the soldier is fighting and dying to cover their retreat- because he accepts the moral authority of the general to give him that order.

That said, the idea that the captain of a ship, has the moral authority to sacrifice some of the passengers on the ship if it's the only way to save it- because they have given consent by boarding it, can run into issues.

What if some of the passengers are children?
And what if it was a generation ship, where people have been born aboard it and grown up (with each captain training people to become his successor, and appointing a successor from the best of the candidates)?

Then, you can apply such thinking to the Earth, and it's countries, as "the ultimate Generation ship". After all, a country can be referred to as "The ship of state".

Does a ruler (monarch, Elected Council, etc) have the same moral authority over the people of his country, as a Captain has over the passengers of his ship?

When "sacrifice is not always "An Evil Act" if it's "The Only Way", and done by people with the moral authority to make that kind of decision"

then all kinds of interesting questions can be raised, about when sacrifice violates people's rights, and when it doesn't violate people's rights.

I'm reminded in The Dark Knight, how...
Both ships, civilians and Criminals, knew that if they didnt kill the other ship, the other ship's passengers would kill them. Because "They are criminals and dont care about us" or "We are Criminals and people dont care about us. But in the end, each side basically decided to take the risk, knowing that saving their own lives, and the lives of their family, at the expense of so many others was wrong.
So from what i see of everyone talking , and stuff from other threads, i think the general consensus is that.

-Choosing one side when there is definately no other choice is neutral-because you are merely trying to preserve as much as you can
-Choosing a side when its possible there could be others options, including/even self sacrifice is evil
-and in the example above, the choicees stepping up and volenteering to be sacrificed so the other group doesnt, is a exquisitely good act.


Each instance, if there is no luck, divine intervention, or other variables. May result in many, hundreds, thousands, millions of lives lost. but Morally its all about choice. As it is with any other Aligned act

Tharkie
2010-11-23, 06:35 AM
not sacrificing thousands to save millions IS sacrificing millions to save thousands.

Not if the only reason those thousands need saving in the first place is because you decided to murder them.

Killer Angel
2010-11-23, 07:11 AM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil?

Yes, it's evil. Call it a necessary evil.
You don't sacrifice thousands to feel good, you do it 'cause the alternative is far worse.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 07:18 AM
Yes, it's evil. Call it a necessary evil.

And what about my starship example, where sacrificing some, to save others, might not qualify as Evil? (at least, a case can be made for it being slightly different).

Fawsto
2010-11-23, 07:35 AM
I am a personal fan of Nicoló Machiaveli, who would agree, by an ends justify the means perspective that the sacrifice of few to save many is something excusable. Not good. Just excusable. And evil, definetly.

Sometimes, however, it is the only answer. But hell, here comes DnD with moral standards that we cannot measure in real life. Using the concept of good and nobility, sacrificing innocents is never excusable, no matter the cause. This is because your final goal is to be "good and noble".

If your goal is, lets say, "save the world", then sacrifice is ok to achieve that, since your goal is not to be "good". Now, it becomes inexcusable again if your goal is "save the world in a good way". You see how complex this is?

This is central argument used by Machiavelli (quote): While the goal of the "Prince" is to protect his country, all means used to achieve that are palusible, evil or not. Morality (good vs. evil), does not have a role here.

Killer Angel
2010-11-23, 07:48 AM
And what about my starship example, where sacrificing some, to save others, might not qualify as Evil? (at least, a case can be made for it being slightly different).

*check quickly*

Well, when you read:


"he looked at the Captain of the Balefire with a slow horror.

"How much power did you take from the cylinders, Captain? How much?"

It's clear that the act is not good. It was a forced necessity, you've got plenty of excusations.
Evil often lurks in the intentions, so here we could have a neutral (evil?) act, certainly not Evil with the capital letter. That gives a lot of moral problems to the one who committed it.
If you have remorse, the act isn't good, and i think neither neutral, otherwise there is no need to feel "guilty", even if no one will ever condemn you for it.


Edit: BTW, cool story.

JaronK
2010-11-23, 08:01 AM
With that refugees on a space ship thing, I think his action was morally neutral, not evil. If he hadn't acted, everyone would have died. His action saved a few, including himself. It's logical, rational, and appropriate. There's nothing evil about it (everyone he killed would have died at the same point). But it was also as much about himself as anything else, so he's hardly a moral champion for doing it.

He made the right call. Not the good or evil call. The horror was not at the evil... it was at how horrible a choice it must have been. But still a necessary one.

JaronK

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 09:13 AM
saved a few, including himself. It's logical, rational, and appropriate. There's nothing evil about it (everyone he killed would have died at the same point). But it was also as much about himself as anything else, so he's hardly a moral champion for doing it.

it's not clear whether "If I don't do this, I'm going to die" or "If I don't do this, they're all going to die" was paramount in his mind-

but either way, even for those saying D&D is primarily deontological,

it's one of the few cases of "Sacrificing the Innocent" that some posters arguing D&D is deontological, will say "Does not qualify as an Evil act".

Not a "Good" act- but not an "Evil" act either- thus, not Fall-worthy.

So, it may be a useful benchmark for "Sacrificing the Innocent is Not Always Evil"- thus, allowing for organizations like the paladin-heavy Order of Illumination to exist, without breaking RAW.



Edit: BTW, cool story.

Simon R. Green is a particularly good fantasy and space opera author- even if his settings are often very over-the-top, to the point of approaching 40K in style.


But hell, here comes DnD with moral standards that we cannot measure in real life. Using the concept of good and nobility, sacrificing innocents is never excusable, no matter the cause. This is because your final goal is to be "good and noble".

Like I said, there's an order (mostly LG and LN), with PRCs which only Lawful Good divine casters can take, called the Order of Illumination, in Complete Adventurer- and a fundamental part of its doctrine, is that in the fight against Evil (and the defense of innocents from it) sometimes, sacrificing innocent lives is the only right option.

olentu
2010-11-23, 12:14 PM
And what about my starship example, where sacrificing some, to save others, might not qualify as Evil? (at least, a case can be made for it being slightly different).

Well I don't know is it actually defined as evil to kill the innocent if not for personal gain. I suppose so far as I can tell it comes down to if removing the necessary environment for life is considered violence. If it is then I would have to rule that the act was evil by extension of the situation of casting say a fireball on the same people. If not then it is not evil but apparently suffocating the innocent is fine while burning them with fire is not.

TheMeMan
2010-11-23, 12:35 PM
I am a personal fan of Nicoló Machiaveli, who would agree, by an ends justify the means perspective that the sacrifice of few to save many is something excusable. Not good. Just excusable. And evil, definetly.

Sometimes, however, it is the only answer. But hell, here comes DnD with moral standards that we cannot measure in real life. Using the concept of good and nobility, sacrificing innocents is never excusable, no matter the cause. This is because your final goal is to be "good and noble".

If your goal is, lets say, "save the world", then sacrifice is ok to achieve that, since your goal is not to be "good". Now, it becomes inexcusable again if your goal is "save the world in a good way". You see how complex this is?

This is central argument used by Machiavelli (quote): While the goal of the "Prince" is to protect his country, all means used to achieve that are palusible, evil or not. Morality (good vs. evil), does not have a role here.

:smallconfused:

Machiavelli would most certainly not agree. The Prince was satire, pure and simple.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 12:56 PM
The Discourses repeats many of the arguments in The Prince- but for a republic- and wasn't satire, though.


Well I don't know is it actually defined as evil to kill the innocent if not for personal gain. I suppose so far as I can tell it comes down to if removing the necessary environment for life is considered violence.

Another example of "sacrificing the few to save the many" is a mass vaccination during a major outbreak of a highly lethal, highly contagious disease.

If the vaccine itself has a high lethality rate (say, 1% or so) and the population is big enough, millions of people may be killed by the vaccine alone.

And, thanks to the fact that few diseases infect everybody, or have a 100% lethality rate, it's possible that a small proportion of the people killed by the vaccine, wouldn't have been killed by the outbreak.

And what happens when people refuse to take the vaccine? Does forcing it on them, knowing it will kill some, become a violation of their rights?

(Alternatively though, people have no moral or legal right to endanger others, refusing a vaccine during a major outbreak counts as endangering others, therefore forcing it on them, becomes Not A Rights Violation.)

Even with this though, it could be said, that an innocent few are being sacrificed, in the process of saving the many.

Should this qualify as an evil act? Or, is this another possible case of "sacrificing the innocent is not always an evil act"?

olentu
2010-11-23, 01:05 PM
The Discourses repeats many of the arguments in The Prince- but for a republic- and wasn't satire, though.



Another example of "sacrificing the few to save the many" is a mass vaccination during a major outbreak of a highly lethal, highly contagious disease.

If the vaccine itself has a high lethality rate (say, 1% or so) and the population is big enough, millions of people may be killed by the vaccine alone.

And, thanks to the fact that few diseases infect everybody, or have a 100% lethality rate, it's possible that a small proportion of the people killed by the vaccine, wouldn't have been killed by the outbreak.

And what happens when people refuse to take the vaccine? Does forcing it on them, knowing it will kill some, become a violation of their rights?

(Alternatively though, people have no moral or legal right to endanger others, refusing a vaccine during a major outbreak counts as endangering others, therefore forcing it on them, becomes Not A Rights Violation.)

Even with this though, it could be said, that an innocent few are being sacrificed, in the process of saving the many.

Should this qualify as an evil act? Or, is this another possible case of "sacrificing the innocent is not always an evil act"?

Again that depends is forcing people to take a potentially lethal substance considered violence. If yes then again I would have to rule it is an evil act by extension of fireballing the same group. If it is not then apparently exposing the innocent to compounds that may kill them is fine (so long as it is not stat damaging poison) while exposing them to fire is not.

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 01:08 PM
Again that depends is forcing people to take a potentially lethal substance considered violence. If yes then again I would have to rule it is an evil act by extension of fireballing the same group. If it is not then apparently exposing the innocent to compounds that may kill them is fine (so long as it is not stat damaging poison) while exposing them to fire is not.

See, and the nice thing about rights-based alignment is that these types of situations - which are very morally murky - are the ones where the conflict still exists, but it gives us a better framework to analyze the situation from.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 01:20 PM
"Does the initiation of violence against an innocent person, always qualify as an evil act?" can be a tricky question.

That said, in the vaccine case, one could argue, that by refusing a vaccine, a person ceases to be Innocent- since they are knowingly endangering others.

Thus, the initiation of violence- being intended solely to protect others from the threat posed by an unvaccinated person during an outbreak, might no longer qualify as a rights violation.

In the Starship case though, there's no issue of the passengers violating the rights of other passengers by refusing to let their life-support be transferred away from them- they aren't conscious and cannot consent or refuse.

olentu
2010-11-23, 01:21 PM
See, and the nice thing about rights-based alignment is that these types of situations - which are very morally murky - are the ones where the conflict still exists, but it gives us a better framework to analyze the situation from.

Eh well it does not give me a better framework since I am working from D&D rules. So even something that one has the right to do say by being given explicit consent by all that will be impacted may still be absolutely evil.


"Does the initiation of violence against an innocent person, always qualify as an evil act?" can be a tricky question.

That said, in the vaccine case, one could argue, that by refusing a vaccine, a person ceases to be Innocent- since they are knowingly endangering others.

Thus, the initiation of violence- being intended solely to protect others from the threat posed by an unvaccinated person during an outbreak, might no longer qualify as a rights violation.

In the Starship case though, there's no issue of the passengers violating the rights of other passengers by refusing to let their life-support be transferred away from them- they aren't conscious and cannot consent or refuse.

Well I suppose that one could argue that by not taking the vaccine the person has entered in to combat against all other people and thus is a viable target for any and all non evil forms of violence. It still has nothing to to with rights though.

All in all though that rather works for anything and so it is still either all or nothing.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 01:36 PM
It still has nothing to to with rights though.


The right at stake is "the right to not have violence initiated against you if you are threatening no-one"

Possibly a subset of "right to life"- that is, the right to not have your life ended without just cause.

kyoryu
2010-11-23, 01:37 PM
Eh well it does not give me a better framework since I am working from D&D rules. So even something that one has the right to do say by being given explicit consent by all that will be impacted may still be absolutely evil.


Such as? I find the rights-based framework to be pretty consistent with D&D rules overall.

In the "Kill one, or I kill both scenario," a Paladin who chose to kill one would Fall, and require Atonement. That seems right to me.

The only scenarios where it doesn't work are ones involving Evil spells or the like - the rights-based framework is pretty clearly a framework of *mortal* morality, and so supernatural effects that are tagged Evil supercede it. If you're working with pure Evil energy in concentrated form (the Four Loko of Evil, as it were), yeah, it's Evil.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 01:42 PM
The only scenarios where it doesn't work are ones involving Evil spells or the like - the rights-based framework is pretty clearly a framework of *mortal* morality, and so supernatural effects that are tagged Evil supercede it. If you're working with pure Evil energy in concentrated form (the Four Loko of Evil, as it were), yeah, it's Evil.

And, for some reason- the channelling of negative energy (in the form of Rebuke/Command Undead attempts) according to PHB.

Negative energy plane is neutral- Inflict spells and Harm spells have no alignment tag.

Yet if you rebuke one skeleton, that's an Evil act.
Probably won't change your alignment though unless done a lot.

And even if done a lot, if the intentions are always Good, and the character does Good acts as well, they can maintain a Neutral alignment.

The same may apply to [Evil] spells, as well.

olentu
2010-11-23, 01:49 PM
The right at stake is "the right to not have violence initiated against you if you are threatening no-one"

Possibly a subset of "right to life"- that is, the right to not have your life ended without just cause.

Well you could frame it in that way but it would still not matter if it was considered a person's right or not it would still be evil. Even if the rules explicitly stated that said right is not the right of any creature or that it is the right of all creatures to initiate violence against any other it would still be evil and for that reason I consider it to have nothing to do with rights.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 01:52 PM
The thing is, that the rules don't explicitly state:

"Harming an innocent is an evil act"

(They do state for a paladin, that they are expected to "punish those that harm or threaten innocents)

But this is not the same thing.

There's rules that explicitly call out Murder as an Evil act (BoVD, FC2).

Again, not all forms of Killing The Innocent, automatically qualify as murder.

olentu
2010-11-23, 01:59 PM
The thing is, that the rules don't explicitly state:

"Harming an innocent is an evil act"

(They do state for a paladin, that they are expected to "punish those that harm or threaten innocents)

But this is not the same thing.

There's rules that explicitly call out Murder as an Evil act (BoVD, FC2).

Again, not all forms of Killing The Innocent, automatically qualify as murder.

Well I have admitted that I am extending from the explicitly evil fireball example but I would say that is a reasonable extension when given in the context of against whom the violence is directed. However I seem to have been imprecise in my word usage it is not innocents that matter it is noncombatants. Thus the explanation that if one can be classified as a combatant (as in the vaccine scenario) non evil violence is perfectly fine.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 02:04 PM
Thus the explanation that if one can be classified as a combatant (as in the vaccine scenario) non evil violence is perfectly fine.

problem is, there's no way of classing civilians, in stasis, aboard a ship that is under attack, as combatants.

Here, inaction becomes much more culpable- the captain has a duty to save his passengers- even if the method of doing so, will kill some of them.

olentu
2010-11-23, 02:08 PM
problem is, there's no way of classing civilians, in stasis, aboard a ship that is under attack, as combatants.

Here, inaction becomes much more culpable- the captain has a duty to save his passengers- even if the method of doing so, will kill some of them.

I can probably classify anything as combatants in a logically consistent way. One may not agree with the premises used but that does not mean I can not do it.

hamishspence
2010-11-23, 02:12 PM
The thing is, they have no physical ability to harm anybody. They are not even awake. They have no combat training, And many, will be infants or children.

It's a refugee ship with fifteen thousand refugees in it.

I don't think there's any legal or moral grounds that could be used to apply the term "combatant".

olentu
2010-11-23, 07:36 PM
The thing is, they have no physical ability to harm anybody. They are not even awake. They have no combat training, And many, will be infants or children.

It's a refugee ship with fifteen thousand refugees in it.

I don't think there's any legal or moral grounds that could be used to apply the term "combatant".

Eh I could say the same about a lot of things. But like I said if one is going with anything sort of like combat maybe just a bit then it could be stretched to basically anything.

The alternative of course is to have a tightly restricted definition of combatant but that requires consensus.

hamishspence
2010-11-24, 03:50 AM
The BoED example is a good one for situations where there is a war, noncombatants as well as combatants, are all over the field, and the temptation is there to maximize the chances of victory by being indiscriminate, and firing off fireballs at any large concentration of combatants, even if you can see there are non-combatants in with them.

Which is a big no-no.

Outside of a "mixed combatants and noncombatants" situation, it becomes trickier.

In these cases "protect the innocent" may be a paladin's highest duty- and sometimes, the only means of "protecting the innocent" may kill some innocents in the process.

Such as the aforementioned "divert power from life-support to reinforce the shields"

Or "distribute a vaccine that, while it will save most people, will kill some".

My approach to the situation of homicide (any homicide) by a paladin, is as follows:

"Would a fair and impartial court in possession of all the facts, be expected to convict the paladin of murder (in any degree) manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) "causing death by reckless endangerment" or any other such crime- or would they be expected to find the paladin to have committed Justified Homicide?"

If they would be expected to convict- the homicide was unjustified, an evil act, and would cause the paladin to fall.

If they would be expected to find the homicide Justified, the paladin would not fall.

Burner28
2010-11-24, 06:06 AM
Stealing=evil? Really? Always? What if you're stealing a slave from his rightful owner?

you can't by definition steal slaves by freeing them as noone has the right to owing them in the first place. It is in fact the slave owner who is the real thief in a way (that is if you are defining theft as a legal term and not as unjustly taking something that doesn't belong to you). freeing a slave is as unambiguously an Good act as you can get.

dsmiles
2010-11-24, 07:23 AM
you can't by definition steal slaves by freeing them as noone has the right to owing them in the first place. It is in fact the slave owner who is the real thief in a way (that is if you are defining theft as a legal term and not as unjustly taking something that doesn't belong to you). freeing a slave is as unambiguously an Good act as you can get.Ah, but it could be against the law. Which, in the nation that had said laws, would make it stealing. Regardless of the G-N-E axis, theft of property is against the law.

hamishspence
2010-11-24, 07:25 AM
Ah, but it could be against the law. Which, in the nation that had said laws, would make it stealing. Regardless of the G-N-E axis, theft of property is against the law.

Porthos's sig, quoting a WoTC article, said it best:
Being Lawful doesn't mean you have to follow the Law (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

dsmiles
2010-11-24, 07:32 AM
Porthos's sig, quoting a WoTC article, said it best:
Being Lawful doesn't mean you have to follow the Law (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Oh, I know that. I was trying to help define theft. Stealing a slave, in a nation that allows for slavery, would indeed be theft, and punishable under the law, regardless of the (G-N-E)-ness of the act itself. Devil's advocate, and all. I'm fairly certain that it's a good act, myself, but it would still be theft (as defined in terms of legality).

hamishspence
2010-11-24, 08:04 AM
I'm fairly certain that it's a good act, myself, but it would still be theft (as defined in terms of legality).

Thing is, one could argue, that the nation has no moral right to define people as property.

It's a bit like redefining murder to include "any killing, defensive or otherwise, of a slaveowner by a slave".

It might be "legally murder" but arguably, a definition of murder that includes killing in self defense, is an invalid definition in a moral sense.

dsmiles
2010-11-24, 08:14 AM
Thing is, one could argue, that the nation has no moral right to define people as property.

It's a bit like redefining murder to include "any killing, defensive or otherwise, of a slaveowner by a slave".

It might be "legally murder" but arguably, a definition of murder that includes killing in self defense, is an invalid definition in a moral sense.

That is, of course, assuming an objective alignment system. In such a system, any nation that allows slavery would be, overall, Neutral (at best) to Evil (on average). Evil nations are evil by defninition, and should not be allowed to exist, by the moral standards of objective alignment. The Good Guys (PCs and Good-aligned nations) should be stamping these guys out at the first opportunity.

Burner28
2010-11-24, 08:16 AM
One important thing-people are not properties!! :furious:

dsmiles
2010-11-24, 08:29 AM
One important thing-people are not properties!! :furious:

Chill, dude. During many eras in world history, people could be defined as property. Just because our modern morality is more justified than past moralities, doesn't mean that is was always that way. Nor does it mean that in fantasy-fiction that it has to be that way. Sure slavery is evil, but that doesn't meant that it's not legal in certain fantasy-fiction nations. That is the point I was getting at. I wasn't discussing morality I was discussing legality. Freeing a slave isn't evil, but may be against the laws of that particular nation, and punishable under said laws.

olentu
2010-11-24, 08:57 AM
The BoED example is a good one for situations where there is a war, noncombatants as well as combatants, are all over the field, and the temptation is there to maximize the chances of victory by being indiscriminate, and firing off fireballs at any large concentration of combatants, even if you can see there are non-combatants in with them.

Which is a big no-no.

Outside of a "mixed combatants and noncombatants" situation, it becomes trickier.

In these cases "protect the innocent" may be a paladin's highest duty- and sometimes, the only means of "protecting the innocent" may kill some innocents in the process.

Such as the aforementioned "divert power from life-support to reinforce the shields"

Or "distribute a vaccine that, while it will save most people, will kill some".

My approach to the situation of homicide (any homicide) by a paladin, is as follows:

"Would a fair and impartial court in possession of all the facts, be expected to convict the paladin of murder (in any degree) manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) "causing death by reckless endangerment" or any other such crime- or would they be expected to find the paladin to have committed Justified Homicide?"

If they would be expected to convict- the homicide was unjustified, an evil act, and would cause the paladin to fall.

If they would be expected to find the homicide Justified, the paladin would not fall.

While it may occur more often in a war no war is required in the example. So it applies everywhere someone directs violence against noncombatants or it applies basically nowhere and absolutely any violence against noncombatants is just fine so long as it is not for an evil cause or I suppose evil violence leading of course to it being just fine to kill everyone for a good cause.

hamishspence
2010-11-24, 10:05 AM
A person who is tied up and about to be executed for a serious crime, is a noncombatant- and yet, it specifies that Execution Is Not Automatically Evil.

So is it only innocent noncombatants that you can't attack?

Why is it evil to drop a fireball on a enemy combat squad of orcs if there's one orc noncombatant among them, but not evil for that noncombatant to be executed for a serious crime afterward?

Possibly, because when you don't yet know if a being has done something deserving of death, you can't (if they are not a combatant) kill them, until you know- the rules require you to be discriminating.

So, there are times when violence against "noncombatants" is not evil (execution) and times when it is evil (during a combat, when the noncombatant is in with a bunch of combatants).

Question may be "Does the violence, against noncombatants, violate their rights"?
Another notable example- separating conjoined twins, when leaving them together makes it certain both will die, and separating them makes it certain one will die.

In a sense, by separating them, you are killing one- which is "violence"- but, does that one have a right to live just a tiny bit longer if by doing so, the result is both will die?

I believe the point of the BoED example was to indicate, that Exalted characters can never commit unjustifiable homicide and remain Exalted. Intentionally killing noncombatants in any kind of combat situation, is "unjustifiable homicide" which soldiers, cops, etc can face charges for.

But not all homicide, even against "the innocent" falls into the class of "unjustifiable homicide".

kyoryu
2010-11-24, 02:15 PM
A person who is tied up and about to be executed for a serious crime, is a noncombatant- and yet, it specifies that Execution Is Not Automatically Evil.

So is it only innocent noncombatants that you can't attack?

Generally. However, you can certainly ask questions about what is or isn't a non-combatant. If you're wandering around with an active combat squad, it's reasonable to call you a "combatant." There's a difference between that and deliberately attacking civilian areas/etc.


Why is it evil to drop a fireball on a enemy combat squad of orcs if there's one orc noncombatant among them, but not evil for that noncombatant to be executed for a serious crime afterward?

I don't think it is. If you're in a combat squad, it's reasonable to call you a combatant.


Possibly, because when you don't yet know if a being has done something deserving of death, you can't (if they are not a combatant) kill them, until you know- the rules require you to be discriminating.

Which is why execution isn't auto-Evil. But, for it to be non-Evil, it'd have to be at the end of a trial/etc.


So, there are times when violence against "noncombatants" is not evil (execution) and times when it is evil (during a combat, when the noncombatant is in with a bunch of combatants).

I don't accept that the one "non-combatant" in the middle of a group of combatants really is a non-combatant. Why is he there in the first place?


Question may be "Does the violence, against noncombatants, violate their rights"?

If they are truly noncombatants, then *probably*. As you scale up from individual actions, it gets fuzzier. War has always included civilian casualties, and always will - however at that point it makes more sense to look at things from a group vs. group standpoint, rather than an individual morality standpoint. A nation has a right to defend itself against another nation.


Another notable example- separating conjoined twins, when leaving them together makes it certain both will die, and separating them makes it certain one will die.

In a sense, by separating them, you are killing one- which is "violence"- but, does that one have a right to live just a tiny bit longer if by doing so, the result is both will die?

How old are the twins? If they're old enough to think for themselves, they should make the decision. If not, it should be up to the parents (who get to make those decisions in place of the children until they're of sufficient age to be responsible for themselves). It's not up to the doctor - he should just present the options and follow their wishes.

This brings up something kind of interesting. There's a lot of focus in this thread on *acts*, while I think I'm more focused on *decisions*, and who has the right to make them. In the "Kill one or I kill both" scenario, it's an Evil act to kill one of the hostages (though it may be justified). If they agree to be sacrificed to save the other, I don't believe that it's Evil any more.

The person that the ultimatum is delivered to doesn't have the right to make that decision - the potential victims *do*.


I believe the point of the BoED example was to indicate, that Exalted characters can never commit unjustifiable homicide and remain Exalted. Intentionally killing noncombatants in any kind of combat situation, is "unjustifiable homicide" which soldiers, cops, etc can face charges for.

As it should. However, at some point you lose the "noncombatant" shield by your actions. Hostages, sure. A bunch of civilians in a tavern with some bad guys? Sure. People hanging around with an active warband while they're engaging in combat, or even positioning for combat? I don't quite buy that they're noncombatants any more.

randomhero00
2010-11-24, 02:49 PM
Interesting discussion. Suffice to say my conclusion is that I hate the alignment system the most about DnD. Second thing I hate the most are levels 1-3 and epic levels.

hamishspence
2010-11-24, 05:27 PM
As it should. However, at some point you lose the "noncombatant" shield by your actions. Hostages, sure. A bunch of civilians in a tavern with some bad guys? Sure. People hanging around with an active warband while they're engaging in combat, or even positioning for combat? I don't quite buy that they're noncombatants any more.

Camp followers of any sort might end up in this position. Or a soldier who has a child, and carries them in a sling on their back everywhere they go.

It's not hard to imagine an orc warband on the move, taking even their civilians with them when they're in a hurry, or their encampment's come under attack.

Idless
2010-11-24, 06:12 PM
Remember, we are talking an RPG here, not universal morality

And yeah, in a fiction such as the one you are playing, if the arbitrator of that morality says that it is Evil - so what? Now your character is deemed Evil, but also saved a million people... sounds like an interesting situation opening up for a lot of good roleplaying!

Is he taking your character away, because you are evil, or? Because that would of course be annoying. Any other way, no matter the consequences it sounds like a good story.

If it is the end of the story arch, then handing over your sheet because it is now deemed evil, sounds like the way to go, after saving millions... it's epic!

In the real world, I don't believe in any abitrator of morality, so unless a court of law convicts you, none other than your consciences does - but in an RPG your more or less agree that the GM is the arbitrator of other workings of the cosmos... why not also what is good an evil?

I I were the GM: Say, if it was a Star Wars RPG I would say your character had fallen to the dark side...

If it was Firefly RPG, I would look if you still had enough fuel... if you did, Keep Flying!


...Idless

Idless
2010-11-24, 06:20 PM
and this is exactly my point. You may decide to sacrifice the 10 to the water god to save the 200... but that doesn't mean it wasn't an Evil act, and that doesn't mean that the equivalent of some kind of atonement isn't appropriate.

That is a good point!

Because:

that doesn't mean that the equivalent of some kind of atonement isn't appropriate.

This lets you do the evil act, let you roleplay on it, then hands the GM a Adventure Hook on a platter, and let you all have even more roleplaying! Good golly, it would have been boring if it was deemed a Good deed.

Evil - it's a growth industry!


...Idless

Idless
2010-11-24, 06:26 PM
And also:

I thought razing a village to find 1 evil person was Chaotic Good.. I read that in a DnD computer game somewhere, as I never read the books...


...Idless

Callista
2010-11-24, 07:04 PM
Sacrificing 10 people to the water god--makes me wonder: If you really had to do it, could your Good-aligned character ever justify NOT being one of those ten? If you have to sentence people to death, then one more volunteer means one less victim. (Presuming, of course, that you weren't needed alive to actually pull off the aforementioned sacrifice.)

It's still a pretty bad place to be stuck in if you're Good, but if you can save one person out of the ten, then go for that. It's better than none at all.

olentu
2010-11-25, 01:28 AM
A person who is tied up and about to be executed for a serious crime, is a noncombatant- and yet, it specifies that Execution Is Not Automatically Evil.

So is it only innocent noncombatants that you can't attack?

Why is it evil to drop a fireball on a enemy combat squad of orcs if there's one orc noncombatant among them, but not evil for that noncombatant to be executed for a serious crime afterward?

Possibly, because when you don't yet know if a being has done something deserving of death, you can't (if they are not a combatant) kill them, until you know- the rules require you to be discriminating.

So, there are times when violence against "noncombatants" is not evil (execution) and times when it is evil (during a combat, when the noncombatant is in with a bunch of combatants).

Question may be "Does the violence, against noncombatants, violate their rights"?
Another notable example- separating conjoined twins, when leaving them together makes it certain both will die, and separating them makes it certain one will die.

In a sense, by separating them, you are killing one- which is "violence"- but, does that one have a right to live just a tiny bit longer if by doing so, the result is both will die?

I believe the point of the BoED example was to indicate, that Exalted characters can never commit unjustifiable homicide and remain Exalted. Intentionally killing noncombatants in any kind of combat situation, is "unjustifiable homicide" which soldiers, cops, etc can face charges for.

But not all homicide, even against "the innocent" falls into the class of "unjustifiable homicide".

Well either it is a specific exception or the example does not hold anywhere but itself meaning that there is absolutely no problem with killing everyone and anyone so long as the motivations are not those three specifically called out as making it murder. So either the book of exalted deeds would either be saying that the example can be applied in general or only in itself.

But since you are belaboring the point of the example not being specifically called out to apply everywhere then I will change to going strictly by the rules. So the example holds nowhere but itself and thus so far as has been presented one can kill everyone and anyone so long as not being motivated by the three specific motivations and it will not be evil barring DM fiat unless it was evil for another reason.

Also rights are meaningless. It could not be violating their rights and still be evil.

hamishspence
2010-11-25, 03:58 AM
Also rights are meaningless. It could not be violating their rights and still be evil.

That might depend on whether D&D morality is intended to be a "rights-based" morality or not.

Magic might not violate somebody's rights, and yet the spell be Evil, yes.

But outside of that, much of the BoVD list of Evil acts (cheating, stealing, murder, etc) may be based on the idea that by doing these, you are violating the rights of the person you're doing them to.

BoVD makes it clear that Murder is evil, and even Causing Death By Reckless Endangerment, is something that should "probably" cause a paladin to fall.

Complete Adventurer has that Paladin-based organization that has, as part of its dogma, an acceptance that occasionally, innocent life being sacrificed is necessary.

Conclusion- the BoED example, while useful should not be extrapolated from to cover all circumstances. When a sacrifice is not murder, manslaughter, causing death by reckless endangerment, etc, it may not qualify as an evil act.

Fawsto
2010-11-25, 06:26 AM
Nops... I believe that The Prince was not a satyr at all. Well, at least not in the perspective of someone who has studied that a few times during the last few years of College/University.

Still, I stand by the side of my argument: It depends on your goal. If your goal is to be the best person you can be it is something, if, however, your goal is to save people, things get quite diferent.

As I said before. There is no easy answer for this in the real world. D&D makes things even harder due to the "good/evil" "white/black" axis.

FelixG
2010-11-25, 06:30 AM
Well, I would look at it as two acts for the first one

You kill 1,000 people! You are now an evil, evil person...
You just saved 1,000,000 people! You are now a very very good person...

Net gain for good! :smallbiggrin:

I figure you are actively making a choice, sure killing people is evil, but saving people is good on the other hand, so might as well make it a 1:1 decision, in this example you have a net gain of good

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 06:36 AM
Is sacrifice evil if it saves the greater good?
If an individual shows respect for life and finds disrespect for life morally wrong then that individual is good.

If a course of action is taken by a player who is good that has the means of implying evil but the character has a different intent then as long as that player has all their ducks in a row it is not evil.

An insane player or a misguided player might be acting evil while trying to be good.

But as long as the correct procedure of moral dilemma is there, it's not evil as far as I'm concerned.

-------------

BUT

A Lawful Good character would have a certain "code" of goodness, you could call this a pre-disposition of objectively good and evil acts, a god with lawful perspectives might judge actions instead of intent this way as well.

Now, would it be honorable to commit a questionable or abhorrent act even if it was followed through with the right intent? If the individual or the god's morality is in conflict with the ACTION then it is in breach of one's honor, and one's honor as it relates to good and evil acts acts as proxy for how intent is judged, therefore let's say, a LG paladin would find kicking an innocent little puppy an evil act even if the world would end if he didn't, he or his god or both could have major beef with puppykicking. Therefore it would be dishonorable to betray one's moral opinions as they are judged personally as objective, and therefore in terms of the moral dilemma would be done with negative intent relative to one's views.

This is precisely why I greatly prefer to play NG or LN protectors instead of straight up paladins, they are just too full of themselves when it comes to what's right! =]

hamishspence
2010-11-25, 06:48 AM
As I said before. There is no easy answer for this in the real world. D&D makes things even harder due to the "good/evil" "white/black" axis.

And the splatbooks (even BoVD) allow for a certain about of grey.

"Is either side truly evil in this situation? Probably not" was for an example it gave where two good factions clash.

Fawsto
2010-11-25, 07:14 PM
And the splatbooks (even BoVD) allow for a certain about of grey.

"Is either side truly evil in this situation? Probably not" was for an example it gave where two good factions clash.


IMO, each of us need to find a phylosofical north to adress this problem. I've chosen Machiavelli due to its "goal" approach. I will stick to it since it allows someone (my interpretation from now on) to measure the nobility of its cause. There are some easily discernable "evil goals". So, by D&D standards, a Paladin would only choose the most noble goals. Such goals, would, for example, see the sacrifice of inocents as something evil, but not always. As I said, sometimes the noble goal may be "save the world", to wich the sacrifice of inocents would be a valid action.

There are too many interpretations of good and evil about the same topics. The only way that I see to solve this is to set a goal and compare those actions to the goals that you are pursuing.

Stephen_E
2010-11-25, 10:15 PM
I'm reminded of a section from a novel by David Gemmel.
A friends is talking to a character called Druss the Axe.

He asks "If you saw a baby. that you knew would grow up to be a evil warlord, drowning in a pond would you save him?"
Druss replied "Of course. That's what heros do"

Stephen E

kyoryu
2010-11-25, 10:26 PM
IMO, each of us need to find a phylosofical north to adress this problem. I've chosen Machiavelli due to its "goal" approach. I will stick to it since it allows someone (my interpretation from now on) to measure the nobility of its cause. There are some easily discernable "evil goals". So, by D&D standards, a Paladin would only choose the most noble goals. Such goals, would, for example, see the sacrifice of inocents as something evil, but not always. As I said, sometimes the noble goal may be "save the world", to wich the sacrifice of inocents would be a valid action.

There are too many interpretations of good and evil about the same topics. The only way that I see to solve this is to set a goal and compare those actions to the goals that you are pursuing.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Say you're trying to stamp out cancer (a good goal), and a multibillionaire offers you three billion dollars for research, but to get the money, you need to torture and rape a woman (sorry, been watching Dexter).

By that logic, the torture and rape would be fine, since it was for a noble goal. I don't buy that.

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 03:41 AM
Yes- I prefer a rights-based approach. Using that, sacrificing the innocent, may sometimes not actually violate their rights (like in the previously mentioned examples I've given (Vaccine during epidemic, starship under attack)

But murdering an innocent who is not in this kind of danger, always violates their rights.

abadguy
2010-11-26, 04:58 AM
Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Ah, classic Paladin dilemma. If you're looking for a "RAW" answer, you can find it in Book of Exalted Deeds Pg 9, where this matter of Ends and Means is discussed quite a bit. Summarising, an evil act is an evil act. Just because it leads to a good end, it does not make the evil act any less evil.

The scenario you set up is the "easy" way out but the path of Good is the hardest to walk. If I were DM-ing, I'd consider this act somewhat neutral only IF the PC has exhausted all possibilities and tried everything he could to prevent this sacrifice and save the other millions at the same time. Even then he cannot actively consider the sacrifice to be a way out.

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 05:01 AM
Ah, classic Paladin dilemma. If you're looking for a "RAW" answer, you can find it in Book of Exalted Deeds Pg 9, where this matter of Ends and Means is discussed quite a bit. Summarising, an evil act is an evil act. Just because it leads to a good end, it does not make the evil act any less evil.

True- the problem is, that not all killings, even of the Innocent, are explicitly Evil Acts.

Murder is specified as an Evil Act in BoVD (and FC2) but it's not defined in D&D- at least, not in terms of Killing the Innocent.

Thus- if killing the Innocent would be Murder (or Reckless Endangerment of Life, as mentioned in the second BoVD example) then it can qualify as an Evil Act.

But if it's not murder, then we end up in greyer territory.

abadguy
2010-11-26, 05:31 AM
True- the problem is, that not all killings, even of the Innocent, are explicitly Evil Acts.

You're right, killing is not inherently evil.

But killing without a just cause and Good intentions is evil.

No sane DM would ever say "Killing of Innocents" is not an evil act. Even a mind-controlled paladin will need to atone if he has been compelled to do so.

BoED Pg 9 on Violence
Reckless endangerment - Non-combatants are mentioned too, the example being catching women and children in the area of a Fireball. But seriously,

So in summary, killing and violence is acceptable only if directed at stopping or preventing evil acts. To a LG, any other use of force can be considered Evil. And even then, qualities of mercy and "rules" of combat must be followed. Yeah it is hard for anyone to RP that, hence there is only one Lawful Good alignment :)

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 05:37 AM
You're right, killing is not inherently evil. But no sane DM would ever say "Killing of Innocents" is not an evil act. Even a mind-controlled paladin will need to atone if he has been compelled to do so.

Also, the D&D definition of justifiable homicide (BoED Pg 9 on Violence) is a just cause and Good intentions. Non-combatants are mentioned too, no fireballing women and children.

I don't know about that. A low-level paladin in the 21st century, in a pandemic situation, faced with the decision of whether or not, to distribute a hazardous vaccine, would, I think, distribute it.

Even if he knows that by distributing it, he is Killing Innocents (specifically, the 1% or so that will have a bad reaction to it).

Thus, Killing Innocents, becomes, in certain exceptionally rare situations (I.E. when it's an unavoidable direct consequence of Protecting The Innocent) a nonevil act.

By contrast, the mind-controlled paladin on a rampage, is not doing so to Protect The Innocent.

Protecting The Innocent, may qualify as just cause and good intentions.

That said, "Must Not Commit an Evil Act" takes priority over that- so when the connection is much less direct, the killing of the Innocent may qualify as Murder, which in BoVD and FC2 is an Evil Act.

abadguy
2010-11-26, 05:40 AM
Ah sorry, edited my prev post for clarity but the general idea is the same.

Right, you're bringing back the example of sacrificing 100 to save 1 million

A true 21st Paladin would exhaust all means of research, within all his resources, to make sure the vaccine is 100% safe before distribution. He cannot consciously distribute the vaccine, knowing it would kill SOME of those who take it. That is still an Evil act.

FelixG
2010-11-26, 05:43 AM
Ah sorry, edited my prev post for clarity but the general idea is the same.

Right, you're bringing back the example of sacrificing 100 to save 1 million

A true 21st Paladin would exhaust all means of research, within all his resources, to make sure the vaccine is 100% safe before distribution. He cannot consciously distribute the vaccine, knowing it would kill SOME of those who take it. That is still an Evil act.

So killing everyone by not giving them the vaccine is good where saving the most possible by distributing it is evil?

Again, i figure the net gain would determine it, he chooses not to distribute he causes the death of everyone, he distributes it, causes the death of 100, damned either way but he is doing what he can to save as many as he can.

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 05:44 AM
A true 21st Paladin would exhaust all means of research, within all his resources, to make sure the vaccine is 100% safe before distribution. He cannot consciously distribute the vaccine, knowing it would kill SOME of those who take it. That is still an Evil act.

This is the bit I tend to disagree with- in a pandemic situation, failure to distribute the vaccine, would lead to many times more deaths.

Thus, the paladin would have failed in his duty to "Protect the Innocent" when he had the power, and did not do so.

In a legal (or even a moral) sense, distributing the vaccine would not count as murder, or manslaughter, or "reckless endangerment"- which BoVD mentions as capable of causing a paladin to Fall.



Again, i figure the net gain would determine it, he chooses not to distribute he causes the death of everyone, he distributes it, causes the death of 100, damned either way but he is doing what he can to save as many as he can.

It's not just the net gain- but whether the killing is murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, or none of these.

Murder to save the many is still Evil.

But Killing to save the many, might not be.

abadguy
2010-11-26, 05:56 AM
To the two posters above:

We're still on the topic of Paladins and playing a LG alignment right? Since we're still talking about a game situation, the DM has to arbitrate:
Has the Paladin exhausted all other avenue? Is it the absolute last resort or is he/she taking the "easy" way out?

Even if the Paladin knew that yes, it is the absolutely last resort ever, he could not consciously distribute the vaccine himself. If in a party, the rogue wld probably have no qualms about it. The paladin would have to stop him for sure. The other members probably have to knock him out to do it.

Also, "Protecting the Innocent", the reverse argument is: has he protected the 1% as well? No he hasn't, he gave them a faulty vaccine, knowing it would cause them to die.

Once again, reiterating D&D's view (from BoED) is that an evil act is an evil act, even if the means justify the ends. To a LG alignment, morality is not a relative thing, where killing 1 innocent is "less evil" and killing 100 is "more evil"

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 06:03 AM
We're still on the topic of Paladins and playing a LG alignment right? Since we're still talking about a game situation, the DM has to arbitrate:
Has the Paladin exhausted all other avenue? Is it the absolute last resort or is he/she taking the "easy" way out?

Even if the Paladin knew that yes, it is the absolutely last resort ever, he could not consciously distribute the vaccine himself.

Thanks to the D20 system, you can put a paladin in almost any environment from the Stone Age to the far future.


Also, "Protecting the Innocent", the reverse argument is: has he protected the 1% as well? No he hasn't, he gave them a faulty vaccine, knowing it would cause them to die.

Once again, reiterating D&D's view (from BoED) is that an evil act is an evil act, even if the means justify the ends. To a LG alignment, morality is not a relative thing, where killing 1 innocent is "less evil" and killing 100 is "more evil"

True- the question is, when the only way of protecting a huge group of Innocents, is by using a means that will kill some of them in the process- can the paladin use that means without Falling?

I think they could- murder is Evil- but killing with Good Intentions, is not always murder. The paladin has no idea who will die- all he knows is 1% of people who take the vaccine, will die from it. But the vaccine is intended as a lifesaver, and overall, it is a lifesaver.

FelixG
2010-11-26, 06:06 AM
Also, "Protecting the Innocent", the reverse argument is: has he protected the 1% as well? No he hasn't, he gave them a faulty vaccine, knowing it would cause them to die.

Once again, reiterating D&D's view (from BoED) is that an evil act is an evil act, even if the means justify the ends. To a LG alignment, morality is not a relative thing, where killing 1 innocent is "less evil" and killing 100 is "more evil"

I would note that "sacrificing x amount of people" is not the same as "killing x amount of people"

You are in a flaming building, there is a room with 20 people in it on fire and a room with 5 people in it on fire, you only have time to save one of the room full of people, you are not evil if you choose to sacrifice those 5 to save the 20.

Granted this applies to the OP not the Vaccine debate, but if you let 1,000 people die to save 1,000,000 you are not evil either, its just a matter of scale.

abadguy
2010-11-26, 06:18 AM
True- the question is, when the only way of protecting a huge group of Innocents, is by using a means that will kill some of them in the process- can the paladin use that means without Falling?

I think they could- murder is Evil- but killing with Good Intentions, is not always murder. The paladin has no idea who will die- all he knows is 1% of people who take the vaccine, will die from it. But the vaccine is intended as a lifesaver, and overall, it is a lifesaver.

If we're talking about just talking about RAW, no he cannot do so without Falling. Letting 1% die is not killing with Good Intentions.

This is why in such sticky situations (which the DM has undoubtedly put the PC into), DM fiat has come into play. The PC would probably fall to his knees in utter despair and pray to his diety to show him a way *cue deus ex* But the moment he decides to "distribute the vaccine", boom, Fallen.


I would note that "sacrificing x amount of people" is not the same as "killing x amount of people"

You are in a flaming building, there is a room with 20 people in it on fire and a room with 5 people in it on fire, you only have time to save one of the room full of people, you are not evil if you choose to sacrifice those 5 to save the 20.

Granted this applies to the OP not the Vaccine debate, but if you let 1,000 people die to save 1,000,000 you are not evil either, its just a matter of scale.

Yup but the crux here is: why do the 1000 need to be "sacrificed" in the first place? Is there a way to do it such that we can save everyone without needing to sacrifice anyone?

If we want to use your flaming building example, its quite clear cut. A paladin would save the 20, and then jump back into the collapsing building to still TRY to save the 5, even at the cost of his life. To do any less would not be befitting of a paladin's conduct; as a DM i would not make the Paladin Fall because of him not going back again but i would dock EXP for sure.

Talking about scale, let's reverse that situation: would a Paladin sacrifice 10 to save 1? No he wouldn't and not because its an "inequitable trade" so to speak, its because as far as possible, his duty is save the world and prevent anyone from dying in the first place.

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 06:31 AM
If we're talking about just talking about RAW, no he cannot do so without Falling. Letting 1% die is not killing with Good Intentions.

Why not? "Protecting the Innocent" is Good Intentions- he has no way to prevent the 1% from dying, since he has no idea who will die- all he knows is that if he does not distribute the vaccine, 50% or more of the population are certain to die.

In an earlier thread, another poster explained it rather clearly- a person in a position of power, must expect, that situations will come up where no matter what decision they make (including the decision to do nothing), people will die who might not have died if a different decision had been made:


If you're a king, and your nation has a problem with famine, decisions you make about, say, wheat distribution or regulations on merchants or taxes or whatever actually do play a role in choosing who lives and who dies. Presuming you are a person intellectually qualified on any level to make those decisions, you understand in at least a vague general sense who you are choosing to live and let die... it is not a completely blind toss of the dice.

Sure, it might not be taking the sword to people (because that just kinda sounds stupid and impractical), but you're killing off people as a result of your decisions nonetheless.


Does that mean paladins can't hold positions of power? In Faerun, the paladin Gareth Dragonsbane rules a fairly large kingdom, and one of the Open Lords of Waterdeep, is a paladin.

So "being in a position where lives hang on your decisions" is not barred to paladins.

And yes, the vaccine sucks. Real vaccines often do.

abadguy
2010-11-26, 06:59 AM
Goddamn paladins.


Why not? "Protecting the Innocent" is Good Intentions- he has no way to prevent the 1% from dying, since he has no idea who will die- all he knows is that if he does not distribute the vaccine, 50% or more of the population are certain to die.

Ok we're just rephrasing our arguments. My stand (supported by RAW) is: An evil act is still an evil act even if it serves a vast vaster vastest greater good. As long as the paladin is complicit in committing said evil act, by RAW (I emphasis RAW), he would be Fallen.

Any other class or alignment would have no such dilemma. (cept anything from BoED)



In an earlier thread, another poster explained it rather clearly- a person in a position of power, must expect, that situations will come up where no matter what decision they make (including the decision to do nothing), people will die who might not have died if a different decision had been made:

Does that mean paladins can't hold positions of power? In Faerun, the paladin Gareth Dragonsbane rules a fairly large kingdom, and one of the Open Lords of Waterdeep, is a paladin.

So "being in a position where lives hang on your decisions" is not barred to paladins.

And yes, the vaccine sucks. Real vaccines often do.

Ok now you're going off on a different argument. I won't go into that but this would be my line of thought: my only concern is whether the paladin doing everything he can, pulling all the resources he can, all deals, pulling all the stops, to prevent the loss of life? If we want to use the example of a famine, it is not a direct action on his part that is causing the loss of life. When it comes down to it, Lord Paladin would probably slice off generous portions off his thighs if it meant feeding a few morel.

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 07:55 AM
Ok we're just rephrasing our arguments. My stand (supported by RAW) is: An evil act is still an evil act even if it serves a vast vaster vastest greater good. As long as the paladin is complicit in committing said evil act, by RAW (I emphasis RAW), he would be Fallen.

Any other class or alignment would have no such dilemma. (cept anything from BoED).

On this point, we are agreed.

The point I've been trying to emphasise, is that the RAW, does not say "destroying an innocent" is an Evil act.

To quote the PHB again:

"Evil creatures debase and destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"

So, by implication, the following acts are Always Evil:

Debasing an innocent being for fun
Debasing an innocent being for profit
Destroying an innocent being for fun
Destroying an innocent being for profit

But is "Destroying an innocent being for a reason other than fun or profit", always an Evil act?

The rules are silent on the subject.

Even BoED's "Destroying a noncombatant is evil, since they are no threat" may only apply to situations where there are both noncombatants and combatants.

If we go to BoVD and FC2, they say "Murder is always an evil act" and even "Killing someone via recklessness will probably cause a paladin to Fall"

But again, they are quiet on the subject of "justified homicide".


The PC would probably fall to his knees in utter despair and pray to his diety to show him a way *cue deus ex* But the moment he decides to "distribute the vaccine", boom, Fallen.
If you really want to go into it, think of medical treatment this way. There is virtually always a chance, however small, that a treatment will kill a patient. There is again, nearly always a chance, however small, that a patient will recover without treatment.

Conclusion- every year, people are sacrificed who would not otherwise have died- because of the medical industry.

It simply does not make sense to say "If you know that something will kill a few people, while saving thousands, you cannot put it into action, or permit it- because that would be an evil act"- because that would effectively require you to ban the whole of medicine.

olentu
2010-11-27, 01:01 AM
On this point, we are agreed.

The point I've been trying to emphasise, is that the RAW, does not say "destroying an innocent" is an Evil act.

To quote the PHB again:

"Evil creatures debase and destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"

So, by implication, the following acts are Always Evil:

Debasing an innocent being for fun
Debasing an innocent being for profit
Destroying an innocent being for fun
Destroying an innocent being for profit

But is "Destroying an innocent being for a reason other than fun or profit", always an Evil act?

The rules are silent on the subject.

Even BoED's "Destroying a noncombatant is evil, since they are no threat" may only apply to situations where there are both noncombatants and combatants.

If we go to BoVD and FC2, they say "Murder is always an evil act" and even "Killing someone via recklessness will probably cause a paladin to Fall"

But again, they are quiet on the subject of "justified homicide".


If you really want to go into it, think of medical treatment this way. There is virtually always a chance, however small, that a treatment will kill a patient. There is again, nearly always a chance, however small, that a patient will recover without treatment.

Conclusion- every year, people are sacrificed who would not otherwise have died- because of the medical industry.

It simply does not make sense to say "If you know that something will kill a few people, while saving thousands, you cannot put it into action, or permit it- because that would be an evil act"- because that would effectively require you to ban the whole of medicine.

Er strictly the rules apparently do not say that killing the innocent is evil except in those areas covered by other stuff such as creating evil creatures, and so forth. So by the rules killing the innocent is not evil as long as it does not fall under another evil act. So killing everyone for a good cause is fine as long as you are not using poison or something like that.

And still these acts would still be evil even if the rules stated it was the right of every creature to preform them whenever they wanted. So being against someones rights or not still does not matter matter as to if it is evil or not.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-11-27, 01:13 AM
I'm personally of the opinion that actions are just actions. Good and Evil are intent. If you sacrifice a million people to save a billion without thinking about it, that's a neutral action. If you sacrifice a million to save a billion because you believe that preserving as many lives as possible is the right thing to do, it's a good act. If you sacrifice a million to save a billion because you like the idea of your action snuffing a million lives, then it's an evil act. At least that's what I think of the idea.

hamishspence
2010-11-27, 05:45 AM
I'm personally of the opinion that actions are just actions. Good and Evil are intent.

For some acts, this is true.

For others, Good or Evil might be intrinsic to the action.

Rebuking Undead (according to PHB),

casting an [Evil] spell, Murder, and Torture (according to FC2, BoVD, BoED, and Eberron Campaign Setting)

are among them.

olentu
2010-11-27, 06:22 AM
For some acts, this is true.

For others, Good or Evil might be intrinsic to the action.

Rebuking Undead (according to PHB),

casting an [Evil] spell, Murder, and Torture (according to FC2, BoVD, BoED, and Eberron Campaign Setting)

are among them.

Don't forget stat damaging poison use.

hamishspence
2010-11-27, 06:50 AM
Don't forget stat damaging poison use.

That's BoED-only- other sources, such as the FAQ for Complete Adventurer Ninja, have stated "there's nothing inherently evil about using poison".

Throw in the fact that at least one Always Good being (couatls) naturally has a stat damaging poison, and a case can be made that at least on that one, the BoED made a misstep.

Whereas the others usually have more than one source (or a core source, in the case of Rebuking Undead) to support them.

Just as BoVD stresses that while Lying is forbidden by many creeds (and it's against the paladin code) it's not actually an inherently evil act, the same could be said for poison- even stat damaging poison.

Other sources of stat damage- such as spells that inflict it, generally don't have the [Evil] tag. The only way to make Poison different, is to argue that it causes "excessive suffering in the process of incapacitating an opponent"- which is a difficult argument to defend.

Fawsto
2010-11-27, 11:46 AM
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Say you're trying to stamp out cancer (a good goal), and a multibillionaire offers you three billion dollars for research, but to get the money, you need to torture and rape a woman (sorry, been watching Dexter).

By that logic, the torture and rape would be fine, since it was for a noble goal. I don't buy that.

"Machiavellicaly" talking, yeah, that would be "fine". Machiavelli was a "utilitarist" (do not take this literaly), you know, the great benefit for the many while the few are sacrificed.

Also, there is a hole there in your example: How are you trying to cure cancer? You are trying to cure the cancer no matter what or are you trying to cure cancer in a good way? A Paladin would define his goals using the "in a good way" approach.

What I mean: Curing the cancer is not inherently good. Nor sacrifice is inherently evil.

Yet, there are loopholes. Someone may have a biased vision about good and evil, which would blur the definitions of good and evil goals.

hamishspence
2010-11-27, 12:48 PM
"Machiavellicaly" talking, yeah, that would be "fine". Machiavelli was a "utilitarist" (do not take this literaly), you know, the great benefit for the many while the few are sacrificed.

That said, it's always phrased as two separate moralities- conventional morality, and, "morality of the ruler"

The ruler can be a prince, or whoever's in charge of a republic- but in both The Prince, and The Discourses, there's a strong them that if the ruler wishes to do the right thing by their people, they must be willing to set aside conventional morality at times.

It doesn't however, condemn conventional morality as "wrong"- it merely states that it's incompatible with a ruler pursuing the needs of a community.

The question is, are all forms of sacrifice, inherently immoral by conventional morality, or are there some that aren't?

Like introducing the science of medicine- the vast majority of the time, medical treatment saves people- but occasionally it kills people- at this is something that has to be accepted.

olentu
2010-11-27, 10:18 PM
That's BoED-only- other sources, such as the FAQ for Complete Adventurer Ninja, have stated "there's nothing inherently evil about using poison".

Throw in the fact that at least one Always Good being (couatls) naturally has a stat damaging poison, and a case can be made that at least on that one, the BoED made a misstep.

Whereas the others usually have more than one source (or a core source, in the case of Rebuking Undead) to support them.

Just as BoVD stresses that while Lying is forbidden by many creeds (and it's against the paladin code) it's not actually an inherently evil act, the same could be said for poison- even stat damaging poison.

Other sources of stat damage- such as spells that inflict it, generally don't have the [Evil] tag. The only way to make Poison different, is to argue that it causes "excessive suffering in the process of incapacitating an opponent"- which is a difficult argument to defend.

Except that stat damaging poison use is evil. Now poison in general is not of course evil since not all poison does stat damage but for the ones that do their use is evil and of course being a good creature one does not have to use the poison or could choose to preform an evil act as a last resort or something. Sure it can be seen as silly by some but I could say the same about any part of the alignment system.

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 05:52 AM
Except that stat damaging poison use is evil.

Like I said- only according to BoED- only on the grounds of "it causes excessive suffering" (which other sources of stat damage apparently don't) and at least one D&D author (the writer of Sage Advice) contradicts it.

It's a bit less "well supported" than those other things, which several books specify as evil, and no books or FAQs contradict.

One can still stick with it- but D&D DMs have better grounds for ruling that "realistic poisons" don't cause excessive suffering"

than for, say, ruling that there's no such thing as an Always Evil act, and that nothing, not even Torture, is absolutely guaranteed to cause a paladin to Fall.

olentu
2010-11-28, 06:40 AM
Like I said- only according to BoED- only on the grounds of "it causes excessive suffering" (which other sources of stat damage apparently don't) and at least one D&D author (the writer of Sage Advice) contradicts it.

It's a bit less "well supported" than those other things, which several books specify as evil, and no books or FAQs contradict.

One can still stick with it- but D&D DMs have better grounds for ruling that "realistic poisons" don't cause excessive suffering"

than for, say, ruling that there's no such thing as an Always Evil act, and that nothing, not even Torture, is absolutely guaranteed to cause a paladin to Fall.


A rule only needs to appear once for it to be a rule or is your stance that all rules that only appear once are not actually rules. Well supported is appears at least once and no other actual rules source that supersedes it says otherwise because you know repetition is not a requirement.

Why would you think that D&D DMs would have better grounds for ruling this then anything else. They have the same grounds being that the don't like it so it is houseruled away the same as they could rule anything else.

Really if you don't like it that is fine but it is the rules as they exist and so unless you are holding something back stat damaging poison being evil is just the way it is. I mean if we are removing everything about alignment that someone does not like the whole system would be gone and so since I am not one to play favorites I can not take biased exclusion as an acceptable argument.

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 08:57 AM
A rule only needs to appear once for it to be a rule or is your stance that all rules that only appear once are not actually rules.

My stance is that rules directly contradicted by other D&D writers, should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

People have claimed, numerous times, that alignment splatbooks contradict each other.

In such cases, if a rule proposed in one book is contradicted elsewhere, it becomes DM's choice whether to regard it as a valid rule or not.

Whereas, if it's contradicted nowhere, and repeated in several books "it's not a valid rule" becomes much less convincing.

Fawsto
2010-11-28, 11:41 AM
That said, it's always phrased as two separate moralities- conventional morality, and, "morality of the ruler"

The ruler can be a prince, or whoever's in charge of a republic- but in both The Prince, and The Discourses, there's a strong them that if the ruler wishes to do the right thing by their people, they must be willing to set aside conventional morality at times.

It doesn't however, condemn conventional morality as "wrong"- it merely states that it's incompatible with a ruler pursuing the needs of a community.

The question is, are all forms of sacrifice, inherently immoral by conventional morality, or are there some that aren't?

Like introducing the science of medicine- the vast majority of the time, medical treatment saves people- but occasionally it kills people- at this is something that has to be accepted.

Exactly! Glad to see you are keen with your machiavellism.

Otacon17
2010-11-28, 12:28 PM
I tend to think it depends on the intent of the act. If you're sacrificing a thousand people to, say, gain power for yourself, that's obviously evil. However, if you're sacrificing a thousand people because you know, with absolute certainty, that this is the only possible way to save a million other people, then it is Good. It certainly isn't the ideal solution, but you have good intentions; you're doing the best you can to help as many people as you can, right?

Also, what kind of sacrifice are we talking about here? Sorry if this has already been brought up, I haven't read through the entire thread, but there are two ways you could define sacrifice in this situation:

1) You, personally, are killing these people. Say there are two rooms: one contains one thousand people, the other contains one million. There is a lever between these two rooms. Pull it one way, the thousand die; pull it the other, the million die. If you choose not to pull it, they all die. Thus, by pulling the switch (or refusing to), you are DIRECTLY causing the death of one group (or both).

2) You are allowing these people to die. Perhaps a large military force is invading a city and you can choose to either defend a district with one thousand people or a district with one million people. If you choose to defend one group, the others will not survive. However, it won't be you killing them; you would only be INDIRECTLY causing their death.

Personally, I think as long as you are doing the absolute best you can to defend as many innocents as possible, you are doing good, even if it means making sacrifices. However, a truly good character would probably still feel guilty about it and would most likely try to atone regardless.

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 01:38 PM
Personally, I think as long as you are doing the absolute best you can to defend as many innocents as possible, you are doing good, even if it means making sacrifices. However, a truly good character would probably still feel guilty about it and would most likely try to atone regardless.

Is there a difference, morally speaking, between "killing" and "letting die"? This can be a tricky question.

Sometimes, even when the killing is direct, it's not intended.

The example of the Hazardous Vaccine is most obvious case- you are not intending to kill the people with the vaccine- but the fact that it will kill 1% of people who take it, is intrinsic to it.
Thus, it only become justifiable in a massive pandemic. Yet, while you know for a fact that distributing the vaccine will kill people, and those people are, in a sense "sacrificed" to save the community- the intent is not to kill them, but to save them.

Similarly, in the case of the Refugee Starship, rerouting life support to the shields while the ship is under attack will kill some of the people- but since they will definitely die if you don't- again, it's like the vaccine- you are taking steps to save all their lives- but steps which you know will kill some of them in the process.

olentu
2010-12-01, 01:19 AM
My stance is that rules directly contradicted by other D&D writers, should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

People have claimed, numerous times, that alignment splatbooks contradict each other.

In such cases, if a rule proposed in one book is contradicted elsewhere, it becomes DM's choice whether to regard it as a valid rule or not.

Whereas, if it's contradicted nowhere, and repeated in several books "it's not a valid rule" becomes much less convincing.

Eh if everything some writer disliked was removed the rules would likely be rather barren. The writers opinions are just that opinions and they hold no more rules weight then another opinion that is not actually a rule.

Er it is always the DM's choice but then you leave the actual rules and enter houserules.

This seems so obvious to me that if not for this discussion I would not generally think that it needed stating but if a rule is made and not properly contradicted then it stands. Now sure if you wish to present an actual contradiction with another superseding splat book that is a fine point for discussion but without that the rules say what the rules say and them changing at this point is unlikely.

hamishspence
2010-12-01, 04:24 AM
Paladins being forbidden poison is fine. Long-standing precedent there.

Exalted CG characters (or, for that matter, Couatls with Exalted feats) using stat-damaging poison (their own natural bite in the case of a Couatl),

and falling because "stat-damaging poison causes Undue Suffering" is the main thing that causes people to reject BoED wholesale- even the more logical things said in it.

olentu
2010-12-01, 05:01 AM
Paladins being forbidden poison is fine. Long-standing precedent there.

Exalted CG characters (or, for that matter, Couatls with Exalted feats) using stat-damaging poison (their own natural bite in the case of a Couatl),

and falling because "stat-damaging poison causes Undue Suffering" is the main thing that causes people to reject BoED wholesale- even the more logical things said in it.

Oh no something in alignment that is not sensible to everyone what ever shall we do. Eh I did try to play the sensible game but what that got me was people complaining that it was not what the rules said so I gave up since they were technically correct and being the obliging person I am I went with what the rules say. I see no reason to switch back to a loosing proposition.

That is what the rules say as a part of the alignment system. Hopefully you knew that the alignment system was probably a mish mash of stuff people thought was a good idea at the time just like much of the rest of the rules when you entered the discussion.

hamishspence
2010-12-01, 05:26 AM
Most discussions of alignment tend to involve an element of debate as to what's a valid source, and what isn't.

Some people dismiss all splatbooks, saying "they're optional" and restrict themselves entirely to what's said in the PHB and DMG.

Others might use the splatbooks- but try and find resolutions when there is an element of contradiction.

For example- BoED says stat damaging poisons are evil, not just without any reason- it gives a reason for them being evil "They inflict undue suffering"

A person who's read about the effects of poisons (paralysing and lethal) may know that with the right poison, death or paralysis can be far more merciful and painless, than with most accepted means of execution.

And thus, conclude that the BoED statement is inconsistant with reality- and thus, accept the root of it "Causing undue suffering is evil" while rejecting the conclusion drawn "Therefore, use of stat-damaging poison is evil"

So, alignment discussion can have an element of RAI rather than RAW- the spirit of the rule, rather than the letter.

serok42
2010-12-01, 09:44 AM
I think it would depend on who was being sacrificed

Good - sacrifice yourself
Neutral - sacrifice willing person
Evil - sacrifice unwilling person

hamishspence
2010-12-01, 09:52 AM
Might also depend on the sacrifice.

If the people are not conscious- they can't consent- in the case of the Refugee Starship mentioned earlier

(when under attack, and it was the only way to keep the ship from being destroyed long enough to escape, the captain pulled power from the life support pods)

There's also "sacrifice" that is accepting that a means of saving people, will kill some.
Such as distributing a vaccine with a chance of killing the people who take it, during a pandemic. If you know the chance, and you've decided the pandemic is worse than people dying of vaccine, you are, effectively "sacrificing" those people whom you know the vaccine will kill.

You don't know who they are- all you know is 1% of people who take the vaccine will die of it.

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 01:20 PM
Is there a difference, morally speaking, between "killing" and "letting die"? This can be a tricky question.

In general, I believe there is. People die every day - death is a constant. Causing someone's death due to your actions is a different story.


Sometimes, even when the killing is direct, it's not intended.

Yes, but if due to negligence, that's still Evil. If all reasonable precautions have been taken, I'd be willing to call it an accident.


The example of the Hazardous Vaccine is most obvious case- you are not intending to kill the people with the vaccine- but the fact that it will kill 1% of people who take it, is intrinsic to it.
Thus, it only become justifiable in a massive pandemic. Yet, while you know for a fact that distributing the vaccine will kill people, and those people are, in a sense "sacrificed" to save the community- the intent is not to kill them, but to save them.

See, this is a good example of what I don't like about these questions. They first presume that the person making the decision has the right to effectively play god with the lives of others. In examples like the ship or the military, that's true because, well, that's how those things work.

So I'd say that distributing the vaccine is not evil, if the truth is told about the 1% death rate. At that point, you're still letting people make their *own* decisions about what to do with the vaccine.

Lying about the death rate of the vaccine would be evil. Forcing people to take it would probably also be evil.

However, there's a good point that the vaccine is less effective when not taken universally, thus decreasing its effectiveness. This is a good case where the rights of the individual to take the vaccine or not impact the safety of others. I'd argue, in this case, that it'd be within the rights of the cities/towns/etc. to not allow in individuals who were unvaccinated.

And, again, it may be justifiable to force the vaccine - but that doesn't mean it's not Evil. An Evil act that can be justified is still Evil.


Might also depend on the sacrifice.

If the people are not conscious- they can't consent- in the case of the Refugee Starship mentioned earlier

(when under attack, and it was the only way to keep the ship from being destroyed long enough to escape, the captain pulled power from the life support pods)

By boarding the ship, they consented to the authority of the captain. Whether they're conscious or not at the time is irrelevant.

hamishspence
2010-12-01, 01:56 PM
By boarding the ship, they consented to the authority of the captain. Whether they're conscious or not at the time is irrelevant.

Problem is, a captain doesnt have the authority to do Evil things to his passengers.
Like, say, Murder them. Or some other Evil act.

So- authority may not matter. If the captain takes ship-saving, passenger killing decisions, the question is whether the decisions are Evil or not- not whether the captain has the authority to make them.

How about if there's a plague on ship- the ship's quarantined, the vaccine has been airdropped onto the deck of the ship by helicopter.

Can the captain make the decision on behalf of everyone aboard- whether they will be vaccinated or not?

And does a country's ruler, have the same authority over the citizens, that the captain has over the passengers?

olentu
2010-12-01, 04:17 PM
Most discussions of alignment tend to involve an element of debate as to what's a valid source, and what isn't.

Some people dismiss all splatbooks, saying "they're optional" and restrict themselves entirely to what's said in the PHB and DMG.

Others might use the splatbooks- but try and find resolutions when there is an element of contradiction.

For example- BoED says stat damaging poisons are evil, not just without any reason- it gives a reason for them being evil "They inflict undue suffering"

A person who's read about the effects of poisons (paralysing and lethal) may know that with the right poison, death or paralysis can be far more merciful and painless, than with most accepted means of execution.

And thus, conclude that the BoED statement is inconsistant with reality- and thus, accept the root of it "Causing undue suffering is evil" while rejecting the conclusion drawn "Therefore, use of stat-damaging poison is evil"

So, alignment discussion can have an element of RAI rather than RAW- the spirit of the rule, rather than the letter.


The book says what it says and sure if there was a rules contradiction resolution could be attempted but so far as has been presented there is not within the rules.

Contradiction with reality is of no consequence since the system is set in a fictional world where it is correct. If on the other hand you are arguing that the real world has a absolute alignment system that follows precisely the tenets of the D&D system except for the poison rule well that is another matter and not one that will ever be resolved. So if you happen to be saying that the real world follows as above I would request that you say so clearly and precisely. I can then change gears to debating a impossible to resolve topic where in the D&D rules are meaningless and any reference to them as support of a point rather then as explanation of an opinion holds no weight since we are in the real world now.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-01, 07:48 PM
Is sacrifice evil if it saves "the greater good"?

I have views on this subject, but I'll let the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (http://www.markaelrod.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/omelas.pdf)" by Ursula K. LeGuin speak for me. Its four pages say all that needs be said, I think.

hamishspence
2010-12-02, 04:50 AM
The book says what it says and sure if there was a rules contradiction resolution could be attempted but so far as has been presented there is not within the rules.

Contradiction with reality is of no consequence since the system is set in a fictional world where it is correct.

Like I said- it's been argued out before- and it's one of the main reasons BoED is so disliked by a large portion of the fandom:

Non-evil character for poison use (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144978&highlight=Poison)

This is why I think it makes more sense, to examine the alignment sources in broad strokes, and identify the root principles behind alignment statements- so as to make sure it makes sense to most of the players.

The root principle behind "stat-damaging poison use is evil" was "Causing undue suffering is evil"

And that root principle can remain valid even if things derived from it might be identified as being derived poorly.

Dropping the whole poison issue for the moment- the thread is about sacrifice.

This thread:

Paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents", but what counts? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173592)

covered the main part of the contention. Any sacrifice of innocents- for whatever reason, can be called "harming the innocent"- which paladins are supposed to punish- and people tend to assume that whatever paladins are obliged to punish by their code, must be an evil act.

FelixG
2010-12-02, 05:52 AM
See, this is a good example of what I don't like about these questions. They first presume that the person making the decision has the right to effectively play god with the lives of others. In examples like the ship or the military, that's true because, well, that's how those things work.

I dislike the whole "does this person have the right to do X" line of reasoning, they are in the place, at the time, and the question or resolution falls on them, so I think yes they have the right to choose.

A better example is I think the defending the city one.

You are leading the defenders, you have enough manpower to hold out until reinforcements arrive, there are two districts left to the city, one with 1,000 people and one with 1,000,000 people, you know that if you split your forces at all both the districts will fall and everyone will die, furthermore if you leave your troops to go defend the smaller portion they will be leaderless and overrun because their commander abandoned them.

In this situation you have the same groups ( 1 thousand and 1 million) in the same peril, they never agreed to be in your care they just are, but you have to choose one group to let die while you save the other group. Would it be Evil to choose to sacrifice the lesser number to save the greater number?

hamishspence
2010-12-02, 06:08 AM
That might fall into "does the act violate anybody's rights"?

People have the "right to not be murdered" but they don't necessarily have a paramount right to be saved- with:
"Failure to try and save me was an Evil Act"

They might not even have a "right to not be exposed to danger"- when whatever danger they're being exposed to, is less dangerous than the status quo.

olentu
2010-12-04, 12:12 AM
Like I said- it's been argued out before- and it's one of the main reasons BoED is so disliked by a large portion of the fandom:

Non-evil character for poison use (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144978&highlight=Poison)

This is why I think it makes more sense, to examine the alignment sources in broad strokes, and identify the root principles behind alignment statements- so as to make sure it makes sense to most of the players.

The root principle behind "stat-damaging poison use is evil" was "Causing undue suffering is evil"

And that root principle can remain valid even if things derived from it might be identified as being derived poorly.

Dropping the whole poison issue for the moment- the thread is about sacrifice.

This thread:

Paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents", but what counts? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173592)

covered the main part of the contention. Any sacrifice of innocents- for whatever reason, can be called "harming the innocent"- which paladins are supposed to punish- and people tend to assume that whatever paladins are obliged to punish by their code, must be an evil act.

Heh root principles are fine but they deny what actually is for what one wants it to be and that is at best if the root principles and even be agreed upon. I would personally say that basis of D&D alignment is that it is arbitrary and absolute in some areas while a bit more reasonable and lenient in others.

But all in all it is just like any other situation where someone is ignoring the rules where they don't work. If this was a thread about how to fix the D&D alignment system that would be a different matter but it does not seem like it is to me and so stat damaging poison use remains evil.

Yeah people might assume that whatever paladins are supposed to punish must be an evil act but that is just making things up unless they are supporting it with some rules. The paladin code is not an alignment rule in its PHB form. It may have been extended later but so far as I can tell it does not say that it defines anything as evil so it does not.