Alignments of the stick

[hamishspence]

Yes, it was potentially true that murdering Shojo would not be an Evil act because of intentions. But I do not think that is a reasonable interpretation of the intentions of her actual action, in context. I agree with the Twelve Gods here.

The problem is that a very strong Good Intentions Defense is dangerously close to The Ends Justify The Means.

In a D&Desque moral landscape, you are allowed to argue the ends justify the means. However Evil acts are still Evil, even when the ends really seem to justify means.

it's not that the act wouldn't be evil- it's that her alignment wouldn't change.
A good paladin who commits an Evil act but retains Good intentions would Fall, but they might not change alignment.

[Burner28]

Well it would make sense if that Evil action was not really enough to move any other types of Good characters to a different alignment.

[SowZ]

it's not that the act wouldn't be evil- it's that her alignment wouldn't change.
A good paladin who commits an Evil act but retains Good intentions would Fall, but they might not change alignment.

Yeah, 'Paladin Lawful Good' is a much higher standard of good then typical lawful good. So a Paladin losing their Paladin status does not mean they are no longer lawful good- it just means they aren't 'Paladin Lawful Good.'

[Snails]

it's not that the act wouldn't be evil- it's that her alignment wouldn't change.
A good paladin who commits an Evil act but retains Good intentions would Fall, but they might not change alignment.

Yes, that is certainly possible. An isolated individual Evil act by a Good person does not usually cause an alignment shift.

Paladins, of course, are held to a higher standard. (Note that redemption is not necessarily difficult for a fallen Paladin, but it does require a sincere desire to do better in the future and the willingness to perform appropriate penance.)

Miko's sin is much deeper than her particular Evil act. Miko exhibits hubris in the extreme, and, as such, her "good intentions" were always in doubt, for everything. The negative view of Miko's intentions were proven out when she demonstrated no ability to recognize she could make an important error. Or even that the universe did not revolve around her glorification (i.e. her bizarre egomania in the throne room).

[Porthos]

This presumes, of course, that Miko even had good intentions. As is being stated on another thread, just because someone is claiming they are doing something for a stated purpose, doesn't mean that is the real purpose lurking around their brain.

Heck, people can delude themselves into thinking that they are doing something for a reason, when deep down, it's for an entirely different reason.

I tend to think that Miko had more than a few "Daddy Issues" when she split Shojo in twain. Think about it, the one person she trusted more than any other in the world (in her eyes) betrayed her more than she thought was possible. To make it worse, there are strong hints that Shojo was the Father Figure in her life. Add in the considerable amount of stress she was under and her own... peculiar look at her place in the world, and I think it is more than understandable (but not excusable) why she snapped.

Anger. Betrayal. Shame (at being "fooled"). Broken Pride. All these and a host of others caused Miko to lash out.

As has been noted on more than occasion, we had a Compare and Contrast in that room. In fact, if anything, Hinjo had more reason to feel betrayed (and everything else) than Miko did. Yet Hinjo didn't give into his anger and start the path down the Dark Side lash out.

But Miko?

Miko did.

So while she might have claimed that she had good intentions, and, who knows, maybe on the surface of her thoughts she thought she did, underneath it all it was being fueled by some pretty negative stuff.

====

NOTE: All of the above isn't an alignment debate. Nor is it the dreaded <BLOOOOP> debate that is rightfully verboten round these parts. It is simply pointing out that "Good Intentions" can be slightly more complex than it might seem.

I also tend to think that some acts are going to be evil no matter what the intent is. And, as far as I know, Rich hasn't said anything one way or another on that score.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right.

Tricky part is- what do we use for "some acts are evil no matter the intentions"?

The splatbooks like BoED, FC2, and BoVD, which while interesting also have certain flaws?

Intuition?

A bit of both?

[Porthos]

Sounds about right.

Tricky part is- what do we use for "some acts are evil no matter the intentions"?

Ultimately? Whatever the person behind the DM screen says is the borderline.

And, for once, I'm not trying to be flippant. Just what is Good and Evil has been vexing philosophers for millennia. And even if people can (usually) agree on the Big Picture, it's those fuzzy borderline disputes that cause the most headaches. So it's not surprising to see more than a few debates on this board about just where that line is/what cases actions are more important than intent.

Yet in a system like DnD someone has to be the final arbiter of that borderline. And all the splatbooks in the world ain't going to help if an individual DM looks at one and says, "Sha yeah, right. Not in my game."

So, as you said in another thread, a person can come in here and say, more or less, "such and such wouldn't be viewed as an evil act at my table." Which is good as far as it goes. But it slightly less helpful when talking about Rich's table comic.

Now if we didn't have a clue about what Rich thought about the matter (acting as a pseudo-DM), or if we didn't have in-comic authorities on Good and Evil commenting on various matters, then talking about how each of us views something and pointing to larger guidelines in DnD could very well be helpful. But, setting aside the whole Death of the Author for a moment, we do have Word of God outside of the comic and Word of God(like being)s inside the comic on many of these topics.

...

I just think some people don't like the answers that they're getting in those cases. Thus the interminable arguments.

[hamishspence]

Indeed. In comic, we have the reaction of the fiends, out of comic we have that much-quoted comment from Don't Split The Party.

For another DStP one:

Spoiler

Show

By giving V another option- however ridiculous an option it may seem to us in the comfort of our living rooms with days to calculate the likelihood of success- they destroy V's certainty at his/her own righteousness. They force him/her to admit, even if only silently to him/herself, that he/she needs to do this on his/her own in order to salvage the pride that he/she had beaten out of him/her by the black dragon.

This admission opens the door for some of V's abominable acts once he/she possesses the Soul splices, under the idea that if you're already damned, you might as well sin.

The four words that V speaks, therefore, are critical in convincing him/herself that success is the most important consideration- that the ends justify the means. And more importantly, that it needs to be Vaarsuvius who succeeds, not someone else... hence the emphasis on the word I.

It's a lie, but it is enough of a flimsy pretence to enable him/her to do what he/she wants in his/her heart: take the power, consequences be damned.

[Burner28]

How about we discusss Enor and Malack's alignment?

[hamishspence]

Enor tends to be an "obey his boss/friend" type, making it harder to gauge.

Malack- his participation in Tarquin's scheme, and his willingness to have the Empress eat Elan even if he doesn't turn out to be Nale, seems a bit on the shady side for Neutral.

[Snails]

Just what is Good and Evil has been vexing philosophers for millennia. And even if people can (usually) agree on the Big Picture, it's those fuzzy borderline disputes that cause the most headaches. So it's not surprising to see more than a few debates on this board about just where that line is/what cases actions are more important than intent.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for philosopher's of the Realverse is the presumption that an action that is, apparently, absolutely necessary for the Greater Good must be Good.

In the OotSverse, there is nothing illogical about an action necessary to literally prevent the destruction of the world being outright Evil. Having simplistic moral metaphysics frees the OotSverse philosophers from expecting everything to be comfortable and self-consistent.

[SowZ]

Ultimately? Whatever the person behind the DM screen says is the borderline.

And, for once, I'm not trying to be flippant. Just what is Good and Evil has been vexing philosophers for millennia. And even if people can (usually) agree on the Big Picture, it's those fuzzy borderline disputes that cause the most headaches. So it's not surprising to see more than a few debates on this board about just where that line is/what cases actions are more important than intent.

Yet in a system like DnD someone has to be the final arbiter of that borderline. And all the splatbooks in the world ain't going to help if an individual DM looks at one and says, "Sha yeah, right. Not in my game."

So, as you said in another thread, a person can come in here and say, more or less, "such and such wouldn't be viewed as an evil act at my table." Which is good as far as it goes. But it slightly less helpful when talking about Rich's table comic.

Now if we didn't have a clue about what Rich thought about the matter (acting as a pseudo-DM), or if we didn't have in-comic authorities on Good and Evil commenting on various matters, then talking about how each of us views something and pointing to larger guidelines in DnD could very well be helpful. But, setting aside the whole Death of the Author for a moment, we do have Word of God outside of the comic and Word of God(like being)s inside the comic on many of these topics.

...

I just think some people don't like the answers that they're getting in those cases. Thus the interminable arguments.

I don't think the DM has the right to declare abstracts like right and wrong. He can say what energies you channel. He can say what afterlife you go to. He can say what the Gods think. He can say what the Paladin sees after detecting evil. But he cannot objectively say, 'If a train is riding down a track about to squash three people but you can pull a lever to make it change course and run over one person, you are wrong if you think it is okay to pull the lever' or visa-versa.

If the DM makes a morality call I disagree with I will not accept it as right because he says so. If the DM wants my characters alignment to change based on violating his morals or his interpretation of the settings morals, fine, but I won't play them any differently or as if they are going down a dark path unless I intended that in the first place.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for philosopher's of the Realverse is the presumption that an action that is, apparently, absolutely necessary for the Greater Good must be Good.

In the OotSverse, there is nothing illogical about an action necessary to literally prevent the destruction of the world being outright Evil. Having simplistic moral metaphysics frees the OotSverse philosophers from expecting everything to be comfortable and self-consistent.

If it is inconsistent logically, it is not a valid moral system.

[Snails]

If it is inconsistent logically, it is not a valid moral system.

It is unclear whether any moral system that ever existed is valid. Why should the OotSverse do better?

[Burner28]

To get back on topic, how about we discuss Hank and Inkyrius' alignment?

[Snails]

To get back on topic, how about we discuss Hank and Inkyrius' alignment?

Good idea. Um, I do not even remember these characters, at least by name. Summary? Link?

[Syklone]

Inkyrius: V's ex-mate.
I don't know about Hank.

[Burner28]

This is Inkyrius

[Gift Jeraff]

Hank always struck me as LN. Maybe LE, but light on the Evil.

Inkyrius I'd guess was NG or TN.

[Bundin]

You know, I hate it when people presume everyone only plays morally simplistic hack-and-slash games.

You know, I hate it when people presume to know how I play my games based on one statement about a very mechanical detail of some gaming system (one that lists inherent alignments in its sources for example).

As others have posted as well: being evil does not mean one cannot care about others. Mommy dragon only expressed care about her offspring, neutrality about some green dragon (and that's a stretch), and demonstrated the capability to at least threaten innocents, probably with intent to kill. So yeah, mommy dragon was in the middle of a definitely evil act by dnd standards.

The black dragon family is innocent in this storyline as well, but they're a. monsters and b. assumed to be evil by the rulebooks of the system that underlies the comic. So while *your* (and my) campaigns may be quite different, in the general dnd 3.5 system black dragons are evil monsters and killing them shifts alignment to good, if any.

[Kish]

You know, I hate it when people presume to know how I play my games based on one statement about a very mechanical detail of some gaming system (one that lists inherent alignments in its sources for example).

Killing evil creatures is never an evil act (and if it were, every adventurer in existence would be neutral at best).

That statement makes no sense at all without the presumption that every adventurer in existence kills creatures of listed-as-evil species for no reason except "their species is evil." It's a colossally presumptuous claim to make, whether you like having that pointed out or not.

in the general dnd 3.5 system black dragons are evil monsters and killing them shifts alignment to good, if any.

Citation needed for the bolded part. (And explanation of why Xykon, who has killed orders of magnitude more evil creatures than good ones, isn't Neutral or better by now, for that matter.)

[Mutant Sheep]

That statement makes no sense at all without the presumption that every adventurer in existence kills creatures of listed-as-evil species for no reason except "their species is evil." It's a colossally presumptuous claim to make, whether you like having that pointed out or not.

Citation needed for the bolded part.

Yes. If killing things made then Good... yikes.

[SowZ]

It is unclear whether any moral system that ever existed is valid. Why should the OotSverse do better?

It doesn't need to. Why shouldn't it flail about when it comes to right and wrong, uncertain and scared like the rest of us? Which I think Rich does intentionally.

[SowZ]

You know, I hate it when people presume to know how I play my games based on one statement about a very mechanical detail of some gaming system (one that lists inherent alignments in its sources for example).

As others have posted as well: being evil does not mean one cannot care about others. Mommy dragon only expressed care about her offspring, neutrality about some green dragon (and that's a stretch), and demonstrated the capability to at least threaten innocents, probably with intent to kill. So yeah, mommy dragon was in the middle of a definitely evil act by dnd standards.

The black dragon family is innocent in this storyline as well, but they're a. monsters and b. assumed to be evil by the rulebooks of the system that underlies the comic. So while *your* (and my) campaigns may be quite different, in the general dnd 3.5 system black dragons are evil monsters and killing them shifts alignment to good, if any.

So Drow should be good since they constantly kill other Drow and other evil Underdark creatures...

What you kill doesn't matter for alignment. WHY you kill is what matters. Killing a beholder just because you enjoy slaughering sentient creatures and hearing them scream is no better then doing the same to a halfling since said murderer didn't care about what they killed, only that they killed, so killing a beholder or killing a halfling does not indicate any difference in his emotional or moral state.

[Porthos]

So Drow should be good since they constantly kill other Drow and other evil Underdark creatures...

Never mind that, think about all those demons and devils on the front lines of the Blood War.

If killing enough demons (or devils) makes one good (all those good acts add up after all), then all of the beings on the front lines of the Blood War must be Good if one waits long enough.

Hmmm.

But then again, once a demon or devil kills a Good Fiend on the front line, they'll become Evil again (you know, for killing something that has killed hundreds of bad creatures).

...

It all makes sense again! Order is restored to the universe! Fiends taking part in the Blood War are evil because they are slaughtering countless number of creatures who have in turn slaughtered countless numbers of evil creatures. And anyone who kills someone who has eradicated that much evil from the universe must be evil!

Ain't logic wonderful?

Spoiler

Show

For my next trick, I will compare the weight of said person over there to a duck....

[veti]

I don't think the DM has the right to declare abstracts like right and wrong. He can say what energies you channel. He can say what afterlife you go to. He can say what the Gods think. He can say what the Paladin sees after detecting evil. But he cannot objectively say, 'If a train is riding down a track about to squash three people but you can pull a lever to make it change course and run over one person, you are wrong if you think it is okay to pull the lever' or visa-versa.

What is this "objectively" you speak of?

The DM has the absolute right - indeed, necessity - to say what's considered right and wrong by the various agents in her world. As to whether it's actually right or wrong - who cares? You can have your opinion and your DM can have hers, and the only reason even to discuss it is because you like a good moral argument - it won't make a whit of difference to the game.

If it is inconsistent logically, it is not a valid moral system.

Who says something is invalid just because it's inconsistent? If a god lays down a set of rules, and those rules are generally revered and followed, and that creates a nice stable moral framework within which society functions and most people are content - why should anyone care that you think the system is "invalid" just because it's not "logically consistent"?

And who is to judge the consistency of the logic? Unless you're willing to sit down and start writing out your moral dilemmas in set notation (which probably requires a degree in either maths or philosophy), "logical consistency" is little more than a gut feeling anyway.

[Burner28]

Never mind that, think about all those demons and devils on the front lines of the Blood War.

If killing enough demons (or devils) makes one good (all those good acts add up after all), then all of the beings on the front lines of the Blood War must be Good if one waits long enough.

Hmmm.

But then again, once a demon or devil kills a Good Fiend on the front line, they'll become Evil again (you know, for killing something that has killed hundreds of bad creatures).

...

It all makes sense again! Order is restored to the universe! Fiends taking part in the Blood War are evil because they are slaughtering countless number of creatures who have in turn slaughtered countless numbers of evil creatures. And anyone who kills someone who has eradicated that much evil from the universe must be evil!

Ain't logic wonderful?

Bravo!

[Snails]

Never mind that, think about all those demons and devils on the front lines of the Blood War.

Imagine if a few Holy weapons found their way onto the front lines of the Blood War. They give one negative level, but for the advantage of 2d6 damage and cutting through DR, that is a net win in combat effectiveness for most devils/demons.

And if demon/devil were to only to become non-evil then there is no negative level either (although I am not sure whether a Neutral/Good aligned creature of Evil subtype still gets the negative level).

[SowZ]

What is this "objectively" you speak of?

The DM has the absolute right - indeed, necessity - to say what's considered right and wrong by the various agents in her world. As to whether it's actually right or wrong - who cares? You can have your opinion and your DM can have hers, and the only reason even to discuss it is because you like a good moral argument - it won't make a whit of difference to the game.



Who says something is invalid just because it's inconsistent? If a god lays down a set of rules, and those rules are generally revered and followed, and that creates a nice stable moral framework within which society functions and most people are content - why should anyone care that you think the system is "invalid" just because it's not "logically consistent"?

And who is to judge the consistency of the logic? Unless you're willing to sit down and start writing out your moral dilemmas in set notation (which probably requires a degree in either maths or philosophy), "logical consistency" is little more than a gut feeling anyway.

Yep, and I said a DM has perfect right to say what all the gods think, how spells work, etc. etc. But some DMs think that the alignment system and the D&D good and evil gives them the right or the system the right to say what is right or wrong. Who knows? Like you said, we all have our opinions and I won't accept a DM who tries to say, 'No, that is morally wrong, you are good so you can't do that.' Which is why I am quick to give DM power of my alignment but I just don't care what he says about alignment on a moral level. If that makes him frustrated, well, I just don't think I can play.

If it works and it is a good framework and a god arbitrarily chose right and wrong it exists as a moral system. That doesn't mean it is valid as a moral system. It may be valid as a way to hold society together. Whatever. A moral system is something which uses logic to build rules up around a value. If it doesn't do that, it is not a valid moral system because it doesn't follow the definition of a moral system. It may be a valid something else.

[mabhatter]

The flumphs are not on the list... They are very important to the story.

[Manga Shoggoth]

The flumphs are not on the list... They are very important to the story.

Wikipedia: "are the only Lawful Good creatures in the original 1981 Fiend Folio."

...Although the alignment of the Ghost of Lame Creatures Past is in question...