Is it evil to ambush some orcs?

[War_lord]

Emm yeah, don't listen to Lindybeige, he's just a guy who has opinions. Sometimes his opinions are on the money, sometimes they're not.

If we're talking specifically the Black Gate from the Lord of the Rings and only that. The sources I can find online says that the book version of the battle had the forces of man numbering 5,000 foot and 1,000 cavalry, made up of the bravest men in Aragorn's army, formed up in two rings on a strong defensive position. So the Book version of the battle was apparently a far less overtly suicidal gambit then the movie version. Which makes sense if you want to convince the enemy that this is a true last stand.

[Malifice]

CE: I'm back guys - Leeeerrooooooy Jeeennkins!!!!!!

Sadly, all too often thats the LG PC talking.

[JackPhoenix]

Emm yeah, don't listen to Lindybeige, he's just a guy who has opinions. Sometimes his opinions are on the money, sometimes they're not.

If we're talking specifically the Black Gate from the Lord of the Rings and only that. The sources I can find online says that the book version of the battle had the forces of man numbering 5,000 foot and 1,000 cavalry, made up of the bravest men in Aragorn's army, formed up in two rings on a strong defensive position. So the Book version of the battle was apparently a far less overtly suicidal gambit then the movie version. Which makes sense if you want to convince the enemy that this is a true last stand.

Not last stand, it was supposed to be a display of overconfidence, to convince Sauron Aragorn's got the ring and thinks he can challenge him directly, because Sauron would never ever think someone could reject Ring's promises of power, or even dare to destroy it. Anyway, that army suffered heavy loses in the distraction ploy, and even if most of the cavalry survived, pursuing fleeing orcs into Mordor would be a bad idea.

[Boci]

Not last standAnyway, that army suffered heavy loses in the distraction ploy, and even if most of the cavalry survived, pursuing fleeing orcs into Mordor would be a bad idea.

No it wouldn't have been. Either the orcs are a pushover, in which case you probably pursue them, or the orcs are a potential threat, in which case you definitely pursue them. As a general rule, if its dangerous to chase a fleeing enemy, its even more dangerous to let them regroup.

Also you've jumped from "well, if they had cavalry" to "using cavalry would have been a bad idea".

[Malifice]

Not last stand, it was supposed to be a display of overconfidence, to convince Sauron Aragorn's got the ring and thinks he can challenge him directly, because Sauron would never ever think someone could reject Ring's promises of power, or even dare to destroy it. Anyway, that army suffered heavy loses in the distraction ploy, and even if most of the cavalry survived, pursuing fleeing orcs into Mordor would be a bad idea.

What was the point of it again?

To draw forces away from Minas Tirith or something?

[qube]

I'm not convinced you're arguing in good faith here.
You're taking beings (and not even all of them) that are representations of abstract ideals and interpreting their behavior from a human stand point.
It's ridiculous.

Do you consider yourself a murderer?
How many insects do you squish underfoot without nary a thought on your walks?
"Good" and cosmic representations thereof oppose "evil".
An angel that splats a horrific tyrant isn't going to be conceptualising the ordeal in terms of "murder", "killing", "death".

I do think angels are smart enough to know "death" and "killing" (which is ending life / cause death) - but I do not think it will see the act as murder, but righteous punishment (or something in those lines)

• When a good man kills a tyrants, you could say "well, good men can do evil things"
• Whan a paladin kills tyrants without losing it's powers, you could say "well, there's a middle ground, maybe it's not evil, but that doesn't make it good"
• When the supreme embodyment of what good is kills tyrants ... At some point one will have to accept that sometimes in D&D, killing is considered a good act.

After all, lets not forget that it's a game based upon a medieval setting - a time where slaying infidels & conquering the holy land was an act so righteous it absolved you of all your sins.

[Malifice]

I do think angels are smart enough to know "death" and "killing" (which is ending life / cause death) - but I do not think it will see the act as murder, but righteous punishment (or something in those lines)

So... no different from the actions and justifications of the Terrorists we see on the 5 o clock news then?

After all, lets not forget that it's a game based upon a medieval setting - a time where slaying infidels & conquering the holy land was an act so righteous it absolved you of all your sins.

Yep. Exactly the actions and justifications of the Terrorists.

Personally, I come from a different school of thought. Killing people (infidels or otherwise) as 'righteous punishment' is evil.

I have zero doubt of this fact when I turn on the news. Sad that you dont see it the same way.

I suppose there is a whole organization out there that agrees with you.

My personal view is they are wrong. Just like I reckon you are.

[JackPhoenix]

What was the point of it again?

To draw forces away from Minas Tirith or something?

To get Sauron to pay attention to things outside instead of two infiltrators moving around Mordor.

No it wouldn't have been. Either the orcs are a pushover, in which case you probably pursue them, or the orcs are a potential threat, in which case you definitely pursue them. As a general rule, if its dangerous to chase a fleeing enemy, its even more dangerous to let them regroup.

Also you've jumped from "well, if they had cavalry" to "using cavalry would have been a bad idea".

They didn't have cavalry in movie version. Even when they did in books, Mordor is hostile territory, with rough terrain unsuitable for cavalry, no source of food (at least food men and horses could've used) and completely unknown. For all they knew, there could've been another huge army of orcs (and there was, though they were in chaos after Sauron's fall, but Aragorn couldn't have know that). So they could've pursued the Black Gate army for a while, but certainly not to complete extinction, not to mention that there still was a resistance from men loyal to Sauron who haven't fled like the orcs.

[Boci]

• When a good man kills a tyrants, you could say "well, good men can do evil things"
• Whan a paladin kills tyrants without losing it's powers, you could say "well, there's a middle ground, maybe it's not evil, but that doesn't make it good"
• When the supreme embodyment of what good is kills tyrants ... At some point one will have to accept that sometimes in D&D, killing is considered a good act.

Does it have to be? Can't it be a neutral act? Even the supreme embodiment of what good is can still presumably commit neutral acts, especially if the outcome of that neutral act is a lot of good.

[Willie the Duck]

Looking at this thread I fear we've all been infected with some sort of virus or thing that tricks us into trolling each other. Or if not precisely trolling, something much like it. I wish you all luck with this.

This is why I was smart enough to stay out of this guaranteed Charlie-Foxtrot. There is no way I'd be foolish enough to associate myself with such a ridiculous hill to fight and die upon.

Oh wait... dammit!

[smcmike]

So... no different from the actions and justifications of the Terrorists we see on the 5 o clock news then?



Yep. Exactly the actions and justifications of the Terrorists.

Personally, I come from a different school of thought. Killing people (infidels or otherwise) as 'righteous punishment' is evil.

I have zero doubt of this fact when I turn on the news. Sad that you dont see it the same way.

I suppose there is a whole organization out there that agrees with you.

My personal view is they are wrong. Just like I reckon you are.

What’s really confusing about your position, Mal, is the way you bounce back and forth between claiming that the moral universe of D&D is completely different from our own and claiming that we must judge actions in D&D based upon what you see on the news. In a world with absolute good and evil, isn’t it possible that the views of a crusader are right? Isn’t that kind of the point?*

What’s really offensive about your position is that you take this weird double move, where you apply your real-world morality to a game, declare it to be objective within the game, and then use it to attack the real world morality of other people on this board.


* It may go without saying that there are problems with the idea of a moral universe in which some beings are “good” and some are “evil” by their inherent nature. If you really want to apply real-world morality to your game, you should start by removing this idea.

[The Zoat]

Does it have to be? Can't it be a neutral act? Even the supreme embodiment of what good is can still presumably commit neutral acts, especially if the outcome of that neutral act is a lot of good.

It's not that the embodiment of what is good performs a neutral act. The embodiment of what is good actively goes out of its way to travel through the planes, exerting its influence and risking its continued existence fighting in order to perform this 'neutral act'.

[qube]

So... no different from the actions and justifications of the Terrorists we see on the 5 o clock news then?

Well, yes. Obviously. Never heard the expression

'One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter'

The main difference being, is that unlike RL, alignment is a thing. IRL, to quote John Barth "Everyone is the hero of his own life". IRL the terrorist thinks he's the good guy and the others are the bad guys; while the victims consider themselves the good guys and the terrorist the bad guy.

In D&D however, there's no question. Cultist of Bhaal don't go "Like, you say, God of Murder, but he's like, really, just misunderstood and all". Or "Well, I know I'm sacrificing virgins in the most of brutal of ways to praise Yeenoghu, ... but I'm actually a really good gnoll once you get to know me"

Personally, I come from a different school of thought. Killing people (infidels or otherwise) as 'righteous punishment' is evil.

And that's where you are wrong. Per definition so. If it were evil, it wouldn't be righteous.

It also shows why your view is irrelevant:

• IRL, righteous punishment, is simple punishment to those you deem evil. Whcih you can argue is ecocentric. (people are not evil just because you think they are evil)
• In D&D, righteous punishment is in fact punishing those who are evil.

-----
If nothing else:

Yeah, sure. The idea of the crusader, of the angel applying righteous punishment and so forth are mcuh like modern day terrorists. But in the end, those are the elements used to design the game.

You can't argue you don't like how the game is designed, so it's not designed that way

[qube]

Does it have to be? Can't it be a neutral act? Even the supreme embodiment of what good is can still presumably commit neutral acts, especially if the outcome of that neutral act is a lot of good.

Two points on this:

1. from a flavor perspective

Until it is litterly written down that X is an act of good one can always assume that X is a outliner. However, you have to ask yourself: do you think the game designers are deliberately trying to missguide us? I mean, it's always possible ... but realistically?

Because that's the assumption you need to make. It's not some case of "technically, maybe, it might be OK the supreme embodiment of what it means to be good to do this" - but "the designers say that this is how the supreme embodiment of what it means to be good acts"

Would it then not be fair to say, that that behavior is not some fringe case?

2. from a game rule perspective

A simple begging the question. If the designers considered thie fringe behavior, and the normal behavior of the supreme embodiment, is, really trying their best not to kill, and ONLY if there's ABSOLUTELY no other alternative ... end the targets life.

... then why by default do they prepare save-or-die spells instead of save-or-"it's-not-death-but-looks-a-lot-like-it" spell?
Or, why don't they have the feats that transforms damage into nonlethal damage?

In the end, I asked Malifice this, with his defend-against-armed-burglar example: If the options are
1. a gun with only lethal bullets,
2. a gun with equally effective nonlethal bullets,
3. a gun that, at the moment of impact, you can decide weather to kill or to K.O. the robber
... we see that even these supreme embodiments of good chose option 1.

That would be a very strange pick for the enbodyment of good if 2 and/or 3 would be considered good while 1 to be neutral, right?

Can you really say that you had no choise to kill the burglar ... if you decide to use the shotgun instead of the stungun?

[CharonsHelper]

Can you really say that you had no choise to kill the burglar ... if you decide to use the shotgun instead of the stungun?

Yes - because the shotgun is more effective & he won't be getting back up.

I mean - you technically had a choice, but it was a choice between more & less effective options.

[qube]

Yes - because the shotgun is more effective & he won't be getting back up.

A good point, if you skipped over the entire post and only read the last sentence. But what if the shotgun & stungun had the same effectiveness? What then?
because you seem to have missed the choice: To quote

If the options are
1. a gun with only lethal bullets,
2. a gun with equally effective nonlethal bullets,
3. a gun that, at the moment of impact, you can decide weather to kill or to K.O. the robber

Edit: Heck, I say equally effective, but one can make a solid case power word kill* < imprisonment** ...


*: close range, instakill. no safe, but no effect if 101 hp or more.
A normal death (can be raised, ressurected, wished or mirracled back)
Has two common spelltypes people usually protect against: 'death' (ex. death ward) & 'mind-affecting' (ex. mind blank)

**: touch, will safe. comateus & wisked away.
only the lvl 9 freedom spell can bring you back. not even wish or miracle.

[War_lord]

You use the shotgun, because the stungun might not work, and violent criminals aren't known for mercy. Plus, you know, stunguns are less lethal non-lethal is a myth.

[qube]

You use the shotgun, because the stungun might not work, and violent criminals aren't known for mercy. Plus, you know, stunguns are less lethal non-lethal is a myth.

Ref post above

[smcmike]

Worse than usual reading comprehension today.

[CharonsHelper]

A good point, if you skipped over the entire post and only read the last sentence...

I saw it. I just thought that it was a foolish question - like the question about the train headed for 5 people which you can shift to squish one.

The last sentence had decent context - so that's what I addressed.

[Orion3T]

You use the shotgun, because the stungun might not work, and violent criminals aren't known for mercy. Plus, you know, stunguns are less lethal non-lethal is a myth.

You could justifiably do this, and it might be seen as lawful. But it's certainly not 'Good' in this context because you are placing your own well-being above that of another person whom you know very little about. Sure, you know they are in your home and they are armed. But that doesn't make it 'good' to apply lethal force if you have alternative options.

- You don't know if they will actually use their weapon, or if it's even loaded.
- You don't know if they are armed because they will shoot you on sight or
- You don't know why they are trying to rob you; maybe their family is starving. Maybe they believe you stole something from them and they are trying to get it back. Maybe someone's holding their family hostage and they are just doing what they feel they have to do to keep their family alive.
- You don't know if this is their first time or if they do it habitually.
- You don't know their potential for rehabilitation.

If you apply lethal force you might well be morally justified, but that doesn't make it good. A LG person might still do it because they believe they are ridding the world of something that's at least dangerous and possibly evil. But they might well find out they were mistaken and ultimately feel a lot of remorse over it.

Someone who is Good beyond reproach might still use lethal force if they believed it was their only viable option but they would feel a lot of remorse over it. And if they had enough time to think it through they might pick up on clues that the criminal doesn't deserve to die.

Consider carefully the story Les Miserables. It's the show of (arguably undeserved) mercy, compassion, forgiveness which leads Valjean to spend the rest of his life trying to redeem himself. And arguably he does so.

Taking personal risk to allow another being the possibility of forgiveness even when most would agree they don't deserve it is arguably the ultimate in goodness. It might not be smart, it might not even be lawful. But being truly Good comes at a price.

There's a reason we see someone who leads from the front as more heroic than someone who leads from behind the scenes and away from the action.

[CharonsHelper]

If you apply lethal force you might well be morally justified, but that doesn't make it good. A LG person might still do it because they believe they are ridding the world of something that's at least dangerous and possibly evil. But they might well find out they were mistaken and ultimately feel a lot of remorse over it.

They weren't mistaken that the guy came into their house with a gun. That has the consequence of being shot with a shotgun. End.

You're making this way more complicated than it is.

And shooting them with the shotgun isn't mutually exclusive to forgiving them for coming into your house with a weapon. Forgiveness =/ being a pushover.

[MadBear]

I know I've said this before in other threads to little/no avail, but one thing that seems unquestionably problematic with this entire conversation is that we're skipping over the most important part.

At some point we need to step back and define what we mean when we use the words:

- Good
- Neutral
- Evil
- Moral

We also should/could talk about what those words mean in regards to D&D.

I can't help but notice that so much of this conversation is lost on people talking past each other. Because if I use one definition of good (let's call it A) and Jim uses a different definition of good (let's call it B), then we'll never get anywhere. Because I'll misrepresent his position because I'm taking what he said and applying the A definition to it, while he misrepresents another position using the B definition.

Because to be perfectly honest, I can see many of the different peoples position throughout this post, only to seem there position misrepresented by another person (whose point I can also see) because they're applying their definition to the others words.

[qube]

I know I've said this before in other threads to little/no avail, but one thing that seems unquestionably problematic with this entire conversation is that we're skipping over the most important part.

At some point we need to step back and define what we mean when we use the words:

- Good
- Neutral
- Evil
- Moral

for starters - I would suggest looking at them in the context of D&D. These topics IRL are entire fields on their own one could spend years studying.

[Sigreid]

Just going to state in my opinion, permanently stopping a known danger to others/innocents is a good act. Intentionally letting a known danger to others continue to be a danger to others/innocents when you have the power to stop it is at best a neutral act, and I can see the argument that it's an evil and cowardly act.

[MadBear]

for starters - I would suggest looking at them in the context of D&D. These topics IRL are entire fields on their own one could spend years studying.

I completely agree. That's why the very next line I said:

We also should/could talk about what those words mean in regards to D&D.

[Tanarii]

... you ... do know ... we don't live in the D&D world ... right?

The one who supremely embodies what it means to be good and kills tyrants ... that's a character in D&D, and he shows on how the developers of the game see morality in their game.

If you can't comprehend the difference between in and out game, I can only hope you go and see a doctor ASAP.

#FailureAtPersonalAttack

Malifice has made it perfectly clear in multiple Alignment threads that he does not care about how various editions of D&D morality is explained to work, let alone 5e D&D morality, only about his IRL moral views. And that makes him a very 'good' person, by the sounds of it a legal, ethical and moral true believer. I have a lot of respect for that.

But D&D Alignments are intentionally designed to not require that, because many of us don't want or care about moral dilemmas in our fantasy games. We just want to kill some orcs and get some loot or whatever. And many of us want to do it heroically to boot, to save the world from the clearly Bad Guys.

[Unoriginal]

It would help A LOT if people stopped acting as if 3.X alignments mattered to 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

It would help even more if people stopped treating alignments as on/off switches. Alignment is analogue, not digital.

[Tanarii]

It would help even more if people stopped treating alignments as on/off switches. Alignment is analogue, not digital.

And acting like individual actions are Alignment worthy. Combined with binary thinking, we end up with ludicrous 'trolley problem' situations being put forth as examples and discussed.

This action is either Good or Evil. That action is either Lawful or Chaotic. This kind of thinking ignores 5e Alignment on multiple levels.