Author Topic: Morality Question  (Read 9771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2011, 02:43:13 AM »
Or

Raping a good guy = evil
raping an evil guy = still evil.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2011, 02:49:38 AM »
Killing any sentient creature for no reason is evil.  

Boom.

Glad to see someone agreeing with my. I'll point back to my first post in this topic.

I would disagree. In fact, I would say that the only time that killing a sentient being is not, in and of itself, an act of evil is when it's done for protection or survival, in which case it is neutral.

I think the only way to save objective DnD alignments is to separate 'racial alignment' and 'planar alignment' from 'actual alignment' and look solely at actions for actual alignment. Then you can create a consistent and objective morality that stands up across societal and racial differences through which to determine alignment.

So just because someone uses 'good' energy does not make their actions nor alignment good, even if they have the good subtype.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2011, 03:09:24 AM »
Eh, I'd argue that having the [good] subtype prevents you from doing [evil] actions. 

You are simply incapable of doing them.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Kajhera

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2011, 03:20:39 AM »
Eh, I'd argue that having the [good] subtype prevents you from doing [evil] actions. 

You are simply incapable of doing them.

I've seen it interpreted this way.

Of course angels can fall, but I daresay you fall *first*, and do the evil things *after*.

Gods_Trick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2011, 03:38:54 AM »
Eh, I'd argue that having the [good] subtype prevents you from doing [evil] actions. 

You are simply incapable of doing them.

I've seen it interpreted this way.

Of course angels can fall, but I daresay you fall *first*, and do the evil things *after*.

Time, consequently morality is linear in D&D. They must have the ability to do evil, which implies some autonomy from alignment.

Kajhera

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2011, 04:01:03 AM »
Eh, I'd argue that having the [good] subtype prevents you from doing [evil] actions. 

You are simply incapable of doing them.

I've seen it interpreted this way.

Of course angels can fall, but I daresay you fall *first*, and do the evil things *after*.

Time, consequently morality is linear in D&D. They must have the ability to do evil, which implies some autonomy from alignment.

... And evil is the absence of good, therefore turning your back on good is doing evil, so ... yea ...

Gods_Trick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2011, 04:02:57 AM »
Eh, I'd argue that having the [good] subtype prevents you from doing [evil] actions. 

You are simply incapable of doing them.

I've seen it interpreted this way.

Of course angels can fall, but I daresay you fall *first*, and do the evil things *after*.

Time, consequently morality is linear in D&D. They must have the ability to do evil, which implies some autonomy from alignment.

... And evil is the absence of good, therefore turning your back on good is doing evil, so ... yea ...

Thats a philosphical stance certainly. D&D doesn't go into it, but from extrapolation, I think the absence of good is neutral.

Kajhera

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2011, 04:06:11 AM »
Eh, I'd argue that having the [good] subtype prevents you from doing [evil] actions. 

You are simply incapable of doing them.

I've seen it interpreted this way.

Of course angels can fall, but I daresay you fall *first*, and do the evil things *after*.

Time, consequently morality is linear in D&D. They must have the ability to do evil, which implies some autonomy from alignment.

... And evil is the absence of good, therefore turning your back on good is doing evil, so ... yea ...

Thats a philosphical stance certainly. D&D doesn't go into it, but from extrapolation, I think the absence of good is neutral.

I have been far too immersed in the Middle Ages and Renaissance by my studies to be able to take another stance in my D&D games easily.  :(

But if the absence of good is neutral, turning away from good is indeed an option available to celestial beings even if evil isn't, as they can certainly do neutral things.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2011, 04:30:11 AM »
Well, here's my basic outlook on what defines good/evil/vile/exalted/neutral.

Exalted: You go out of your way to right the wrongs of the world, up to and including not killing your enemies unless absolutely necessary, not causing unwarranted destruction in any way, not judging by race/alignment/whathaveyou, and POSSIBLY taking up sacred vows (of nonviolence being the most common), aspiring to lead by example. Misdeeds become easily forgiven provided the culprit demonstrates remorse, shallow or not (because redemption happens after a long way and you can't expect people to fully regret their choices at the drop of a hat).

Good: You're nice. Your methods for doing things include the least possible harm; your solutions to a problem always seek the least amount of sacrifices, even if they're harder that way. Yet, unlike the exalted, you DO accept that sometimes sacrifices must be made, and while you may not be happy about the prospect of killing, redeeming every enemy that comes your way is only practical in the long haul. You try to avoid bad thoughts but that doesn't mean you don't wish that darned kobold didn't wake up with a mouth full of fire ants.

Neutral: You're a regular person. Most people are neither concerned with the greater good nor dastardly enough to shaft others on purpose - at least not directly. Your conscience is somewhat secondary to your well-being, but more often than not that just means that you're not a hero, and would rather run and live to see another day than fight the evil overlord. On the other hand, if you run into an ancient tomb full of treasure... it's not like the corpses are using them, am I right?

Evil: You're a selfish bastard. You want things your way or no way. You get your jollies out of either watching people be screwed over or screwing them over yourself. You may actually have a heart or a conscience, but you simply don't care about them. Your first thought in a given situation is: how does this benefit me, or how do I keep myself from getting the shaft? That's not to say good or neutral people cannot be selfish at any given point - but in general, there will be at least a bit of hesitation for a second or two before they choose themselves.

Vile: Your every living second is devoted to giving people pain, grief and general unpleasantness. The most basic characteristic of a vile character is that he crosses the line of common human decency. A vile character is the kind of guy that would wear his enemies' scalp as a hat, or clothes made from the skin of his victims. Motivations for this kind of guy run the gamut from good ol' insanity to childhood trauma, but just as Exalted characters are quite unbelievable in the lengths they will go to in order to change things for the better (and are thus a little on the kooky side as well), there's something just plain wrong with the mind of a vile character. Remember that he need not cross EVERY threshold - some are more horrific than others, and most sociopaths fixate on ONE kind of line-crossing anyway.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Tyal-Kelvar

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2011, 08:51:48 AM »
Okay, not sure how much I can assist in this topic.  Well, other than the issue that, even if killing something evil purely because it's evil is not evil, you still run into the problem of determining whether something is evil or not.  Any real method of determining (Like observing actions) would clear up some of the moral issues, as one has to consider magical means inaccurate.  Now the reason magical means of detection are inaccurate... well, excluding all the spells and magic items that can be used to make an alignment show up differently, you still have the issue with alignment subtypes.  By the rules, a creature with the evil subtype will always show up as evil to alignment detection, no matter it's real alignment.  There was even a succubus paladin (The regular lawful good type paladin) in one of the pre-made adventures on the Wizard's site.

My point is, no matter how foul and inherently evil a species is, one can not judge the individual so easily.  In fact if a species is evil enough on a whole, alignment detection spells fail to determine it as well.  This isn't even getting into the issues that can come up with someone evil using illusion spells or transmutation spells to turn their foes into creatures known for evil, so as good adventurers will slay them.  Only creatures you can ever be sure are evil are those that are known to be evil and are mindless, hence can't ever be different.  Most certainly killing a creature that might be good is over zealous, even for a paladin, hence a neutral act at best (Likely actually evil).

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #70 on: February 11, 2011, 12:58:08 PM »
One point a lot of people seem to forget about pre-emptive smiting: allowing an evil act to take place can, itself, be considered an evil act by omission.

So you can't just wait until the demon goes off to torch an orphanage.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #71 on: February 11, 2011, 02:23:39 PM »
Yeah, as such, I'm inclined to consider intent and means as the primary determination of alignment, as far as characters are concerned.
The outcome is irrelevant to personal alignment.

So by doing evil things with good as the intent(e.g. preemptive smiting of people who merely MIGHT commit evil, rather than using a less...permanent option), your personal standards are Neutral at best, despite being  a great aid to the cause of Good or Evil. A darker but still Good option is to preemptively kidnap the would be evil-doer for a long long sermon.

The key thing to remember, other than aligned outsiders(who don't really get a choice in the matter), your moral standards are independent of your motivation. And without prescience, you can hardly count on knowing the outcome.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 02:26:15 PM by veekie »
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #72 on: February 11, 2011, 02:43:52 PM »
So by doing evil things with good as the intent(e.g. preemptive smiting of people who merely MIGHT commit evil, rather than using a less...permanent option), your personal standards are Neutral at best, despite being  a great aid to the cause of Good or Evil. A darker but still Good option is to preemptively kidnap the would be evil-doer for a long long sermon.
Of course, that hubris is going to bite you in the ass.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #73 on: February 11, 2011, 03:04:10 PM »
Yeah, but it'd be a Good ass, at least at first. As long as alignment is determined by what a character seeks to do, rather than "opps, there was a baby in the barrel you just skewered, you become evil". More accurately, someone who's Good(or at least, likes to think hes Good) would be horrified at the outcome, but the very fact of horror proves he is indeed good. Same goes for paladins and codes of conduct, you can't exactly break a code if your free will had nothing to do with it.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #74 on: February 11, 2011, 03:09:54 PM »
Yeah, but it'd be a Good ass, at least at first. As long as alignment is determined by what a character seeks to do, rather than "opps, there was a baby in the barrel you just skewered, you become evil". More accurately, someone who's Good(or at least, likes to think hes Good) would be horrified at the outcome, but the very fact of horror proves he is indeed good. Same goes for paladins and codes of conduct, you can't exactly break a code if your free will had nothing to do with it.
True.  On the other hand, the good response to realizing flaws would be "oh shit, I'd better do something different next time".
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #75 on: February 11, 2011, 03:34:13 PM »
Yeah, but it'd be a Good ass, at least at first. As long as alignment is determined by what a character seeks to do, rather than "opps, there was a baby in the barrel you just skewered, you become evil". More accurately, someone who's Good(or at least, likes to think hes Good) would be horrified at the outcome, but the very fact of horror proves he is indeed good. Same goes for paladins and codes of conduct, you can't exactly break a code if your free will had nothing to do with it.
True.  On the other hand, the good response to realizing flaws would be "oh shit, I'd better do something different next time".
And depending on the amount of goodness, make amends for that baby you skewered.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Stormcrow

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
Re: Morality Question
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2011, 05:16:58 AM »
This may strain some eye so skipping to the collies version at the bottom my help

[spoiler]Well i think we can agree that Alignments and what is called good and evil is not black and white but 100 ,000, 000 shades of grey as for as examples of a raider vs a adventure. But there is another one that is more to view of options about three years ago i was doing in a campain were I was playing a warlock (NC) and what happened was a Cleric / Inquisitor of  Pelor  (who was neutral good )was planning on exicuteing a Child by burning at the stake her crime was being born a warlock for in his eyes magic users  and Warlocks (sort of a double slandered in that one being a cleric)  are the spawn of devils and demons and must killed at every opportunity for the good of all. Well during the speech that was given on the evils of magic and warlocks, my character taking a bucket filled with lamp oils splashed it on him(using invocation walk unseen to get close to him) unfriendly that was not ignited buy his torch so next turn I have my character lift that invocation and after  calling what he was doing madness and that this is a child ignited him using Brimstone Blast and in the insuring riot  saved the little child. Well it was considered a nurtal act saving the girl  and dropping her off at a convent of Wee jes were some of the sisters there were Eldritch Disciples as for lighting the Cleric / Inquisitor of  Pelor   on fire it turns out that did not kill him and we got a returning villain that would not rest till evil or at least my character was dead.
So both thought they were doing what was right the fanatical inquisitor for what his religion taught him what was excitable and good and that all evil must be killed and that is going good and the warlock in that he viewed him as wrong and must be stopped at  any cost. [/spoiler]

Well to conclude I think it is safe to say that killing in itself is not an evil act but the motivation in of why they are doing it has more to do with it either that or all adventures are just lower level versions of the BBEG.  And buy the way as to the original questions in morality after reading a few of the early posts both me and my DM ruled both as Neutral acts.