Am I on the path to evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Am I on the path to evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Mist of Shadows
03-18-06, 07:25 PM I'm asking for help with a slight ethical question, is it evil to use simulacurums and other such temperary life forms as cannon fodder? What about using them to fuel a magical item?

I ask that here because it effects the growth of my character in certain ways.
annalivvie
03-19-06, 01:48 AM I think the key thing to look at here is the phrase you used yourself, "temporary life forms". I would have to say, yes, it's is incredibly wrong to use any sort of life as cannon foder. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would say it was fine, but I think at the very least, it's questionable. We had a chaotic good favored soul in our last game, who actually used his followers more or less as foder, and I always thought it was really nasty and creepy, and that he should have taken a major penalty for future leadership abilities. You should consider whether or not your character thinks of these things as life forms. If by nature your character would believe taking life in the name of gaining protection for himself is wrong, that it's definitely wrong and on the path toward evil.
Need_A_Life
03-19-06, 06:47 AM Well, I would consider it neutral at best and even that would take a LOT of convincing.

"Just because they've only lived for 6 seconds doesn't mean that they don't have rights..." :P

The only factor that could make this acceptable would be to make simulacrums of yourself and fight alongside of them. Harsh, but fair.
Nobody_
03-21-06, 10:58 AM NO, its just evil.

Anytime you willingly and knowingly hurt, kill or sacrifice others for your own personal gain, in any form, it is evil.

In fact, in the Book of Vile Darkness it states that if you are being attacked by Owl Bears, and you'r only chance to live is to run up a cliff that will probably start an avalance and crush the town below, then assuming that you are aware of this danger, it is considered an evil act.

Even if you aren't aware of what you are doing, then at the very least, your character is subject to gross negligence.

That said, your character may still think that he is a good character, and may act accordingly, doing good things for others on a regular basis, but it is not actually so.

-Nobody
Mist of Shadows
03-22-06, 10:08 PM Ah well so much for that path to power, I think it's got to be easier being slightly evil. Thanks for the suggestions.
Pan_Ai_Khan
03-23-06, 08:26 AM Just to clarify - are these 'temporary creatures' summoned from another place (to which they then return), or do they owe their whole existance to the casting of a spell, and cease to exist when it's duration expires?

If the creatures are summoned, then killing them is evil.
If the creatures are created, then that opens up a moral can of worms.
If it is evil to create life only to destroy it, it therefore follows that casting any spell that creates a life form is an evil act because the creatures will die (at some point).
It is not evil to give the semblance of life to something that is not alive, then use that as fodder.
Senevri
03-23-06, 10:30 AM Hmm.
- "Killed" summoned creatures don't really die AFAIK
( as Gated creatures explicitly die when killed, we can presume summons don't. )

Simulacra are snowballs. T_T

Permanent Animated Objects are constructs.

In general, though, disregarding value of life == evil.

My opinion, off the top of my head.
JulesCARV
03-23-06, 10:51 AM I'd say no in the case of simulacrum. There's no indication that they are capable of feeling pain or otherwise suffering. I see no indication that it causes harm to the "original" creature. I don't think there's any reason it would be evil, although some might argue that it would be wrong to make a simulacrum of someone who doesn't consent to it and with whom you aren't in conflict, in much the same way it might be wrong to photograph someone without his consent. However, if you make a simulacrum of a consenting party member (or yourself), or an enemy, whose rights you aren't really respecting (nor vice versa) anyway, then no, it's not wrong.

Same applies to astral constructs, IMHO.
DracoPhoenix
03-23-06, 11:42 AM NO, its just evil.
Anytime you willingly and knowingly hurt, kill or sacrifice others for your own personal gain, in any form, it is evil.
Not to nit pick, but the whole, you know, killing = evil, the guy isnt a lawful good monk with do no harm vows.
By the above, you should let the owlbear kill you so that it may feed on you remains, possibly even feeding it's young as killing the owlbear to save yourself would be considered evil.

As for the simulacrum - if the spell expires then no, the guy only had a temporary life span anyway. If it's a permenant clone then yes. Unless your character would willingly give his life under those circumstances.
Mist of Shadows
03-23-06, 08:09 PM Well that's sort of the problem, because simulcrum doesn't expire other then taking damage. Otherwise it looks like an instant effect. So yeah I guess you are robbing them of part of their life span. But by the same token they are just ice you made them you have the right to unconjure them don't you? It's not like you're cutting out the heart of you copies. As for the stupid people that decide to let the owlbear eat them, I'm glad you're dead we didn't need anyone that stupid alive and in the gene pool.
Need_A_Life
03-24-06, 05:16 AM Well, they're NOT zombies, they are living, intelligent beings who should not be used as fodder.

Having one to watch over your interests in a city would be neutral.

Having one as a speedbump for monsters would be evil

Having one as a slave would be evil as well.
Pan_Ai_Khan
03-24-06, 08:29 AM This whole 'Kill = Evil' argument.

Every person kills something (or causes something to be killed) on a regular basis.
Unless you are a plant (which can make it's own food), something has to be sacrificed just to keep you alive.

If animating a snowman so it can be destroyed is evil, animating a chair so it can be destroyed is evil. So is animating a plant, or a rock, or a corpse.

If you animate something, or ask a being to lay it's life down to save yours, that is not evil.
If, however, you take control over a being and force it to do something suicidal, then I would say that was evil.
Nobody_
03-24-06, 10:10 AM 1) About the Owlbears: This was not my example, it is the RAW that stated this example, I just follow it.

Also consider the fact that not every character has to do good things ALL the time in order to be a good character. That path is placed only upon Exalted characters and Paladins (although even paladins can commit the evil act and then atone for it later)

The issue doesn't really start affecting your permanant (and I use the term loosely) alignment until you start doing it over and over again, which our simulacrum friend is doing.

Also, you are completely justified in killing evil men and women, unless you use extreme or excessive means to do it, although this is only true if you are killing them because they are evil, as opposed to killing them because they have a really nice amulet of fire resistance. Again, personal gain makes it evil.

I would say that killing non-sentient life-forms for personal gain could be considered a neutral act, and is definately a neutral act if it causes no pain (or your character believes they do not suffer) such as with plants, constructs, and to open another can of worms, maybe even comatose victims.

This all is necessary to make a just decision about simulacrums.

2) Creating a creature is not evil, even if that creature may die later on. You are giving it life it would not have had. However, if it's sole purpose of existance is to be in agony and pain, then I would say that there is something wrong with that.

It doesn't much matter to me who it comes from. Once the spell has been cast, the simulacrums are a separate entity. However, I would argue that this is up to how your character views them. Does he consider them real entities, or more like constructs. With a choice this trickey, I would leave it up to you.
ManTimeForgot
03-26-06, 08:24 AM That's actually a question that cannot be answered inside the D&D RAW (I'm sorry but BoED does not count as RAW for the purposes of determining alignment effects; beyond this your Owlbear example has no bearing on whether or not this would be evil).

The ONLY trait which matters is whether or not the simulacrum counts as life. Does the "partially real creature composed of snow and ice" count as a construct (illusory or otherwise) or is it a "lifeform" of some kind.

At the very least the simulacrum is sentient, and this means that certain strictures apply regardless. You could not degrade or demean your simulacrum (insulting your simulacrum for fun is almost certainly evil).

Now if it is life proper, then powering your spells or sacrificing it to make items is definitively evil.

If it is not life proper, then sacrificing it is of questionable morality, and may swing evil, but it may not. It's unclear just how much of the definition of Good hinges on the sentient component versus the life component.

And if killing/harming were ALWAYS Evil in D&D, then except for a maybe a couple apostle's of peace characters EVERYONE has been evil aligned without exception.

There is more to Evil in D&D than just killing. Otherwise eating animals for food would be evil, and that is definitively wrong in D&D.

MTF
Need_A_Life
03-26-06, 03:27 PM So creating life using a spell that forces them to obey you and then using that control to have that same life destroyed in the process of destroying MORE life isn't evil? What is then?

How about making a nonmagical version of this.
"Person A" has become tired of sacrificing his magically made minions in combat and decides to have some nonmagically made. He goes to a city and quickly becomes popular and nine months later he has a beginning of his minions. Now, six years later he uses these children as a diversion against a dragon to spare himself the risk of getting hurt. Is that evil?

In both cases he created the lifeforms and in both cases he sacrifices them in order to save his own life.

If you thought that one was evil and the other wasn't, please argue why one is guilty and another (apparently) is innocent.
Mist of Shadows
03-27-06, 01:20 PM Well I guess both things are evil, being that they are sort of alive. If they had a duration or something you were saving them from by turning them into coins that might be different. But the fact that a simulacrum can't refuse makes it seem evil.
arjomanes
03-27-06, 04:20 PM Good old alignment/ethics questions.

Here are some of the basic issues:

1. Does a simulacrum really exist?

"Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow."

Being even "partially real" and capable of action means that it qualifies as real by most standards. The part that is real is real; the parts that aren't are irrelevant.

2. Is it intelligent?
"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

Since you need Intelligence to use feats or skills, one could argue that a simulacrum is an intelligent being of some sort.

It could be possible that the simulacrum isn't actually intelligent, but is in fact equivalent to a magical recording replaying past experiences and memories of the creature it imitates.

3. Does intelligence require the ability to learn from past experiences, mature and grow more capable?

"A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness."

Is it possible to be intelligent without the ability to grow in intelligence? Is intelligence capable of being static?

4. Even if it is intelligent, does a creature need a "free will" to be considered sentient?

"At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner."

Can any creature be intelligent and still not capable of exercising that intelligence in a manner that it chooses?

5. If the creature is judged as intelligent, is it "evil" to completely control an intelligent creature?

"At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command."

Does this mean that even the act of creating and controlling a simulacrum is evil? Even if you don't harm or mistreat the creature, is it evil just to control a being without setting it free? What if, as in this case, it was not capable of being freed once it was created?

If this is the case, is it evil to rule a kingdom?

6. Is it evil to command an intelligent creature into harm's way, knowing it is very likely it will die?

If so, then what about generals commanding soldiers into battle, knowing that with all likelihood the front ranks won't survive? Is it then possible for a "good" character to be a general?

There are all kinds of layers in this issue. I would personally rule that the simulacrum does not actually truly exist as an independent sentient creature since it is incapable of truly thinking on its own, reacting independently to stimuli, learning from past mistakes or successes, having any true emotions or will to live, and having an independent free will. Therefore, it is irrelevant what the creator does to it or with it as long as it doesn't violate other ethics. In essence, it is ok to abuse or mistreat it just as if it were an inanimate object, since really it is basically an artificially animated object. It is ok to use it to fuel a magical device, just as it is ok to fuel a lamp, since neither are truly alive and sentient.

However, if you believe it is an independent sentient creature, then it must follow the same rules as humans, and in this case it is likely an evil act even to create an independent sentient creature and not allow it an element of freedom, let alone use it as cannon fodder.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mist of Shadows 03-18-06, 07:25 PM	I'm asking for help with a slight ethical question, is it evil to use simulacurums and other such temperary life forms as cannon fodder? What about using them to fuel a magical item? I ask that here because it effects the growth of my character in certain ways.
annalivvie 03-19-06, 01:48 AM	I think the key thing to look at here is the phrase you used yourself, "temporary life forms". I would have to say, yes, it's is incredibly wrong to use any sort of life as cannon foder. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would say it was fine, but I think at the very least, it's questionable. We had a chaotic good favored soul in our last game, who actually used his followers more or less as foder, and I always thought it was really nasty and creepy, and that he should have taken a major penalty for future leadership abilities. You should consider whether or not your character thinks of these things as life forms. If by nature your character would believe taking life in the name of gaining protection for himself is wrong, that it's definitely wrong and on the path toward evil.
Need_A_Life 03-19-06, 06:47 AM	Well, I would consider it neutral at best and even that would take a LOT of convincing. "Just because they've only lived for 6 seconds doesn't mean that they don't have rights..." :P The only factor that could make this acceptable would be to make simulacrums of yourself and fight alongside of them. Harsh, but fair.
Nobody_ 03-21-06, 10:58 AM	NO, its just evil. Anytime you willingly and knowingly hurt, kill or sacrifice others for your own personal gain, in any form, it is evil. In fact, in the Book of Vile Darkness it states that if you are being attacked by Owl Bears, and you'r only chance to live is to run up a cliff that will probably start an avalance and crush the town below, then assuming that you are aware of this danger, it is considered an evil act. Even if you aren't aware of what you are doing, then at the very least, your character is subject to gross negligence. That said, your character may still think that he is a good character, and may act accordingly, doing good things for others on a regular basis, but it is not actually so. -Nobody
Mist of Shadows 03-22-06, 10:08 PM	Ah well so much for that path to power, I think it's got to be easier being slightly evil. Thanks for the suggestions.
Pan_Ai_Khan 03-23-06, 08:26 AM	Just to clarify - are these 'temporary creatures' summoned from another place (to which they then return), or do they owe their whole existance to the casting of a spell, and cease to exist when it's duration expires? If the creatures are summoned, then killing them is evil. If the creatures are created, then that opens up a moral can of worms. If it is evil to create life only to destroy it, it therefore follows that casting any spell that creates a life form is an evil act because the creatures will die (at some point). It is not evil to give the semblance of life to something that is not alive, then use that as fodder.
Senevri 03-23-06, 10:30 AM	Hmm. - "Killed" summoned creatures don't really die AFAIK ( as Gated creatures explicitly die when killed, we can presume summons don't. ) Simulacra are snowballs. T_T Permanent Animated Objects are constructs. In general, though, disregarding value of life == evil. My opinion, off the top of my head.
JulesCARV 03-23-06, 10:51 AM	I'd say no in the case of simulacrum. There's no indication that they are capable of feeling pain or otherwise suffering. I see no indication that it causes harm to the "original" creature. I don't think there's any reason it would be evil, although some might argue that it would be wrong to make a simulacrum of someone who doesn't consent to it and with whom you aren't in conflict, in much the same way it might be wrong to photograph someone without his consent. However, if you make a simulacrum of a consenting party member (or yourself), or an enemy, whose rights you aren't really respecting (nor vice versa) anyway, then no, it's not wrong. Same applies to astral constructs, IMHO.
DracoPhoenix 03-23-06, 11:42 AM	NO, its just evil. Anytime you willingly and knowingly hurt, kill or sacrifice others for your own personal gain, in any form, it is evil. Not to nit pick, but the whole, you know, killing = evil, the guy isnt a lawful good monk with do no harm vows. By the above, you should let the owlbear kill you so that it may feed on you remains, possibly even feeding it's young as killing the owlbear to save yourself would be considered evil. As for the simulacrum - if the spell expires then no, the guy only had a temporary life span anyway. If it's a permenant clone then yes. Unless your character would willingly give his life under those circumstances.
Mist of Shadows 03-23-06, 08:09 PM	Well that's sort of the problem, because simulcrum doesn't expire other then taking damage. Otherwise it looks like an instant effect. So yeah I guess you are robbing them of part of their life span. But by the same token they are just ice you made them you have the right to unconjure them don't you? It's not like you're cutting out the heart of you copies. As for the stupid people that decide to let the owlbear eat them, I'm glad you're dead we didn't need anyone that stupid alive and in the gene pool.
Need_A_Life 03-24-06, 05:16 AM	Well, they're NOT zombies, they are living, intelligent beings who should not be used as fodder. Having one to watch over your interests in a city would be neutral. Having one as a speedbump for monsters would be evil Having one as a slave would be evil as well.
Pan_Ai_Khan 03-24-06, 08:29 AM	This whole 'Kill = Evil' argument. Every person kills something (or causes something to be killed) on a regular basis. Unless you are a plant (which can make it's own food), something has to be sacrificed just to keep you alive. If animating a snowman so it can be destroyed is evil, animating a chair so it can be destroyed is evil. So is animating a plant, or a rock, or a corpse. If you animate something, or ask a being to lay it's life down to save yours, that is not evil. If, however, you take control over a being and force it to do something suicidal, then I would say that was evil.
Nobody_ 03-24-06, 10:10 AM	1) About the Owlbears: This was not my example, it is the RAW that stated this example, I just follow it. Also consider the fact that not every character has to do good things ALL the time in order to be a good character. That path is placed only upon Exalted characters and Paladins (although even paladins can commit the evil act and then atone for it later) The issue doesn't really start affecting your permanant (and I use the term loosely) alignment until you start doing it over and over again, which our simulacrum friend is doing. Also, you are completely justified in killing evil men and women, unless you use extreme or excessive means to do it, although this is only true if you are killing them because they are evil, as opposed to killing them because they have a really nice amulet of fire resistance. Again, personal gain makes it evil. I would say that killing non-sentient life-forms for personal gain could be considered a neutral act, and is definately a neutral act if it causes no pain (or your character believes they do not suffer) such as with plants, constructs, and to open another can of worms, maybe even comatose victims. This all is necessary to make a just decision about simulacrums. 2) Creating a creature is not evil, even if that creature may die later on. You are giving it life it would not have had. However, if it's sole purpose of existance is to be in agony and pain, then I would say that there is something wrong with that. It doesn't much matter to me who it comes from. Once the spell has been cast, the simulacrums are a separate entity. However, I would argue that this is up to how your character views them. Does he consider them real entities, or more like constructs. With a choice this trickey, I would leave it up to you.
ManTimeForgot 03-26-06, 08:24 AM	That's actually a question that cannot be answered inside the D&D RAW (I'm sorry but BoED does not count as RAW for the purposes of determining alignment effects; beyond this your Owlbear example has no bearing on whether or not this would be evil). The ONLY trait which matters is whether or not the simulacrum counts as life. Does the "partially real creature composed of snow and ice" count as a construct (illusory or otherwise) or is it a "lifeform" of some kind. At the very least the simulacrum is sentient, and this means that certain strictures apply regardless. You could not degrade or demean your simulacrum (insulting your simulacrum for fun is almost certainly evil). Now if it is life proper, then powering your spells or sacrificing it to make items is definitively evil. If it is not life proper, then sacrificing it is of questionable morality, and may swing evil, but it may not. It's unclear just how much of the definition of Good hinges on the sentient component versus the life component. And if killing/harming were ALWAYS Evil in D&D, then except for a maybe a couple apostle's of peace characters EVERYONE has been evil aligned without exception. There is more to Evil in D&D than just killing. Otherwise eating animals for food would be evil, and that is definitively wrong in D&D. MTF
Need_A_Life 03-26-06, 03:27 PM	So creating life using a spell that forces them to obey you and then using that control to have that same life destroyed in the process of destroying MORE life isn't evil? What is then? How about making a nonmagical version of this. "Person A" has become tired of sacrificing his magically made minions in combat and decides to have some nonmagically made. He goes to a city and quickly becomes popular and nine months later he has a beginning of his minions. Now, six years later he uses these children as a diversion against a dragon to spare himself the risk of getting hurt. Is that evil? In both cases he created the lifeforms and in both cases he sacrifices them in order to save his own life. If you thought that one was evil and the other wasn't, please argue why one is guilty and another (apparently) is innocent.
Mist of Shadows 03-27-06, 01:20 PM	Well I guess both things are evil, being that they are sort of alive. If they had a duration or something you were saving them from by turning them into coins that might be different. But the fact that a simulacrum can't refuse makes it seem evil.
arjomanes 03-27-06, 04:20 PM	Good old alignment/ethics questions. Here are some of the basic issues: 1. Does a simulacrum really exist? "Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow." Being even "partially real" and capable of action means that it qualifies as real by most standards. The part that is real is real; the parts that aren't are irrelevant. 2. Is it intelligent? "It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)." Since you need Intelligence to use feats or skills, one could argue that a simulacrum is an intelligent being of some sort. It could be possible that the simulacrum isn't actually intelligent, but is in fact equivalent to a magical recording replaying past experiences and memories of the creature it imitates. 3. Does intelligence require the ability to learn from past experiences, mature and grow more capable? "A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness." Is it possible to be intelligent without the ability to grow in intelligence? Is intelligence capable of being static? 4. Even if it is intelligent, does a creature need a "free will" to be considered sentient? "At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner." Can any creature be intelligent and still not capable of exercising that intelligence in a manner that it chooses? 5. If the creature is judged as intelligent, is it "evil" to completely control an intelligent creature? "At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command." Does this mean that even the act of creating and controlling a simulacrum is evil? Even if you don't harm or mistreat the creature, is it evil just to control a being without setting it free? What if, as in this case, it was not capable of being freed once it was created? If this is the case, is it evil to rule a kingdom? 6. Is it evil to command an intelligent creature into harm's way, knowing it is very likely it will die? If so, then what about generals commanding soldiers into battle, knowing that with all likelihood the front ranks won't survive? Is it then possible for a "good" character to be a general? There are all kinds of layers in this issue. I would personally rule that the simulacrum does not actually truly exist as an independent sentient creature since it is incapable of truly thinking on its own, reacting independently to stimuli, learning from past mistakes or successes, having any true emotions or will to live, and having an independent free will. Therefore, it is irrelevant what the creator does to it or with it as long as it doesn't violate other ethics. In essence, it is ok to abuse or mistreat it just as if it were an inanimate object, since really it is basically an artificially animated object. It is ok to use it to fuel a magical device, just as it is ok to fuel a lamp, since neither are truly alive and sentient. However, if you believe it is an independent sentient creature, then it must follow the same rules as humans, and in this case it is likely an evil act even to create an independent sentient creature and not allow it an element of freedom, let alone use it as cannon fodder.