What is innocent? [Archive] - Wizards Community

What is innocent? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Stormbrand
11-26-07, 08:00 AM Angelic Knight needs to explain the concept to a mostly feral vampiress.

In short, the vampiress is romantically attracted to him and has agreed purely because of him to spare those he calls innocent. Which is nice, only she has no concept of 'innocent' - he has tried explaining that those who have done no wrong, hurt no one, and are generally undeserving of what befalls them.

She is having trouble with this concept. Or morality itself really.

So how would 'innocent' be explained to such a creature? Enough so that she understands who is under the paladin's protection.

Thanks.
VampyresThrenody
11-26-07, 02:11 PM It depends on how cruel the DM wants to be to you. No one is truly innocent. That commoner may have looked lusftully at another woman or may have beaten his child, that commoner may have cheated on her husband, etc, etc.

But anyways, I'd try to describe it as a person who has little or no ill will towards others. Meaning that said individual would not wish to injure, steal from or otherwise harm another person with no reason and has no past of doing so. of course that prevents any reformed villains from conforming to that idea of innocent...I suppose it is all up to the character's interpretation. in my current game I play a LG fighter whose interpretation would be anyone who obeys the law of the land and does not practice magic of any sort. Oh and is human because no one whose not could possibly be innocent.. (messed up campaign setting).
Bobfred21
11-27-07, 09:52 PM In this situation I would say "Anyone who's done nothing wrong toward the character or situation by/for which they are being "punished". If your DM wants to use the whole "No one's completely innocent" route, try explaining that what the vampiress is doing by "punishing" them is not "justice".

It's violating their innocence because it is not her place to judge them and the punishment must fit the crime. Ie. jealousy doesn't result in death.
Terjon of the Blue Rose
11-29-07, 12:09 AM From my point of view?

"Innocence and guilt lie in desire. Those who desire to harm others are not innocent. Those who care nothing for harming others in their seeking of their disires are likewise lacking. Those who desire to be stronger than others for strengths own sake have little or no innoccence in them.

Those who desire other's happiness are innocent. Those who will give up their own desires because it would harm another are innocent. Those who choose to use their strength to give rather than to take are innocent.

These are the precepts of guilt and innocence I choose to live by."

Yeah I know it's another speach but then you seem to like it when I write those.
Bobfred21
11-29-07, 02:32 PM What about the evil commoner, down trodden all their life, utterly powerless who wants only to rise out of his position of powerlessness and conquer those who conquer him? He's done nothing bad, even if only because he's powerless to do anything evil. How is he not innocent?

Or what about the villain who, after massacreing thousands, laying waste to nations, finally finds redemption and wishes only to repent for their sins? How is he/she not guilty?

Innocent is different than good. In a court of law for example, the first would be found innocent and the second most certainly would not.
Melpomene
11-29-07, 02:57 PM In terms of this situation, it is a good blanket clause to say that everything is innocent unless A.) they prove otherwise and do something bad that the vampress can see (usually attacking the party) or B.) the knight says otherwise.

This clears up a lot of confusion, at least until more defined concepts can be used.
Terjon of the Blue Rose
11-29-07, 11:07 PM What about the evil commoner, down trodden all their life, utterly powerless who wants only to rise out of his position of powerlessness and conquer those who conquer him? He's done nothing bad, even if only because he's powerless to do anything evil. How is he not innocent?

Or what about the villain who, after massacreing thousands, laying waste to nations, finally finds redemption and wishes only to repent for their sins? How is he/she not guilty?

Innocent is different than good. In a court of law for example, the first would be found innocent and the second most certainly would not.

If you ask me that commoner is no innocent. He may well not be guilty for that implies he has some crime or violation about him but he is not an innocent either. Rather he is simply too weak to live up to evil desires.

The villian on the other hand is both. He is an innocent now and yet that makes him no less guilty of his previous crimes. To deny his guilt would eliminate his innocence but his acceptance of them and attempts to to redeem himself make him a classic innocent in the present moment.

Both cases are rarities. The villian for his attempt at redemption which requires extraordinary strength. Meanwhile it takes an exeptionally weak individual to lack the ability to do harm (indeed even to raise themself when they are willing to let others pay the cost). I wasn't really speaking of innocence and guilt in a court of law sense but rather in a more abstract one.

Maybe it's me but intent has always seemed very important. Its often overlooked due to the difficulty of knowing it but given how rarely we know the full consequences of our actions it always struck me as strange how little we consider what a person is attempting over the final result of their actions.
kamikasei
12-02-07, 12:36 PM If you ask me that commoner is no innocent. He may well not be guilty for that implies he has some crime or violation about him but he is not an innocent either. Rather he is simply too weak to live up to evil desires.

Presumably we're aiming for a binary partition here, innocent and non-innocent, where "non-innocent" means "guilty". If there's a third division, "non-innocent" minus "guilty", then our definition is kind of pointless. If this non-guilty, non-innocent person doesn't deserve to be harmed by the vampiress, he should be included as innocent; if he does deserve harm, it should be because he's guilty. The vampiress has two options, harm or don't, and so needs a clean division into two groups, innocent (don't) and guilty (harm).

If you want to argue that someone who has never actually done anything bad is fair game for a vampiress to harm because they're not nice people and they think about hurting others, fire away; but that's a fairly suspect position to take when you also maintain that such a person isn't actually guilty of anything.
Dougan Axehammer
12-02-07, 06:52 PM You've already began defining innocence by telling her what it means to you. Now what you need to do is to show her what innocent means. Guide her actions, tell her who is innocent and who is not. Only through experience can she truly appreciate the concept. A path of goodness is hard to follow, but the path of redemption is hard just to find.
Terjon of the Blue Rose
12-06-07, 12:51 AM Presumably we're aiming for a binary partition here, innocent and non-innocent, where "non-innocent" means "guilty". If there's a third division, "non-innocent" minus "guilty", then our definition is kind of pointless. If this non-guilty, non-innocent person doesn't deserve to be harmed by the vampiress, he should be included as innocent; if he does deserve harm, it should be because he's guilty. The vampiress has two options, harm or don't, and so needs a clean division into two groups, innocent (don't) and guilty (harm).

If you want to argue that someone who has never actually done anything bad is fair game for a vampiress to harm because they're not nice people and they think about hurting others, fire away; but that's a fairly suspect position to take when you also maintain that such a person isn't actually guilty of anything.

Innocence is a difficult point and you're right that a binary system would be the most certain option for him. However I know the character a little better than you from other threads. Stormbrand's character is highly unlikely to take the easy route and simply list off what makes a person guilty. That angelic knight thing means he's far more likely to take the highest moral route and try to explain the concenpt of innocence itself in some hope that it will also give the vampiress a goal to strive towards.

That said while the peasant is "innocent" he isn't "an innocent" (very subtle point). Herein lies the difficult path that I think Stormbrand would choose. He needs to explain that she should be targetting neither the innocent nor those who possess the quality of innocence. He also needs to give her some means of determining who fits these two descriptions... an even more difficult task.
Stormbrand
12-06-07, 10:14 AM Innocence is a difficult point and you're right that a binary system would be the most certain option for him. However I know the character a little better than you from other threads. Stormbrand's character is highly unlikely to take the easy route and simply list off what makes a person guilty. That angelic knight thing means he's far more likely to take the highest moral route and try to explain the concenpt of innocence itself in some hope that it will also give the vampiress a goal to strive towards.

That said while the peasant is "innocent" he isn't "an innocent" (very subtle point). Herein lies the difficult path that I think Stormbrand would choose. He needs to explain that she should be targetting neither the innocent nor those who possess the quality of innocence. He also needs to give her some means of determining who fits these two descriptions... an even more difficult task.

Exactly, the binary definition is a temporary solution for now so the vampiress can roam free without being a danger. Eventually, he wants to help her regain her innocence and value it for her own sake rather than merely his. Once she understands innocence, she need no longer depend so much on him.

Of course, she wont... because her player doesn't want her to, which is why I am not pursuing it too much.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Stormbrand 11-26-07, 08:00 AM	Angelic Knight needs to explain the concept to a mostly feral vampiress. In short, the vampiress is romantically attracted to him and has agreed purely because of him to spare those he calls innocent. Which is nice, only she has no concept of 'innocent' - he has tried explaining that those who have done no wrong, hurt no one, and are generally undeserving of what befalls them. She is having trouble with this concept. Or morality itself really. So how would 'innocent' be explained to such a creature? Enough so that she understands who is under the paladin's protection. Thanks.
VampyresThrenody 11-26-07, 02:11 PM	It depends on how cruel the DM wants to be to you. No one is truly innocent. That commoner may have looked lusftully at another woman or may have beaten his child, that commoner may have cheated on her husband, etc, etc. But anyways, I'd try to describe it as a person who has little or no ill will towards others. Meaning that said individual would not wish to injure, steal from or otherwise harm another person with no reason and has no past of doing so. of course that prevents any reformed villains from conforming to that idea of innocent...I suppose it is all up to the character's interpretation. in my current game I play a LG fighter whose interpretation would be anyone who obeys the law of the land and does not practice magic of any sort. Oh and is human because no one whose not could possibly be innocent.. (messed up campaign setting).
Bobfred21 11-27-07, 09:52 PM	In this situation I would say "Anyone who's done nothing wrong toward the character or situation by/for which they are being "punished". If your DM wants to use the whole "No one's completely innocent" route, try explaining that what the vampiress is doing by "punishing" them is not "justice". It's violating their innocence because it is not her place to judge them and the punishment must fit the crime. Ie. jealousy doesn't result in death.
Terjon of the Blue Rose 11-29-07, 12:09 AM	From my point of view? "Innocence and guilt lie in desire. Those who desire to harm others are not innocent. Those who care nothing for harming others in their seeking of their disires are likewise lacking. Those who desire to be stronger than others for strengths own sake have little or no innoccence in them. Those who desire other's happiness are innocent. Those who will give up their own desires because it would harm another are innocent. Those who choose to use their strength to give rather than to take are innocent. These are the precepts of guilt and innocence I choose to live by." Yeah I know it's another speach but then you seem to like it when I write those.
Bobfred21 11-29-07, 02:32 PM	What about the evil commoner, down trodden all their life, utterly powerless who wants only to rise out of his position of powerlessness and conquer those who conquer him? He's done nothing bad, even if only because he's powerless to do anything evil. How is he not innocent? Or what about the villain who, after massacreing thousands, laying waste to nations, finally finds redemption and wishes only to repent for their sins? How is he/she not guilty? Innocent is different than good. In a court of law for example, the first would be found innocent and the second most certainly would not.
Melpomene 11-29-07, 02:57 PM	In terms of this situation, it is a good blanket clause to say that everything is innocent unless A.) they prove otherwise and do something bad that the vampress can see (usually attacking the party) or B.) the knight says otherwise. This clears up a lot of confusion, at least until more defined concepts can be used.
Terjon of the Blue Rose 11-29-07, 11:07 PM	What about the evil commoner, down trodden all their life, utterly powerless who wants only to rise out of his position of powerlessness and conquer those who conquer him? He's done nothing bad, even if only because he's powerless to do anything evil. How is he not innocent? Or what about the villain who, after massacreing thousands, laying waste to nations, finally finds redemption and wishes only to repent for their sins? How is he/she not guilty? Innocent is different than good. In a court of law for example, the first would be found innocent and the second most certainly would not. If you ask me that commoner is no innocent. He may well not be guilty for that implies he has some crime or violation about him but he is not an innocent either. Rather he is simply too weak to live up to evil desires. The villian on the other hand is both. He is an innocent now and yet that makes him no less guilty of his previous crimes. To deny his guilt would eliminate his innocence but his acceptance of them and attempts to to redeem himself make him a classic innocent in the present moment. Both cases are rarities. The villian for his attempt at redemption which requires extraordinary strength. Meanwhile it takes an exeptionally weak individual to lack the ability to do harm (indeed even to raise themself when they are willing to let others pay the cost). I wasn't really speaking of innocence and guilt in a court of law sense but rather in a more abstract one. Maybe it's me but intent has always seemed very important. Its often overlooked due to the difficulty of knowing it but given how rarely we know the full consequences of our actions it always struck me as strange how little we consider what a person is attempting over the final result of their actions.
kamikasei 12-02-07, 12:36 PM	If you ask me that commoner is no innocent. He may well not be guilty for that implies he has some crime or violation about him but he is not an innocent either. Rather he is simply too weak to live up to evil desires. Presumably we're aiming for a binary partition here, innocent and non-innocent, where "non-innocent" means "guilty". If there's a third division, "non-innocent" minus "guilty", then our definition is kind of pointless. If this non-guilty, non-innocent person doesn't deserve to be harmed by the vampiress, he should be included as innocent; if he does deserve harm, it should be because he's guilty. The vampiress has two options, harm or don't, and so needs a clean division into two groups, innocent (don't) and guilty (harm). If you want to argue that someone who has never actually done anything bad is fair game for a vampiress to harm because they're not nice people and they think about hurting others, fire away; but that's a fairly suspect position to take when you also maintain that such a person isn't actually guilty of anything.
Dougan Axehammer 12-02-07, 06:52 PM	You've already began defining innocence by telling her what it means to you. Now what you need to do is to show her what innocent means. Guide her actions, tell her who is innocent and who is not. Only through experience can she truly appreciate the concept. A path of goodness is hard to follow, but the path of redemption is hard just to find.
Terjon of the Blue Rose 12-06-07, 12:51 AM	Presumably we're aiming for a binary partition here, innocent and non-innocent, where "non-innocent" means "guilty". If there's a third division, "non-innocent" minus "guilty", then our definition is kind of pointless. If this non-guilty, non-innocent person doesn't deserve to be harmed by the vampiress, he should be included as innocent; if he does deserve harm, it should be because he's guilty. The vampiress has two options, harm or don't, and so needs a clean division into two groups, innocent (don't) and guilty (harm). If you want to argue that someone who has never actually done anything bad is fair game for a vampiress to harm because they're not nice people and they think about hurting others, fire away; but that's a fairly suspect position to take when you also maintain that such a person isn't actually guilty of anything. Innocence is a difficult point and you're right that a binary system would be the most certain option for him. However I know the character a little better than you from other threads. Stormbrand's character is highly unlikely to take the easy route and simply list off what makes a person guilty. That angelic knight thing means he's far more likely to take the highest moral route and try to explain the concenpt of innocence itself in some hope that it will also give the vampiress a goal to strive towards. That said while the peasant is "innocent" he isn't "an innocent" (very subtle point). Herein lies the difficult path that I think Stormbrand would choose. He needs to explain that she should be targetting neither the innocent nor those who possess the quality of innocence. He also needs to give her some means of determining who fits these two descriptions... an even more difficult task.
Stormbrand 12-06-07, 10:14 AM	Innocence is a difficult point and you're right that a binary system would be the most certain option for him. However I know the character a little better than you from other threads. Stormbrand's character is highly unlikely to take the easy route and simply list off what makes a person guilty. That angelic knight thing means he's far more likely to take the highest moral route and try to explain the concenpt of innocence itself in some hope that it will also give the vampiress a goal to strive towards. That said while the peasant is "innocent" he isn't "an innocent" (very subtle point). Herein lies the difficult path that I think Stormbrand would choose. He needs to explain that she should be targetting neither the innocent nor those who possess the quality of innocence. He also needs to give her some means of determining who fits these two descriptions... an even more difficult task. Exactly, the binary definition is a temporary solution for now so the vampiress can roam free without being a danger. Eventually, he wants to help her regain her innocence and value it for her own sake rather than merely his. Once she understands innocence, she need no longer depend so much on him. Of course, she wont... because her player doesn't want her to, which is why I am not pursuing it too much.