| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Aliquid02-28-07, 12:01 PM | I have a bit of a long rant here... Often when people argue against the “always evil” alignment type, they say that a sentient creature has free will, and as such should be able to “choose” to be good. I call BS on that argument. First off, I’m not sure why people can’t imagine a creature that is “always evil”, when they are capable of imagining magic and monsters which defy logic and science… Anyway, here is my explanation of how a creature which logically couldn’t “choose” to be “good”, even when it is intelligent and sentient. Lets start off with the human mind, since that’s the only frame of reference we have. First: There are people out there who are “insane” and are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse (sociopaths). Common medical belief is that the part of the brain that processes guilt is missing or malfunctioning. Therefore it doesn’t matter how much “free will” they have, they can’t feel guilt even if they wanted to. Second: There are people out there with brain damage (typically to the prefrontal cortex) where they are constantly acting impulsively. Even if they logically know it might not be the wisest thing to do, they do whatever provides immediate gratification. Unfortunately for them, the part of the brain that allows you to think before you act is gone, so they just act.. on impulse. Again, “free will” doesn’t matter, they can’t stop acting based on impulse because part of their brain is missing. Just like someone who’s eyes are plucked out can’t see no matter how hard they try. Third: The prefrontal cortex also controls emotions like pleasure, pain, anger, rage, panic, and aggression. As a result there are people with brain damage who have the rage and aggression functions permanently switched on. The smallest thing angers them. Now these people are considered “insane” or “brain damaged” because their brain is working differently compared to a “normal” human brain. I think it is perfectly rational to assume that a different species (i.e. monster in D&D) would have a different brain structure than a human. So, I don’t think it is that hard to imagine a monster with a completely different brain size shape and structure; with a differently wired prefrontal cortex than the human brain, where the above “brain damage” examples are normal. If a monster is born with a brain that is hypersensitive to anger, always acts on impulse, and is incapable of processing guilt… I see a creature that is chaotic evil in nature. Lets add to that an inability to process love, compassion and empathy, and I see a creature that is incapable of “choosing” to be good. You can’t use “free will” to “choose” to be compassionate, empathetic, kind and caring if the part of the brain that processes that stuff doesn’t exist. And if a creature is born like that, it doesn’t matter what its upbringing is, the behaviour won’t change. Just like we can’t grow a tail based on “free will”, humans just aren’t built that way. The only way for a creature like this to be “good” is if it was a genetic mutant and had a different brain than a normal (and would be considered insane by the rest of its species). |
| Squirrelloid02-28-07, 12:17 PM | Or you could just see the 'always evil' tag as a way for WotC to have a game which is basically about killing creatures different than yourself and avoid having to justify racism or genocide (which is what it comes down to). If you can rationalize all orcs as evil, how hard would it be to alter that to all blacks or all jews? The reason to reject the "all x are evil" is because that judgement is being made from a certain point of view, and that point of view is bigoted and would be totally unacceptable in the real world. Philosophically, there's no difference between the statement 'all orcs are evil' and 'all white people are evil'. Its not like people haven't been citing "genetic" differences between races for as long as there has been a concept of 'genes'. Or IQ differences, or whatever. All of those roads are bad roads to travel. So sorry if this makes it harder to justify slaughtering that orc village so you can steal their stuff, because damn, you deserve that stuff don't you? I mean, pulling the evil card is very convenient - except that village didn't do anything except sit there and possibly defend itself when you attacked. Or maybe they were involved in a border dispute with some elves - why aren't you slaughtering the elven village down the road? They're just as guilty. Oh right, orcs are "evil". :nonono: (As to your specific points, universal sociopathic behaviour makes society impossible. Hence no social creature can be uniformly sociopathic. Also, if the creature is not responsible for its actions, it cannot be evil. Criminally insane is as solidly N as being mindless is.) |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 12:23 PM | QFT. Alignments are descriptions of patterns of behaviour. Race X is Always Chaotic Evil, say, cos Chaotic Evil is the description given to how that race innately acts and behaves. IMO it is sheer humanocentric arrogance to assume that all races should, or indeed must, adhere to the same variety of alignemtns and behaviours that we do. |
| runestar02-28-07, 12:24 PM | Actually for monsters with alignment of always X, it means that only about 99% adhere to this alignment. The remaining 1% tend to have differing alignments. This means that among 100 balors, one might be LG...:D Likewise, usually means only about 50% That leaves a fair bit of room for maneuvering...:) |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 12:33 PM | Philosophically, there's no difference between the statement 'all orcs are evil' and 'all white people are evil'. Its not like people haven't been citing "genetic" differences between races for as long as there has been a concept of 'genes'. Or IQ differences, or whatever. All of those roads are bad roads to travel.It is completely different. "white people" and "black people" are the same species. Orcs and humans are different species, which means it is logically possible for them to have a completely different brain structure. Just like a monkey has a tail and a human doesn't. So sorry if this makes it harder to justify slaughtering that orc village so you can steal their stuff, because damn, you deserve that stuff don't you?What does justification have to do with anything. I am in no way saying that it is ok to kill something just because it is "evil", I am saying that it is logically possible for a sentient creature to be unable to "choose" to act in a manner that fits the "good" alignment as described in D&D. They're just as guilty. Oh right, orcs are "evil". :nonono: You are completely taking my argument out of context and assuming all sorts of things that I wasn't saying. (As to your specific points, universal sociopathic behaviour makes society impossible. Hence no social creature can be uniformly sociopathic.And any monster in D&D that is always "chaotic" couldn't logically live in a structured society... your point? Also, if the creature is not responsible for its actions, it cannot be evil. Criminally insane is as solidly N as being mindless is.)But that isn't what "evil" means in the D&D system. You are talking about real world morality. In D&D, an "criminally insane" individual would show up as evil with the "detect evil" spell. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 12:35 PM | Actually for monsters with alignment of always X, it means that only about 99% adhere to this alignment. The remaining 1% tend to have differing alignments.And I would explain that 1% as being the "mutants" of that species. Likewise, usually means only about 50% That leaves a fair bit of room for maneuvering...:)absolutely, creatures like that would certainly have room for maneuvering. |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 12:41 PM | Philosophically, there's no difference between the statement 'all orcs are evil' and 'all white people are evil'. Sorry, but that is a load of horse****. Orcs are not humans in funny suits, they are a different species evolved from a different creature than us. To suggest that they must be like humans - indeed to suggest that our behavioural parameters are the default norm and deviation suggesting that other specie can deviate from them is wrong - is the height of human arrogance. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 12:43 PM | Sorry, but that is a laod of horse****. Orcs are not humans in funny suits, they are a different species. They evolved from a different creature than did we. To suggest that they must be like humans - indeed to suggest that any deviation from human behavioural parameters is "wrong" or that our behavioural parameters are the default norm - is the height of human arrogance.Well said. I'm glad to see that I am not alone in this. |
| Bruunwald02-28-07, 12:48 PM | Those alignment thingies you see in monster listings aren't anymore set in stone than any other feature of the game. Personally, I think the whole issue is moot. On the one hand, a person could effectively argue that an "always evil" creature retains his free will because the listing is describing what he does with his free will when encountered in the game setting, sort of after-the-fact. On the other hand, a person can justify an alignment change by citing the free willed nature of the creature. Examples of both abound, more often than not, in the same campaign. I don't think any part of the issue is worth arguing over. You make what fits best and don't worry about it otherwise. |
| bonethug010802-28-07, 01:16 PM | It is completely different. "white people" and "black people" are the same species. Orcs and humans are different species, which means it is logically possible for them to have a completely different brain structure. He used a bad example on that one. But the point still stands. People used to think that all wolves were evil, or all snakes were evil, etc. It has been shown that these creatures have just as varying personalities as we do. Some snakes are quick to bite anything that crosses their paths, while others let you pick them up without so much as a hiss. |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 01:31 PM | He used a bad example on that one. But the point still stands. People used to think that all wolves were evil, or all snakes were evil, etc. It has been shown that these creatures have just as varying personalities as we do. No, they don't. They have varying personalities but they only vary within the parameters of their species. The big difference is this: the view that snakes and wolves are evil had nothing to do with their patterns of behaviour. It was based on human ignorance and bias. D&D alignments, however, are based on a species' patterns of behaviour. Orcs are not chaotic evil cos they choose to be, they are chaotic evil cos their biology and brain chemistry dictates a range of behaviours that fit within the decription of the chaotic evil alignment. |
| Leo02-28-07, 01:34 PM | Well, the next time I see an orc merchant in town, or a wandering orc artist, or any other orc that actually doesn't try to kill me the time I see it, I may ask him if he's evil or not. :P Also, there's the god thingy. In D&D there are gods, and they have lots of power to influence the petty mortals. The orc god, if I remember well, it's something like: WAGE WAR IN THE OTHER RACES! KILL, PILLAGE, DESTROY, ONLY THE WEAK SHOW MERCY! If I grew in such an enviroment, I would certainly be evil. Also, it can genetical. Some animals in the real world are really vicious. There is a kind of fish that is constanly hunting smaller fishes. Even when he's full, if there's other fish nearby, he throws up his last meal so he can eat them. |
| Singer_of_the_Song02-28-07, 01:36 PM | I have a bit of a long rant here... Often when people argue against the “always evil” alignment type, they say that a sentient creature has free will, and as such should be able to “choose” to be good. I call BS on that argument. First off, I’m not sure why people can’t imagine a creature that is “always evil”, when they are capable of imagining magic and monsters which defy logic and science… Anyway, here is my explanation of how a creature which logically couldn’t “choose” to be “good”, even when it is intelligent and sentient. Lets start off with the human mind, since that’s the only frame of reference we have. First: There are people out there who are “insane” and are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse (sociopaths). Common medical belief is that the part of the brain that processes guilt is missing or malfunctioning. Therefore it doesn’t matter how much “free will” they have, they can’t feel guilt even if they wanted to. Second: There are people out there with brain damage (typically to the prefrontal cortex) where they are constantly acting impulsively. Even if they logically know it might not be the wisest thing to do, they do whatever provides immediate gratification. Unfortunately for them, the part of the brain that allows you to think before you act is gone, so they just act.. on impulse. Again, “free will” doesn’t matter, they can’t stop acting based on impulse because part of their brain is missing. Just like someone who’s eyes are plucked out can’t see no matter how hard they try. Third: The prefrontal cortex also controls emotions like pleasure, pain, anger, rage, panic, and aggression. As a result there are people with brain damage who have the rage and aggression functions permanently switched on. The smallest thing angers them. Now these people are considered “insane” or “brain damaged” because their brain is working differently compared to a “normal” human brain. I think it is perfectly rational to assume that a different species (i.e. monster in D&D) would have a different brain structure than a human. So, I don’t think it is that hard to imagine a monster with a completely different brain size shape and structure; with a differently wired prefrontal cortex than the human brain, where the above “brain damage” examples are normal. If a monster is born with a brain that is hypersensitive to anger, always acts on impulse, and is incapable of processing guilt… I see a creature that is chaotic evil in nature. Lets add to that an inability to process love, compassion and empathy, and I see a creature that is incapable of “choosing” to be good. You can’t use “free will” to “choose” to be compassionate, empathetic, kind and caring if the part of the brain that processes that stuff doesn’t exist. And if a creature is born like that, it doesn’t matter what its upbringing is, the behaviour won’t change. Just like we can’t grow a tail based on “free will”, humans just aren’t built that way. The only way for a creature like this to be “good” is if it was a genetic mutant and had a different brain than a normal (and would be considered insane by the rest of its species). Alignments for other races are intended to be more of a result of socio-cultural forces than genetics. Alignments for outsiders are "always" what they are because the outsiders are literally composed of that alignment...philosophies made flesh. |
| Singer_of_the_Song02-28-07, 01:39 PM | The big difference is this: the view that snakes and wolves are evil had nothing to do with their patterns of behaviour. It was based on human ignorance and bias. D&D alignments, however, are based on a species' patterns of behaviour. Orcs are not chaotic evil cos they choose to be, they are chaotic evil cos their biology and brain chemistry dictates a range of behaviours that fit within the decription of the chaotic evil alignment. No, orcs are chaotic evil because their societies are. Orcs aren't in any way "biologically" inclined to be evil. They have a psychopath for a god, a militaristic outlook, a view of other races and countries as good canditates for future Lebensraum (just like the Nazis), and a history of genocidal warfare. They are this way because societal forces shape young orcs to be this way. |
| ArcTan02-28-07, 01:49 PM | Or you could just see the 'always evil' tag as a way for WotC to have a game which is basically about killing creatures different than yourself and avoid having to justify racism or genocide (which is what it comes down to). If you can rationalize all orcs as evil, how hard would it be to alter that to all blacks or all jews? Except that mortal races rarely if ever have the "Always Evil" alignment. Orcs, for example, are only "Usually Evil", which means that nothing stops any individual Orc from being Good -- just that the DM is encouraged to have most of the Orcs he drops into a campaign be Evil, because the race is designed as an antagonist to the Good races. "Always Evil" is reserved for decidedly non-human, non-mortal things. Things like the undead, or demons and devils, where the folklore we're borrowing from labels these things as symbols of evil itself, not beings with the capacity for choice. The reason to reject the "all x are evil" is because that judgement is being made from a certain point of view, and that point of view is bigoted and would be totally unacceptable in the real world. Philosophically, there's no difference between the statement 'all orcs are evil' and 'all white people are evil'. Its not like people haven't been citing "genetic" differences between races for as long as there has been a concept of 'genes'. Or IQ differences, or whatever. All of those roads are bad roads to travel. *shrug* To an extent, D&D is playing out folklore that does simplify things to a far greater degree than real life. This doesn't bother me -- again, because you're wrong: Orcs *can* be any alignment, it's just that their history and culture means that a lot of them are Chaotic Evil. So sorry if this makes it harder to justify slaughtering that orc village so you can steal their stuff, because damn, you deserve that stuff don't you? I mean, pulling the evil card is very convenient - except that village didn't do anything except sit there and possibly defend itself when you attacked. Or maybe they were involved in a border dispute with some elves - why aren't you slaughtering the elven village down the road? They're just as guilty. Oh right, orcs are "evil". :nonono: I've never actually had a campaign where it was okay to assume that someone was Evil because he was an Orc. PCs in the game don't have access to the Monster Manual and can't read "Usually Evil" in the stat block anyway. All they know is what they would know in real life -- that, historically, every time their civilization has encountered the Orcs the Orcs have pillaged and raided and destroyed their habitations unprovoked. This doesn't give them carte blanche to slaughter whole villages of Orcs willy-nilly, only to be cautious and semi-hostile if they run into random Orcs on the road. (As to your specific points, universal sociopathic behaviour makes society impossible. Hence no social creature can be uniformly sociopathic. Also, if the creature is not responsible for its actions, it cannot be evil. Criminally insane is as solidly N as being mindless is.) And, interestingly, Always Evil creatures rarely have "society" in the sense we think of it. Devils' society bears no resemblance to that of any mortal society; demons have no society at all; most Always Evil undead are only roving monsters who cause terror and destruction. |
| johnkretzer02-28-07, 01:50 PM | I have a bit of a long rant here... Often when people argue against the “always evil” alignment type, they say that a sentient creature has free will, and as such should be able to “choose” to be good. I call BS on that argument. First off, I’m not sure why people can’t imagine a creature that is “always evil”, when they are capable of imagining magic and monsters which defy logic and science… Anyway, here is my explanation of how a creature which logically couldn’t “choose” to be “good”, even when it is intelligent and sentient. Lets start off with the human mind, since that’s the only frame of reference we have. First: There are people out there who are “insane” and are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse (sociopaths). Common medical belief is that the part of the brain that processes guilt is missing or malfunctioning. Therefore it doesn’t matter how much “free will” they have, they can’t feel guilt even if they wanted to. Second: There are people out there with brain damage (typically to the prefrontal cortex) where they are constantly acting impulsively. Even if they logically know it might not be the wisest thing to do, they do whatever provides immediate gratification. Unfortunately for them, the part of the brain that allows you to think before you act is gone, so they just act.. on impulse. Again, “free will” doesn’t matter, they can’t stop acting based on impulse because part of their brain is missing. Just like someone who’s eyes are plucked out can’t see no matter how hard they try. Third: The prefrontal cortex also controls emotions like pleasure, pain, anger, rage, panic, and aggression. As a result there are people with brain damage who have the rage and aggression functions permanently switched on. The smallest thing angers them. Now these people are considered “insane” or “brain damaged” because their brain is working differently compared to a “normal” human brain. I think it is perfectly rational to assume that a different species (i.e. monster in D&D) would have a different brain structure than a human. So, I don’t think it is that hard to imagine a monster with a completely different brain size shape and structure; with a differently wired prefrontal cortex than the human brain, where the above “brain damage” examples are normal. If a monster is born with a brain that is hypersensitive to anger, always acts on impulse, and is incapable of processing guilt… I see a creature that is chaotic evil in nature. Lets add to that an inability to process love, compassion and empathy, and I see a creature that is incapable of “choosing” to be good. You can’t use “free will” to “choose” to be compassionate, empathetic, kind and caring if the part of the brain that processes that stuff doesn’t exist. And if a creature is born like that, it doesn’t matter what its upbringing is, the behaviour won’t change. Just like we can’t grow a tail based on “free will”, humans just aren’t built that way. The only way for a creature like this to be “good” is if it was a genetic mutant and had a different brain than a normal (and would be considered insane by the rest of its species). So all evil humens have a brain that does not function correctly? While I get to what you are saying, not all 'evil' behavour is the product of the brain. And not all 'good' behavour is the product of the brain. While it might be a humane look at criminals because it nicely excludes then of responsiblity, I don't think it is wise. Brain chemistry is just a factor in what kind of person will grow up to be. |
| claypigeons02-28-07, 01:53 PM | *Two guys are walking down a street. One carries a canister with "Logic and other crap from the real world" printed on it. The other carries a canister of "DnD".* They run into each other. Guy1: Aww man... You got DnD in my logic! Guy2: You got logic and genetics in my Dnd!!! Guy2: *tastes it* Aww!!! This tastes like crap!!!! I hate you!! *A giant baseball bat called Fun runs in* Fun: Logic-Guy! You have disrupted the fun of thousands of people... Prepare to be nut-kicked. Guy1: :weep: |
| MatthiasKaiser02-28-07, 01:58 PM | Well, the next time I see an orc merchant in town, or a wandering orc artist, or any other orc that actually doesn't try to kill me the time I see it, I may ask him if he's evil or not. :P Also, there's the god thingy. In D&D there are gods, and they have lots of power to influence the petty mortals. The orc god, if I remember well, it's something like: WAGE WAR IN THE OTHER RACES! KILL, PILLAGE, DESTROY, ONLY THE WEAK SHOW MERCY! If I grew in such an enviroment, I would certainly be evil. Also, it can genetical. Some animals in the real world are really vicious. There is a kind of fish that is constanly hunting smaller fishes. Even when he's full, if there's other fish nearby, he throws up his last meal so he can eat them. This, I believe, is what is meant by the phrase in the PHB "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." When you're told that this is the Right Way to Live, that doesn't make you a basically good, yet misled child. That makes you Evil. After all, you believe evil things and you commit evil acts, because there is, after all, an objective Evil. Society doesn't decide what is right and wrong - the association of positive and negative energy to certain moral codes and the gods that endorse them does. As for the rest of it, I don't know. Am I the only one who attempts to form a peaceful agreement between the orcs and the elves, uses force when attacked, and hopes there are enough adult noncombatants left in the area to care for the children? |
| TheChilliGod02-28-07, 01:58 PM | No, orcs are chaotic evil because their societies are. Orcs aren't in any way "biologically" inclined to be evil. They have a psychopath for a god, a militaristic outlook, a view of other races and countries as good canditates for future Lebensraum (just like the Nazis), and a history of genocidal warfare. They are this way because societal forces shape young orcs to be this way.Yeah, I kind of always thought it to be that way, too. Although it is theoretically possible for all different species to be brain-manipulated to the point of adhering to their alignment, I believe that the influences on all species (whether they be orc, human, and even fiends) are most heavily influenced by their social upbringing. In a LE-controlled city, where society rules require adolescents to actively bully their younger peers and there are strict regulations with harsh penalties and large rewards for those that dob in criminals in such; humans that grow up in this city are more likely than not going to adopt a LE alignment. The longer this society has been in place and is accepted as the norm, the more likely that LE will be the alignment of choice. In an orc tribe, society itself spins around the "Might = Right" thing that orcs have, and their own deity that inspires them to go on murdering sprees, including the somewhat-likely scenario that orcs tend to be repressed into harsher conditions by the stronger, civilized cultures (after all, why raid human villages if you already have everything you need back at home?); orcs that grow up are going to be likely CE or whatever. Since this society has been in place for goodness-knows-how-long, then this alignment is all the likelier. And so on. Mind you, I'm completely ignoring real-world references in my case. RL shouldn't go anywhere near D&D philosophies. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 02:08 PM | No, orcs are chaotic evil because their societies are.Says who? Maybe their societies are evil because Orcs are evil? Chicken and the egg thing... besides Orcs aren't "always evil" anyway. Orcs aren't in any way "biologically" inclined to be evil.Again says who? It is perfectly possible that they are biologically inclined to be evil, but since they are only listed as usually evil, they do have the ability to fight their nature. Sure their society promotes this type of behaviour, I won't argue that, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of it being their natural behaviour as well. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 02:13 PM | So all evil humens have a brain that does not function correctly?No, I wasn't saying that at all. Did you read the post? While I get to what you are saying, not all 'evil' behavour is the product of the brain. And not all 'good' behavour is the product of the brain. Of course it is, all behaviour is the product of the brain.. what else could it be the product of? Your feet? Sure not all behaviour is forced upon you by your brain chemistry, because your brain has a function that allows you to think before you act. Take that away... and we will act purely on impulse. While it might be a humane look at criminals because it nicely excludes then of responsiblity, I don't think it is wise. Brain chemistry is just a factor in what kind of person will grow up to be.I'm not going to get into a debate about law and responsibility in the real world. The point is I am not talking about humans. I am talking about imaginary monsters. I am also not talking about responsibility, I am talking about the way a creature behaves. |
| blackjackg02-28-07, 02:15 PM | This is an interesting argument. I think I will insert my proverbial two cents (sorry, I just can't bring myself to say two coppers. I can't do it.) In regard to the OP, you're right on most of your facts, except I think the most recent research on sociopathology indicates a lack of empathy, rather than guilt - they lack the capacity to recognize other creatures as sentient beings. More like a very high-functioning form of autism. But that's neither here nor there. In that example, as well as the other examples of brain-damaged individuals, I find it very difficult to describe that as evil. There is no harmful intent, merely maladaptive actions. In the real world, this is why insanity is a defense in courts. Even in the world of D&D, the standard alignment given to the insane is Chaotic Neutral: because they don't understand the consequences of their actions, it's impossible to ascribe them to good or evil intentions. I make an aside here to remind us all that the original (and still the best) definition of the alignments in D&D is that Good and Evil (the "moral" axis) refer to the intentions and Lawful and Chaotic (the "ethical" axis) refer to the actions. So walking up and stabbing a greedy merchant in the back is almost certainly a chaotic action any way you slice it, but could be good, evil or neutral depending on why you did it. This again reminds us why insane is not the same as evil, but can pretty effectively be associated with chaos. So what about this "always evil" thing... I'm a big believer in free will, or at least the illusion thereof (long story, deeply mired in philosophy and religion), so it's hard for me to accept that say, dragons, who are above average intelligence, can't break the bonds of their prescribed behavior and act in any way they jolly well please. Yes, they are predisposed to certain patterns of thought and behaviour, much in the same way that some human beings are predisposed to alcohol abuse and others are predisposed to high IQs, but genetics only tells part of the story. How they are raised makes an immense difference: a red dragon raised from an egg by silver dragons would probably be good most of the time, and aasimar raised in a village of orcs would probably share many of their vicious traits. And we must consider those ones who, predisposed toward evil and raised in a society of evil, make a conscious choice not to be. There are numerous real-world examples, and more than a few in the various worlds of D&D. To summarize, free will gives the capacity for all intelligent creatures to choose their own path. Most will choose to follow the path of the society they were born into, some will not. Another aside: the exception to this outlook is aligned Outsiders (fiends and celestials, their lawful and chaotic equivalents, but not elementals). Since these creatures are constructed from the very stuff of alignments -- the aforementioned Balor is made out of Evil and Chaos (note capitalization) -- they really only have no choice in alignment. Is this a humanocentric view? Heck yes. But the worlds of D&D, in case you haven't noticed, are massively humanocentric. Unlike our world, it's populated by hundreds, perhaps thousands of different intelligent species that are capable of communication with each other. And all seem to share most of the same values we, as humans, prize: they reward excellence, strive to advance their bloodline, and amass lots and lots of pretty things. Even the gods, whose motivations should be nigh inconceivable to us, are subject to the same urges we humans deal with every day: lust, jealousy, vengeance, happiness, hedonism... every creature in the D&D universe is essentially human, with a few minor changes. Looking back, I've presented a lot of arguable opinions as fact. It is not intended this way, so please don't flame me as if I think my way is the only way, or as if I haven't considered the alternatives. These are the considered opinions of one person, I would like to hear your considered arguments. |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 02:23 PM | No, orcs are chaotic evil because their societies are. No, their societies are evil cos they are. |
| odinsmightytoad02-28-07, 02:54 PM | So this really becomes a "nature vs. nurture" argument. I think in the case of game it should be what ever fits for you. As for real life I think nature leads into nurture, as far as that one person is lead to a way of behaving as the brain chemistry allows, but as they grow and raise their children the way they live it soon becomes a part of society as a whole. If we look at it this way then it is both. |
| SquirrelMortis02-28-07, 03:08 PM | No, their societies are evil cos they are. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You could keep arguing with one another about this, but that would be stupid, and wouldn't be constructive. If an argument isn't constructive, then what's the point of it? Part of why I play Eberron is because there's no need for these stupid alignment discussions... |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 03:10 PM | So this really becomes a "nature vs. nurture" argument. I think in the case of game it should be what ever fits for you. As for real life I think nature leads into nurture, as far as that one person is lead to a way of behaving as the brain chemistry allows, but as they grow and raise their children the way they live it soon becomes a part of society as a whole. If we look at it this way then it is both.Absolutley, humans are both. The degree which nature vs nurture can impact you is hard to say, and easily argued... but I am quite sure that it is a mix of both. I'm trying to argue that it is possible for an intelligent creature to exist where it doesn't have the flexibility that humans do. It doesn't have the same variety of "nature", and "nurture" has very little impact. It is simply a matter of breaking out of the human mindset and imagining a creature that is different. One that doesn't develop the way we do. |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 03:17 PM | Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither. Creatures build societies and those societies in turn influence the creatures. It is both nature and nurture, both chicken and egg. Orc society breeds chaotic evil orcs cos chaotic evil orcs created orc society. Part of why I play Eberron is because there's no need for these stupid alignment discussions... You're right, Eberron has it's own unique set of stupid discussions. ;) |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 03:19 PM | Absolutley, humans are both. The degree which nature vs nurture can impact you is hard to say, and easily argued... but I am quite sure that it is a mix of both. I'm trying to argue that it is possible for an intelligent creature to exist where it doesn't have the flexibility that humans do. It doesn't have the same variety of "nature", and "nurture" has very little impact. It is simply a matter of breaking out of the human mindset and imagining a creature that is different. One that doesn't develop the way we do. What he said. Just cos humans run the alignment gamut does not mean that all creatures must also do so. The very idea that all creatures must be like us if they are to be considered intelligent and sapient is ludicrously narrow-minded and arrogant. |
| ElberethSilverleaf02-28-07, 04:09 PM | As for the rest of it, I don't know. Am I the only one who attempts to form a peaceful agreement between the orcs and the elves, uses force when attacked, and hopes there are enough adult noncombatants left in the area to care for the children? No you're not as I've done the same before. |
| SquirrelMortis02-28-07, 04:11 PM | What he said. Just cos humans run the alignment gamut does not mean that all creatures must also do so. The very idea that all creatures must be like us if they are to be considered intelligent and sapient is ludicrously narrow-minded and arrogant. I'm not denying what you say is truthful. But isn't it just as narrow minded to assume that if something isn't human, that there for it doesn't function anything like us? Sure, Orcs will be different from humans in many ways. That doesn't mean that they have entirely different brain structure. |
| MerlintheTuna02-28-07, 04:20 PM | This is mindblowing. You see alignment and free will alongside each other, and decide that free will is the one that doesn't work? I think I just took 1d4 Wis damage by reading this. |
| SquirrelMortis02-28-07, 04:23 PM | This is mindblowing. You see alignment and free will alongside each other, and decide that free will is the one that doesn't work? I think I just took 1d4 Wis damage by reading this. :clap: |
| Thought02-28-07, 04:23 PM | I have a bit of a long rant here... Don't worry, I have a bit of a long reply. First: There are people out there who are “insane” and are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse (sociopaths). Common medical belief is that the part of the brain that processes guilt is missing or malfunctioning. Therefore it doesn’t matter how much “free will” they have, they can’t feel guilt even if they wanted to. Unfortunately, this is a faulty argument. It assumes people do good in order to not feel guilty or remorseful, and it assumes that even good actions wont leave a person feeling guilty or remorseful. A creature with no guilt could still do good just as easily as a creature with guilt, the only difference might be that such a creature would be harder to correct when it did not do good or did evil. Second: There are people out there with brain damage (typically to the prefrontal cortex) where they are constantly acting impulsively. Even if they logically know it might not be the wisest thing to do, they do whatever provides immediate gratification. Unfortunately for them, the part of the brain that allows you to think before you act is gone, so they just act.. on impulse. Again, “free will” doesn’t matter, they can’t stop acting based on impulse because part of their brain is missing. Just like someone who’s eyes are plucked out can’t see no matter how hard they try. Again, a faulty argument (the Red Herring logical fallacy, to be exact). All this does is show that a creature can be impulsive, aka Chaotic. Unfortunately the argument you proposed specified you were talking about Evil. Such a creature could be expected to act impulsively good just as often as impulsively evil. The sort of person to give you the food right off his plate (literally, and starve a day later). Third: The prefrontal cortex also controls emotions like pleasure, pain, anger, rage, panic, and aggression. As a result there are people with brain damage who have the rage and aggression functions permanently switched on. The smallest thing angers them. And this assumes that Anger is inherently evil. Of course, it isn't. Anger is a very useful motivator which can be used for good or evil. If you get angry about an injustice then chances are you'll do something about it. The key here isn't that the person gets angry, but rather what makes a person angry in the first place. A person might get angry over a perceived social slight (He didn't bow low enough to me, OFF WITH HIS HEAD!), but only if that situation is perceived as being incorrect (in a society where no one bows for any reason and the person has no reason to expect people to bow, then such an action wont make him angry). Ah, but this leads us back to social situations. A creature could get very angry quite easily, but if the only things that make that creature angry are social injustices... well that is still good. If a monster is born with a brain that is hypersensitive to anger, always acts on impulse, and is incapable of processing guilt… I see a creature that is chaotic evil in nature. Lets add to that an inability to process love, compassion and empathy, and I see a creature that is incapable of “choosing” to be good. I see a creature certainly predisposed to engaging in evil behavior, but one which could just as easily, given the right circumstances, engage is good acts. Mind, good isn't tied to love, compassion, or empathy. You can’t use “free will” to “choose” to be compassionate, empathetic, kind and caring if the part of the brain that processes that stuff doesn’t exist. And if a creature is born like that, it doesn’t matter what its upbringing is, the behaviour won’t change. Free will wouldn't allow such a creature to BE compassionate, but that doesn't mean the creature couldn't act in a compassionate manner. We could create robots that are incapable of compassion, empathy, etc, and that doesn't make them evil. Just like we can’t grow a tail based on “free will”, humans just aren’t built that way. Ah, humans do grow tails (just not based on free will). Perhaps height might be a better analogy, since height isn't a strict thing. People aren't born 5'10", nor are they born destined to be 5'10". Unless the proper environment exists (aka, proper nutrition) they wont grow to their full potential. Similarly, the right hormones can get a person "destined" to be 4'10" to grow to 5'8". A creature might be predisposed to being a certain way, but without the proper environment things wont go that way. Sorry, but that is a load of horse****. Orcs are not humans in funny suits, they are a different species evolved from a different creature than us. To suggest that they must be like humans - indeed to suggest that our behavioural parameters are the default norm and deviation suggesting that other specie can deviate from them is wrong - is the height of human arrogance. Yeah, tell the Half-Orcs that. IF humans and Orcs can successfully produce offspring, THEN they are, by many definitions, the same species. Certainly Orcs and Humans are endlessly more similar than Humans and Chimps, for example. How Orcs are presented in game is quite similar to how Europeans perceived Native Americans, or how the Greeks perceived the Germans, or how the Romans perceived the Persians. What he said. Just cos humans run the alignment gamut does not mean that all creatures must also do so. The very idea that all creatures must be like us if they are to be considered intelligent and sapient is ludicrously narrow-minded and arrogant. Except you are assuming that humans conform morality to themselves, rather than that humans conform themselves to morality. DnD uses a very strict moral code that is divorced from perception. In real life, if morality is bent to the perceiver, then no society could be evil simply because that society wouldn’t consider itself evil (a “good” society might slavery is deplorable, while an “evil” society might think it is a necessary good for the benefit of both the enslaved and the owner). If one assumes a flexible morality, then good and evil are rather meaningless for discussion as it shifts so that the “Other” is the only thing that can be evil and the “self” is the only thing that can always be good. DnD assumes that there is an absolute moral code, that each and every action is either good or evil depending on a “God’s Eye View” (as first proposed by Immanuel Kant, if I recall my philosophy correctly). Simply put, you are assuming that denying evil creatures means that people are saying that intelligence is limited to human-like morality, when in reality people are saying that intelligence is limited to a morality that freely allows for the creatures to perform actions that are good and evil according to the God’s Eye View, and that humans just happen to be such a species. It isn’t ludicrously narrow-minded and arrogant to claim that all sentient creatures must be capable of such a spectrum of moral behaviors any more than it is to call it ludicrously narrow-minded and arrogant to claim that all members of the phylum Chordata must have had, at some point in their life, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, a notochord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a muscular tail extending past the ****. Or perhaps a simpler analogy might be to claim that it is arrogant to expect all devices and creatures capable of atmospheric flight must be capable of generating lift in some manner. |
| EvilIdiot02-28-07, 04:36 PM | Whether a creature has free will or not, if it's said it's evil, it means it is naturally born with that alignment. There are alignment as forces, as society, as personal background, as anything. Anything during a creature's life can influence its alignment. Having a predefined alignment means there are lots and lots of things that favour that creature on having such an alignment, firstly the alignment itself,as a "universal force". Could there be a good creature whose natural alignment is evil?maybe Is it something a player should consider when she encounter a member of such species? absolutely not. We're in a fantasy campaign . Reformed characters exist, creature as well, but they're not the norm at all. Is an orc, presuming there's actually written "always/usually evil", CE? Sure. Is it impossible to have a non-CE orc? no. Is it impossible that ,while writing this post, the pressure of blood inside my head makes it explode? no Do I care? No. Do you want to be a talk-show man, with LG orcs knights, CE lammasu, NN skeletons ,NE pyromaniac treants and CG vampire healers as guests ? OK... Is this the best way to play at DnD?or to interpret rules and manual entries? I'm not sure about this.... In DnD logic,cultural believing ,politics and such were removed in 1st edition. |
| Leo02-28-07, 05:11 PM | And gods were added. Angry powerfull gods who can smite you at will o give you power behind dreams if you follow them. I knew there was some reason I played this game.... In D&D, powerfull entities decide what is good and what is wrong. Entities much beyong our knowledge. Don't try to question them.:P |
| Ryusage02-28-07, 05:24 PM | Oh boy! I get to play devil's advocate! Let's say for a minute that the OP is correct. Let's say for a minute that the tag "always blank blank" means absolutely always. Can't, say, a lawful evil character commit one good or chaotic act once in a while? Is this completely impossible? Of course not. Therefore, they do not have "parts of their brains shut down or missing", it is simply not in their common nature. Therefore, maybe certain individuals of a race are considered "brain damaged" by their peers because certain parts of their brains do not function or they actually feel compassion and guilt? Wouldn't that happen? So it just seems easier to say that yes, most are this alignment but not all. Be very careful when using words like always and never. It's probably gonna go back to bite you in the ass. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 06:19 PM | Don't worry, I have a bit of a long reply.nice to see. Unfortunately, this is a faulty argument. It assumes people do good in order to not feel guilty or remorseful.... <snip>Again, a faulty argument (the Red Herring logical fallacy, to be exact)... <snip>...And this assumes that Anger is inherently evil. Of course, it isn't. <snip>You misunderstood the intention of that information. Those were examples of the impact of changes to the human brain. I in no way implied that those people were evil, or that they would act evil, and I don't disagree with anything you posted. It is the combination of many issues like the ones I posted that would make a creature act evil in the D&D sense. I see a creature certainly predisposed to engaging in evil behavior, but one which could just as easily, given the right circumstances, engage is good acts. Mind, good isn't tied to love, compassion, or empathy.Now this is where I disagree. If a creature is full of rage and aggression, and that creature acts impulsively, then it will regularly be violent and destructive. If that creature feels no guilt, then it won't be upset by this behaviour. It might just kill someone who accidentally bumped into him and made him spill his drink. That's evil in D&D terms. If that creature only acts on impulse, and it has no compassion or empathy, then it will never do "good" acts. Free will wouldn't allow such a creature to BE compassionate, but that doesn't mean the creature couldn't act in a compassionate manner. We could create robots that are incapable of compassion, empathy, etc, and that doesn't make them evil.No, but it doesn't make them good either. And the robot doesn't act impulsively, it acts as it is told. If it is told to help people it will. An impulsive angry creature which doesn't feel compassion has no reason or incentive to help people. Ah, humans do grow tails (just not based on free will). Perhaps height might be a better analogy, since height isn't a strict thing.Actually I like my analogy. You can't grow a tail based on free will, just like my imaginary creature couldn't be "good" based on free will. A person who has a slight genetic "flaw" might grow a tail, and my imaginary creature might have a genetic "flaw" that changes its prefrontal cortex... Yeah, tell the Half-Orcs that. IF humans and Orcs can successfully produce offspring, THEN they are, by many definitions, the same species.Not the same species, but very similar (there are differing species that can cross-breed). That is a very good point. Although Orcs aren't "always evil", and I don't think anyone has claimed that they are. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 06:20 PM | This is mindblowing. You see alignment and free will alongside each other, and decide that free will is the one that doesn't work?I'm not saying that it doesn't work, I'm saying that it doesn't fit. It isn't relevant. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 06:27 PM | Let's say for a minute that the OP is correct. Let's say for a minute that the tag "always blank blank" means absolutely always.Ah, but I didn't say "absolutely always", and I didn't say it applies to every creature with the "always" tag. I said that a creature could be biologically designed to always follow a certain alignment. If that creature experienced brain damage, or was "insane" compared to it's species it might very well stray from the standard. Magic of course could also alter its alignment. These would just be quite rare. Can't, say, a lawful evil character commit one good or chaotic act once in a while? Is this completely impossible? Of course not.Sure a LE characer could, but a creature who was biologically built as I described could not. (I am not saying that all CE creatures are built like that, I am only suggesting that it is possible for a specific species to be built like that) Therefore, maybe certain individuals of a race are considered "brain damaged" by their peers because certain parts of their brains do not function or they actually feel compassion and guilt? Wouldn't that happen?Yes, it would. |
| Squirrelloid02-28-07, 06:48 PM | Oh boy oh boy... (1) Orcs and Humans: Given that orcs and humans can interbreed, they are the same species according to the Biological Species Concept, which is the one embraced by most scientists today. (Paleontologists obviously have to use some other metric of assessing species - fossils don't breed). Thus analogizing Orc-Human relations to White-Black or similar relations is perfectly justified. Further, as already noted, Orcs are presented as 'barbarians' were by a number of cultures, including (to expand on the previous list by another poster) the Mongols from the perspective of the Chinese. (2) action-alignment linkage. "Mental illness theory" Its all well and good to say that they are compelled by their biology to behave in certain ways, but I'll direct you to the description of why mindless creatures are N. Because they have no mind, they have no intention to their action, and thus they are neutral. Non-N alignment requires choice according to the rules, because creatures without choice (mindless) are defined as having N alignment. Thus any behavior brought about by anything other than free will has *NO effect on alignment whatsoever*. (3) Creatures made of Evil Yes, outsiders are literally composed of Evil. This actually doesn't force them to have an evil alignment (as can be seen by the example L/G Paladin Succubus that was in one publication, although I forget which). You can have the [Evil] tag (which means you are composed of pure unadulterated evil), and still be free to have any alignment you choose to behave as. This is why alignment is distinct from being composed of the stuff. Behaviour effects your alignment. Composition effects your type and subtype designation. (I seem to recall it is possible to acquire the [Good] and [Evil] subtypes at the same time, via rituals in Savage Species). (4) Broader implications Philosophically, it doesn't matter if the things we demonize as "always evil" are the same species are not. Actually categorizing them as such lets you relegate them into the 'other', such that no compassion or empathy is desired or necessary for them. You have closed them out of your moral circle, and removed your behavior with regards to them from moral consideration (if they're inherently evil, killing them would be a good act, for instance). This demonization of the other is a slippery slope and can easily be transferred to specific groups, races, or what-have-you. Saying they're "separate species" in the D+D rules just means you've recognized some sort of arbitrary boundary between yourself and them. They are *sentient creatures*, which according to the rules means they have choice, and they should be treated as such. Anything else is a slippery slope towards racism and similar behavior, and its bigotry any way you slice it. (5) Footnote - Deities. Deities do not determine good or evil in D+D, they are just as bound by it as anything else. |
| theotherdraxen02-28-07, 07:08 PM | MONSTER MANUAL, PAGE 305, UNDER ALIGNMENT: Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The Creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. Therefore: Alignment + Free Will =! Myth Alignment + Free Will = Rules as Written |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 07:14 PM | MONSTER MANUAL, PAGE 305, UNDER ALIGNMENT:Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The Creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. Therefore: Alignment + Free Will =! Myth Alignment + Free Will = Rules as WrittenSorry, I disagree. It doesn't say how the alignment is changed. It doesn't say the alignment is changed due to "free will". Maybe the alignment changes due to magic, due to brain damage, or due to something beyond the will of the individual. |
| theotherdraxen02-28-07, 07:23 PM | Sorry, I disagree. That's what the internet is for. :) It doesn't say how the alignment is changed. Sure it does: "It is possible for individuals to change alignment" The individuals are the ones changing their alignment. It doesn't say the alignment is changed due to "free will". I don't recall the word free will being involved anywhere in D&D. Wizards cast spells, but nothing says that they have the free will to choose when and how. Besides, you haven't heard of the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)? |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 07:28 PM | (1) Orcs and Humans: Given that orcs and humans can interbreed, they are the same species according to the Biological Species Concept, which is the one embraced by most scientists today.Nope. Horses and donkeys can breed, and they are different species. (2) action-alignment linkage. "Mental illness theory" Its all well and good to say that they are compelled by their biology to behave in certain ways, but I'll direct you to the description of why mindless creatures are N. Because they have no mind, they have no intention to their action, and thus they are neutral. Non-N alignment requires choice according to the rules, because creatures without choice (mindless) are defined as having N alignment.But there are peolpe with mentall illnesses that are extremely intelligent, who are ceratinly not "mindless". The creature I described in my original post could very easily have an above average intelligence, and be very capable of logic. Thus any behavior brought about by anything other than free will has *NO effect on alignment whatsoever*.I understand why you say this, and it might apply in real life, but it doesn't apply in the world of D&D. (3) Creatures made of Evil Yes, outsiders are literally composed of Evil. This actually doesn't force them to have an evil alignment (as can be seen by the example L/G Paladin Succubus that was in one publication, although I forget which).Planescape Torment. "Fall from Grace" was her name. She was completely tormented by her alignment issues, but yes she did manage to not be evil. (4) Broader implications Philosophically, it doesn't matter if the things we demonize as "always evil" are the same species are not. Actually categorizing them as such lets you relegate them into the 'other', such that no compassion or empathy is desired or necessary for them. You have closed them out of your moral circle, and removed your behavior with regards to them from moral consideration (if they're inherently evil, killing them would be a good act, for instance). This demonization of the other is a slippery slope and can easily be transferred to specific groups, races, or what-have-you. Saying they're "separate species" in the D+D rules just means you've recognized some sort of arbitrary boundary between yourself and them.This is a good point, but it doesn't change anything. It can still be possible for something to be "always evil", the truth of that doesn't change. The implications of that truth socially are large, and as you describe. They are *sentient creatures*, which according to the rules means they have choice, and they should be treated as such.Choice? I think people put too much into that concept, and I don't see how it is relevant. |
| Bullshido02-28-07, 07:37 PM | I didn't read your post, but if something is different then me, it is evil and must die. |
| Squirrelloid02-28-07, 07:38 PM | Nope. Horses and donkeys can breed, and they are different species. Half-orcs are fertile. Mules are not. But there are peolpe with mentall illnesses that are extremely intelligent, who are ceratinly not "mindless". The creature I described in my original post could very easily have an above average intelligence, and be very capable of logic. I understand why you say this, and it might apply in real life, but it doesn't apply in the world of D&D. The rules for mindless creatures basically come right out and say that if you can't evaluate your actions, then they have no alignment implications. Therefore if you posit that C/E races are mentally ill, they aren't actually C/E, because they can't evaluate your actions. The whole point about mindless creatures is that intelligence implies choice, and only actions that are *actually chosen* cause you to have non-N alignment. Planescape Torment. "Fall from Grace" was her name. She was completely tormented by her alignment issues, but yes she did manage to not be evil. This is a good point, but it doesn't change anything. It can still be possible for something to be "always evil", the truth of that doesn't change. The implications of that truth socially are large, and as you describe. Choice? I think people put too much into that concept, and I don't see how it is relevant. Also see the Paladin Succubus linked above on a web supplement. I think it changes everything - effectively, you reject the paradigm that some creature types are always one alignment or you are condemned by your acceptance of it. Choice is incredibly important. Do you consider a young child who actively harms someone else to be evil, even if its too young to understand the consequences of its actions? |
| theotherdraxen02-28-07, 07:47 PM | But there are peolpe with mentall illnesses that are extremely intelligent, who are ceratinly not "mindless". No, but they do not have the ability to choose to be good, hence why they are neutral. It's the same reason that mindless or unintelligent creatures get off the hook: because they do not have the capacity to choose to be good or evil. Planescape Torment. "Fall from Grace" was her name. She was completely tormented by her alignment issues, but yes she did manage to not be evil. This is a good point, but it doesn't change anything. It can still be possible for something to be "always evil", the truth of that doesn't change. The implications of that truth socially are large, and as you describe. Wait, what? You're saying that Succubi are always evil, in that there are no exceptions, and then turn around and admit there to be an exception, but still maintain your old statement? |
| Darth Syntax02-28-07, 08:09 PM | For the sake of argument, let us assume the following 1. The existence of alignment precludes the notion of free will 2. Alignments are statements of fact concerning the behavior of creatures. Now, if there is no free will, then it becomes logically impossible for things to be other than they are. Effectively, this means that all actions, events, and things must necessarily be (or happen) in one and only one way. Sense there is only one possible outcome for any event, it becomes possible to predict, with complete accuracy, the behaviors of any creature in the cosmos; provided we have enough information. Let us take the current example of the Orc. According to the MM, and general consensus, orcs are predisposed to be Evil. As orcs lack free will, they cannot help but commit evil acts. Now, what about those orcs who are not evil? Given that there is no free will, it is only by a rigid seres of events that an orc will become not-evil. These events could be calculated, measured, and so forth. A given orc, if subjected to the right set of stimuli will inevitably become not-evil. It cannot help it, it has no free will. Moreover, sense it is necessary that things happen in one and only one way, it is inevitable that the orc become not-evil. Sense an orc has no ability to chose to be good or to be evil (or lawful or chaotic), any discussion of moral or ethical "choice" becomes meaningless. It would be like attempting to assign an ethical value to the reaction of acids and bases. Without the element of choice, alignment becomes utterly meaningless. How can something be evil if it cannot help but act in such a way? How can something be good if it cannot choose to do so? This presents us with something of a conundrum: If alignment precludes free will, then alignment is useless and fails to describe anything. Let's look at another example: The Mind Flayer Mind Flayers must eat the brains of sentient beings in order to survive. Eating is necessary for survival, and it would be illogical to assume that self-preservation is evil. Is the deer evil for eating shoots? is the termite evil for eating wood? Am I evil for having a pear? It is only because Mind Flayers must sustain themselves by eating sentient brains, a food source that most beings value highly as a non-food, that they are considered evil. Mind Flayers are a threat to many people, this is true, but lions are a threat to wildebeest, and lions are considered to be neutral. This example seems to indicate that "evil" (and by extension all other alignments) are inherently subjective, or are based in part on some kind of anthropic principle. From the meta-game perspective, alignments are based on an anthropic principle, which makes them quite troubling when they are understood to be objective in game. |
| Singer_of_the_Song02-28-07, 08:11 PM | Says who? Maybe their societies are evil because Orcs are evil? Chicken and the egg thing... besides Orcs aren't "always evil" anyway. Again says who? It is perfectly possible that they are biologically inclined to be evil, but since they are only listed as usually evil, they do have the ability to fight their nature. Sure their society promotes this type of behaviour, I won't argue that, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of it being their natural behaviour as well. You obviously have the right to whatever interpretaions you want...but I would argue against having orcs be biologically predisposed to evil. All of the fiends and fiend-mortal offspring are already "hard-wired" to evil, as are aberrations and dragons. If you want to focus on beings battling against a natural, biological predisposition toward darkness, you already have those beings to build plotlines off of. Making orcs biologically evil lessens the impact of their evil. They come across more like unwitting slaves to their own biological urges than true villains. If normal, mortal creatures have no choice but to be evil, this would illicit feelings of sympathy in many gamers I know. They would feel like the poor orcs know not what they do and need to be helped, and would probably agonize over every battle against the hapless, self-enslaved orcish hordes. Making their societes the cause of their wickedness is arguably more interesting because, as I said, if you want a being struggling against their internal impulses to do good you already have so many races to work with. Then, you can paint all sorts of vivid pictures about how a poisonous upbringing corrupts the members of societes and turns otherwise normal mortal creatures into blood-thirsty berserks. |
| Aliquid02-28-07, 08:14 PM | You're saying that Succubi are always evil, in that there are no exceptions, and then turn around and admit there to be an exception, but still maintain your old statement?No, I am not saying Succubi are always evil. I have never said anything about the Succubi species. I said it is possible for a creature (not all creatures) to be always CE due to its biology. I have at no point applied this possibility to any specific creature in the monster manual. |
| bonethug010802-28-07, 11:08 PM | It was based on human ignorance and bias. Humans are who wrote the book.:) Therefore we can expect some of our human nature to make it in there, too. |
| RadicalTaoist02-28-07, 11:33 PM | http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/0002e4dt Oh, who am I kidding. It's already there. When I consider the wisdom "don't let real life sciences interfere with D&D", I include psychology and biology among the aforementioned sciences. |
| EscherEnigma03-01-07, 01:00 AM | Just thought I'd chime in with my own opinions. 1st) First, as was stated rather well above, I agree that declaring that free will does not work in D&D makes alignment moot. If a creature has no choice, no option, then it can be neither good nor evil as while it may have evil intentions and actions (or good), it bears no responsibility for those actions. To me this argument seems to dead end rather quickly and bear no interesting disucssion, so I shall thus abandon it. 2nd) Given that without free will a creature MUST be NN, only creatures with free will may be good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. If we agree that 'free will' means that a creature choose their own actions, then a creature that has free will can choose to do something, or not do something. Their own individual brain chemistry, physiology, or magical voodoo that keeps them running may mean that they have no compulsion to do so or receive no chemical reward for doing so, but that is still their choice. 3rd) Even if a creature has NO biological imperative to do good or evil, if they have free will, they can CHOOSE an intent (though this choice may not always be apparent) and CHOOSE an action. Thus, a creature can CHOOSE to act in accord with an alignment even if their biology is completly predisposed against it. 4th) this discussion is mostly moot, because, as has been pointed out, even the 'always' descriptor means 'not quite always'. As such, a DM or Player can already choose any alignment they want for a character or NPC, given that said character or NPC isn't without free will. As such, the sole point of this discussion is to decide upon a rationale for the alignment descriptors given in the MM Sidenote: If I remember my high school biology correctly, the modern definition of species includes that, among other things, two creatures of the species must be able to reproduce fertile offspring. So horses and donkeys aren't the same, because mules are infertile. By this definition humans and orcs would be the same species, humans and elves would be the same species, though elves and orcs might not be, depending on the viability of elf/orc offspring. This just goes to show that real world science has interesting results when applied to an arbitrary and whimsical fantasy setting. Anyway, I think this is an interesting discussion. When I DM though? Assumming an alignment based off race is a bad idea. Strong nature/nurture predispositions don't mean that a choice can't be made, just that it's that much more important when it does happen. |
| bonethug010803-01-07, 01:04 AM | Well said, EE.:) |
| EvilIdiot03-01-07, 04:20 AM | Nope. Horses and donkeys can breed, and they are different species. Half-orcs are fertile. Mules are not. Lions,tigers and leopards can breed. end of foolish discussion. 1) please stop saying that human saw snakes and such as evil because of their ignorance. please stop saying that ,since there's racism between white and black in the real world, orcs are being damaged by evil-republican-adventurers without reasons. How boring. Manuals were written now, in 2k, and if there's an alignment, it doesn't mean that "people think that of this species, because they're stupid and uncivil", it does mean, for god's sake, that, if you (as a real person) could see the whole multiverse and make some statistics about it, you would conclude that orcs are CE, and succubi are CE.... If I give you a car which has the 99% of chance to explode, would you accept it? 2) Mindless creatures aren't evil...except when.... they do not belong to nature ,and/or live only to destroy it. In this way, undeads are always evil, and mind flayer as well. Moreover, if I craft a ring, which you can cast only spells with evil descriptor( as "kill all the kids, kittens, and chickens") with, using the blood of 20 different virgin healers to make it, would you say that's not evil? ok Now, I dig out a human corpse, perform a strange ritual, bind a piece of soul inside the corpse, and, then, poff, I get a zombie. Would you say that's not evil? ok Now, I craft a golem, with the same ritual I used for the ring. Would you say that's not evil? ok Now I'm a evil god, who creates its own race. I infuse it with my evil power, and then, I call it "orcs". whuuuuu. Would you say that my race is not evil? free will may exist, who cares? when something is naturally born evil, it means it's naturally corrupted, and corruption, in a fantasy game, is something difficult to live with. It is easier to change from G to E than viceversa, as well. 3) alignment ,in ded, are absolute. if you're good, you always try not to harm anyone, whenever it's possible if you're evil, you do not care about anyone but you, whenever it's possible. If you commit evil because someone did something wrong to you, you have ,at least, a 50% chance of being not evil. Anyway, if you harm anyone you encounter ,because someone else did that wrong thing to you, you're one of the greatest idiots I ever seen and, no matter what, you're evil ,with the idiot subtype. If you commit evil because someone taught you to do so, and you can perceive pain and evilness you inflict upon your victims, you're evil, otherwise, well, Loviatar isn't that bad after all, no? If rules aren't to be intended in this way, why have they been written? to make someone accuse someone else of racism in a fantasy world? |
| theotherdraxen03-01-07, 07:25 AM | For the sake of argument, let us assume the following 1. The existence of alignment precludes the notion of free will 2. Alignments are statements of fact concerning the behavior of creatures. Yes, if we assume those two, then you are right. No, I am not saying Succubi are always evil. I have never said anything about the Succubi species. I said it is possible for a creature (not all creatures) to be always CE due to its biology. I have at no point applied this possibility to any specific creature in the monster manual. Oh, I see. Then yes, there are creatures that simply are always chaotic evil (I'm pretty sure Dretch don't have the capacity to be one way or the other). But "always chaotic evil" doesn't really mean "always", in fact, a very rare few of these creatures can (and do) choose to be lawful good. 2) Mindless creatures aren't evil...except when.... they do not belong to nature ,and/or live only to destroy it. I agree. 3) alignment ,in ded, are absolute. if you're good, you always try not to harm anyone, whenever it's possible if you're evil, you do not care about anyone but you, whenever it's possible. If you commit evil because someone did something wrong to you, you have ,at least, a 50% chance of being not evil. Anyway, if you harm anyone you encounter ,because someone else did that wrong thing to you, you're one of the greatest idiots I ever seen and, no matter what, you're evil ,with the idiot subtype. Wait, when did alignment become absolute? Liast I checked, the PHB alignment descriptions were just flavor-text for your campaign world. Besides, when you talked about good and evil above, you were more talking about Exalted and Vile, not just good and evil. If rules aren't to be intended in this way, why have they been written? They weren't written that way. They were written in vague terms so that the individual could interpret them however they wished. Most people just play with alignment as absolutes, but that's their perogative, not the RAW. |
| terracustos03-01-07, 09:12 AM | No, orcs are chaotic evil because their societies are. Orcs aren't in any way "biologically" inclined to be evil. They have a psychopath for a god, a militaristic outlook, a view of other races and countries as good canditates for future Lebensraum (just like the Nazis), and a history of genocidal warfare. They are this way because societal forces shape young orcs to be this way. I agree. To take the spartans for example, they were a very hardy people. They threw babies from cliffs that were believed to be deformed or weak. They were trained from birth to be soldiers and nothing else, taught that death on the battle field is an honor. Your spartans at the age of 5 would be sent out into the hills with little more than a knife and had to survive. Nowadays people with deformaties and abnormalities or brain damage are accepted and 'normal' people make consideration for them and care for them despite the fact that they would probably not survive in a natural wild environment. And 5 year old kids are out playing football or playing on their playstations and wouldn't last 5 minutes on there own. Some people in their teens and early twenties can't even look after them selves. None of these two scenarios are wrong or any more valid than the other and in both examples we are dealing with the same species. This shows that a beings actions and beliefs towards one another act outside the constraints of their biology and how they are made up. I believe very little of a persons personality is innate. There may be certain personality traits that are results of genetics but the majority of our personality is decifered by environmental conditions and stimuli which imprint on the hippocampus. The hippocampus is responsible for memory and learning and is also in the region of the brain that controls emotions(hypothalamus). I also want to comment on the issue of being evil. Taking orc and elven disputes for example most people would instintively rule that orcs were evil and elves were good. Even in a case where a group of elves destroyed an orc village yet the orcs have not committed a crime. People would just consider it to be removing an apparent danger and the elves were not in the wrong. Yet, as the great Shakespear once said, 'Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so'. I am going to use the elves and those that support them as A and the orcs and their supporters as B. Both A and B represent two different points of view and two different sets of moral standards. Nither A nor B are good or evil. A is simply as B sees them and vise versa. The Orcs are only considered evil as their society, culture and beliefs conflict with that of the the elves. The Orcs would no doubt consider the elves to be evil (or term it good, or soft or weak) and the orcs have just as valid a case. Who is to say that one persons point of view is any more just than anothers? |
| terracustos03-01-07, 09:24 AM | I also want to comment on the issue of being evil. Taking orc and elven disputes for example most people would instintively rule that orcs were evil and elves were good. Even in a case where a group of elves destroyed an orc village yet the orcs have not committed a crime. People would just consider it to be removing an apparent danger and the elves were not in the wrong. Yet, as the great Shakespear once said, 'Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so'. I am going to use the elves and those that support them as A and the orcs and their supporters as B. Both A and B represent two different points of view and two different sets of moral standards. Nither A nor B are good or evil. A is simply as B sees them and vise versa. The Orcs are only considered evil as their society, culture and beliefs conflict with that of the the elves. The Orcs would no doubt consider the elves to be evil (or term it good, or soft or weak) and the orcs have just as valid a case. Who is to say that one persons point of view is any more just than anothers? Just adding that in this scenario although the elves were of good alignment the attack a group of 'beings' without cause simply because of what they are. This can be considered racist and an evil act so alignment is not clear cut and something like an orc which is 'usually evil' can still be good. Refering to my other post this is orcs being good in the eyes of elves and humans. (actually maybe not good or bad as this is objective, just that in some cases their 'interests' are the same) |
| Boraxe03-01-07, 10:56 AM | I'm not denying what you say is truthful. But isn't it just as narrow minded to assume that if something isn't human, that there for it doesn't function anything like us? Sure, Orcs will be different from humans in many ways. That doesn't mean that they have entirely different brain structure. Sure it does, virtually be necessity. A creature evolved from a different animal will, by definition, have a different brain structure than do we. Evolution demands not only that they should have entirely different brain structure than humans but rather that they must. Note, though, that this only covers creatures who actually evolved. In a fantasy universe it is possible for creatures to be created whole-cloth and thus these rules need not apply. However, such a race, one created by a deity, will act and bahave as the deity designs them to. So in this case orcs would be chaotic evil cos their deity created them to be. Note also that I am speaking in general terms here. These rules do not apply to my own game world but for very different reasons (that I won't go into cos I am using them for a current project intended for publication). In my setting most races have alignment tendencies only, influenced by both nature and nurture, but none are set "in the bone" as it were. Half-orcs, for example, are not a distinct half-breed race but are actually full-blooded orcs who have be raised in more civilized societies. The differences between so-called half-orcs and their orc kin, including their full gamut of alignment options, are entirely nurture-based. |
| Dorox103-01-07, 01:07 PM | ok Now, I dig out a human corpse, perform a strange ritual, bind a piece of soul inside the corpse, and, then, poff, I get a zombie. Would you say that's not evil? Um, no, I wouldn't. If you take a piece of a willing soul (including yours) then there is no reason that should be considered evil. All you said was that you preform a strange ritual and now the corpse can walk (slowly), etc.... Or was that the point? |
| Boraxe03-01-07, 01:25 PM | Humans are who wrote the book.:) Therefore we can expect some of our human nature to make it in there, too. Precisely. |
| Leo03-01-07, 01:58 PM | Yes, if we assume those two, then you are right. Oh, I see. Then yes, there are creatures that simply are always chaotic evil (I'm pretty sure Dretch don't have the capacity to be one way or the other). But "always chaotic evil" doesn't really mean "always", in fact, a very rare few of these creatures can (and do) choose to be lawful good. I agree. Wait, when did alignment become absolute? Liast I checked, the PHB alignment descriptions were just flavor-text for your campaign world. Besides, when you talked about good and evil above, you were more talking about Exalted and Vile, not just good and evil. They weren't written that way. They were written in vague terms so that the individual could interpret them however they wished. Most people just play with alignment as absolutes, but that's their perogative, not the RAW. False. The RAW clearly says good and evil are absolute in D&D. The only problem is defining good and evil in your campaign, but unless you're some munchkin that wants his character to be a LG thief power hungry baby killer that's hardly a problem. |
| Squirrelloid03-01-07, 02:05 PM | Lions,tigers and leopards can breed. end of foolish discussion. That is an overstatement. There is some weird one-gender directional interbreeding going on, and this never occurs in the wild. It can only be compelled in captivity - behavioral predispositions against mating are something that should not be discounted. However, given there are half-orcs in the campaign world that occur "in the wild" so to speak, clearly there are neither behavioral or biological barriers to mating. Furthermore, all of these offspring are fully cross-compatible with either race (we even have rules to determine what race the offspring are...). Therefore, they are by definition the same species. 2) Mindless creatures aren't evil...except when.... they do not belong to nature ,and/or live only to destroy it. In this way, undeads are always evil, and mind flayer as well. See, 3e had this right. Skeletons and zombies are N because they have no capacity for moral action. The rules specifically state that a creature with no intelligence or less than 3 intelligence are always N. Skeletons and Zombies have *no intelligence*, therefor they should be N. Its not my fault some moralistic moron at WotC decided that Skeletons and Zombies should be evil just for kicks. I'd love to see a definition of 'does not belong to nature'. Negative energy is perfectly natural (its the primary element behind entropy - a natural process). How is a skeleton any less natural than a golem? Moreover, if I craft a ring, which you can cast only spells with evil descriptor( as "kill all the kids, kittens, and chickens") with, using the blood of 20 different virgin healers to make it, would you say that's not evil? Crafting it may well be an evil act on your part. The item itself is not necessarily evil, although using it probably is. Objects cannot have alignment. (Although they can have type or subtype designations, such as [evil] - this does not give it the evil alignment). Now, I dig out a human corpse, perform a strange ritual, bind a piece of soul inside the corpse, and, then, poff, I get a zombie. Would you say that's not evil? Where in the rules does it say you use a piece of soul to make a zombie? This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands. The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.) Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit) The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit. Skeletons A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones. Zombies A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy. Material Component You must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless, burned-out shells. Nothing about souls there. You animate a body. Now, this is at best a N act. I don't see any reason why the act of animating a corpse would be evil - its no different than Animate Object. (Corpses are objects according to the rules). The only thing that makes this "evil" is that the Animate Dead spell was stupidly assigned the [evil] descriptor by some moralizing moron. Regardless, negative energy is perfectly natural, and the skeleton is a mindless construct, so it is by definition N. Now, I craft a golem, with the same ritual I used for the ring. Would you say that's not evil? The act of crafting it may be evil. The golem is not. (In fact, since you only need blood from 20 Virgin Healers, if you got them to contribute it voluntarily it wouldn't even be an evil act to craft it. Now I'm a evil god, who creates its own race. I infuse it with my evil power, and then, I call it "orcs". whuuuuu. Would you say that my race is not evil? Nope. Either they are N (no ability to make choices), or they have free will and can determine their own destiny. free will may exist, who cares? when something is naturally born evil, it means it's naturally corrupted, and corruption, in a fantasy game, is something difficult to live with. Remember, the rules for mindless creatures and low intelligence creatures basically tell us that if a creature has no choice or does not understand the consequences of its actions, it is by definition N. If a young child takes action which directly causes physical harm to someone else, was it an evil act? Even if the child is too young to understand the consequences of its actions? It is easier to change from G to E than viceversa, as well. 3) alignment ,in ded, are absolute. if you're good, you always try not to harm anyone, whenever it's possible if you're evil, you do not care about anyone but you, whenever it's possible. If you commit evil because someone did something wrong to you, you have ,at least, a 50% chance of being not evil. Anyway, if you harm anyone you encounter ,because someone else did that wrong thing to you, you're one of the greatest idiots I ever seen and, no matter what, you're evil ,with the idiot subtype. If you commit evil because someone taught you to do so, and you can perceive pain and evilness you inflict upon your victims, you're evil, otherwise, well, Loviatar isn't that bad after all, no? Oh you're right, all good people are pompous holier-than-thou *******s and all evil people can't pass up any opportunity to do evil. Welcome to Caricateur and Dragons. :rolleyes: If rules aren't to be intended in this way, why have they been written? to make someone accuse someone else of racism in a fantasy world? The alignment rules are so shoddily written you can't actually tell what any given alignment is. Heck, their examples for L and C are identical! (And good and evil aren't much better except in extreme end member conditions). |
| Archtyrant Terevoth03-01-07, 02:16 PM | Now, this is at best a N act. I don't see any reason why the act of animating a corpse would be evil - its no different than Animate Object. (Corpses are objects according to the rules). The only thing that makes this "evil" is that the Animate Dead spell was stupidly assigned the [evil] descriptor by some moralizing moron. Regardless, negative energy is perfectly natural, and the skeleton is a mindless construct, so it is by definition N. The problem is that alignment is mostly flavor text and the 3.5 rules tend not to include much flavor text. You can do something flavorwise one way and have it be a good act and do it another way and have it be an evil act. We don't get much detail about the specific flavor method of animate dead, but we do know that it is evil, whatever it might be. Perhaps it merely entails channeling dark magic that gradually turn the caster evil (since casting evil spells make you gravitate towards evil alignment). Mechanically speaking, animate does have some degree of effect on the soul, because it makes a creature unable to be raised. Resurrection is required if you turn someone into an undead. |
| Squirrelloid03-01-07, 02:29 PM | The problem is that alignment is mostly flavor text and the 3.5 rules tend not to include much flavor text. You can do something flavorwise one way and have it be a good act and do it another way and have it be an evil act. We don't get much detail about the specific flavor method of animate dead, but we do know that it is evil, whatever it might be. Perhaps it merely entails channeling dark magic that gradually turn the caster evil (since casting evil spells make you gravitate towards evil alignment). Mechanically speaking, animate does have some degree of effect on the soul, because it makes a creature unable to be raised. Resurrection is required if you turn someone into an undead. We know the soul isn't in the body anymore because of the text of Speak with Dead. So maybe Animate Dead cuts any possible connection between the soul and the body somehow, but we have no idea how... ok, lets think through this. Lets grant that interfering with your ability to be raised is an evil act. Raise Dead has a limit of 1 day/CL, which means anything dead a year or more is basically impossible to raise. At which point we're arguing not over whether the act of animating a corpse is an evil act, but how long it has to be dead before its no longer an evil act - the evil act being interrupting the soul's ability to be raised and re-inhabiting the body. Its even possible that preventing someone from being raised would be a good act, such as animating the corpse of an evil creature (because it prevents it from returning to the world). As an edge condition, if the act of raising a creature would cause the world to end, kill all virgins within 20 miles, or some other clearly undesirable consequence, Animate Dead on their corpse is certainly a good act because it makes those events less likely. Heck, you should probably trap the soul and otherwise do anything possible to prevent its resurrection - all of which would be good acts. (Speaking of which- Trap the Soul imprisons the soul of a sentient creature and is *not [evil]*.) We also know Animate Dead requires manipulating negative energy. Guess what, so does Enervation (not [evil]), and most of the other Necromancy spells, many of which are not evil. My conclusion is that making Animate Dead [evil] is internally inconsistent, bad for the game philosophically, and has no basis in any mechanics, flavor text, or theory of death/planes/etc... that I am aware of. Its probably flagged because some moron thought making undead was icky. Being icky doesn't make it evil - and making evil a farce helps no one. |
| EscherEnigma03-01-07, 02:47 PM | Squirrel: interesting points, but wouldn't it work better as it's own thread? |
| EvilIdiot03-01-07, 02:47 PM | Wait, when did alignment become absolute? Liast I checked, the PHB alignment descriptions were just flavor-text for your campaign world. No, I wasn't precise: for absolute I meant a character with evil alignment is always considered evil , no matter what action she's doing in the exact moment adventurers finds her. Moreover, as the example below tried to explain, they're not relative: if you don't care about harming others for your own self, whether for rightful revenge or disturbed childhood, you're evil. Insanity and such things as a cause for your evil deeds , here, are not an excuse, or it's rarely so,as it would be in real world. Besides, when you talked about good and evil above, you were more talking about Exalted and Vile, not just good and evil. As you said, alignment are guidelines, flavour. You can be good as I said by various degrees, ranging from exalted to almost neutral ;) Another definition could be the following: good--> protection, respect, hope evil--> destruction, egoism, despair Um, no, I wouldn't. If you take a piece of a willing soul (including yours) then there is no reason that should be considered evil. All you said was that you preform a strange ritual and now the corpse can walk (slowly), etc.... Or was that the point? It's almost a real rare case, and is still rare that using a dead corpse isn't evil, from a lots of philosophical points of views. Ah, naturally a zombie is like a walking destroying machine: left alone, it will eat everything until the energy inside don't disappears, which comes practically with the dead of the creature itself, but, being it an undead, it can't die again... see the issue? It's an evil machine... Then, why should a creature want to have its corpse to be animated like a zombie? The main point is, anyway, that evil mindless things exists, as good ones. I also want to comment on the issue of being evil. Taking orc and elven disputes for example most people would instintively rule that orcs were evil and elves were good. Even in a case where a group of elves destroyed an orc village yet the orcs have not committed a crime. People would just consider it to be removing an apparent danger and the elves were not in the wrong. This is the rarest thing that could happen in a D&D campaign. Why the hell should a tribe of orcs coexists peacefully with nature and other things, and why there should be a tribe of elves which brutally kill them? Again, this is not the real world, this is a fantasy campaign, and talking about racism is, how can I say, really childish. In D&D there's no pacifism between elves and orcs, nor racism, there's a fantasy world with its own rules, period. San Francesco of Assisi would have killed thousand of orcs, in any D&D setting, because orcs are tools of Gruumsh. A is simply as B sees them and vise versa. The Orcs are only considered evil as their society, culture and beliefs conflict with that of the the elves. The Orcs would no doubt consider the elves to be evil (or term it good, or soft or weak) and the orcs have just as valid a case. Who is to say that one persons point of view is any more just than anothers? When "evil" is written on a manual, it doesn't mean that someone "sees" someone else, do you think authors see orcs and other things? It does mean that the vast majority of members from a given race are evil, no matter what. You can feel that a piece of metal is hot, I could say, instead, that it's just warm. If, in a manual, they write "hot", it simply means that both me and you, should react ,when touching that piece of metal, as it would be hot, period. In fact, while playing, none of them would be actually touching the metal... |
| Nidair03-01-07, 03:05 PM | Ironically, there is no way to compare the races of D&D to earthly races, cause there are no species who can think at the same level as humans can (thank the creation), so I'd say your fantasy is the only guide as to what 'always evil' means. |
| Aliquid03-01-07, 03:21 PM | That is an overstatement. There is some weird one-gender directional interbreeding going on, and this never occurs in the wild. It can only be compelled in captivity - behavioral predispositions against mating are something that should not be discounted.Wolves and a coyotes don't typically get along, but if you raise some together so that they don't see each other as the "enemy", then they will breed, and the offspring will be fertile. They are different species. So what if it never happens in the wild, the point is that it is possible, and as such it is possible for humans and orcs to breed and be different species. However, given there are half-orcs in the campaign world that occur "in the wild" so to speak, clearly there are neither behavioral or biological barriers to mating. Furthermore, all of these offspring are fully cross-compatible with either race (we even have rules to determine what race the offspring are...). Therefore, they are by definition the same species. What about half-dragons? So are dragons the same species as humans too? |
| EvilIdiot03-01-07, 03:43 PM | That is an overstatement. There is some weird one-gender directional interbreeding going on, and this never occurs in the wild. It can only be compelled in captivity - behavioral predispositions against mating are something that should not be discounted. How boring, again. We're in D&D, a fantasy game. Do you know there are half celestials? half elementals? tieflings?genasis? How can you explain them? And what does it matter with D&D? Therefore, they are by definition the same species. Do you think D&D was created with this real world's assumption? See, 3e had this right. Skeletons and zombies are N because they have no capacity for moral action. The rules specifically state that a creature with no intelligence or less than 3 intelligence are always N. Skeletons and Zombies have *no intelligence*, therefor they should be N. Its not my fault some moralistic moron at WotC decided that Skeletons and Zombies should be evil just for kicks. They're evil ,and must be so. Think about how they are born and how they live. Who cares about being defined "moralistic"? Racism ,black&white, moralism.... aren't you taking D&D too seriously? a way to make you feel superior to moralist, racist and others ,according to your idea? We're not in the real world I'd love to see a definition of 'does not belong to nature'. Negative energy is perfectly natural (its the primary element behind entropy - a natural process). How is a skeleton any less natural than a golem? Animating something with a destructive force, creating a being able to destroy miles of forest until someone kills it, is dangerous... Uranium is natural, but spreading it on the earth isn't a good act... Golems do not move on their own,aren't created with a destructive force, and do not tamper with other's souls. Flesh golems are rarely used by non-evil wizards, you know,playing with corpse isn't the best thing to do in your spare time, if you're not crazy/evil. (Although they can have type or subtype designations, such as [evil] - this does not give it the evil alignment). difference between alignment and subtypes, in this case, is pretty slight what's the big difference? Consider weapons of the legacy as well.. Where in the rules does it say you use a piece of soul to make a zombie? Nothing about souls there. You animate a body. Complete Divine, BoVd and, I think, somewhere in PHB and DMG... Now, this is at best a N act. I don't see any reason why the act of animating a corpse would be evil - its no different than Animate Object. (Corpses are objects according to the rules). The only thing that makes this "evil" is that the Animate Dead spell was stupidly assigned the [evil] descriptor by some moralizing moron. Eh, has your neighbour ever had a dog?Yes? Let's call it Scruffy. well, what would happen if I animate its corpse after its death? Do you think its owner would feel well? Would you do? Regardless, negative energy is perfectly natural, and the skeleton is a mindless construct, so it is by definition N. A construct which seeks life and destroy it whenever possible,even without having been commanded. Uranium is neutral, as well. The act of crafting it may be evil. The golem is not. (In fact, since you only need blood from 20 Virgin Healers, if you got them to contribute it voluntarily it wouldn't even be an evil act to craft it. 1) for blood, I meant all the blood, 5 litres each healer, I leave you the freedom to decide whether to get it after or before their death 2)why 20 virgin healers should join the crafting of a golem,using the same ritual of the ring of before??? Nope. Either they are N (no ability to make choices), or they have free will and can determine their own destiny. Remember, the rules for mindless creatures and low intelligence creatures basically tell us that if a creature has no choice or does not understand the consequences of its actions, it is by definition N. Magic creature may not follow this rule, evil outsiders for example... Draegloth have free will, koutoa have.... so, let's throw away MMs, and, next time you'll encounter an orc, a skeleton or a koutoa, let me know how did it go. corruption or natural alignment do not count anything for your realistic and relativistic view of a real world which isn't real ? If a young child takes action which directly causes physical harm to someone else, was it an evil act? Even if the child is too young to understand the consequences of its actions? No, because he's not naturally born with evil alignment. A young orc, instead, is likely to be so. Oh you're right, all good people are pompous holier-than-thou *******s and all evil people can't pass up any opportunity to do evil. Welcome to Caricateur and Dragons. :rolleyes: I never said that alignments are a dictum,a rule, just guidelines, for characters and NPC. for races, a given align. has a precise meaning, the one we've been trying to tell you for some post so far, period. Uh, D&D is not the real world, baby, no pompous people, stop writing as if you're protesting against a moralistic moron rich-man with evil capitalistic intents, I am not, and you're not a colourful hippie . The alignment rules are so shoddily written you can't actually tell what any given alignment is. Heck, their examples for L and C are identical! (And good and evil aren't much better except in extreme end member conditions). L and C are less defined than G and E, because they're behavioural. Can't you understand alignments? Here we are! |
| Aliquid03-01-07, 03:44 PM | More on why it is possible for a specific creature to be "always evil" irrelevant of "free will" and "choice": If you bring me a healthy and mentally stable human, and I give that human the following choice: (A) they can take a loaded gun and shoot themselves in the head until they are dead (B) they can go and enjoy their favourite pastime. I can virtually guarantee you that the human you bring me will choose option (B). Sure he/she can choose option (A), but they have no motivation to do so, and I know they won’t. Does this mean that the person lacks "free will" when I can predetermine their actions with certainty? Of course not. I know that based on the way that the human mind works, any sane human will pick option (B). Ok, taking this analogy to the next step: If you bring me a healthy and mentally stable human, tell them that a dozen innocent children (whom the person doesn’t know) are going to be brutally tortured. The person has the following two choices: (A) Spend an hour doing annoying manual work, and the children will be set free, unharmed. (B) Go and enjoy their favourite pastime while the children suffer, with a 100% guarantee that nobody will find out about their involvement in this (and the guarantee is trusted) The majority of people will choose option (A), as option (B) would be "evil" by D&D terms. Now take a nasty monster, lets call it "Glogg". Due to his biology, Glogg is incapable of processing the concepts of compassion, guilt, and empathy. Sure Glogg could "choose" to go for option (A), but what possible motivation would he have to do so? Glogg may have "free will", but if he has no motivation to choose option (A), then he won’t. Glogg will "choose" the "evil" option every time because there are no consequences, and why do annoying manual labour when you don’t have to? The point is, even with "free will" creatures will predictably behave in a certain way, and will have no reason to "choose" to act otherwise. |
| zvbxrpl03-01-07, 04:01 PM | We're all talking about Orcs here, but isn't the always alignment reserved for subsentient intellingence (always neutral), undead, whose evil comes from the way they were created, and outsiders, who are incarnations of ideals? Excardon me, but wouldn't that make it perfectly in keeping with the concept of free will? BTW, if the RAW doesn't say this, it should,as far as I'm concerned. |
| EvilIdiot03-01-07, 04:02 PM | The point is, even with "free will" creatures will predictably behave in a certain way, and will have no reason to "choose" to act otherwise. true in fact "free-will" isn't related to neutrality,nor to the ability of judging or reasoning. Last thing: "good" & "evil" are philosophically defined (as in D&D) ; in order to do so, universal principles are used, there are no cases of mindless creatures, sense of guilty and disturbed minds... They're present in real world, instead, which isn't D&D at all. |
| *Truean*03-01-07, 04:07 PM | Hi, Psychology was one of my majors too.... Concerning everything you said about brain defects and or injuries: That makes absolutely no sense whatesoever to me personally. Logic: If I have a car with a damaged transmission, then it doesn't go The same is true with just about any part of a car. Yet, all the same, the purpose of a car remains the same: to provide transportation. The purpose of a human being is to live for happiness and achievement. This is done through thinking, which is an act of free will. You or any other human being can always choose not to think. Example: *puts fingers in ears saying* "I'm not listening" a hundred times. The Function is damaged in one unit (person). This does not mean that all units are damaged in that way. Psychology has never found a portion of the brain where "free will" is located anyhow. Your method of distroying brain tissue or observing it after an accident doesn't apply to free will. Later, Truean P.S. The arguement on free will is presented here in audio and text: http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-01-07, 04:11 PM | You know it's funny how this arguement has gotten so far based on a idea that isn't true. Orcs are specifically listed in the PHB as being usually Chaotic Evil, which means they are just as likely to be Chaotic Evil as a Halfling is to be True Neutral. Even races that are Mostly an alignment have a massive amount of leeway. In fact going through the Monster Manual you will note the only creatures which have the Always alignment are: Outsiders (per plane) Dragons (color coded) Undead (evil, excepting ghosts) Non Setient Beings (Neutral) Thus unless you are non sentient, a walking mass of Negative Energy, or a fragment of the planes given life you have free will by any concept of the word. And that's with ignoring the 99% bit. Edit: beaten by zvbxrpl. Oh well.... |
| SilvercatMoonpaw03-01-07, 04:12 PM | As to why raise dead etc. was made "evil" it's likely because the fantasy the game is taking from is based a lot on Christian philosohpy where many sects need the body so that the person can be resurrected in it. Even some other religions need the body for other reasons: Egyptians believed that the soul needed to rest in it's body (they also believed in the resurrection bit), and there are other religions out there that believe that the body connects to the spirit in such a way that if the body is disturbed that the spirit will be disturbed. All this is why raising was given an "evil" descriptor. I would like to rant for just a tiny bit, get it out of my system before I continue: I find alignment the most vomit-inducing part of D&D. Because creatures are assigned morals which they can rarely escape, that "good" and "evil" are objective, and I really hate that they went ahead and said what constitutes "good" and "evil". I think "good" and "evil" should never have been included in the core books, because they are concepts that many people consider important, enough so that they would want to say for themselves the what, how, and why of it. Rant over. I'm willing to go along with the idea that something can be of "good" or "evil" alignnmet despite their lack of the ability to choose. Why? Because if "good" and "evil" exist independantly of creatures then their "goodness" and "evilness"is not really created by their choices but rather attracted by their choices. Think of alignments like different types of parasites attracted to a host based on different things it does: one attracted by the CO2 the host breathes out, another by body heat, etc. For this example we assume that the host can regulate each of these signals to enough of a degree that it can give out two, one, or none. Therefore when you look at a host that has given out the "good"-attractant then you will find them infested with "good" parasites. Because the parasites exist independantly of the host's thoughts, intents, etc. then hosts can be infested by them—that is, have an alignment—despite having no ability to choose which signal they give out. (This is an example based on the assumtion that we are not trying to be realistic.) However I don't think D&D has given sufficient explanantion for how it's alignment system works in the game world. (Nor do I want it to.) And in the end, alignment seems merely designed to ease the ability to decide what side an individual is on so that one does not have to spend time actually thinking about the issue. |
| Aliquid03-01-07, 04:18 PM | Hi, Psychology was one of my majors too.... Concerning everything you said about brain defects and or injuries: That makes absolutely no sense whatesoever to me personally.I believe that is because you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't say free will doesn't exist, nor did I argue that brain damage removes free will. I am arguing that a creature could exist and always be "evil" regardless of free will. The Function is damaged in one unit (person). This does not mean that all units are damaged in that way. Psychology has never found a portion of the brain where "free will" is located anyhow. Your method of distroying brain tissue or observing it after an accident doesn't apply to free will. No it doesn't apply to free will. Did Phineas Gage loose free will when the tamping iron blew through his brain? Probably not. Did his behaviour substantially change? Yes. Could he use his "free will" to go back to his old personality? No. |
| EvilIdiot03-01-07, 04:32 PM | Orcs are specifically listed in the PHB as being usually Chaotic Evil, which means they are just as likely to be Chaotic Evil as a Halfling is to be True Neutral. Even races that are Mostly an alignment have a massive amount of leeway. Except that's really easier to change to evil, if your align is good, than viceversa, you know, being good is tiring... As to why raise dead etc. was made "evil" it's likely because the fantasy the game is taking from is based a lot on Christian philosohpy where many sects need the body so that the person can be resurrected in it. Even some other religions need the body for other reasons: Egyptians believed that the soul needed to rest in it's body (they also believed in the resurrection bit), and there are other religions out there that believe that the body connects to the spirit in such a way that if the body is disturbed that the spirit will be disturbed. All this is why raising was given an "evil" descriptor. No. Playing with dead bodies, not for medical research, has been always considered evil, by lots of different cultures, not by religions themselves. I ask you: is using someone else dead body a good thing? And the result you get in ded, is good? When someone dies, her body represents the latest trace of her own existence; playing with it for your own demonstrate lack of respect, for life an d death, therefore an evil act. Which religion doesn't consider this evil? Because creatures are assigned morals which they can rarely escape, that "good" and "evil" are objective, and I really hate that they went ahead and said what constitutes "good" and "evil". I think "good" and "evil" should never have been included in the core books, because they are concepts that many people consider important, enough so that they would want to say for themselves the what, how, and why of it. Rant over. Creature escapes? Who cares about a skeleton, a chromatic dragon or a mindflayer escaping their evilness? Not me. And I doubt they would do so, after all However I don't think D&D has given sufficient explanantion for how it's alignment system works in the game world. (Nor do I want it to.) And in the end, alignment seems merely designed to ease the ability to decide what side an individual is on so that one does not have to spend time actually thinking about the issue. that's a game after all If you believe that, while encountering an orc, you should care about his AL, do it, but remember that's a game, and that orc will probably smash you with a greataxe Otherwise, what's the problem? |
| *Truean*03-01-07, 04:39 PM | Quote: Originally Posted by *Truean* View Post Hi, Psychology was one of my majors too.... Concerning everything you said about brain defects and or injuries: That makes absolutely no sense whatesoever to me personally. I believe that is because you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't say free will doesn't exist, nor did I argue that brain damage removes free will. I am arguing that a creature could exist and always be "evil" regardless of free will. Quote: The Function is damaged in one unit (person). This does not mean that all units are damaged in that way. Psychology has never found a portion of the brain where "free will" is located anyhow. Your method of distroying brain tissue or observing it after an accident doesn't apply to free will. No it doesn't apply to free will. Did Phineas Gage loose free will when the tamping iron blew through his brain? Probably not. Did his behaviour substantially change? Yes. Could he use his "free will" to go back to his old personality? No. Then I probably did mistunderstand you to some degree. I believe that a person can always be evil not in spite of but because of free will. That person can choose to do evil things and gain pleasure from them. He can chose not to think or pay attention to anything and demand that everyone around him provide it for him. Physically, this is called slavery. Mentally, it's guilt driven by blaming victims into "selfless acts of heroism" whereby they sacrifice themselves for some cause they don't understand fully. Take your pick: war, the glory of the motherland/fatherland, etc.... Concerning the famous case of Mr. Phineas Gage's rail road accident (for those of you who may not know, he got a railroad spike through the eye and out the top of his skull.) I agree with you wholeheartedly. I come at it from a different angle though. My other major was economics: When Mr Gage lost some brain tissue (was damaged by the spike) It was akin to him loosing money or some other reasource. Brain tissue produces the capacity for thought and attention or some other function like it (motor control, sensation and perception, etc). There is free will, but no free lunch. He could chose to go back, but he lacked the capacity and ability. I can chose to fly, but lack the capacity.... That is, I lack the ability until I manage to build or buy a plane. In either case, this requires effort. Human beings have figured out how to make airplanes. Despite our greatest efforts and highest hopes, we are unable to repair many types of brain damage as of this time. Until we figure this one out, no amount of money, virtue, or any other consideration can purchase the ability for someone like Gage to live like they did before their accident. I hope this changes Later Truean P.S. May I ask if you're in favor of free will then? I might be misunderstanding you. |
| Aliquid03-01-07, 05:19 PM | Then I probably did mistunderstand you to some degree. I believe that a person can always be evil not in spite of but because of free will.Would you say that the person (or creature) would be inable to change to "good"? That is the main drive of the issue that I had. People saying any "evil" creature could choose to become good because that creature has free will. I argue that this isn't always true. I argue that it is possible that a creature exists that isn't capable of becoming good, and there are creatures that would have absolutely no reason to "choose" to become good. Concerning the famous case of Mr. Phineas Gage's rail road accident ...<snip>... He could chose to go back, but he lacked the capacity and ability.I believe this supports my initial concept. If a creature existed with a brain that was differently wired than ours. A brain that was wired in a way that easily switched to rage, that couldn't process compassion or guilt, that was highly impulsive etc. That creature wouldn't be able to "choose" to become good, even if it wanted to. Although I can't imagine a reason that would motivate it to want this other than fear. I hope this changesAs do I. Interestingly enough... in the world of D&D, it might be possible with magic. P.S. May I ask if you're in favor of free will then? I might be misunderstanding you.I believe free will exists, I just don't believe that it must allow an evil creature to choose to become good (as some have suggested). I also believe that people don't "choose" their behaviour as often as they imagine they do (we often act on instinct and then "rationalize" it after the fact), but that's another discussion. |
| SilvercatMoonpaw03-01-07, 05:45 PM | No. You mean "Not quite" or "that's not all". Saying "no" here implies that nothing of what I said was true. Playing with dead bodies, not for medical research, has been always considered evil, by lots of different cultures, not by religions themselves. I don't claim to be an expert. Obviously I'm not very well versed in the nuances of human culture. I ask you: is using someone else dead body a good thing? Are you asking my personal opinion? Than I shall give it to you: I consider a dead body nothing more than a decaying pile of stuff. Therefore it is completely okay to use them for a purpose, so long as that purpose does not harm anyone. And the result you get in ded, is good? I can't read this. I'm sorry. When someone dies, her body represents the latest trace of her own existence; playing with it for your own demonstrate lack of respect, for life an d death, therefore an evil act. That's the opinion of some people, not everyone. Which religion doesn't consider this evil? I'm not an expert on the views of how dead bodies should be treated in every culture. Creature escapes? Who cares about a skeleton, a chromatic dragon or a mindflayer escaping their evilness? Not me. I do. I thought that was the whole point of being "good". And I doubt they would do so, after all Again, what do you mean? If you believe that, while encountering an orc, you should care about his AL, do it, but remember that's a game, and that orc will probably smash you with a greataxe Since it's a game, why should we assume that the orc would smash me with it's greatax? What makes this assured? Even in the core rules there is the possibility that the orc is not cruel and selfish, and that means that every orc one comes across has to be a "good" one. So why should I simply kill it on sight? Because it's an orc and might be dangerous? If I take that position, why not simply extend it to say that all beings have the potential to be dangerous and should therefore be destroyed. |
| Squirrelloid03-01-07, 11:36 PM | It's almost a real rare case, and is still rare that using a dead corpse isn't evil, from a lots of philosophical points of views. So actually justify it then. Appeal to authority gets you nowhere. Which is really all i've seen from the "animating the dead is evil" side - appeals to unmentioned authority, often claimed to be generally "everyone" or "all religions". Actually provide an argument - argument vs. appeal to authority means the argument wins. Ah, naturally a zombie is like a walking destroying machine: left alone, it will eat everything until the energy inside don't disappears, which comes practically with the dead of the creature itself, but, being it an undead, it can't die again... see the issue? It's an evil machine... Uh, its a mindless undead. It doesn't do anything unless ordered to do so. It doesn't need to do anything to sustain itself - the negative energy does that already. It *can't* eat. Can you justify any of the preceeding claims with an actual rules quote, because I certainly can't. Heck, the N/E alignment given for skeletons and zombies in 3.5 specifically contradicts the rule that creatures without intelligence are defined to be N. Then, why should a creature want to have its corpse to be animated like a zombie? It could be cultural (see Eberron, for instance, where Animate Dead is not [evil]). Reasons for them to occur don't have to be given for hypotheticals anyway - if there is any possible situations in which Act X would not be evil, Act X cannot always be evil. (and thus shouldn't have the [evil] tag - its evilness should be assessed situationally). The main point is, anyway, that evil mindless things exists, as good ones. The rules say otherwise. A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment. Mindless creatures have no attitudes because they don't think. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. Mindless creatures are incapable of moral action. Furthermore, the Undead type doesn't even say undead are inherently evil, so being undead doesn't necessarily make one evil. This is the rarest thing that could happen in a D&D campaign. Why the hell should a tribe of orcs coexists peacefully with nature and other things, and why there should be a tribe of elves which brutally kill them? Again, this is not the real world, this is a fantasy campaign, and talking about racism is, how can I say, really childish. In D&D there's no pacifism between elves and orcs, nor racism, there's a fantasy world with its own rules, period. San Francesco of Assisi would have killed thousand of orcs, in any D&D setting, because orcs are tools of Gruumsh. And St. Assisi would have killed thousands of Moslems too if given the chance, regardless of their age, sex, or profession. (Others of his time *did* do so, well, maybe not thousands, but I direct you to the behaviour of the Crusaders during the First Crusade upon capturing a city). It was evil behavior then, its evil behavior now, and it should be evil in a campaign world. I'm sorry, genocide is not good behavior, whether the target is moslems, orcs, or red dragons. When "evil" is written on a manual, it doesn't mean that someone "sees" someone else, do you think authors see orcs and other things? Uh... would you care explaining that? because I have totally failed to parse it. It does mean that the vast majority of members from a given race are evil, no matter what. Do we have to be total tools and find the elf way of life better? Maybe the orcs are honorable warriors who go out on raids to gain honor in combat and riches for themselves against the "non-people" that the elves are (sort of like classical vikings), and the elves are the mainland europeans who occupy the fertile land and find little honor in warfare, more concerned with exploiting and maintaining their dominance of the natural resources. For the one warfare is good, where boys become men and the source of great stories and luxuries that they are otherwise unable to acquire since they produce little excess (living on marginal land). For the other warfare is a necessity of survival to defend themselves and their property. The orcs literally are the have-nots of the D+D world, pushed into poor land because they can't actually compete with the 'good' races. From their perspective the elves, humans, and dwarves are either evil (because they hog all the good land) or worthy foes to gain honor against (because they enjoy battle). To the elves, the orcs are evil because they come every summer to raid and pillage. Two totally different philosophies, and neither is inherently "Good" or "Evil" (with capital letters). Calling someone else evil just lets you write them off as not being worthy of moral consideration, so you don't have to care that the orcs are barely scraping by at the best of times because they occupy marginal lands - they're evil, and we can treat them like dirt, who cares if they starve. You can feel that a piece of metal is hot, I could say, instead, that it's just warm. If, in a manual, they write "hot", it simply means that both me and you, should react ,when touching that piece of metal, as it would be hot, period. In fact, while playing, none of them would be actually touching the metal... Hot and warm are not objective statements. If alignment is objective, it has to mean the same thing to everyone. So rather than hot, if i tell you the metal is 100 degrees Farenheit (+- a few degrees), you can confirm that measurement, even if it feels hot to me and warm to you. Degrees F is an objective measure, like alignment is touted to be. "Hot" is a subjective measure, like any claim made by (say an Elf) that an orc is "evil" really is. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 12:17 AM | Do you think D&D was created with this real world's assumption? Please open your DMG and read the passage where it says that the world is assumed to be like the real world *except where it is specified otherwise* (paraphrased - i think its in the first dozen pages or so). They're evil ,and must be so. Think about how they are born and how they live. Who cares about being defined "moralistic"? Racism ,black&white, moralism.... aren't you taking D&D too seriously? a way to make you feel superior to moralist, racist and others ,according to your idea? We're not in the real world I'm not a racist but I play one in D+D? :rolleyes: Seriously, why should a moral person find racism acceptable in any medium, fantasy or not? You're fooling yourself if you believe your behavior in a fantasy world isn't related to how you'd like to behave in reality. Skeletons are not born, they are animated. Repeat that word, animated. They have no life, they don't live. They don't make choices. They take orders. Period. I've already substantially quoted the relevant text - mindless creatures are incapable of moral action, and therefore N. Animating something with a destructive force, creating a being able to destroy miles of forest until someone kills it, is dangerous... Uranium is natural, but spreading it on the earth isn't a good act... Golems do not move on their own,aren't created with a destructive force, and do not tamper with other's souls. Flesh golems are rarely used by non-evil wizards, you know,playing with corpse isn't the best thing to do in your spare time, if you're not crazy/evil. (First, you'll note that someone had specifically said undead were evil because they weren't natural. I was asking how weren't they natural - negative energy being perfectly natural - or at least as natural as a golem, all of which are N. You're dodging the issue I was responding to). Humans destroy miles of forest, does that make them evil? People have basically deforested Europe at this point - under what objective metric was that evil? (Frankly, how is a skeleton able to destroy miles of forest? Uh... huh? High level wizard - sure. A skeleton? *laugh*) If someone makes a skeleton, and commands it to chop trees into lumber, and build houses, how is that an evil act? Remember, animating a skeleton puts it under your command, *you* command it to do things. It could do good or evil acts depending on what you tell it to do. Casting a fireball is dangerous, does that make it evil? Just because something is dangerous does not make it evil. You'll note Uranium is not evil, particular uses of uranium (detonating an atomic bomb over a populated city) are evil, but that's the decision to use the uranium in that way (and thus the person making that decision) that is evil, not the uranium that is evil. Golems can move on their own (just as much as skeletons do), are under the command of their creator (just like skeletons), and are made by *imprisoning an elemental* (which is arguably an evil act, and if they have souls does manipulate a soul). Skeletons require no soul energy (please actually read Animate Dead and the Skeleton template - no mention of souls whatsoever), and besides Trap the Soul isn't evil, so stealing people's souls *isn't an evil act according to the game*! You'll finally note that Flesh Golems are N, despite involving pieces of flesh from multiple corpses, as opposed to the one corpse involved in a given instance of Animate Dead. - Difference of degree, the flesh golem is worse, and yet it gets the N alignment in the MM. difference between alignment and subtypes, in this case, is pretty slight what's the big difference? Consider weapons of the legacy as well.. Legacy weapons? Subtype refers to what its made of. (Demons are literally made of Evil. As in you're made of Carbon, Oxygen, etc..., they're made of Evil. I'm serious - the Outerplanes are the elemental planes of alignment). Alignment refers to its choices. A being can be made of evil, and still make good choices - see the aforementioned L/G Paladin Succubi. Complete Divine, BoVd and, I think, somewhere in PHB and DMG... Nowhere in the PHB or DMG that I can find. BoVD and CD are optional rules. Besides, I don't actually remember that from either - quote a rule or give it up. (If you can't support your position with a rules quote, you have no position worth speaking about. I'm not about to go hunting through 4 source books with no idea where in the book it is looking for something which you "think" might be there). Eh, has your neighbour ever had a dog?Yes? Let's call it Scruffy. well, what would happen if I animate its corpse after its death? Do you think its owner would feel well? Would you do? Familiarity cannot be the basis of good or evil in an objective system. Feelings have nothing to do with good or evil. Do you feel eating chicken is an evil act? I mean, that chicken was killed solely so it could be cooked and placed on a plate in front of you for supper. That chicken is no different than "Scruffy", you just don't know anyone who was attached to it. If you accord special treatment to "Scruffy", it is out of respect for your neighbors, or otherwise you'll have to give up killing any other animal ever again. Stop swatting flies, stop eating meat, and so forth. Many animals get used by humans. Animate dead merely allows a corpse to be used as a tool. Quite arguably, a corpse has far less moral worth than a living animal, because the animal has a brain and (arguably) a soul, the corpse does not. A construct which seeks life and destroy it whenever possible,even without having been commanded. Uranium is neutral, as well. Are you trying to make my point for me? Even if you could quote a rule proving Skeletons actively try to destroy life if left on their own, that says nothing about a skeleton actively commanded by someone. 1) for blood, I meant all the blood, 5 litres each healer, I leave you the freedom to decide whether to get it after or before their death 2)why 20 virgin healers should join the crafting of a golem,using the same ritual of the ring of before??? Well, you should be more specific, shouldn't you. So, you can safely bleed about 1 litre every 6 weeks from a person. You seal that blood in Quintessence (so its frozen in time) after drawing it from the healer, and just collect enough over time to perform the ritual - no problem. You still haven't provided any reason why the healers would have to die. Even if they have to die, if they voluntarily sacrifice itself to do so then its not evil. (Epic fantasy has plenty of instances of heroic sacrifice). Why is irrelevant for the purposes of a hypothetical, but it might be because the Golem is powerful enough to eliminate some threat to the village/nation/whatever and there is no other way to do so. At which point you and the healers are heroes and acting in the capacity of good when you create the golem. Magic creature may not follow this rule, evil outsiders for example... Draegloth have free will, koutoa have.... so, let's throw away MMs, and, next time you'll encounter an orc, a skeleton or a koutoa, let me know how did it go. Was there a point here? I think I missed it. Every individual should be judged by their own actions. corruption or natural alignment do not count anything for your realistic and relativistic view of a real world which isn't real ? Huh? You're being as clear as mud here. No, because he's not naturally born with evil alignment. A young orc, instead, is likely to be so. So let me get this straight. A young human child and a young orc child, doing the exact same action (for which they do not understand the consequences) receive different moral judgements? Am I understanding you right? Please tell me I'm not. Because that interpretation I just described is disgusting and repugnant. Uh, D&D is not the real world, baby, no pompous people, stop writing as if you're protesting against a moralistic moron rich-man with evil capitalistic intents, I am not, and you're not a colourful hippie. Welcome to ad hominem. Should I "waaah" for you? Oh, let me apologize for objecting to racism and bigotry in any medium. It couldn't possibly be the case that some notions shouldn't be condoned in any setting. L and C are less defined than G and E, because they're behavioural. Can't you understand alignments? Here we are! Um, they're all behavioral? Actually no, the descriptions of alignment in the PHB are so bad that I could write an alignment at random on a character sheet and justify why it fit. Seriously. Lets face it, its a game about stabbing things in the face. So when I see: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. my immediate conclusion is either (1) the rulebook is wrong or (2) all adventurers are evil. Or how about: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life... which mostly leaves me with the question of - Innocent Life? huh? Innocent of what? If the orcs are legitimately oppressed (which they are - as they've been marginalized as a people onto barely habitable lands in virtually all campaign settings), then attacking those who have good lands isn't evil because the haves are not sharing. Its a N act. I mean, that definition basically invites you to find something 'x' is guilty of to make it safe to kill and not have it be an evil act. (Innocent is nowhere defined in the core rules - i looked). (As a final amusing note, even the SRD considers racism to be evil. From the Lawful Evil description: He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. Yet L/G is specifically allowed to be racist: She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. So if a race is "always evil", the L/G character is committed to opposing it and fighting it relentlessly. Wait, but I thought racism was evil... Also from teh LG description: A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Yup, guilty of being born a demon. Time to be punished for something you had no choice about. Way to go L/G that's also E at the same time!) |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 01:05 AM | I think squirrel hit most of the big points. Just thought i'd chime in with a pretty clear cut example where playing with dead bodies is, in addition to being not-evil, good. Organ donors. Try telling me THAT is an evil act. Now, aside from the example... If you disregard the social context, a corpse is just so much material. Meat and bones. There's no life there, so why should doing somethign to it be evil by definition? You can use a corpse to do evil, you can do evil things to it, but I really don't think that there's any inheirant 'evil' to doing things with corpses. Now, in almost every occasion, you better have a damn good reason or else you're being EXTREMELY disrespectful and you'll probably upset people. But that doesn't make it necessarily evil. Just because society doesn't like something doesn't mean it's evil. The fact that flesh golems are N, and creating one isn't evil by definition means that at worst the rules are contradictory on whether or not mutiliating corpses is evil. More likely, corpses are viewed simply as objects by the rules. So any 'evil' of doing things to corpses is purely a social perception, and not Evil (note the caps) by D&D. Just to reaffirm: A mass murderer who mutilates people and spreads their small intestine across a room in a macabre display is evil. Not for what he did to the corpse, but because his lack of respect for life and taking pleasure in the pain he's causing to the people who find the scene. 'Cause face it, after the person is dead, nothing he does to the corpse affects them (without magic, of course) so the display causes pain to the survivors and viewers, not the victim. |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-02-07, 03:00 AM | When you harvest the organs from someone who did not want their organs harvested or were coerced to have their organs harvested then you're committing evil. Look at whats happening in China and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Experimenting on or dissecting a body that has been donated to you is of course not evil. Stealing and tampering with corpses that were not willingly donated, if not evil is definately not "good" in D&D. If you knowingly desecrate, mutilate or tamper with a corpse that wasn't donated willingly you're committing an evil act in my opinion (in the RW). It's a situational ethics type of issue. Whether or not an act of necromancy is evil depends upon the circumstances surrounding it. An excellent d20 example of this is "Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers", a sourcebook set in the Scarred Lands campaign setting. You can buy it from White Wolf Online for only $7.98 US. (I paid full price a couple of years ago at my local gaming store) I used to be of the "necromancy is always evil" mindset until I read this book. It is well written and really offers valid reasons for a society to embrace and support necromancy. |
| EvilIdiot03-02-07, 04:04 AM | Quote: Originally Posted by EvilIdiot View Post No. You mean "Not quite" or "that's not all". Saying "no" here implies that nothing of what I said was true. Quote: Originally Posted by EvilIdiot View Post Playing with dead bodies, not for medical research, has been always considered evil, by lots of different cultures, not by religions themselves. I don't claim to be an expert. Obviously I'm not very well versed in the nuances of human culture. I meant that your conclusion was wrong: undead is conceptually evil for a lots of cultures, modern ones as well, not only old religion believing... Quote: Originally Posted by EvilIdiot View Post I ask you: is using someone else dead body a good thing? Are you asking my personal opinion? Than I shall give it to you: I consider a dead body nothing more than a decaying pile of stuff. Therefore it is completely okay to use them for a purpose, so long as that purpose does not harm anyone. Quote: Originally Posted by EvilIdiot View Post And the result you get in ded, is good? I can't read this. I'm sorry. The main problem is that corpse can be gathered wherever you need, so, if you simply dig a bit inside a graveyard, you're tampering with others' corpses, and they'd probably liked to have their body left in peace. The other way would be imaging a corpse's market, where necromancers can get their corpses with nice prices...but this case would be morally wrong for other reasons as well When someone dies, her body represents the latest trace of her own existence; playing with it for your own demonstrate lack of respect, for life an d death, therefore an evil act. That's the opinion of some people, not everyone. Lots and lots of people, in history as well. Why should someone sell his body to be animated as a mindless thing? Quote: Originally Posted by EvilIdiot View Post Creature escapes? Who cares about a skeleton, a chromatic dragon or a mindflayer escaping their evilness? Not me. I do. I thought that was the whole point of being "good". Quote: Originally Posted by EvilIdiot View Post And I doubt they would do so, after all Again, what do you mean? Quote: Do you think that a reasonably amount of members of those races would try to escape from their alignment? Enough to make us ask if any dragon,mindflayer or succubi we'll encounter isn't evil? Since it's a game, why should we assume that the orc would smash me with it's greatax? What makes this assured? Even in the core rules there is the possibility that the orc is not cruel and selfish, and that means that every orc one comes across has to be a "good" one. So why should I simply kill it on sight? Because it's an orc and might be dangerous? If I take that position, why not simply extend it to say that all beings have the potential to be dangerous and should therefore be destroyed. because it's written in a manual? Anyone can be dangerous, in fact, but, having an alignment gives you the idea of how much is probable that a specific creature is evil. Therefore you can know that ,usually, a orc is probably more dangerous than a common halfling. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 04:07 AM | When you harvest the organs from someone who did not want their organs harvested or were coerced to have their organs harvested then you're committing evil. Look at whats happening in China and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Experimenting on or dissecting a body that has been donated to you is of course not evil. Stealing and tampering with corpses that were not willingly donated, if not evil is definately not "good" in D&D. If you knowingly desecrate, mutilate or tamper with a corpse that wasn't donated willingly you're committing an evil act in my opinion (in the RW). It's a situational ethics type of issue. Whether or not an act of necromancy is evil depends upon the circumstances surrounding it. An excellent d20 example of this is "Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers", a sourcebook set in the Scarred Lands campaign setting. You can buy it from White Wolf Online for only $7.98 US. (I paid full price a couple of years ago at my local gaming store) I used to be of the "necromancy is always evil" mindset until I read this book. It is well written and really offers valid reasons for a society to embrace and support necromancy. Think about this: Should the state mandate everyone must donate their organs post-mortem? I would argue yes and that the public good vastly outweighs any religious rights that get trampled. In D+D terms I would argue passing such legislation (and enforcing it) would be a good act. That said, I'm only arguing that acts like Animate Dead are neutral, not that they are good per se. The act of animating a corpse has no moral implications in an objective morality scheme. What you do with the animate corpse afterwards may well have such implications. To pull out something you said: "If you knowingly desecrate, mutilate or tamper with a corpse that wasn't donated willingly you're committing an evil act in my opinion (in the RW)." But only (possibly) if its human or perhaps someone's pet. The same doesn't hold for dinner animals (otherwise we couldn't eat them!), nor does it go for animals that die in the wild. So when and if we try to port this over to D+D, we also have to account for the fact that all of those real-world corpses that have no moral implications attached whatsoever are also possible targets (and often more likely targets) of Animate Dead than humans are. And the same umbrella can probably easily be spread over a lot of non-animal monsters as well. Most people aren't going to argue that Hydrae are more equivalent to humans morally than large cats. If *every* casting of Animate Dead isn't evil by your above standard, then no casting of Animate Dead is evil - although if we accept your standard targetting certain types of corpses might make it evil. |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-02-07, 07:32 AM | [QUOTE]Think about this: Should the state mandate everyone must donate their organs post-mortem? I would argue yes and that the public good vastly outweighs any religious rights that get trampled. In D+D terms I would argue passing such legislation (and enforcing it) would be a good act. I respectfully disagree with you on this matter. That said, I'm only arguing that acts like Animate Dead are neutral, not that they are good per se. The act of animating a corpse has no moral implications in an objective morality scheme. I disagree. Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. Within the D&D framework almost all "good" deities consider the creation of undead to be evil. Models of objective morality may be atheistic (in the case of Enlightenment philosophers), monotheistic (in the case of the Abrahamic religions), or pantheistic (in the case of Hinduism). The moral codes may stem from reason, from the divine, or from a combination of the two. These various systems differ as to the nature of the objective morality, but agree on its existence. It is this diversity between codes of objective morality, and the seemingly endless debates between people over irreconcilably different claims to objective morality that lead many to reject the concept entirely, in favor of subjective morality (moral relativism). I personally am a moral relativist, but in D&D there some acts considered by most good gods to be evil. Creating undead is one of those. To pull out something you said: "If you knowingly desecrate, mutilate or tamper with a corpse that wasn't donated willingly you're committing an evil act in my opinion (in the RW)." But only (possibly) if its human or perhaps someone's pet. The same doesn't hold for dinner animals (otherwise we couldn't eat them!), nor does it go for animals that die in the wild. So when and if we try to port this over to D+D, we also have to account for the fact that all of those real-world corpses that have no moral implications attached whatsoever are also possible targets (and often more likely targets) of Animate Dead than humans are. And the same umbrella can probably easily be spread over a lot of non-animal monsters as well. Most people aren't going to argue that Hydrae are more equivalent to humans morally than large cats. I was only talking about the creation of undead from people, not animals. Even so, most deities of good are against the creation of undead of any kind with very few exceptions. I would imagine most druidic types would see the creation of animal undead as a perversion of the natural order and would be hostile towards someone creating them. If *every* casting of Animate Dead isn't evil by your above standard, then no casting of Animate Dead is evil - although if we accept your standard targetting certain types of corpses might make it evil. I can't be sure but I think you understand my point of view... I don't consider using the spell animate dead to be automatically evil per se, in a home brew campaign. In campaigns I've ran, I've been lucky in that I've never had to deal with necromantic players. If there was someone who wanted to create undead, I would have treated it according to the circumstances involved. Was he creating undead from the corpses of people who didn't want their bodies desecrated in this manner? Who was his patron diety?(especially if he was a cleric) Some deities consider the creation of undead to be evil, period. ( ex. Corellon's only exception is the baelnorn.) If you're trying play a "pure" WOTC campaign, animate dead is an evil act. WOTC has taken an objective vs subjective approach to this matter. It is simplistic yes, but it was probably done to simplify the game. It was also probably done to keep the bible thumpers from trying to argue that WOTC promotes necromancy. lol |
| EvilIdiot03-02-07, 08:02 AM | So actually justify it then. Appeal to authority gets you nowhere. Which is really all i've seen from the "animating the dead is evil" side - appeals to unmentioned authority, often claimed to be generally "everyone" or "all religions". Actually provide an argument - argument vs. appeal to authority means the argument wins. 1)I said lots of religions and cultures (laical as well) find corpse to be something to leave in peace, and tampering with them ,as you would do in D&D, is considered evil. Do I have to list them? any culture in europe, any catholic religion, Buddhism, Shintoism, tribal cultures from Africa and Oceania.....etc... 2)You're not a hippie...for god's sake, why every religion or ethical convention is "authority"? 3)Historically, what I said is what has been thought, analysed, studied and partially contested during the past 8 centuries. IF you want me to demonstrate those idea, well, find out a history teacher, or give me the same wage, or, finally, search in wikipedia. 4)You're simply arguing that , since I rely on what you childishly call an "authority", I am wrong , therefore I should debate by my own strength, relativism. Fine. So, why do you have your own idea? because you're too intelligent, pure and strong to adhere to common sense, pardon, authority? No, because you find that something has been said by someone else, and you hellish like to distinguish your self. How boring, again. 5) I was simply replying to SilvercatMoonpaw, and we're talking about which ethic, culture or religion influenced D&D on necromancy. You're saying that, while I was talking about cultures, I would have done better not to talk about cultures at all. It could be cultural (see Eberron, for instance, where Animate Dead is not [evil]). Reasons for them to occur don't have to be given for hypotheticals anyway - if there is any possible situations in which Act X would not be evil, Act X cannot always be evil. (and thus shouldn't have the [evil] tag - its evilness should be assessed situationally). eberron is a quite interesting campaign set, where alignment related issues differs from those of previous published campaign sets. In fact, you can't find evil people casting divine spells from good deities' power, except in eberron, isn't it? As for undeads' evilness: ...the undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature entering the place Attack anything in an area is the natural behaviour of an animated mindless undead. ...after the spell ends, the subject revert to its natural behaviour so it keeps killing everything approaching the area. Actually, mindless undead do not have pieces of souls, but, as someone else said, they prevent people to resurrect, and who decide this? A dumb wizard who wants some help with housekeeping? A necromancer who wants to kill someone? A priest of an evil deity? This means lack of respect to dead people, without considering the animating process, which is ,usually, evil. And St. Assisi would have killed thousands of Moslems too if given the chance, regardless of their age, sex, or profession. (Others of his time *did* do so, well, maybe not thousands, but I direct you to the behaviour of the Crusaders during the First Crusade upon capturing a city). It was evil behavior then, its evil behavior now, and it should be evil in a campaign world. I'm sorry, genocide is not good behavior, whether the target is moslems, orcs, or red dragons. <off topic> please, find a history book. Muslims, in past years, arrived to conquer even Austria , but, then,they were fought back to north africa, which was, guess it, the most prolific and important centre of Christianity, before their arrival Church, to avoid internal european conflict due to feudalism and react to Muslims menace , invited feudal lords to leave to Gibraltar, but European army was very small, so they decided to enlist prisoned criminals, who then destroyed Constantinople ,and disguised as templars. Were crusaders violent and murderous? yes, you know, they hadn't graphite bombs at that time </off topic> Since human people aren't as perfect as you, in past ages, and now as well, bad things happens. When "evil" is written on a manual, it doesn't mean that someone "sees" someone else, do you think authors see orcs and other things? Uh... would you care explaining that? because I have totally failed to parse it You, and other people, said that, in the end, wolves were described as evil because they were saw like that, and orcs as well. Orcs are saw as evil because someone said so? because population see the matter in this way? The answer is no. When WoTc write MM, it supposes to know how races are, so, if they say "evil", it means "evil". They don't write depending on the cultural view of a particular society, they decide to define races in those ways. Do we have to be total tools and find the elf way of life better? .... According to rules, yes, but we would be tools only from your point of view. Usually, elves are the good ones , and orcs the evil ones. However, as I said before, good and neutral people can change to evil because evilness is corrupting and tempting and the reverse process is , for the same reason, rare. The orcs literally are the have-nots of the D+D world, pushed into poor land because they can't actually compete with the 'good' races. From their perspective the elves, humans, and dwarves are either evil (because they hog all the good land) or worthy foes to gain honor against (because they enjoy battle). To the elves, the orcs are evil because they come every summer to raid and pillage. Two totally different philosophies, and neither is inherently "Good" or "Evil" (with capital letters). Calling someone else evil just lets you write them off as not being worthy of moral consideration, so you don't have to care that the orcs are barely scraping by at the best of times because they occupy marginal lands - they're evil, and we can treat them like dirt, who cares if they starve. We're not in real world, it's a fantasy world. If orcs are usually evil, it means they're evil , period. Would you like to make a talk show with LG Orcs Knights?Vampire Healers? and Skeletons as stuarts? Do it, rules says something different. Do you want,instead, create a different campaign where there are some orcs who coexist peacefully with other race? I'd find it interesting , in eberron they do so IIRC, but that's not an alignment issue for the entie D&D thing. Hot and warm are not objective statements. If alignment is objective, it has to mean the same thing to everyone. So rather than hot, if i tell you the metal is 100 degrees Farenheit (+- a few degrees), you can confirm that measurement, even if it feels hot to me and warm to you. Degrees F is an objective measure, like alignment is touted to be. "Hot" is a subjective measure, like any claim made by (say an Elf) that an orc is "evil" really is. Uh, you didn't understand what "absolute alignment" means in DeD. Having "good" alignment means X. If it is written alignment="good", you're X. Society,history and so forth do not count when talking about AL. X can mean a lot of things, which are , in common sense, considered to be good-related. If I tell you "warm", it means you should consider that's warm. No matter if you are more sensitive than me or other people, it's to be considered as warm. "Elves are good-aligned" is a precise statement, which means that elven people are X, even if drows and orcs would say they're evil. |
| EvilIdiot03-02-07, 08:17 AM | Do you think D&D was created with this real world's assumption? Please open your DMG and read the passage where it says that the world is assumed to be like the real world *except where it is specified otherwise* (paraphrased - i think its in the first dozen pages or so). They do not say that orcs and humans are the same species 'cos they can breed either... Uh, it's a fantasy game...science, logic and such things may not work here. Suppose that I cast "reality hole" (spell compendium). Do authors have to specify which black hole theory they rely on to explain the spell? Do authors have to specify which biological theory says that outsiders and mortals can breed? I'm not a racist but I play one in D+D? Seriously, why should a moral person find racism acceptable in any medium, fantasy or not? You're fooling yourself if you believe your behavior in a fantasy world isn't related to how you'd like to behave in reality. D&D is a roleplaying game. It's like saying that, if I'm an actor, and they ask me to interpret a slaver in 1400 ac, I refuse, because I'm not a racist. It's not the real world, and orcs aren't afroamericans, nor muslims, and succubi either. Uh, you don't need to say "I'm not a racist", no one here is. Skeletons are not born, they are animated. Repeat that word, animated. They have no life, they don't live. I meant born as a synonym for "created", my apologize. Anyway, look at phb, bovd and historical cultures. Just a point: all undead are evil, except skeletons and zombies, because they're like contstructs. ok, so why don't you create a golem of pizza, bananas, wood or paper, instead of using someone's else body?preventing his resurrection? Because it costs too much in terms of time and money? How lame. Quote: (First, you'll note that someone had specifically said undead were evil because they weren't natural. I was asking how weren't they natural - negative energy being perfectly natural - or at least as natural as a golem, all of which are N. You're dodging the issue I was responding to). Golems and Skeletons aren't natural in fact, they're artificial.Moreover undeads are unnatural, because they're animated by the death's force. Philosophically, undead is evil, you know? Dracula?Nosferatu?... Negative energy is natural. Uranium as well. If I create a wandering construct with uranium, I wouldn't do something good, especially when using others' corpses... Humans destroy miles of forest, does that make them evil? People have basically deforested Europe at this point - under what objective metric was that evil? (Frankly, how is a skeleton able to destroy miles of forest? Uh... huh? High level wizard - sure. A skeleton? *laugh*) If someone makes a skeleton, and commands it to chop trees into lumber, and build houses, how is that an evil act? Remember, animating a skeleton puts it under your command, *you* command it to do things. It could do good or evil acts depending on what you tell it to do. I don't know where you live ,I live in Europe. Maybe that, without my house, it would have been a bigger green area near my village, but you know, I can't live in a forest. The real question is: do you find chopping trees evil? What's this? it's a challenge? who's worse: undeads in ded, or humanity in real life? Wow! I already showed that mindless UD attack whatever approaches their area. animals and trees included Casting a fireball is dangerous, does that make it evil? Just because something is dangerous does not make it evil. You'll note Uranium is not evil, particular uses of uranium (detonating an atomic bomb over a populated city) are evil, but that's the decision to use the uranium in that way (and thus the person making that decision) that is evil, not the uranium that is evil. In fact, I said Uranium is neutral. Undeads are evil 'cos they live forever, and destroy anything they encounter on their road, moreover they require the same magic to live: create undead. If vampires or wraith are evil, why aren't skeletons? Same magic, same lack of respect of the dead, same tampering with death for your own. Golems can move on their own (just as much as skeletons do), are under the command of their creator (just like skeletons), and are made by *imprisoning an elemental* (which is arguably an evil act, and if they have souls does manipulate a soul). Skeletons require no soul energy (please actually read Animate Dead and the Skeleton template - no mention of souls whatsoever), and besides Trap the Soul isn't evil, so stealing people's souls *isn't an evil act according to the game*! Only in Eberron. Do Iron golems use elementals? do they kill anything if left uncommanded? Do they require corpse? only one kind... You'll finally note that Flesh Golems are N, despite involving pieces of flesh from multiple corpses, as opposed to the one corpse involved in a given instance of Animate Dead. - Difference of degree, the flesh golem is worse, and yet it gets the N alignment in the MM. It do not prevent resurrection, cost much more, so you do not animate an entire village as your personal army, and maybe it's an exception, but, anyway, undeath is considered evil by lot of cultures, ours as well, and ded is based on them, sorry Subtype refers to what its made of. (Demons are literally made of Evil. As in you're made of Carbon, Oxygen, etc..., they're made of Evil. I'm serious - the Outerplanes are the elemental planes of alignment). Alignment refers to its choices. A being can be made of evil, and still make good choices - see the aforementioned L/G Paladin Succubi. Evil is not carbon, it defines your soul, in DeD. If you're evil,you're corrupted, if you're corrupted, you can be hardly good. Is "making good choices while being of evil AL" the norm in DeD? Familiarity cannot be the basis of good or evil in an objective system. Feelings have nothing to do with good or evil. So, if I get murdered , my mother cannot say that it was an evil act? Evilness is based on the harm you cause on other people. Do you feel eating chicken is an evil act? I mean, that chicken was killed solely so it could be cooked and placed on a plate in front of you for supper. That chicken is no different than "Scruffy", you just don't know anyone who was attached to it. If you accord special treatment to "Scruffy", it is out of respect for your neighbors, or otherwise you'll have to give up killing any other animal ever again. Stop swatting flies, stop eating meat, and so forth. Therefore, I cannot choice who love? So I can kill your family and save all your chickens, and being still good? Many animals get used by humans. Animate dead merely allows a corpse to be used as a tool. Quite arguably, a corpse has far less moral worth than a living animal, because the animal has a brain and (arguably) a soul, the corpse does not. So my grandpa corpse is valued as a cow's one? Even if you could quote a rule proving Skeletons actively try to destroy life if left on their own, that says nothing about a skeleton actively commanded by someone. So, if I could command demons, I could also summon a thounsand ones, and then use them to keep my house cleaned, and, as long as I command them, I'm not doing anything evil? Maybe just stupid? I already answered to undead AL issues. Let's suppose we're in a really simple situation: a wizard creating undeads. He can create only mindless ones, to be sure of not being evil,ok? Skeletons and zombies are fairly weak, so, a higher levels (suppose >=7) those undeads are useless. Can I use lots of corpse?An army of undeads? ok, where am I going to find them? killing people?buying corpse? which one of these actions isn't evil? Can I use big corpses?ok, where am I going to find them? killing giants and such?ecc... You see, ethically talking, you do not need to be always committing evil, it's just necessary to have a good reason to do so. If your goal is using mindless undeads in a nonevil way, you could, in the end, commit evil acts to do so,why? because undeads are made of corpse and negative energy. What's the difference of creating an undead from a willing victim( it's pretty difficult to find dead people who ask you to be animated, you know?) instead of an unwilling one? or a stranger's corpse? Instead, using golems, the best you can create are made of natural materials,or magical ones...no ethical problem, except flesh ones, which, I already said, aren't for nonevil ones, of course So, you can safely bleed about 1 litre every 6 weeks from a person. You seal that blood in Quintessence (so its frozen in time) after drawing it from the healer, and just collect enough over time to perform the ritual - no problem. You still haven't provided any reason why the healers would have to die. This is not the real world, got it?! We could have retired Balors farmers, but how would do this suite a fantasy game?! Even if they have to die, if they voluntarily sacrifice itself to do so then its not evil. (Epic fantasy has plenty of instances of heroic sacrifice). Why is irrelevant for the purposes of a hypothetical, but it might be because the Golem is powerful enough to eliminate some threat to the village/nation/whatever and there is no other way to do so. At which point you and the healers are heroes and acting in the capacity of good when you create the golem. do I have to specify that requiring 20 healers' blood is rarely for good purposes?In a fantasy set? Magic creature may not follow this rule, evil outsiders for example... Draegloth have free will, koutoa have.... so, let's throw away MMs, and, next time you'll encounter an orc, a skeleton or a koutoa, let me know how did it go. Was there a point here? I think I missed it. In MM there are mindless or low-intelligence creature(1,2 points) with evil AL... Every individual should be judged by their own actions. AL assure you that vast majority of members of a given race act in E/G/C/L way, ie the majority of their action will be E/G/C/L... AL is assigned presuming that "members of that race acts in this way", not because some societies see them that way,or other similar things. Who invented those races, created them as they were actually ALigned in the way they're described. Orcs are CE? why? because they act as if they were so, their author decided this way. corruption or natural alignment do not count anything for your realistic and relativistic view of a real world which isn't real ? Huh? You're being as clear as mud here. When I said that being natural-born evil implies being born corrupted ,you answered: Remember, the rules for mindless creatures and low intelligence creatures basically tell us that if a creature has no choice or does not understand the consequences of its actions, it is by definition N. You're saying that if you're corrupted by forces of Evil since you're born, it doesn't count, you're relatively free willed. So I ask: have corruption and alignment definitions any sense in DeD? by RAW? You're always presuming of being in a real world where relativism exists, but,instead, you're arguing about a world which is nor real nor relative, almost always at least So let me get this straight. A young human child and a young orc child, doing the exact same action (for which they do not understand the consequences) receive different moral judgements? Am I understanding you right? Please tell me I'm not. Because that interpretation I just described is disgusting and repugnant. Do you find repugnant? Oh boy. YES! you're understanding, I'm a villain who do not care about killing orcs, and likes to teach to other children what is evil and what is not, if necessary. And you know what? if there was a button to push in order to have all the mind flayers horribly and painfully killed, I'd push it, 3 times, to be sure,without thinking. Anyway, again, we're not in real world. The scenarios you imagine are really unlikely to happen.... Welcome to ad hominem. Should I "waaah" for you? I already saw you entering the group when you said Its not my fault some moralistic moron at WotC decided that Skeletons and Zombies should be evil just for kicks. It's not my fault either if you think that who doesn't think as you do is a moralistic moron,or if you say something like this: Oh, let me apologize for objecting to racism and bigotry in any medium. It couldn't possibly be the case that some notions shouldn't be condoned in any setting. So you believe you're some kind of a paladin who fights racism and bigotry in DeD? I could call you hippie, if you like, utopist. And I feel like the evil capitalist who has to be punished by you, perhaps because I share some ideas with those bigot moralistic morons? In the end, you're so close to such idealism that you can't perceive the difference between real world, and ded... Um, they're all behavioral? L and C tell me how do you do things, G and E what do you do, behavioural/moral... Actually no, the descriptions of alignment in the PHB are so bad that I could write an alignment at random on a character sheet and justify why it fit. Seriously. This proves only that you can play and build characters of any AL Lets face it, its a game about stabbing things in the face. So when I see: please buy My little ponies d20, and remove evil foes. Maybe you'll find a campaign set suitable for your taste. If the orcs are legitimately oppressed (which they are - as they've been marginalized as a people onto barely habitable lands in virtually all campaign settings), then attacking those who have good lands isn't evil because the haves are not sharing. Its a N act. You're also a commie, to me... I mean, that definition basically invites you to find something 'x' is guilty of to make it safe to kill and not have it be an evil act. (Innocent is nowhere defined in the core rules - i looked). Except for DM ruling, evil alignment means orcs and such are evil and, more notably, they're considered monsters!!! In a fantasy game! (As a final amusing note, even the SRD considers racism to be evil. From the Lawful Evil description: You're the only one who believes that succubi and orcs can be victims of racism in standard DeD and fantasy sets... Originally Posted by SRD He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. Yet L/G is specifically allowed to be racist: Except that, for the 100th time, when you read "evil" for a given race, it's sure that its members will be almost evil, or dangerous at least, more than neutral and good aligned races, by definition. It's an axiom, something your relativism can't compute. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 08:37 AM | 1)I said lots of religions and cultures (laical as well) find corpse to be something to leave in peace, and tampering with them ,as you would do in D&D, is considered evil. Do I have to list them? any culture in europe, any catholic religion, Buddhism, Shintoism, tribal cultures from Africa and Oceania.....etc... The difference is not listing them - its explaining why they feel that way. Just saying "Christianity says touching corpses is wrong" is an appeal to authority. Explaining why they think its wrong is actually making the argument. That said, most religions (at least historically) only object to you disturbing the corpses of their own religion. Someone else's religion? Whatever - pre-modern period other religions were defined as evil to a given religion (for the most part), so you could do whatever you wanted to their corpses (well, just about). I'll note there are plenty of societies in the new world and Africa which used human remains to make totems and other items of 'magic' power. (Headhunters for one). 2)You're not a hippie...for god's sake, why every religion or ethical convention is "authority"? .... What is your obsession with hippies? No seriously, you're obsessed. 3)Historically, what I said is what has been thought, analysed, studied and partially contested during the past 8 centuries. IF you want me to demonstrate those idea, well, find out a history teacher, or give me the same wage, or, finally, search in wikipedia. I've made a cogent argument within the D+D rules and in terms of philosophical principles why Animate Dead is not evil - you have to counter this with an argument. The burden is on you. Basic rules of debate. 4)You're simply arguing that , since I rely on what you childishly call an "authority", I am wrong , therefore I should debate by my own strength, relativism. Fine. So, why do you have your own idea? because you're too intelligent, pure and strong to adhere to common sense, pardon, authority? No, because you find that something has been said by someone else, and you hellish like to distinguish your self. How boring, again. Either there is a good reason for why an authority claims something or the authority is wrong. Hence why appeals to authority are not valid debate tactics. I'm still waiting for the valid reasons. I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, I support my positions with logic and expect my opponents to do the same. As for undeads' evilness: Attack anything in an area is the natural behaviour of an animated mindless undead. That doesn't make it evil. I quoted the part of the description of E vs. G alignment in the SRD which says specifically creatures incapable of moral action can't be G or E, just like animals relying on instinct can't be G or E. so it keeps killing everything approaching the area. And there are animals which kill more than they can eat. They're still N in the rules because they aren't capable of moral action. Killing stuff if you're doing it instictively is not an E act. Actually, mindless undead do not have pieces of souls, but, as someone else said, they prevent people to resurrect, and who decide this? A dumb wizard who wants some help with housekeeping? A necromancer who wants to kill someone? A priest of an evil deity? This means lack of respect to dead people, without considering the animating process, which is ,usually, evil. I'm not sure what the thrust of your argument here is... It interferes with Raise Dead, not Resurrect. I already dealt with this above when I said you could only target corpses that had no possibility of being Raised. (note Raise Dead can only restore to life a corpse that has been dead 1 day/CL, so waiting a year is more than sufficient to make interference with Raise Dead an impossibility). Resurrection and True Res don't care whether your former corpse is animate or not. Also note Trap the Soul, which prevents raise, resurrection, and true res, is not an [evil] act. Finally, there is no need to ever target humanoid creatures with Animate Dead. Heck, you could only ever target animal corpses. Its not like the spell says "You must target humanoid corpses for maximum ick factor". <off topic> please, find a history book. Muslims, in past years, arrived to conquer even Austria , but, then,they were fought back to north africa, which was, guess it, the most prolific and important centre of Christianity, before their arrival Church, to avoid internal european conflict due to feudalism and react to Muslims menace , invited feudal lords to leave to Gibraltar, but European army was very small, so they decided to enlist prisoned criminals, who then destroyed Constantinople ,and disguised as templars. Were crusaders violent and murderous? yes, you know, they hadn't graphite bombs at that time </off topic> Thank you, i've read lots of history. The history of Islam-Christian conflict during the medieval period is rather one-sided. The Islamic nations were generally content to allow Christians to live within them, whereas moslems in christian nations were generally put to death. Conquering moslem armies would spare non-combatants as a rule, but conquering Christian armies (notably during the Crusades) often put all moslem inhabitants to the sword, regardless of age or gender. According to rules, yes, but we would be tools only from your point of view. Usually, elves are the good ones , and orcs the evil ones. However, as I said before, good and neutral people can change to evil because evilness is corrupting and tempting and the reverse process is , for the same reason, rare. The point here is that there is a systematic bias in the assigning of alignments to races which is not in agreement with an objective morality. The only point declaring an entire race evil makes sense is if you're talking about subjective morality. Uh, you didn't understand what "absolute alignment" means in DeD. Having "good" alignment means X. If it is written alignment="good", you're X. Society,history and so forth do not count when talking about AL. X can mean a lot of things, which are , in common sense, considered to be good-related. Absolute alignment means you can summon up an outsider and confirm whether any particular act is good or evil. You can cast a spell to detect it. It is repeatably and verifiably proveable whether any given action is good or evil. Unfortunately, the rules give very little guidance in terms of what good or evil actually are, as I've previously demonstrated with reference to the alignment descriptions. If I tell you "warm", it means you should consider that's warm. No matter if you are more sensitive than me or other people, it's to be considered as warm. "Elves are good-aligned" is a precise statement, which means that elven people are X, even if drows and orcs would say they're evil. .... Warm is not an objective statement. That would be like claiming "awesome" is an objective statement. Its not - its an opinion. Objective statements are repeatable, quantifiable, and independent of the observer. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 08:57 AM | This means that among 100 balors, one might be LG...:D I remember reading somewhere that even the Balors that aren't CE are only one step away from it (NE or CN). I'm not denying what you say is truthful. But isn't it just as narrow minded to assume that if something isn't human, that there for it doesn't function anything like us? Sure, Orcs will be different from humans in many ways. That doesn't mean that they have entirely different brain structure. They have to have a different brain structure. If it were identical they would be a sub-species. Same as elves, halflings, and dwarves have differing brain structures. Edit: Orc comes from the old english orke ,which is also where we get the word ogre. This is the descended form of orcus which was latin for hell. Most earliest of stories with mentions to orcs (or orke) were characters of giant stature from hell. Basically orc equals bad guy. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 09:13 AM | You know, for the most part, I'm willing to stand by my previous post - EvilIdiot didn't really refute most of my points. I direct you to that post in general - i'll touch on the highlights below. Golems and Skeletons aren't natural in fact, they're artificial.Moreover undeads are unnatural, because they're animated by the death's force. Philosophically, undead is evil, you know? Dracula?Nosferatu?... Negative energy is natural. Uranium as well. If I create a wandering construct with uranium, I wouldn't do something good, especially when using others' corpses... They're animated by negative energy, which you just conceeded is not evil. How are undead philosophically evil? An animate corpse? Um... its a bunch of bones that happen to be able to move. Evil requires volition. (ie, Capacity for moral action). I'm not getting the point on the Uranium thing here (and I've already answered this). The real question is: do you find chopping trees evil? What's this? it's a challenge? who's worse: undeads in ded, or humanity in real life? Wow! Totally missing the point... Undeads are evil 'cos they live forever, and destroy anything they encounter on their road, moreover they require the same magic to live: create undead. If vampires or wraith are evil, why aren't skeletons? Same magic, same lack of respect of the dead, same tampering with death for your own. Please see the SRD definitions on alignment, and the definitions of nonability. Mindless creatures are defined in the rules to be N. End of story. Do Iron golems use elementals? Yes. The animating force of any golem is an elemental that you have bound to serve you. Evil is not carbon, it defines your soul, in DeD. If you're evil,you're corrupted, if you're corrupted, you can be hardly good. Is "making good choices while being of evil AL" the norm in DeD? And you have totally missed the distinction between subtype and alignment, congratulations. Sub-type refers to composition. Something with the [evil] tag is literally made of evil. But that says nothing about their actual alignment. A L/G Paladin Succubus is [Evil], even though its alignment is L/G, and will detect as evil to her own detect evil spell-like. So, if I get murdered , my mother cannot say that it was an evil act? Evilness is based on the harm you cause on other people. Totally missed the point. Yes, your mother (or anyone) can say it was an evil act because *murder is evil*, not because she's related to you. Therefore, I cannot choice who love? So I can kill your family and save all your chickens, and being still good? Huh? I refer you to my original point. So my grandpa corpse is valued as a cow's one? More accurately, a live cow is worth more than a man's corpse. (whether or not its your grandfather is totally irrelevant). I already answered to undead AL issues. Let's suppose we're in a really simple situation: a wizard creating undeads. He can create only mindless ones, to be sure of not being evil,ok? Skeletons and zombies are fairly weak, so, a higher levels (suppose >=7) those undeads are useless. Can I use lots of corpse?An army of undeads? ok, where am I going to find them? killing people?buying corpse? which one of these actions isn't evil? Can I use big corpses?ok, where am I going to find them? killing giants and such?ecc... You see, ethically talking, you do not need to be always committing evil, it's just necessary to have a good reason to do so. If your goal is using mindless undeads in a nonevil way, you could, in the end, commit evil acts to do so,why? because undeads are made of corpse and negative energy. What's the difference of creating an undead from a willing victim( it's pretty difficult to find dead people who ask you to be animated, you know?) instead of an unwilling one? or a stranger's corpse? Instead, using golems, the best you can create are made of natural materials,or magical ones...no ethical problem, except flesh ones, which, I already said, aren't for nonevil ones, of course We're agreed adventurers can kill stuff without being evil, right? So, you're an adventurer, you generate monster corpses on a regular basis? Animate those! (This is not a difficult concept, really) In MM there are mindless or low-intelligence creature(1,2 points) with evil AL... Funny, the alignment rules specifically define that as impossible. Of course, you didn't name any and I'm not about to skim the MM to check, but I'll safely say that the designers were wrong to give them evil alignment based on their own alignment rules. Do you find repugnant? Oh boy. YES! you're understanding, I'm a villain who do not care about killing orcs, and likes to teach to other children what is evil and what is not, if necessary. And you know what? if there was a button to push in order to have all the mind flayers horribly and painfully killed, I'd push it, 3 times, to be sure,without thinking. Anyway, again, we're not in real world. The scenarios you imagine are really unlikely to happen.... Totally missed the point. Please go re-read my previous claim. You were literally claiming that two children - an orc child and a human child - do the exact same thing which directly causes harm to another sentient creature, and neither of them is capable of understanding the consequences of its actions, and the two children receive different moral judgements as a consequence of that action? I'm not going to let you change the subject on this one - because we aren't talking about whatever tangent you went off on above, we were talking about two otherwise identical children in identical situations, except one was an orc and one was a human. It's not my fault either if you think that who doesn't think as you do is a moralistic moron,or if you say something like this: Here's a secret about ad hominem - its only a fallacy if you use it to "refute" argument. The design decision to make skeletons N/E instead of N is not argument - and I have never seen argument from the designer or team responsible supporting it. Instead, it was a judgement call on someone's part, and character attacks (literally ad hominem) are perfectly valid in refuting judgement calls and testimony. Whereas an argument stands independent of the person arguing it, so calling them names, even if they're true, doesn't effect the argument. L and C tell me how do you do things, G and E what do you do, behavioural/moral... Uh... morality relates to behavior. False dichotomy. This proves only that you can play and build characters of any AL Let me be more specific - Given a character with a defined personality, I could determine their alignment at random and justify it in the context of their already defined personality. Behaves the same, but could be any alignment from C/E to L/G. Because the alignment descriptions are that weak. please buy My little ponies d20, and remove evil foes. Maybe you'll find a campaign set suitable for your taste. You're also a commie, to me... Except for DM ruling, evil alignment means orcs and such are evil and, more notably, they're considered monsters!!! In a fantasy game! You're the only one who believes that succubi and orcs can be victims of racism in standard DeD and fantasy sets... Except that, for the 100th time, when you read "evil" for a given race, it's sure that its members will be almost evil, or dangerous at least, more than neutral and good aligned races, by definition. It's an axiom, something your relativism can't compute. The observer will note that these are in response to me directly quoting the SRD on the matter of alignment and explaining how G and E according to D+D are actually the same thing. As such, these responses completely fail to address my point. (Ok, the first one was an explanation about how the only direct definition of evil is clearly lying, because it says "killing" is evil with no qualifications whatsoever... in a game about stabbing stuff in the face...). |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 09:34 AM | Animate Dead (creating zombies on up) is evil because it eliminates the natural aspect of death. The elimination of such would eliminate the aspect of life en totum. Not good, very bad. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 09:45 AM | Animate Dead (creating zombies on up) is evil because it eliminates the natural aspect of death. The elimination of such would eliminate the aspect of life en totum. Not good, very bad. Huh... Animate Dead doesn't stop the soul from moving on. Death still happens quite naturally. An animate corpse (effectively a construct) has nothing to do with creatures dying and moving on. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 09:49 AM | Huh... Animate Dead doesn't stop the soul from moving on. Death still happens quite naturally. An animate corpse (effectively a construct) has nothing to do with creatures dying and moving on. Animate dead does trap a soul. Maybe not the original one for that body, but one indeed. If you just want a corpse construct, try animate object. P.S. That's why Wee Jas forbids certain people to be animated. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 09:57 AM | Animate dead does trap a soul. Maybe not the original one for that body, but one indeed. If you just want a corpse construct, try animate object. P.S. That's why Wee Jas forbids certain people to be animated. Do you have a rules quote on that (trapping a soul). Because I've read the Animate Dead spell some 10 times in the last 24 hours, and its still not there. Edit: Regardless, Trap the Soul isn't [evil], so trapping souls is apparently not an evil act. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:02 AM | Do you have a rules quote on that (trapping a soul). Because I've read the Animate Dead spell some 10 times in the last 24 hours, and its still not there. Edit: Regardless, Trap the Soul isn't [evil], so trapping souls is apparently not an evil act. Trapping a soul is [evil] and is indicated by the spell description animate dead for that reason. Dragon issue #350 (http://paizo.com/dragon/products/issues/2006/350) Edit: That is also why a complete corpse is needed, if it was just a soulless construct it would work on partial corpses. The way animate object can. Also, trap the soul does not bring a dead soul back to this plane. It merely traps an already present soul. See, it wouldn't work on the dead. But, it can on the undead (because there is a soul there somewhere). |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 10:07 AM | Trapping a soul is [evil] and is indicated by the spell description animate dead for that reason. Dragon issue #350 (http://paizo.com/dragon/products/issues/2006/350) Edit: That is also why a complete corpse is needed, if it was just a soulless construct it would work on partial corpses. The way animate object can. Wait, you just cited Dragon magazine in a rules debate? :rofl: Its also not clear what the subject of 'is indicated by the spell description' is from your sentence. Dragon magazine is not an official WotC publication, which means it can say *nothing* about the rules other than suggest houserules. (Its published by Paizo). Regardless, the Animate Dead spell description in the PHB takes precedence, as its the primary source for the spell. Trap the soul, the spell, is not [evil], therefore trapping a soul is not an evil act. Its really that simple. Here, you might need this: :tissue: Edit: Uh... what does the completeness of a corpse have to do with the soul? Also, it doens't need a complete corpse. A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. mostly intact means it can be missing pieces. It just needs all the major elements otherwise it can't do important stuff, like walk. Please actually read the spell description before posting: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:17 AM | Wait, you just cited Dragon magazine in a rules debate? :rofl: Dragon magazine is not an official WotC publication, which means it can say *nothing* about the rules other than suggest houserules. (Its published by Paizo). Paizo publishes it on license from WotC and is 100% Official. The material presented in the hardcover books originally are published by Dragon. Reaping Mauler, Frenzied Berzerker, Invisible Blade, Githyanki/Githzerai, the Duellist, Hook Horror, even the repeating crossbow and virtually every item in the Arms and Equipment Guide. So ,you may think of them as houserules. You'd be wrong. It gets published by WotC in a splatbook eventually. When material is presented as a variant rule, it is dilineated as such. I further addressed your concerns with trap the soul in an edit to my previous post. Edit: Mostly intact ,complete ... whatever. The point is you need the most of one corpse. Why not just a pile of bones that can arrange themselves in any old fashion to walk around? Because it is not a soulless construct. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 10:39 AM | Paizo publishes it on license from WotC and is 100% Official. The material presented in the hardcover books originally are published by Dragon. Reaping Mauler, Frenzied Berzerker, Invisible Blade, Githyanki/Githzerai, the Duellist, Hook Horror, even the repeating crossbow and virtually every item in the Arms and Equipment Guide. So ,you may think of them as houserules. You'd be wrong. It gets published by WotC in a splatbook eventually. When material is presented as a variant rule, it is dilineated as such. This still doesn't address the primary source issue. The only thing that can change the wording of Animate Dead is an errata of the Core rules. (this is actually necessary because you have to be able to play with core rules alone. You can't require people to buy Dragon to use Core rules material). And heck, the core rules are pretty specific that it is negative energy used to animate a skeleton, not a soul. And regardless, Dragon is 100% compatible, not 100% official. What it is is a testing ground for new concepts - most of them don't make it into a standard sourcebook. The number of things which don't make it to a splatbook far exceed the number that do - which is what you'd expect when its being used to test new concepts. I think you're the only person i've ever seen argue for Dragon being official - I mean, then we get obscenities like those hair-blades that have no limit on the number of them you can braid into your hair. Yay arbitrarily many attacks? I further addressed your concerns with trap the soul in an edit to my previous post. Except you didn't. The issue is whether trapping a soul is an evil act or not. The fact that trap the soul is not [evil] conclusively proves trapping a soul is not an evil act. When we're talking about the morality of trapping a soul, who cares which plane the soul came from? Edit: Mostly intact ,complete ... whatever. The point is you need the most of one corpse. Why not just a pile of bones that can arrange themselves in any old fashion to walk around? Because it is not a soulless construct. Because then we wouldnt know which entry in the monster manual to base it off of. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:42 AM | And regardless, Dragon is owned by WotC. And is officially licensed product thereof. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:47 AM | Except you didn't. The issue is whether trapping a soul is an evil act or not. The fact that trap the soul is not [evil] conclusively proves trapping a soul is not an evil act. When we're talking about the morality of trapping a soul, who cares which plane the soul came from? It does not conclusively prove that trapping a dead soul in the form of a zombie isn't evil. What does conclusively prove it is that it is [evil] in spell cast and [evil] in creature created. By RAW. Conclusively, I might add. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 10:49 AM | owned by WotC. And is officially licensed product thereof. (1) Yes, so is all OGL stuff (officially licensed)... How official is that again? Thats what OGL means, anyone with a printer is licensed to make d20 compatible publications. (2) Didnt you already say basically that? Except more accurately? (Licensed, they don't publish it) (3) See previous post for all the reasons this doesn't matter. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:51 AM | I think you're the only person i've ever seen argue for Dragon being official - By that you mean the writing staff of Dragon, the owners (WotC) and myself. Because it does have the "100% Official Content" w/ D&D label and WotC trademarks on the cover. :smirk: |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 10:55 AM | By that you mean the writing staff of Dragon, the owners (WotC) and myself. Because it does have the "100% Official Content" w/ D&D label and WotC trademarks on the cover. :smirk: Look, this argument is pointless (and you keep snipping little bits which is really annoying because it means we're just multiplying post counts) - but there are a lot of people on the CO boards that could show you all sorts of disgusting things that Dragon makes possible in stupidly easy ways. However, when it comes to Animate Dead, the relevant facts are these. (1) The PHB is the primary source for core spells (2) The primary source rule states that when something else disagrees with the primary source, the something else is *wrong* (3) Therefore, Animate Dead works exactly as published in the PHB. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:57 AM | (1) Yes, so is all OGL stuff (officially licensed)... How official is that again? Thats what OGL means, anyone with a printer is licensed to make d20 compatible publications. You use a typewriter to write that on a book (and place the logo) you will lose your typewriter (and your shirt). Dragon was published by TSR prior to it's buy-out by WotC. It was then licensed to Paizo for publishing. The name and material is still very much property of WotC. Subject to a failure to renew or failure to oblige by contract, Dragon could return to in-house publishing. The OGL does not extend this kind of stuff. Nor does it extend ownership of material published with OGL to WotC. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 11:01 AM | (1) The PHB is the primary source for core spells (2) The primary source rule states that when something else disagrees with the primary source, the something else is *wrong* (3) Therefore, Animate Dead works exactly as published in the PHB. And .... Evil. See how easy that was. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 11:03 AM | It does not conclusively prove that trapping a dead soul in the form of a zombie isn't evil. What does conclusively prove it is that it is [evil] in spell cast and [evil] in creature created. By RAW. Conclusively, I might add. Huh. Trapping a soul is trapping a soul. These are identical from the standpoint of the soul. Zombies and skeletons are mindless. According to the alignment rules they are N. (Note that the MM is not the primary source on alignment, the PHB is, so technically the listing of skeletons and zombies as N/E is wrong). And the spell being [evil] is provably inconsistent with everything else we know about the game. Which just proves that its a bad design decision to put the [evil] label on it. I mean, making a Flesh Golem isn't noted as an evil act, so why should making a zombie be any different? Heck, the zombie doesn't require you to bind an elemental against its will! Yes, the spell says its [evil]. My argument is and has been that it *shouldn't*. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 11:06 AM | Yes, the spell says its [evil]. My argument is and has been that it *shouldn't*. Well, we could say the same thing for trap the soul. Only in reverse. Edit: While MM1 is not the primary source for alignment rules, it is the primary source for monsters contained within it. Making the skellys and zombies conclusively evil. Are elementals souled beings? No. Then how is animating one in a form even comparable to animate dead? |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 11:08 AM | Well, we could say the same thing for trap the soul. Only in reverse. You're welcome to. That doesn't change the fact that Animate Dead traps no souls. I bring up trap the soul to illustrate the inconsistencies in how alignment tags were assigned to spells. Besides, even if we were to argue trap the soul, there are legitimately good uses for it. For instance, locking away powerful evil creatures so they cannot be resurrected - sounds like a good act to me. So long as there exists one example of X that is not evil, all X cannot be evil. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 11:14 AM | You're welcome to. That doesn't change the fact that Animate Dead traps no souls. I bring up trap the soul to illustrate the inconsistencies in how alignment tags were assigned to spells. Besides, even if we were to argue trap the soul, there are legitimately good uses for it. For instance, locking away powerful evil creatures so they cannot be resurrected - sounds like a good act to me. So long as there exists one example of X that is not evil, all X cannot be evil. All of x is evil if x is animate dead. How do the undead recognize holy symbols (such as those used to turn or rebuke them). You cannot turn/rebuke constructs. |
| HomebrewedMonster03-02-07, 11:17 AM | Mutations, what the original poster argued is that all of a certain race has a different brain composition that makes them evil. Now in our world there is a person with a healthy brain, probably LN or N in alignment. Then you get someone that has a "damaged brain" or mental disorders and them become evil. Why can't what you argue happen to an evil race. I hate to bring up the fanboy favorite, but look at Drizzit (I spelled it wrong). He for some reason had a heart in a world that did not. You can blame it on mutations or in a fantasy setting a god's interference. There are so many possibilities to why an normally evil creature is not. - A paladin and his party slay an evil ogre village harassing a nearby town and find an ogre baby. The paladin will not slain an innocent and takes him to the temple he worships. They take in ugly and large child and raise him to channel his anger to the fervor of his god and down a road of redemption for his family's past sins. Sometimes you are not normal. Genetic mutations are mainly in brain chemistry. There are a lot of studies currently going on claiming that homosexuality is a chemical mutation in your nose. Instead of picking up pheromons of the opposite sex they pick up the same. So that means there are gay orcs, would a gay orc have the same mindset as a normal orc? |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 11:22 AM | So that means there are gay orcs, would a gay orc have the same mindset as a normal orc? "Hurry! We must save the prince. He was captured by orcs." "Why didn't they capture the princess?" "Um, the king told me not to ask." |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 11:22 AM | All of x is evil if x is animate dead. Why? If we're talking about how the game should be, you need to follow up "x is a subset of y" with a reason why it is. I've presented plenty of argument for you to try to refute - please, take your time, make on big post - but there's a lot there, and all of it trumps your statement because the arguments actually have reasoning behind them. How do the undead recognize holy symbols (such as those used to turn or rebuke them). You cannot turn/rebuke constructs. They're animated by negative energy (as per RAW). Turning channels positive energy, which repulses them. Rebuking channels negative energy - effectively you take control of the energy controlling them, or at least make it sit up and pay attention. This is very explicitly how turning and rebuking works in the rules. Undead don't "recognize" holy symbols at all - teh symbol has no power over them. Its the energy channelled through the symbol that matters. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 11:29 AM | Why? Why is anything evil? Are you really trying to get to that. From all your posts it would seem you don't believe evil is a necessity. |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 11:29 AM | So that means there are gay orcs, would a gay orc have the same mindset as a normal orc? Naw, they'd all wear fuschia mini-skirts, pastel colored beehive wigs, and talk with an ignan accent (what? It's the language of the fire elementals, name ONE group that's more 'flaming') Kidding aside, from ancedotal evidence I would say that if there are gay orcs (which is my settings there are) then they have about as much difference in mindset from non-gay orcs as gay men from non-gay men. Meaning, not much. Most of the behavior differences are societal, and NOT inborn. Edit: Just thought I'd append the following thought to this post instead of making a new one. I find it very amusing that Squirrel is using actual debate skills and techniques, including logical thinking, recognition of logical fallacies, and burden of proof, while no one else seems to be much interested in that style. You just gotta love the internet sometimes. |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 12:28 PM | From all your posts it would seem you don't believe evil is a necessity. Do you mean necessity for a good game, or necessity for some philosophical reason? Either way, while I can't speak for squirrellord, but personally, I would say that evil is NOT a necessity, either philosophically or for a good game. Even without evil people can find plenty of reasons to engage in conflict, so a game still has merit, and even if you can't distinguish good without evil, without evil theres not such a need for good, so I have no problem with it philosophically either. Doesn't mean it's going to HAPPEN, but that doesn't mean I have to believe it's necessary. Now, aside from evil not being a necessity for the game to be enjoyable... It probably IS easier with it. Afterall, without having an 'evil' tag you can slap on someone, you have to give all your villains good reasons for what they're doing. While that could create a very interesting game where all your opponents are just as much in the moral right as you, it requires A LOT more work on a DMs part and probably a much larger commitment to RP on a player's part. Which is why I cheerfully include evil in my games. Onto the Animate Dead, and whether or not it should be evil. 1st) by the books, Animate Dead is an [evil] spell and skeletons, zombies are both evil. 2nd) Also by the books, a corpse is treated in many ways as an object. The only major concern thats unique to corpses as opposed to other objects is that within 1 day/caster level a corpse can be used to cast raise dead and bring a subject back to life. Beyond that, corpses can be used as components for a number of spells (such as animate dead and speak with dead), item creation (such as dragonhide armor and flesh golems) or just be consumed as a resource (food). Of the uses for a corpse, the only one that has an [Evil] tag or is described as evil is animate dead. Even Flesh Golems are N, with the process of creating them described as being not evil. There are implied social objections to items made of corpses such as dragonhide armor or flesh golems, but it is not described as being Evil. 3rd) In many discussions on alignment itself, it is stated that if a creature is mindless it cannot be evil. 4th) in actual use there are a number of creatures that are mindless that are evil. One example is the aforementioend skeletons and zombies. Arguments we can draw from these statements are as follows: 1st) The alignment of skeletons and zombies is inconsistent with the more general rules for alignment. I see no substantial support for why these mindless undead are evil from within the system. Mechanically, they are an object that was once alive being animated by negative energy to follow the orders of their creator. As such, my first argument is that skeletons and zombies should be of neutral alignment rather then their currently listed evil alignment. Arguments for mindless undead being evil thus far have been limited to "desecrating corpses is evil", "good gods generally don't like undead", and "mindless undead destroy life naturally." The last argument is moot, as being mindless zombies and skeletons can take no moral action, just like animals. The second, while giving some credibility towards an evil alignment, also gives evidence for them not being evil as it recognizes that some gods at least don't recognize undead as being universally bad. The first is not the act of creating undead itself, but the circumstances surrounding the creation of the undead that is not required. While there is an argument that the creation of most undead would involve desecrating a corpse, there is the possibility for corpses to be willing given and respectfully handled, such that it is not desecration. And since it is possible to create an undead without desecrating a corpse, then that is not sufficient arguement for all zombies and skeletons being evil because there was a desecration involved. As such, while I will fully agree that the process of creating a zombie or skeleton will probably involve an evil act, that does not necessarily mean the skeletons and zombies themselves are evil. I further feel that this position is in greater agreement with the alignment rules as stated elsewhere then the current alignment of evil. 2nd) Based off my statement that skeletons and zombies are not evil, then there is nothing in the Animate Dead spell that requires an evil act, other then the spell itself. Nothing in the text of the spell indicates an act that is evil independent of the spell itself. As such, without further supporting evidence that Animate Dead is evil, I would suggest that the [evil] tag be removed. And that sums up my arguement for why skeletons, zombies, and Animate Dead aren't evil. |
| Leo03-02-07, 12:39 PM | Also, animate dead breaks a lot of laws of science, and I have yet to find a zombie of skeleton so I can make him a psychologicla test to see his mentality. IT'S A FREAKING GAME FOR GOD'S SAKE It sends 99% of the rules of the real world out the window so you can have fun. Thegame is suposed to be about adventuring and killing monsters(DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS), and if we step into a logical discussion we aren't going annywhere. Animating dead is evil as magic is possible and dragons can fly. IT JUST IS! |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 01:09 PM | No need to get so worked up over it. I think everyone here realizes it's game, what with our discussion of metagame elements. And if you enjoy the game just fine without thinking about things like this, then don't. Some of us enjoy this kind of discussion. Because frankly, if you DON'T enjoy this kind of discussion, then there really isn't a point to arguing it, as you said. |
| Morits03-02-07, 01:25 PM | Animals are always Neutral, they have INT less than 3 and cannot choose. Orcs and Ogres are usually evil. They have free-will: most of them conform to their up-bringing and some do not. Dragons and Outsiders are always whatever alignment. They are Intelligent, but they have so much magic that they must be what they are. In the real world, gravity and electricity are physical forces of the Universe, alignments are philosophical concepts. In the Game, the alignments are physical forces of the Universe. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 02:15 PM | And that sums up my arguement for why skeletons, zombies, and Animate Dead aren't evil. Yes, but there is a difference in animating dead and animating objects (even dead objects). We can turn/rebuke (and smite) undead. While a construct is immune to these abilities. So, there is a difference between an animated object that happens to be a body (or parts of several) and a zombie. |
| EvilIdiot03-02-07, 02:28 PM | The difference is not listing them - its explaining why they feel that way. Just saying "Christianity says touching corpses is wrong" is an appeal to authority. Explaining why they think its wrong is actually making the argument. Have you any idea of how long it would take? That said, most religions (at least historically) only object to you disturbing the corpses of their own religion. Someone else's religion? Whatever - pre-modern period other religions were defined as evil to a given religion (for the most part), so you could do whatever you wanted to their corpses (well, just about). I'll note there are plenty of societies in the new world and Africa which used human remains to make totems and other items of 'magic' power. (Headhunters for one). Tampering freely with dead corpse is conceptually wrong, in the vast majority of religions. We're talking in an abstract way, and I never said all the religions did so. As for Africa and other tribes:that's a form of "respect" from their pov. .... What is your obsession with hippies? No seriously, you're obsessed. "Hippie" is a stereotype everyone can understand, isn't it? I've made a cogent argument within the D+D rules and in terms of philosophical principles why Animate Dead is not evil - you have to counter this with an argument. The burden is on you. Basic rules of debate. When have you been "philosophical"? when you said that "undeath as evil" is only an idea coming from christianity and such, and ,thus, we must ignore it? Or when you quoted SRD? Final answer to undeath issues: DeD is made of flavours and rules: when you say that fiends corrupts, you don't have to make a rule for, you just describe it. Now, in ded there are two assumptions: mindless creatures aren't evil, and undeath is evil The first is found in SRD,the latter in descriptive text in PHB,DMG and other material. Why? the first may be logical, simple the latter is a result of choices made by authors:considering philosophical concepts in modern and past culture, they decided that undeath and similar are evil Why? it's a choice. and has some rules as well: undeads are evil by rule, and spells who create and help only them are. Being and idea, it must have some basics, which are cultures. if you can say it's objectively bad, you can say whether chocolate is better than vanilla or not, as well So, for undead there's an exception, a rule which doesn't follow another. And reasons are philosophical ,tied to cultures When I said there were evil mindless creatures, I thought about demonbones golems, which , instead, have int 10, my apologizes. The real point, as I said before, is that making mindless undeads neutral, except maybe in Eberron, due to its alignment concepts, would create an ethical dilemma, which is : [Let's suppose we're in a really simple situation: a wizard creating undeads. He can create only mindless ones, to be sure of not being evil,ok? Skeletons and zombies are fairly weak, so, a higher levels (suppose >=7) those undeads are useless. Can I use lots of corpse?An army of undeads? ok, where am I going to find them? killing people?buying corpse? which one of these actions isn't evil? Can I use big corpses?ok, where am I going to find them? killing giants and such?ecc... You see, ethically talking, you do not need to be always committing evil, it's just necessary to have a good reason to do so. If your goal is using mindless undeads in a nonevil way, you could, in the end, commit evil acts to do so,why? because undeads are made of corpse and negative energy. What's the difference of creating an undead from a willing victim( it's pretty difficult to find dead people who ask you to be animated, you know?) instead of an unwilling one? or a stranger's corpse? Either there is a good reason for why an authority claims something or the authority is wrong. Hence why appeals to authority are not valid debate tactics. I'm still waiting for the valid reasons. I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, I support my positions with logic and expect my opponents to do the same. You're ,in fact, abusing "appealing to..." by far. Yuo keep saying that using pre-existing ideas,culture,concepts and such is wrong, because they're authority. Well, DeD is also based on pre-existing ideas and cultures, sorry. Moreover, if you keep saying we cannot rely on any "authorities", especially the one DeD is inspired from, you're making a close circuit, because the only way to debate is going against such authorities, a kiddy trick to make you the only one able to answer, always. I'm not sure what the thrust of your argument here is... It interferes with Raise Dead, not Resurrect. I already dealt with this above when I said you could only target corpses that had no possibility of being Raised. (note Raise Dead can only restore to life a corpse that has been dead 1 day/CL, so waiting a year is more than sufficient to make interference with Raise Dead an impossibility). Resurrection and True Res don't care whether your former corpse is animate or not. Also note Trap the Soul, which prevents raise, resurrection, and true res, is not an [evil] act. Finally, there is no need to ever target humanoid creatures with Animate Dead. Heck, you could only ever target animal corpses. Its not like the spell says "You must target humanoid corpses for maximum ick factor". I'm asking you: who decide that your corpse gets reanimated? an evil person? a lazy person? an idiot? great. no problems at all? Druids, as defined, won't like undead animals. For most cultures , animating deads as you would do in D&D, isn't good. Why? because their members thinks so, and DeD is based on them. Thank you, i've read lots of history. The history of Islam-Christian conflict during the medieval period is rather one-sided. The Islamic nations were generally content to allow Christians to live within them, whereas moslems in christian nations were generally put to death. Conquering moslem armies would spare non-combatants as a rule, but conquering Christian armies (notably during the Crusades) often put all moslem inhabitants to the sword, regardless of age or gender. so, when they conquered spain, north africa and such, didn't they killed opponents? They were so gentle that conquered areas, leaving their prisoners free? In medieval age? It feels a lot strange, and, in facts, that's too good to be true.... Absolute alignment means ... You are still mixing up real world and ded. In DeD alignments are defined in a proper way, and you can use them as guidelines for your character. There's no good action, as "G" alignment, there's a "G" action in a given context. A G creature would act as G-aligned whener she'll be able to do so. being G, you can pass from problems to G solutions. detect G doesn't let you know the goodness of an action, but the one of a creature. For absolute it is meant that if you recognize someone as X, he's X, it doesn't make difference if he's crazy, out of rage or other things... got it? In real world they would do so, in ded, no. .... Warm is not an objective statement. That would be like claiming "awesome" is an objective statement. Its not - its an opinion. Objective statements are repeatable, quantifiable, and independent of the observer. Nor alignments. In ded, which isn't the real world ,the alignment "Good" gives you a guideline for how to play your G character. The differences between aligmnets aren't "objective",as you wrongly understood from my previous posts, in fact there's neutrality. They're animated by negative energy, which you just conceeded is not evil. How are undead philosophically evil? An animate corpse? Um... its a bunch of bones that happen to be able to move. Evil requires volition. (ie, Capacity for moral action). I'm not getting the point on the Uranium thing here (and I've already answered this). ok, but, using negative energy isn't a good thing , nor evil. Using corpse for undeath, according to ded, is. Quote: The real question is: do you find chopping trees evil? What's this? it's a challenge? who's worse: undeads in ded, or humanity in real life? Wow! Totally missing the point... when I said skeletons could destroy miles of forest,which I proven to be their natural behaviour if left uncommanded, you said Humans destroy miles of forest, does that make them evil? So, unless I misunderstood, you're saying that humans, in real life, chop trees, therefore if mindless undead would do so, no matter if they do this timelessly, they're better than real humans,or something like this. The comparison seems almost illogic, another thing which proves you keep mixing up ded and real world... Yes. The animating force of any golem is an elemental that you have bound to serve you. Only in eberron, for some golems. ...ritual requires geas/quest,limited wish,polymorph item,cloud kill I can't find elementals. Evil is not carbon, it defines your soul, in DeD. If you're evil,you're corrupted, if you're corrupted, you can be hardly good. Is "making good choices while being of evil AL" the norm in DeD? And you have totally missed the distinction between subtype and alignment, congratulations. Sub-type refers to composition. Something with the [evil] tag is literally made of evil. But that says nothing about their actual alignment. A L/G Paladin Succubus is [Evil], even though its alignment is L/G, and will detect as evil to her own detect evil spell-like. I can't read "subtype" in my previous statement, alignments yes Do orcs, drows, etc... have alignments? yes. This means they're corrupted, by evil as a philosophical, magical, historical , whateveryouwant force. period. Totally missed the point. Yes, your mother (or anyone) can say it was an evil act because *murder is evil*, not because she's related to you. Why is murder evil then? and you quoted: Originally Posted by SRD "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. and Scruffy's owner, being born in this christian/modern/laical... society, would suffer from his dog's corpse, being raised as a new pet for a lonely wizard, or not, who can tell?you? how? Quote: So my grandpa corpse is valued as a cow's one? More accurately, a live cow is worth more than a man's corpse. (whether or not its your grandfather is totally irrelevant). who decide this? your anti-"authority" believing? great We're agreed adventurers can kill stuff without being evil, right? So, you're an adventurer, you generate monster corpses on a regular basis? Animate those! (This is not a difficult concept, really) presuming that killing them is an easy task. In ded this is evil , by RAW, as raising dead is evil, why? because we appeal to a authority, which we had to choose and which we like. Totally missed the point. Please go re-read my previous claim. You were literally claiming that two children - an orc child and a human child - do the exact same thing which directly causes harm to another sentient creature, and neither of them is capable of understanding the consequences of its actions, and the two children receive different moral judgements as a consequence of that action? I'm not going to let you change the subject on this one - because we aren't talking about whatever tangent you went off on above, we were talking about two otherwise identical children in identical situations, except one was an orc and one was a human. Listen clearly: I do not care. Alignment isn't based on a single action. If they say that orcs are CE, their society is too. And orcs are well known monsters, do you know the concept of "monster" in a fantasy set? Oh, yes, also deformed humans are called monsters in our imperfect society...you know what? DeD isn't the real world, fortunately. Here's a secret about ad hominem - its only a fallacy if you use it to "refute" argument. How frightening. You still do not explain why you can decide that saying undead are evils is wrong because someone based his decision on pre-existing ideas, while decide the opposite is correct, because you do "not appeal to any authority" The design decision to make skeletons N/E instead of N is not argument - and I have never seen argument from the designer or team responsible supporting it. A pretty logical choice, from lots of points of view, as I said before. Instead, it was a judgement call on someone's part, and character attacks (literally ad hominem) are perfectly valid in refuting judgement calls and testimony. Whereas an argument stands independent of the person arguing it, so calling them names, even if they're true, doesn't effect the argument. So you're saying that if someone has to choose to which idea adhere, in this case the concept of rising undead, he can't defend it?Because you know logic fallacies? [Uh... morality relates to behavior. False dichotomy. Na. current language is ambiguous by definition Morality ,as you said, is related to behaviour. Which kind? You can behave as an assassin, being evil, or as a samurai. In the former case you're evil, in the latter, you're lawful. Behaviour related to morality means G/E, Behaviour related to the way you performs actions means L/C "Time flies like an arrow", there are at least two meanings for this statement... et me be more specific - Given a character with a defined personality, I could determine their alignment at random and justify it in the context of their already defined personality. Behaves the same, but could be any alignment from C/E to L/G. Because the alignment descriptions are that weak. In DeD is pretty hard, because alignments are absolute. Not all the reason you can provide will be accepted by raws. Lets face it, its a game about stabbing things in the face. So when I see: please buy My little ponies d20, and remove evil foes. Maybe you'll find a campaign set suitable for your taste. In the end, you kept giving arguments against acting accordingly to MM ,alignments and such, by putting moral dilemmas which suite the real world only. So, if you're sorry of playing a "game about stabbing things", a brute definition for who likes it as it is, please follow my advice. If the orcs are legitimately oppressed (which they are - as they've been marginalized as a people onto barely habitable lands in virtually all campaign settings), then attacking those who have good lands isn't evil because the haves are not sharing. Its a N act. You're also a commie, to me... How should I call someone who justifies orcs' non-evilness and their attacks by saying that haves not share? Should orcs attack kulaki people first? Quote: I mean, that definition basically invites you to find something 'x' is guilty of to make it safe to kill and not have it be an evil act. (Innocent is nowhere defined in the core rules - i looked). Except for DM ruling, evil alignment means orcs and such are evil and, more notably, they're considered monsters!!! In a fantasy game! Your assumption would be true in real world, but such ethical dilemmas are just depressing in ded... Quote: (As a final amusing note, even the SRD considers racism to be evil. From the Lawful Evil description: You're the only one who believes that succubi and orcs can be victims of racism in standard DeD and fantasy sets... racism, as intend in our society, has no sense between common adventurers and evil-aligned monstrous races, do I have to quote the one who compared black/white racism with human-elf/orcs? Quote: Originally Posted by SRD He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. Yet L/G is specifically allowed to be racist: Except that, for the 100th time, when you read "evil" for a given race, it's sure that its members will be almost evil, or dangerous at least, more than neutral and good aligned races, by definition. It's an axiom, something your relativism can't compute. So, tell me, if I give you the 80% chance of encountering an evil orc, what would you do? Moreover, let's ask the observer where I quoted the SRD, because ,in this last section of a previous post, I always answered about your statements, not the ones from SRD Let me show you the fallacy I think regards your posts You're saying that -"appealing to an authority" is wrong - defending a choice among other ones isn't possible if it's not made by strict logic, ie we could decide that undeath wasn't evil simply because we'd liked to, or 'cause of other reasons. so, your conclusion is that you're right, because - your arguments about philosophy ,undeath and alignments are relativist,not appealing any authority so, orcs can't be aligned to evilm, and undeath too. - your answer are pretty logical. however... DeD assumes to be based on certain believes, so it's a moral "authority" itself logic has little to do with fantasy Finally, even the real world isn't logical and well defined. But for you there's no difference:you have the answer for both "worlds" Morality isn't logical, we aren't logical.... When we talked about crusade, you said it was wrong from 1-side only When I asked you about corpses value, you said that a man's body has less value than an alive cow.... Who decides? you? because you refuse everything some "authority" could said? You're missing the difference between "opposition" (refuse) and "neutrality"( evaluating every side of an issue, without taking a proper decision) So you're ,in real, appealing to the same authorities I appealed to, but in an opposite manner, and without giving reasons except the "appeal" fallacy |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-02-07, 02:29 PM | Yes, but there is a difference in animating dead and animating objects (even dead objects). We can turn/rebuke (and smite) undead. While a construct is immune to these abilities. So, there is a difference between an animated object that happens to be a body (or parts of several) and a zombie. Unfortunately in 3rd ED that difference is merely the presence of Negative engergy, which the positive energy used in turning negates (or negative energy enhances). It used to be different, souls were actually involved, but that is sadly no longer the case. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 02:55 PM | Unfortunately in 3rd ED that difference is merely the presence of Negative engergy, which the positive energy used in turning negates (or negative energy enhances). It used to be different, souls were actually involved, but that is sadly no longer the case. Well, as I tried to point out in articles written as recently as Dec '06, it does involve souls. Wee Jas forbad animate dead using the souls of her first followers (why would she bother if none were involved). This doesn't conflict at all with the watered down definitions of turning/rebuking as presented by the Corebooks. If it was limited to only energies that caused this effect then why is it a (un)holy symbol is needed. Instead of just the energy itself. The definition in the corebooks sufficed for the most basic implimentation of the rule. For additional background information, you have to delve deeper into the library of WotC. And to preclude the argument that these background information is not 'core'; if you want to know more about something you read more about it. If you want to learn why undead are evil read the subject matter presented by the writers. Limiting yourself to only the basic bookset is the way of closing off this information (close-mindedness). |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 02:56 PM | Yes, but there is a difference in animating dead and animating objects (even dead objects). We can turn/rebuke (and smite) undead. While a construct is immune to these abilities. So, there is a difference between an animated object that happens to be a body (or parts of several) and a zombie. You are entirely correct, there is a difference. And I never claimed otherwise. So I'm not sure what, exactly, you're refuting. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 03:02 PM | You are entirely correct, there is a difference. And I never claimed otherwise. So I'm not sure what, exactly, you're refuting. the misconception that animated undead are nothing more then mindless constructs composed of dead bodies |
| green_yawgmoth03-02-07, 03:09 PM | Every time you introduce a natural science into a D&D argument, god kills a kitten by raping it to death. The issue with the "always" alignemtn is a contradiction of rules: one says "this is always XY alignment", another says "anything with int>2 has the ability to be any alignment". Play whichever you like. I play with alignment playing as little of a role as I can, because I think it's a retarded concept that was designed while Gygax and co. was on the toilet. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 03:13 PM | Well, as I tried to point out in articles written as recently as Dec '06, it does involve souls. Wee Jas forbad animate dead using the souls of her first followers (why would she bother if none were involved). This doesn't conflict at all with the watered down definitions of turning/rebuking as presented by the Corebooks. If it was limited to only energies that caused this effect then why is it a (un)holy symbol is needed. Instead of just the energy itself. The definition in the corebooks sufficed for the most basic implimentation of the rule. For additional background information, you have to delve deeper into the library of WotC. Look, I'm not going to consider optional variant material that I have no access to. So if you use that in your campaign, then theres a stronger arguement for why Animate Dead, skeletons,and zombies should remain evil. But as it is optional variant material, I'm not going to consider it as core, because it isn't. And the reason clerics need their symbol is because it's their divine focus. Their class ability says they need it to cast every fraggin' spell they have, and they need it for turning to. It's not a function of how positive or negative energy affects undead, it's a function of how clerics channel that energy. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 03:16 PM | But as it is optional variant material, I'm not going to consider it as core, because it isn't. Then ,consider as core that undead skellys and zombies are evil. Not optional variant material. RAW ;) Edit: It also doesn't explicitely say that Tigers have fur in the corebooks. It says they are simply 3' tall at the shoulder, 9' long, and weigh 400-600 lbs. No fur, no stripes. So ,by your 'core only' dogma, I guess they don't. |
| ImmortalBlueMage03-02-07, 03:22 PM | I really wish people would stop moralizing about violence against evil creatures in D&D. This is not the real world, these are not real people, and there's little if any relevance to either. Fighting monsters is part of the game, in fact, some people would say it's the CORE of the game. If you want your game to be full of complex moral and philosophical conundrums, complete with shrill judgements whenever anyone makes the "wrong" choice, knock yourself out, but please get off your high horse about it. And the DM can violate the "always" alignment rule, as well as just about any other rule that won't make the other players quit in disgust, as much as he/she pleases. That's also part of the game. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 03:23 PM | And the DM can violate the "always" alignment rule, as well as just about any other rule that won't make the other players quit in disgust, as much as he/she pleases. That's also part of the game. Rule #0 in the DMG ;) |
| EscherEnigma03-02-07, 03:55 PM | Then ,consider as core that undead skellys and zombies are evil. Not optional variant material. RAW ;) Edit: It also doesn't explicitely say that Tigers have fur in the corebooks. It says they are simply 3' tall at the shoulder, 9' long, and weigh 400-600 lbs. No fur, no stripes. So ,by your 'core only' dogma, I guess they don't. And since my arguement was that they shouldn't be evil, the fact that they are evil is already recognized. Re: Tigers You're missing my point. Yes, D&D works with some basic assumptions that you have some basic knowledge of the world you live in. I never denied that. I never claimed that only the core books can be considered. But you keep trying to bring in new material to argue your point, material that I, and most likely many others, don't have access to. If you keep changing the parameters, then you can prove almost anything you want. So your "point" about the tiger? A red herring. Now, I already acknowledged that if you use that material you have a stronger argument. But the fact is that it is optional material that is not required by the game. It may make it better, it may make it worse. but it is optional, not required. And in this case, it is material that deviates from the standard game, material that changes the game in ways. So you want to talk about whether or not animating dead and zombies are evil if souls are bound to the skeletons? Fine, but you better get me copies of all the material you're using, or I quite simply won't discuss it with you. I can't discuss your material on an equal footing, so I won't try. But if you want to keep discussing with me? Work within the standard frame of reference which we can all work with. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 05:38 PM | EvilIdiot: You more or less admitted in your last post that you cannot or will not actually provide argument. At which point, I can agree with you that x religion says y, and so forth, and *disagree* that they're right, but as you've presented no argument in support of their position, and I have presented argument in favor of mine, you lose the debate. Virtually everything you said is addressed by my previous posts. I'm not going to bother to repeat myself. A lot of your comments completely missed the point of what I wrote. If you want to debate against someone, *actually debate* against them. |
| *Truean*03-02-07, 05:49 PM | To EvilIdiot, I don't even know what to quote. I love it all... except the hippies, but that agrees with you too. That was wonderfully put. I don't sanction an orc's wish to kill me. Same with any murderer. Yes he (the orc) is evil. He's not evil because he's an orc. He's evil because everything in his culture is about force and plunder, which is objectively wrong. His culture is inferior. Yes that's what I said and ment. That culture exists on force and plunder and murder. Ergo, it's wrong and inferior to any culture that values productivity. That is... any culture that doesn't pay for itself in blood. He who starts, do you hear me, STARTS, the use of force is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner far wider than murder in any case. He states that his fist is greater than any logic that has or ever will be presented. He is destroying not only life, but what makes life possible. He is wrong, absolutely and completely without exception. When he threatens me with force and uses it, then I answer him morally: by force. This is the right of self defense. It is an unquestioned axiom to defend human life against destruction. Anything that furthers the existance of life is good. Anything that destroys it is evil. The Orc destroys on purpose (by intention) and thus is evil. It's in no way racist. This is not a failure to listen on my part. It's a failure for the orc to recognize my right to exist. I recognize his right to exist: on his own effort. That means he may exist separately of me ... not as a leech who takes what he wants by force. The H*** with his culture; it is evil. It wants to exist as a metaphysical leech.... The "haves" sharing with the "have nots" is foolish. Communism died in 1989 with the Soviet Union.... The proof is in history.... It doesn't work.... Marx was wrong. Labor Theory of Value is flawed. It doesn't take into account any of the other four factors of production (Land, Labor, Capital, Entrepreunrial Talent) . The massive global conspiracy theory Marx proposed is fiction. The orc has no physical rights, or legal rights. He should be exterminated on sight. This is because he is a killer and wishes nothing but the destruction of all around him. He was not "relegated" to a lower status than humans. He earned it the moment a thousand axes declared war on a populus that didn't want it and didn't deserve it. I'll have to read all of the additional material to this thread before I post again. I suppose if you miss a day, then you miss a lot |
| a_psh03-02-07, 06:00 PM | Every time you introduce a natural science into a D&D argument, god kills a kitten by raping it to death.That's true of social sciences, too. People seem to love going "economics this, economics that" on Internet forums. Moreover, they seem to really love couching their own opinions as some kind of magical indisputable economic fact. |
| Kresalak03-02-07, 06:03 PM | The "haves" sharing with the "have nots" is foolish. Communism died in 1989 with the Soviet Union.... The proof is in history.... It doesn't work.... Marx was wrong. Labor Theory of Value is flawed. It doesn't take into account any of the other four factors of production (Land, Labor, Capital, Entrepreunrial Talent) . The massive global conspiracy theory Marx proposed is fiction. Communism in Russia died in the 1920s. |
| zvbxrpl03-02-07, 06:21 PM | To EvilIdiot, The orc has no physical rights, or legal rights. He should be exterminated on sight. This is because he is a killer and wishes nothing but the destruction of all around him. He was not "relegated" to a lower status than humans. He earned it the moment a thousand axes declared war on a populus that didn't want it and didn't deserve it. Incorrect. Wrong wrong wrong. Nonhuman does not mean a fundamental antipathy to all drives that humans have. It is impossible for anything other than a demon or devil to want "nothing but the destruction of all around him." The orc warrior kills for many reasons: land, loot, glory, or simply because his warlords have filled him to the brim with propaganda (this last is probably quite common), but never simply for its own sake. He is an intelligent, reasoning creature, and thus has analagous fears, hopes, and motives, admittedly through an orcish lens, as humans. What you describe--a species of psychopaths (I mean that in the clinical sense)--would have killed itself off and thus be an evolutionary dead end. Granted, I would have no qualms about toasting an orchish invading force with a couple of maximized fireballs, but a kill-on-sight approach of racial extermination would make me no better than the enemy I fight. You, sir, are discussing a world solely of absolutes. While I acknowldege that many times morality is absolute, I implore you to at least allow a modicum of nuance to intervene. |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-02-07, 06:35 PM | However, when it comes to Animate Dead, the relevant facts are these. (1) The PHB is the primary source for core spells (2) The primary source rule states that when something else disagrees with the primary source, the something else is *wrong* (3) Therefore, Animate Dead works exactly as published in the PHB I find it ironic that when you think the rules support your argument you agree with them, but when it doesn't support your argument it's "a bad design decision". |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 06:40 PM | I find it ironic that when you think the rules support your argument you agree with them, but when it doesn't support your argument it's "a bad design decision". Ok, the topic of discussion (in that particular instance) is whether or not Animate Dead *should* be evil. (Meaning we're questioning the design decision). At which point we need to know how it *actually works*. If we all have different assumptions about how it works, we can't actually discuss whether or not it should be evil. My point is that, according to the rules regarding animate dead, there is no reason for it to be evil. Now, we could alternately debate how animate dead *should* work. But that creates a very different spell at the end, with very different conclusions about whether or not its good or evil. If you'd like to discuss how animate dead should work, do so, but don't conflate it with a discussion of why or why not animate dead as it currently works is evil. Effectively, we can only debate multiple should questions if different interpretations in one of them does not lead to different answer for another one. Otherwise we end up playing a game of shifting goal posts where we're not talking about the same thing. That is totally unproductive, illogical, and useless. |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-02-07, 06:44 PM | I don't sanction an orc's wish to kill me. Same with any murderer. Yes he (the orc) is evil. He's not evil because he's an orc. He's evil because everything in his culture is about force and plunder, which is objectively wrong. His culture is inferior. Yes that's what I said and ment. That culture exists on force and plunder and murder. Ergo, it's wrong and inferior to any culture that values productivity. That is... any culture that doesn't pay for itself in blood. Except that by the rules 50% of orcs are not Chaotic Evil. Just like 50% of all elves are not Chaotic Good. For every Neutral Elf in your world there exists a Neutral Orc. For every Evil Elf in your world there exists a Good Orc. In fact there are probably more Orcs then Elves, so there are then more Neutral and Good Orcs. And those Neutral and Good Orcs probably live together (similar alignments leading to better relations) so claiming that the culture of every Orc is Evil is demostratably wrong. And claiming that it is inferior is blatently racism, which well.... Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: <snipped>He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. The orc has no physical rights, or legal rights. He should be exterminated on sight. This is because he is a killer and wishes nothing but the destruction of all around him. He was not "relegated" to a lower status than humans. He earned it the moment a thousand axes declared war on a populus that didn't want it and didn't deserve it. And attitudes like this are the reason the 50% of the orcs that aren't evil are trying to kill you anyway. Because his race has been hunted on sight for the actions of some clan years back that he never learned the name of. (That int penalty really hurts your Knowledge[History] checks.) But he is bright enough to realize when the humans come seeking XP and loot they aren't going to cast comprehend languages first, they're going to start shooting. And since D&D is won by initiative he's going to shoot first if he can. And his alignment can stay safely neutral (or even good if he's careful to stick to military targets) while doing so. |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-02-07, 06:52 PM | The "haves" sharing with the "have nots" is foolish. Communism died in 1989 with the Soviet Union.... The proof is in history.... It doesn't work.... Marx was wrong. Labor Theory of Value is flawed. It doesn't take into account any of the other four factors of production (Land, Labor, Capital, Entrepreunrial Talent) . Communism died when Stalin took over. When the haves exploit the have-nots long enough in an unfettered capitalistic system you get revolution every time. The historical examples for this abound. Totalitarian style socialism suc*s, but so does the laissez faire type of capitalism that exhibits no form of social conscious... |
| DarthMidget03-02-07, 09:25 PM | Communism died when Stalin took over. When the haves exploit the have-nots long enough in an unfettered capitalistic system you get revolution every time. The historical examples for this abound. Totalitarian style socialism suc*s, but so does the laissez faire type of capitalism that exhibits no form of social conscious... Pure capitalism and pure communism have one thing in common: they have both never actually been practiced by any society on Planet Earth. |
| CharlieRock03-02-07, 10:02 PM | Ok, the topic of discussion (in that particular instance) is whether or not Animate Dead *should* be evil. (Meaning we're questioning the design decision). At which point we need to know how it *actually works*. That's silly. The spell doesn't actually work at all. You "need" to use your imagination. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-07, 10:32 PM | That's silly. The spell doesn't actually work at all. You "need" to use your imagination. You hear that? Thats the sound of you *totally missing the point*. |
| Kresalak03-02-07, 10:34 PM | That's silly. The spell doesn't actually work at all. You "need" to use your imagination. I have no idea what you're trying to say. |
| EvilIdiot03-03-07, 08:39 AM | EvilIdiot: You more or less admitted in your last post that you cannot or will not actually provide argument. At which point, I can agree with you that x religion says y, and so forth, and *disagree* that they're right, Why can you disagree? You're simply deciding what is an argument, and what is not. great but as you've presented no argument in support of their position, and I have presented argument in favor of mine, you lose the debate. False. As I said, you're just overusing "appeal to" fallacy, to analyse something that can have, or must have, some degrees of "authorities" and "assumptions", a counter-sense. Reality is this way ,as well. The most disturbing thing is that you truly believe you can find solution for both things. When you said you could both agree and disagree, you meant I can't find a logic, unique and finishing reason for something. I already said that putting mindless undeads N would have its problems, from a long term perspective, then I said that logic cannot always work either in real world or ded. Your search is fundamentally wrong, from the beginning, sorry You're like a well programmed computer: it never fails, but, and I know what I'm saying, while programming, I must give a computer a simplified model of the reality it's going to process. What does simplifying means? cut off everything cannot be computed numerically or logically, in boolean or fuzzy way, or find a simplified model for it. So, well, your answers are really, really logic, but they simplify a lot, and there's no way I could tell a computer to process something whose it's impossible to find a logic model for, sorry. Moreover, it always depends on which model I use. My computer's answers are always logic too, but, fortunately, reality do not work with its logic, neither with yours Virtually everything you said is addressed by my previous posts. I'm not going to bother to repeat myself. A lot of your comments completely missed the point of what I wrote. If you want to debate against someone, *actually debate* against them. I didn't know I had to actually debate, sorry. Anyway, you said that murder is evil, why? which kind of logic says this? Except that by the rules 50% of orcs are not Chaotic Evil. Just like 50% of all elves are not Chaotic Good. For every Neutral Elf in your world there exists a Neutral Orc. For every Evil Elf in your world there exists a Good Orc. In fact there are probably more Orcs then Elves, so there are then more Neutral and Good Orcs. And those Neutral and Good Orcs probably live together (similar alignments leading to better relations) so claiming that the culture of every Orc is Evil is demostratably wrong. And claiming that it is inferior is blatently racism, which well.... Maybe *Truan* was too hasty, but it's not necessary to quote LE definition from SRD, I think. Exactly %50 of orcs are CE, maybe. Then there are NE-LE orcs. Anyway, do you know the difference between good (purity, altruism ) and evil(corruption, egoism)? Do you find easier being good or evil? according to DeD, common sense and world's cultures, the latter. We can decide that a significant amount of CE creatures aren't CE, nor E. Then we must read manuals: why should we follow them if every definition can be interpreted making them useless? I'm not saying that we must kill every E creature, DeD is not killing, is roleplaying, so AL have a precise value, and weight, while roleplaying. Paladins have detect E at will, however no one here would practically play them as mindless constructs who smash everyone with an evil aura, as soon as they see them. Is it a rule? something logic? no, common sense, stated in PHB and DMG. Do we need a rule for this? Unless we're constructs or computers, no. And attitudes like this are the reason the 50% of the orcs that aren't evil are trying to kill you anyway. Because his race has been hunted on sight for the actions of some clan years back that he never learned the name of. (That int penalty really hurts your Knowledge[History] checks.) But he is bright enough to realize when the humans come seeking XP and loot they aren't going to cast comprehend languages first, they're going to start shooting. And since D&D is won by initiative he's going to shoot first if he can. And his alignment can stay safely neutral (or even good if he's careful to stick to military targets) while doing so. Orcs are Gruumsh's tools, and they live to kill,destroy,rape... This assumption is a stereotype in real world, not so in fantasy games No one here says it's impossible to have non evil orcs, but, following manuals, it's really rare, enough to ignore it while discussing about morality in generic scenarios. Someone here said that evil is a necessity in ded to make things simple, true. Otherwise, authors would have had to write everything in form of rules, creating something even more stereotyped than My Little Ponies d20, sure Maybe that, with all those useless rules, no one would had complains, because you had never to use common sense, nor fantasy, just logic, how boring. Do you want not to use alignments as described in PHB,MM and other manuals? do it, but, until we discuss about them, please keep them, considering manuals, not SRD only. If you can use only SRD for alignments and moral questions, you can use math and logic for love and happiness in real world as well. If you really can do this latter thing, please leave this forum and copyright your method, you're going to subvert everything has been said about mankind for the last 3 centuries at least Ok, the topic of discussion (in that particular instance) is whether or not Animate Dead *should* be evil. (Meaning we're questioning the design decision). At which point we need to know how it *actually works*. If we all have different assumptions about how it works, we can't actually discuss whether or not it should be evil. My point is that, according to the rules regarding animate dead, there is no reason for it to be evil. Rules say animate dead is evil, so , the way it works must be evil Descriptions explain why animating dead is evil. Rules say undeads, especially mindless ones, are to be considered evil Descriptions explain why Who decided? well , a moralistic Christian moron at WotC. Which reasons are behind this choice? it fits fantasy sets a lot, and do not open further moral questions. Are there reasons not to accept this assumption?yes. Have they proven to be better? maybe. worse?maybe. useless? I think so. Why intelligent undeath is evil, despite that having int>3, considering SRD only*, means they have the ability to take decisions**, while mindless one isn't? If you say that mindless undeath isn't evil, why intelligent undeath is? * creature's AL is in SRD as well. ** which kind would be specified by AL, with some little exceptions The answer is: undeath is considered morally evil, and so are its products. Edit: I've just found out that Retrievers (MM-3.5) are extraplanar mindless constructs with CE alignment. They're made with "obscene magic rituals", undeads too, IIRC. I've checked errata,as well |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 10:44 AM | You hear that? Thats the sound of you *totally missing the point*. I didn't miss your point. I don't see it as relevant to ... anything, really. You use a lot of fancy words to say nothing at all. You don't understand the concept of good and evil, nor of a basic rule book. Either of which I don't have time to teach you. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Darn. :bored: |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 12:09 PM | I didn't miss your point. I don't see it as relevant to ... anything, really. You use a lot of fancy words to say nothing at all. You don't understand the concept of good and evil, nor of a basic rule book. Either of which I don't have time to teach you. :rofl: No seriously, are you here all week? I have a feeling it is you who don't understand good and evil. I'm going to try to explain it, because its really not that hard. Good and evil are value judgements. When we say something is good we presume an answer to the question: Good for whom? Things can only be good or evil with respect to an agent capable of pursuing those things. (Pursuit can be read here as trying to maintain, achieve, or acquire some value: an object, state of being, or condition. For shorthand, I am going to use 'pursuit' and 'value' in the following, but I mean this broader understanding of those terms.) So what are value judgements in an abstract sense? Given some value, a value judgement is an assessment of the worth of that value to the person doing the valuing. Different people can come to differing value judgements based on their needs, wants, and understanding. A set of value judgements constructs a value heirarchy. That heirarchy is a tiered set of values, from most good to least good (most evil), based upon a person's relative evaluation of the values it encloses. No two people's value heirarchy is the same - everyone places different importance on values like independence, equality, justice, etc.... Many people even find material objects (cars, cash, a house) to be more good than these abstract values (regardless of whether they *should*). And people make these judgements every day. Take for example the value honesty (others). A person who finds this value to be good will surround herself with friends that will be straight with her. However, there are certainly people who value the opposite. Anyone who prefers being told a lie rather than the truth is valuing dishonesty in others, even if they value honesty from themself. (For instance, if you want to be told you look great when you're overweight, you're valuing dishonesty in your friends). When two values are in conflict, a person chooses the one higher in his value heirarchy. A person might value honesty in others, but value making lots of money more. At which point they are willing to accept dishonest people in pursuit of the value that is more important to them. So what is evil? An value judgement of evil is rendered on anything which is anathema to something that you find to be good, and its relative evil-ness is directly proportional to some composite of the relative goodness of all your values it is anathema to. So a laissez-faire capitalist finds communism to be highly evil, and vice versa. A neutral value judgement is really a failure to render a preference between two ideas that are anathema to each other. Its not really a neutral judgement, its the absence of a judgement. And that's a basis for ethics. Its how good and evil work before we even get to the point of deciding what is good or evil. Ethics is the domain of arguing about how we *should* value things, not how we do. How we do value things is the subject of metaphysics. Now, in the above context, almost any attempt at an objective moral system is provably incoherent. The best two attempts are as follows, and both have serious problems: (A) Kantian Categorical Imperative: (paraphrasing) I will call no thing good unless I would simultaneously declare it to be universal law. (By law he means everyone doing it - law in the physics sense, not the legal sense). Please also note that the CI is not to be used by splitting hairs - you submit whole categories of actions to the CI for a judgement on the lot of them. You cannot separate things by difference in degree, only difference in kind. (All killing must be evaluated simultaneously. All theft must be evaluated simultaneously, etc... It should be noted that Kant did believe that having a soul constituted a difference in kind of creature, so killing animals is a difference in kind than killing people. Not all modern Kantians believe so). On Kant's use of the CI I direct you to his work Metaphysics of Morals (original is in German, translation not exact). This is what is known as a criteria for rendering a particular value judgement. If value x fails the CI test, it cannot be good. Problems: (1) the CI still requires value judgements in its use. Different people will be willing to declare different things "universal law", and thus no two people arrive at the same conclusion. Therefore the CI isn't really objective. (2) People believe various things about what constitutes a difference in kind, as already brought up above. Again, the CI cannot be objective unless there is some objective measure for what constitutes a difference in kind. (3) The CI creates a disjunct between desirable and good. Only things that are extremely "good" will ever be judged as good by the CI, leaving this wide gulf of things which are desirable (good in the metaphysical sense) but not good according to the CI. This approach can and does lead to nihilism, especially if an individual is more concerned with material objects than with high-minded ideals. (4) Kant's use and discussion of the CI contains a number of contradictions - but by all means, RTFM. (5) Keep in mind Kant is also the person who wrote Critique of Pure Reason, which is sort of a fancy exploration of the 'we could be brains in a vat plugged into a computer' problem. At which point, when you're uncertain that the consequences to your action are real, or even that you are acting at all, Kant's ethics become almost entirely intentional - and he's contradicting himself every time he says or implies otherwise! (B) Objectivism (Ayn Rand): This actually takes a long time to do any justice whatsoever, but the basic thrust of the matter is relatively straightforward. Basically, there are certain things that are required to live as a human being. Not just survive, because human beings have special capabilities (according to Rand), such as reason, and thus are capable of far more than mere survival. Rand's definition of living life as a human being can probably best be described as "allowed to live in a manner such that you are capable of self-actualizing." However, she also doesn't believe that anyone else should do any work for you - you have to achieve your values on your own. (She's a capitalist, after all - no free lunch and all that). So while she requires you to be capable of self-actualizing, she doesn't require anyone to help you get there. Her judgements of good and evil (and thus what she would like everyone else to believe are good and evil) are therefore based on a strongly individual rights (ie, Lockian) approach that maximizes a person's capability to make choices and act on them, and minimizes their security against making poor choices. Also notably, Rand defines altruism (=self-sacrifice, giving up a greater value for a lesser value) as evil. Problems: (1) Her definition of "live as a human being" is at least partially subjective. Different definition leads to different conclusion. (2) Even given that definition, it is possible to come to different conclusions about what good and evil are to a human being, although the scope of disagreement here isn't all that large. (3) The status of other animals isn't really discussed. If capacity for reason is the important part, might not some animals be deserving of similar consideration (most likely Dolphins, less likely some great apes). What happens when their requirements to live in a manner suitable to a rational being are contrary to a humans? (4) Contradiction: Rand assumes a minimalist state is necessary. However, she also finds the initiation of force to be evil (this is the person who's against taxes!). But the imposition of the sovereignty of such a state is still an initiation of force against its inhabitants. She even knows this is a contradiction, but she finds anarchy to be untenable. (Now, a contradiction might suggest the system fails - except there is no ethical system without a contradiction somewhere. Alternately, the contradiction isn't necessary - there is a large body of literature on Anarcho-Capitalism in theory and practice(!), which is more philosophically "pure", although still vulnerable to 1-3). What have we learned? Even the 'best' objective systems ever created aren't as objective as their author and adherents would like you to believe. They still require value judgements made outside the system before you accept their premise and agree with them. They also have places they break down. Finally, they rarely lead to agreement with conventional wisdom about what "good" and "evil" are (although Objectivism, for those who get past the "front door", comes to natural conclusions - its the people who don't buy the basic premises of objectivism who finds it comes to unconventional conclusions. The CI often comes to counter-intuitive conclusions, even if you want to believe in it.) |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 12:32 PM | ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ......................The CI often comes to counter-intuitive conclusions, even if you want to believe in it.) :zzz: |
| EvilIdiot03-03-07, 12:36 PM | Eh, squirrelloid, please, gather all the philosophers you cited, resurrecting those who are already dead. Then kill all them with a grenade. We're not in real world, for god's sake. And things you're reporting aren't' proven to be sensed, nor true, especially in an imaginary world . Do you think that, by studying those things, you got the real meaning of life,morality and such things? If so, have you ever thought to be crazy?or drugged? really. And, to quote you, aren't you appealing to some authorities? Authorities which have little in common with D&D general assumptions? Good and evil are value judgements. When we say something is good we presume an answer to the question: Good for whom? Things can only be good or evil with respect to an agent capable of pursuing those things. Not in DeD. In DeD there's no such relativism. Usually, when we talk about goodness in ded, we refer to PHB, where you can find lots of explanations. So what are value judgements in an abstract sense? Given some value, a value judgement is an assessment of the worth of that value to the person doing the valuing. Different people can come to differing value judgements based on their needs, wants, and understanding. In DeD, worth of things and actions are broadly defined, at least, by alignments, the ones you probably can't understand. End, period. Have you ever tried to read PHB?it's a little more descriptive, and thus clear, than SRD. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 12:40 PM | :zzz: I'm sorry, is an intelligent discussion beyond you? If you're going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. Otherwise, don't contribute to a discussion you are unwilling or unable to understand. |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 12:48 PM | I'm sorry, is an intelligent discussion beyond you? If you're going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. Otherwise, don't contribute to a discussion you are unwilling or unable to understand. I've already contributed my piece, and the only thing you said to counter that was "That doesn't count". Not really the most intelligent response ,but what was I expecting. :smirk: |
| Kresalak03-03-07, 12:52 PM | I've already contributed my piece, and the only thing you said to counter that was "That doesn't count". Not really the most intelligent response ,but what was I expecting. :smirk: In a debate, it is generally assumed that you will actually read your opponent's argument. |
| DarthMidget03-03-07, 12:56 PM | Squirelloid, while I appreciate your knowledge on ethics and morality it is irrelevant. Modern understanding of human interactions can only, ever, partially apply to D&D as it is. In the majority of D&D products certain things are good, and certain things are evil depending upon whether or not the rules say they are evil. This might not be an approach I necessarily agree with, but that's the way it is. Now, the main exception to this in D&D is Eberron. Since alignment and good and evil are relatively murky in Eberron such real-world intellectual conversations have much more validity. So, really, the question here is not what is good and evil in your, my, our, the entire board's opinion, but what is classified as good and evil according to the value system already inherent in the D&D rules? |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 12:57 PM | In a debate, it is generally assumed that you will actually read your opponent's argument. There is not much to debate. The spell is evil and the creatures are evil, with text background as to why and wherefor presented in other volumes. "But, oh if it ain't in the corebooks its not admissable!" (see the tiger's stripes). You can make houserules. You can make houserules about spells and creatures and change their alignments. You can't close your eyes to piles of contextual background information that was published so if you were interested in the subject matter you could read more about it and claim to be some sort of expert. ;) Edit: If you were interested in knowing why ;I would suggest the LM, HoH, BoVD, and possibly the CAr. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 12:59 PM | Eh, squirrelloid, please, gather all the philosophers you cited, resurrecting those who are already dead. Then kill all them with a grenade. We're not in real world, for god's sake. And things you're reporting aren't' proven to be sensed, nor true, especially in an imaginary world . Do you think that, by studying those things, you got the real meaning of life,morality and such things? If so, have you ever thought to be crazy?or drugged? really. And, to quote you, aren't you appealing to some authorities? Authorities which have little in common with D&D general assumptions? Nice use of ad hominem to respond to an argument by the way. Yes, anyone who tries to have a logical discussion of something must be crazy. When you'd like to discuss things rationally, make a post that actually has something to say. Not in DeD. In DeD there's no such relativism. Usually, when we talk about goodness in ded, we refer to PHB, where you can find lots of explanations. A lot of incoherent explanations. Unless you truly believe all adventurers must be evil because they kill things... :rolleyes: In DeD, worth of things and actions are broadly defined, at least, by alignments, the ones you probably can't understand. End, period. Have you ever tried to read PHB?it's a little more descriptive, and thus clear, than SRD. ... As already discussed, objective morality is incoherent. D+D doesn't even given any objective definitions of alignments or method by which to determine them. I've already quoted the rules to prove that LG and LE are really the same thing! (probably back a page or two now). You aren't even trying to defend the PHB definitions. I have read them, repeatedly. Heck, the PHB's Good vs. Evil section is identical to the SRD's, and the specific alignment descriptions only additionally include an example which makes it even more incoherent than it was without that example. First, remember: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. emphasis added. Alhandra, a Paladin who fights evil without mercy... In other words, she kills evil creatures. (Without mercy means she never accepts surrender or spares a defeated creatures life, so long as they are evil.) Do I really need to go on? Soveliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is chaotic good. Where to begin... I'll just leave you with this: is it only a good act because the baron is evil? If so, why are the taxes felt to be 'evil', or the tax collectors 'evil'. An evil baron is still perfectly capable of assessing taxes at a reasonable rate. Not every act of an evil character needs to be evil - maybe the "evil baron" is only evil because he tortures prisoners for pleasure - an activity which has nothing to do with the running of the barony or the assessment of taxes. Heck, he might be the subject of a N duke, who requires most of those taxes from his vassal, and so the baron is actually charging fewer taxes than he would be justified to, because he's keeping them near what the Duke demands from him. Removal of the "evil" baron may lead to higher taxes in the barony! Devis, a bard who wanders the land living by his wits, is chaotic neutral. This is priceless. Everyone take note - wandering and having wits are both chaotic neutral acts! All adventurers are C/N! The L/N and N alignment examples are identical... Ember "follows her discipline" and so is L/N. Mialee is "devoted to her art", and so is N. Huh? They're both devoted to something - those examples are *identical*. The evil alignments don't even give examples. Nor does N/G. Yup, thats the entirety of the difference between the PHB and the SRD on alignment. Wow that was enlightening. I feel stupider already from having re-read that. |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:10 PM | Yup, thats the entirety of the difference between the PHB and the SRD on alignment. Wow that was enlightening. I feel stupider already from having re-read that. You missed page 1. It said it is a game of imagination. Rules lawyering is the escape of mediocre players trying to cover up their lack of that. And you are wrong on another point. Reading makes you smarter, not stupider. Though you could be the exception. :thinks: |
| Kresalak03-03-07, 01:11 PM | You missed page 1. It said it is a game of imagination. Rules lawyering is the escape of mediocre players trying to cover up their lack of that. And you are wrong on another point. Reading makes you smarter, not stupider. So your argument is "it's just a game, so the rules don't actually apply"? |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:13 PM | So your argument is "it's just a game, so the rules don't actually apply"? Actually there is only one rule that does apply. The descriptor of the spell and creatures in question. Only one that should. |
| Kresalak03-03-07, 01:14 PM | So whether or not the rules are consistent or make sense at all doesn't matter? |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 01:16 PM | Actually there is only one rule that does apply. The descriptor of the spell and creatures in question. Only one that should. I hate to point out that those descriptors are meaningless if opposites are described as the same. Or, to quote my favorite Tick character, in D+D Bad is good baby! |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:16 PM | So whether or not the rules are consistent or make sense at all doesn't matter? That rule makes sense to me. You are allowed to make houserules, you know. |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:17 PM | I hate to point out that those descriptors are meaningless if opposites are described as the same. The opposites are not described as the same. Only to someone berift of empathy would say that. |
| Kresalak03-03-07, 01:20 PM | That rule makes sense to me. You are allowed to make houserules, you know. So your answer is to handwave everything and say "well, it makes sense to me"? |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 01:24 PM | The opposites are not described as the same. Only to someone berift of empathy would say that. Please re-read this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11652026&postcount=157), specifically the part where killing is evil and Alhandra the L/G Paladin fights evil without mercy. Alhandra is evil. No wait, she's good. No wait... *head explodey syndrome*. An objective ethical system has nothing to do with empathy, in fact, its often anti-empathetic. Heck, any ethical system has nothing to do with empathy. Empathy is the feeling you get that lets you know someone or something is in your moral circle (has moral worth to you and should be treated accordingly). (As opposed to what should be within your moral circle - these two are not necessarily the same. One is a statement of fact about your own actual feelings, one is a statement of "should" and subject to debate.) Everyone has empathy, not everyone has the same breadth of moral circle. Edit: I find it funny that I'm the one accused of lacking empathy, when I've been the one defending Orcs and the like as having moral worth... |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:25 PM | So your answer is to handwave everything and say "well, it makes sense to me"? One more time .... There are exceptions to some rules. Orb spells ignore SR. Dex penalties are not absent when flat-footed. And, zombies are evil. Most people would have just made that logical assumption. There are still a few that need it spelled out for them. :rolleye2: |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:29 PM | Please re-read this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11652026&postcount=157), specifically the part where killing is evil and Alhandra the L/G Paladin fights evil without mercy. Alhandra is evil. No wait, she's good. No wait... *head explodey syndrome*. Hey, you could look at that a few ways. Evil is implied thusly, but not absolutely. Evil is all three ,but not the component parts. Or, by killing evil mercilessly you are in fact helping people (the rest of the good description you seem to have overlooked). |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:31 PM | Edit: I find it funny that I'm the one accused of lacking empathy, when I've been the one defending Orcs and the like as having moral worth... No, defending any imaginary nemesis as being of moral worth is silly and pointless. Orc means 'bad guy' in every literal sense. Your just trying to be overly romantic about it. :looloo: |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 01:31 PM | Hey, you could look at that a few ways. Evil is implied thusly, but not absolutely. Evil is all three ,but not the component parts. Or, by killing evil mercilessly you are in fact helping people (the rest of the good description you seem to have overlooked). So if i only kill people, I'm not evil? Hot damn. Helping people... In that immediate instance, you certainly aren't helping the creature you refuse to accept surrender from. Who are you helping in any definable sense? Oh right, yourself... to their stuff... i forgot, killing people so we can loot the corpse is a time honored tradition for good people. |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 01:35 PM | So if i only kill people, I'm not evil? Hot damn. Helping people... In that immediate instance, you certainly aren't helping the creature you refuse to accept surrender from. Who are you helping in any definable sense? Oh right, yourself... to their stuff... i forgot, killing people so we can loot the corpse is a time honored tradition for good people. See, there you go again. How romantic. You really should keep in mind the total definition of an alignment instead of cherry picking the parts that support your argument. No, if you only kill people you are still evil, because you have yet to embody any qualities listed under good, (or neutral) and only one from evil. Again, most regular people would have been able to deduce that. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 01:37 PM | See, there you go again. How romantic. You really should keep in mind the total definition of an alignment instead of cherry picking the parts that support your argument. No, if you only kill people you are still evil, because you have yet to embody any qualities listed under good, (or neutral) and only one from evil. Again, most regular people would have been able to deduce that. So if I kill people, but I give money to charities, donate my time to building shelters for the homeless, and otherwise live an upstanding life I'm not evil? Seriously, you've already agreed in concept, now we're just haggling over price. Edit: I'm curious about your ethical system here. How many good deeds are required per person killed so that you remain good? How about per rape? Per act of theft? Are all good deeds equal, or are some worth more than others? Is there any action someone can't perform and remain good (price in #good deeds is infinite)? |
| EscherEnigma03-03-07, 01:58 PM | the exchange rate must be terrible. I mean, isn't one curse word normally worth at least three 'hail mary's? |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 02:01 PM | the exchange rate must be terrible. I mean, isn't one curse word normally worth at least three 'hail mary's? Now we know why Paladins are often played with the alignment Awful Good. They spend all of the time they aren't killing things trying to redeem themselves, and are thus generally miserable and feel the need to share that misery with others by lording their moral superiority over their companions. (Who rightfully think the paladin is a hypocrite). In all seriousness, I can't wait to see what Charlie comes back with. If its as funny as his last contributions, more chuckles can be had by all. (Hope you're enjoying this Enigma and Kresalak, I certainly am). |
| Kresalak03-03-07, 02:10 PM | So if I kill people, but I give money to charities, donate my time to building shelters for the homeless, and otherwise live an upstanding life I'm not evil? Seriously, you've already agreed in concept, now we're just haggling over price. Edit: I'm curious about your ethical system here. How many good deeds are required per person killed so that you remain good? How about per rape? Per act of theft? Are all good deeds equal, or are some worth more than others? Is there any action someone can't perform and remain good (price in #good deeds is infinite)? Like Frank explained in the "Alignment Sucks" thread, in D&D people like John Wayne Gacy are good or at least neutral. |
| Tiberia03-03-07, 04:46 PM | Killing Monsters is the Game. What else are we supposed to do? Protecting the innocent is a righteous act. The Magnificent 7/ the 7 Samurai ride into town, they tell the Villagers that killing Bandits is evil. They tell the Villagers that helping people is a good act. It will help the Bandits if the Villagers stand in a line, shortest at the front, tallest at the back. The Magnificent 7/ the 7 Samurai ride home with the smug self-satisfaction of a job well done; they drink herbal tea and eat lentils. Monster Manual defines Orcs as usually evil. They have INT>3 and can make moral choices. Most choose evil, some choose other alignments. Orcs who raid an innocent village are evil. Orcs who raid a village that raided their village first are just slaying Monsters. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 05:37 PM | Killing Monsters is the Game. What else are we supposed to do? Demand alignment rules that make sense? Or that alignment be stripped from the game and relativistic moral standards assumed? You can't have alignment rules that say killing is evil if you want good players to kill monsters, its that simple. Protecting the innocent is a righteous act. The who? Who is innocent? Of what? Talk about a relativistic standpoint. "X is innocent from my point of view, so I'm empowered to use lethal force to kill Y who attacked them!" "No, X is guilty of Y from my point of view, so you're evil for defending them!" The Magnificent 7/ the 7 Samurai ride into town, they tell the Villagers that killing Bandits is evil. They tell the Villagers that helping people is a good act. It will help the Bandits if the Villagers stand in a line, shortest at the front, tallest at the back. The Magnificent 7/ the 7 Samurai ride home with the smug self-satisfaction of a job well done; they drink herbal tea and eat lentils. Instead of killing the bandits, why don't the 7 Samurai (or whomever) go after the bandits, *subdue them*, and take them to the local constabulary? I mean, killing is not the only solution to problems. Monster Manual defines Orcs as usually evil. They have INT>3 and can make moral choices. Most choose evil, some choose other alignments. Orcs who raid an innocent village are evil. Orcs who raid a village that raided their village first are just slaying Monsters. "innocent" village. "The elves won't let us settle on the fertile land because we'd destroy some of their forest, and thus we've been relegated to this land next to the swamp for generations. Each year we lose 40% of our newborns to the swamp fever because we have to live here. We lose another 20% to malnutrition. Our adults sicken and die before their natural time. We have to abandon the infirm to die because we don't produce enough food to feed them. Its time we claimed that land by force for the health of our children!" Does that sound evil to you? I'm more inclined to side with the orcs on this one. Orcs are "usually evil" because they've been disenfranchised for basically forever, and thus get stuck on marginal land by the 'civilized' societies who feel no shame for basically making the orcs problem perpetual. The orcs have no choice but to fight for decent land. Evil? Not in any objective sense, only if you're one of those who considers the trees to have more moral worth than the orcs. |
| Pfisiar03-03-07, 06:48 PM | Killing can be good or evil, depending on what methods the killer, on who the killer kills, and the purpose of the killing. Killing the king to set up your own throne is chaotic evil. Killing the cruel king to set up the rightful ruler is chaotic good. Killing the king in a legitimate, traditional challenge is lawful. Killing the king because he attacked you first is nuetral. There are many shades of meaning, and yes, the alignment system is not perfect. Interpretation of the alignment system is part of the DM's job. If the alignment system isn't working in your game, it's the problem of the DM or the players, not the system itself. The PHB gives a good idea of how the alignments work and what they represent. Confining them to a strict, by-the-book set of rules does not work. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 06:57 PM | The PHB gives a good idea of how the alignments work and what they represent. Confining them to a strict, by-the-book set of rules does not work. Wow, you realize you managed to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next there. Seriously, the PHB gives you *no idea* what alignment is, because actions fall under mutually exclusive alignments simultaneously. Hence, you can't confine them to by-the-book rules because the rules are incoherent. Edit: Of course, if you actually bothered to read my previous posts you'd have known how bad the PHB is at explaining alignment. Its not like its my fault the PHB says "killing is evil". Period. |
| Pfisiar03-03-07, 07:04 PM | The PHB says killing the innocent is evil. "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." The act of killing is, itself, neither good nor evil. If killing someone will protect others, then it is not an evil act. However, if a killing is merely convenient or selfish in nature, then it is an evil act. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 07:17 PM | The PHB says killing the innocent is evil. "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." The act of killing is, itself, neither good nor evil. If killing someone will protect others, then it is not an evil act. However, if a killing is merely convenient or selfish in nature, then it is an evil act. Uh.. care to re-read your quote? I've bolded the relevant parts. Edit: Also, see my previous post on that problematic word "innocent". It doesn't mean anything, its never defined, and to quote the Word "I'm sure you've sinned against something..." More edit: Read the previous page of this thread to see why you can't just claim that sentence requires you to do all three. |
| Tiberia03-03-07, 07:52 PM | 1) Demand alignment rules that make sense? 2) Or that alignment be stripped from the game and relativistic moral standards assumed? You can't have alignment rules that say killing is evil if you want good players to kill monsters, its that simple. 3) The who? Who is innocent? Of what? Talk about a relativistic standpoint. "X is innocent from my point of view, so I'm empowered to use lethal force to kill Y who attacked them!" "No, X is guilty of Y from my point of view, so you're evil for defending them!" 4) Instead of killing the bandits, why don't the 7 Samurai (or whomever) go after the bandits, *subdue them*, and take them to the local constabulary? I mean, killing is not the only solution to problems. 5) "innocent" village. "The elves won't let us settle on the fertile land because we'd destroy some of their forest, and thus we've been relegated to this land next to the swamp for generations. Each year we lose 40% of our newborns to the swamp fever because we have to live here. We lose another 20% to malnutrition. Our adults sicken and die before their natural time. We have to abandon the infirm to die because we don't produce enough food to feed them. Its time we claimed that land by force for the health of our children!" Does that sound evil to you? I'm more inclined to side with the orcs on this one. Orcs are "usually evil" because they've been disenfranchised for basically forever, and thus get stuck on marginal land by the 'civilized' societies who feel no shame for basically making the orcs problem perpetual. The orcs have no choice but to fight for decent land. Evil? Not in any objective sense, only if you're one of those who considers the trees to have more moral worth than the orcs. 1) When RAW don't work, apply House Rules. 2) In Real World, Gravity and Electricity are physical forces of the Universe; Alignments are merely philosophical concepts. In Game World, Alignments are physical forces of the Universe; Gravity and Electricity can disappear with the wave of a wand. In Real World, the Bad Guys win; in Fantasy story, the Good Guys win. In Fantasy Game, both sides have a chance. 3) In Fantasy Game, the innocents are usually obvious. Sometimes DM throws a curved ball and makes bad guys appear innocent. 4) 7 Samurai has only been on TV once in my life. I can't quote that. Magnificent 7 is on all the time. It is specifically stated that the Lawful Authorities demand a huge bribe to protect the Village. 5) All God's children need land. In this example, Orcs need land, Elves need land, both sides are Neutral which confirms the point in the Monster Manual that some Orcs are not evil. The style of the propaganda is that the enemy are evil; this form of propaganda works best when the Audience is Good. This confirms the point in the Monster Manual that some Orcs are not evil. 6) I am a newbie, I don't know how to do multi quote properly. |
| Pfisiar03-03-07, 07:57 PM | An innocent has committed no act of evil, or one who has sued for mercy, or sued for aid. That is the simplest, most practical definition of the term as far as the game is concerned. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 08:00 PM | 1) When RAW don't work, apply House Rules. That's no excuse for the rules to be broken, nonsensical, or incoherent. 2) In Real World, Gravity and Electricity are physical forces of the Universe; Alignments are merely philosophical concepts. In Game World, Alignments are physical forces of the Universe; Gravity and Electricity can disappear with the wave of a wand. In Real World, the Bad Guys win; in Fantasy story, the Good Guys win. In Fantasy Game, both sides have a chance. In the real world, gravity always behaves the same. In D+D, alignment is so poorly defined that you can't predict how any given action is going to roll. I can predict precisely how fast an object will fall when gravity alone acts upon it. I can't predict *anything* with regards to alignment. Why do we need two sides where one is good and one is evil? Stories exist when two sides have competing interests. Neither of these sides needs to be evil (or good). 3) In Fantasy Game, the innocents are usually obvious. Sometimes DM throws a curved ball and makes bad guys appear innocent. The innocents from your point of view. There is always another point of view. 4) 7 Samurai has only been on TV once in my life. I can't quote that. Magnificent 7 is on all the time. It is specifically stated that the Lawful Authorities demand a huge bribe to protect the Village. I haven't seen either (ok, i think i've seen half of 7 Samurai), but if someone is going to deal with the bandits, there is no reason to kill them. Heck, if they capture them, disarm them, and arm the villagers, the villagers could put them to work in the fields as punishment for their crimes. Nothing in D+D requires you to kill your opponents. 5) All God's children need land. In this example, Orcs need land, Elves need land, both sides are Neutral which confirms the point in the Monster Manual that some Orcs are not evil. The style of the propaganda is that the enemy are evil; this form of propaganda works best when the Audience is Good. This confirms the point in the Monster Manual that some Orcs are not evil. But why are orcs usually evil? Because they tend to attack the "civilized" races. Of course, if you look at the relevant social pressures, suddenly you understand they aren't attacking them just to inflict pain and suffering, they're attacking because they have a desperate need for better land to support their population. (Otherwise known as show me a campaign world where orcs are "usually evil" and aren't limited to marginal land). |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 08:02 PM | An innocent has committed no act of evil, or one who has sued for mercy, or sued for aid. Wait wait, I know the answer to this one... Alhandra, a Paladin who fights evil without mercy... So according to you, Paladins can be evil? Or evil and good are the same? Because the PHB specifically says fighting evil without mercy makes you lawful good. |
| Pfisiar03-03-07, 08:07 PM | That sentence actually means that Alhandra is fighting the concept of evil without mercy. She is merciless with regards to the universal force of evil. She seeks to destroy all evil thoughts, without allowing evil thoughts or act to persist. Paladins give mercy to captured prisoners, but do not relent in their quest for good to conquer evil. That is what that sentance actually means. It's not the fault of WotC's writers that you ignored the object of that sentance. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 08:15 PM | That sentence actually means that Alhandra is fighting the concept of evil without mercy. She is merciless with regards to the universal force of evil. She seeks to destroy all evil thoughts, without allowing evil thoughts or act to persist. That makes no sense whatsoever. Paladins can't do *anything* about thoughts, aside from killing the thing thinking them. What a nice bit of sophistry there. Paladins give mercy to captured prisoners, but do not relent in their quest for good to conquer evil. That is what that sentance actually means. It's not the fault of WotC's writers that you ignored the object of that sentance. Evil is the object of the sentence, not the concept of evil. An evil creature is "evil", and thus fits nicely into that sentence. A demon is evil, and can be killed. (And the PHB does say killing is evil with no qualification as to who you kill.) I'm reminded of the X-Men comic when Storm told Wolverine to sheath his claws (shortly after she first became team leader), and told him "The X-Men do not kill". No exceptions. The PHB certainly suggests good is the same way. (Technically, as that's a clause in the sentence, evil isn't actually the object of the sentence, but hey, no need to split hairs.) Back to your original claim - if an innocent is one who has committed no evil act, thats rather circular - if X has committed no act that *you* find evil, then killing them is evil? Further, as soon as they commit one evil act they're no longer innocent? |
| Pfisiar03-03-07, 08:25 PM | You are arguing semantics. The intention of the alignments is clear. Good do not kill for personal reasons. Evil people kill for personal reasons. That is the intention of the rule. That's how it's supposed to work. |
| CharlieRock03-03-07, 09:55 PM | "innocent" village. "The elves won't let us settle on the fertile land because we'd destroy some of their forest, and thus we've been relegated to this land next to the swamp for generations. Do you have an innate need to be oppressed? Seriously, the example used an innocent village and you go tearing off into the horrible oppression that elves perpetrate on others. :uh-huh: Here: It's a world where 90% of the landmass (including the best parts) are run by orcs. Happy? Now will you get off this 'orcs are oppressed' high horse. It's annoying. Edit: Really, you'd think someone who was familiar with the technical terms for debate would curb that sort of bizarre behavior. It's almost like some form of Tourette's. Just randomly explodes with ,"but, the elves are oppressing people!". So if I kill people, but I give money to charities, donate my time to building shelters for the homeless, and otherwise live an upstanding life I'm not evil? Seriously, you've already agreed in concept, now we're just haggling over price. Indeed we may be haggling over price. There are quite a few 'good guys' that are called to kill in the line of duty. It's how society survived all these years. :teach: |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 10:02 PM | You are arguing semantics. The intention of the alignments is clear. Good do not kill for personal reasons. Evil people kill for personal reasons. That is the intention of the rule. That's how it's supposed to work. I don't know what they intended, because they totally failed to write alignment descriptions that make any sense. It never says "good can kill to protect the innocent" (whatever that would mean), it never says "good is distinquished from evil in that they don't kill for personal reasons". What it does say is "evil implies... killing others". Thats pretty black and white, and actually has real-world beliefs to back it up, so I'm totally willing to take it on face value. Except then they go and say other totally contradictory things. Its not like this is a choice between two positions, one of which is totally stupid. Its a choice between two (or more) positions, all of which have real-world philosophical support of one form or another, often religious. So don't tell me the intention is obvious - the intention is clear as mud. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-07, 10:09 PM | Do you have an innate need to be oppressed? Seriously, the example used an innocent village and you go tearing off into the horrible oppression that elves perpetrate on others. :uh-huh: Here: It's a world where 90% of the landmass (including the best parts) are run by orcs. Happy? Now will you get off this 'orcs are oppressed' high horse. It's annoying. Except there is no published campaign world like that. My claim (in the case of orcs) is they are only evil insofar as they are perceived as barbarians raiding 'civilized society', and they do so only insofar as published campaign worlds place them in a position where they have *no real alternative*. If we had a published world where orcs were a well-developed culture in command of suitable land for the development of 'civilized' society, they wouldn't be "usually evil". Indeed we may be haggling over price. There are quite a few 'good guys' that are called to kill in the line of duty. It's how society survived all these years. :teach: But the rules just say "killing is evil", not "killing is evil unless you have to". We're talking about excusing killing, for any reason, by doing sufficiently many good deeds. Or, as Kresalak said: in D&D people like John Wayne Gacy are good or at least neutral. Frankly, any world where that is true doesn't know a thing about good, and that's just ridiculous. "You fed 30 homeless today, you can knowingly commit an evil act without consequence." You're seriously telling me that actually sounds like "Good" to you? |
| *Truean*03-04-07, 12:31 AM | Incorrect. Wrong wrong wrong. Nonhuman does not mean a fundamental antipathy to all drives that humans have. It is impossible for anything other than a demon or devil to want "nothing but the destruction of all around him." The orc warrior kills for many reasons: land, loot, glory, or simply because his warlords have filled him to the brim with propaganda (this last is probably quite common), but never simply for its own sake. He is an intelligent, reasoning creature, and thus has analagous fears, hopes, and motives, admittedly through an orcish lens, as humans. What you describe--a species of psychopaths (I mean that in the clinical sense)--would have killed itself off and thus be an evolutionary dead end. Granted, I would have no qualms about toasting an orchish invading force with a couple of maximized fireballs, but a kill-on-sight approach of racial extermination would make me no better than the enemy I fight. You, sir, are discussing a world solely of absolutes. While I acknowldege that many times morality is absolute, I implore you to at least allow a modicum of nuance to intervene. Am I being scolded for using absolutes when the first four words of this post are ... absolutes...? I absolutely am usinig absolutes. I want to, and I'm correct in doing so. You don't agree? That's cool. I can do that repetitive word stuff too. Wanna see? "Correct, right, right, right. :)" This isn't an arguement. It's a marketing tactic.... Your reasoning is faulty because this isn't the real world: Evolution probably doesn't exist in D&D. The reason orcs haven't commited self geniocide with their psychotic minds and mindset is that adventurers need something to kill. If orcs go, then WotC has to replace them with something else. Actually, they've filled their "evolutionary" role exceptionally well as crazy psycho killers. We want them to use as pretend target practice. They suit that role well :P. Try not to take things too seriously. This is a game played at 3am on saturday nights with mountain dew and "attacking the darkness...." I am absolutely correct in this stance. Orcs wouldn't exist in D&D if they weren't working out as adventurer fodder. :) You think we'd all sit around and talk about nice squishy cuddley orcs? No.... "Awww, look at that, it's Squishy the Orc. He's everyone's favorite lil green tusked guy. Isn't he cute?" Come on... We made orcs like that for a reason.... This is their purpose. As for all orcs not being chaotic evil: Hurray, it doesn't matter. Each person has the choice to run away instead of following those orders or to just not follow them. This is a cop out on a massive scale.... "Well sorry little child, my orc warlord told me to kill everything in your village. I'm a Lawful Neutral orc so I have to follow orders. *Sigh* It's not my fault though.... I just can't think for myself and mindlessly conform. Too bad about you and your whole town having to die for it. " Huh? So let me see? If I'm spineless enough to follow the order to kill an entire village, then I get away with it completely? No matter the cost, everyone has a choice to disobey. You might get killed for doing it, but it might be worth it. Would you really wanna live if your life could only be paid for by killing innocents and waging war on other people "because the leader said so?" To me, choosing to exist on someone else's blood isn't a choice. I sacrifice everything I am the moment I choose that and what survives isn't me.... It's just a monstriousity.... Human beings don't stand for this for very long. Orcs have done it forever. They aren't stopping any time soon. They are evil.... (in action). As an endnote, this is not the real world. It is neither cute, nor cuddley. We made it violent. We made it bloody. We like it that way. If we didn't like it that way, it wouldn't have been made that way. Later Truean |
| Drodain03-04-07, 12:45 AM | Since when did DnD ever make sense? You just have to accept some things. That guy is evil. Ok. He can warp the world around him just by talking and waving his hands. Ok. You can be half dragon, half celestial, half elf. Ok. It's just the way it works. DnD doesn't have to make sense. You're playing it aren't you? |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-04-07, 12:59 AM | As for all orcs not being chaotic evil: Hurray, it doesn't matter. Each person has the choice to run away instead of following those orders or to just not follow them. This is a cop out on a massive scale.... "Well sorry little child, my orc warlord told me to kill everything in your village. I'm a Lawful Neutral orc so I have to follow orders. *Sigh* It's not my fault though.... I just can't think for myself and mindlessly conform. Too bad about you and your whole town having to die for it. " Huh? So let me see? If I'm spineless enough to follow the order to kill an entire village, then I get away with it completely? No matter the cost, everyone has a choice to disobey. You might get killed for doing it, but it might be worth it. Would you really wanna live if your life could only be paid for by killing innocents and waging war on other people "because the leader said so?" To me, choosing to exist on someone else's blood isn't a choice. I sacrifice everything I am the moment I choose that and what survives isn't me.... It's just a monstriousity.... Human beings don't stand for this for very long. Orcs have done it forever. They aren't stopping any time soon. They are evil.... (in action). As an endnote, this is not the real world. It is neither cute, nor cuddley. We made it violent. We made it bloody. We like it that way. If we didn't like it that way, it wouldn't have been made that way. Later Truean Blatent Mistake 1 - Assuming the Orcs are attacking a village. If an orc is attacking a village, then you are perfectly justified in killing him regardless of his alignment. But since this is a group of Chaotic Good orcs (which is just as likely by alignment rules as a camp of Chaotic Good Halflings), they weren't attacking your village. At least not until the first human assassination squad tried to wipe out their tribe for being orcs. Blatent Mistake 2 - Assuming the Orc race is any more connected then the human race. The acts of one tribe of orcs does not make the race as a whole guilty of a crime. I figure that's self explanitory. As for things being bloody, so? It's just as bloody when you admit that your evil. If it's not supposed to be cute and cuddly why do you care if your actions are evil? And as for everyone saying D&D doesn't have to make sense, that's true. But why insist on deliberatly ignoring one part of the alignment rules that does make sense? |
| Kresalak03-04-07, 01:41 AM | Since when did DnD ever make sense? You just have to accept some things. That guy is evil. Ok. He can warp the world around him just by talking and waving his hands. Ok. You can be half dragon, half celestial, half elf. Ok. It's just the way it works. DnD doesn't have to make sense. You're playing it aren't you? There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and accepting blatantly contradictory rules. If alignment wasn't a major part of both the setting and the rules, no one would care. But it is, and as such the fact that it doesn't make for a good game is important. |
| CharlieRock03-04-07, 08:08 AM | Except there is no published campaign world like that. Well, I'm sorry you need to be force-fed a published campaign setting. A well excercised imagination could remedy that. (You han't actually played in Blackmoor, Mystara, Aereth, or the Known Realms then as we can see.) My claim (in the case of orcs) Has no relevance since the above mentioned worlds have them populating large kingdoms of their own. Nor is this position supported by anything but assumption on your part. In contradicting fact ,the MM1 says they build large cities above and below ground. This is ,of course, dependant on the setting. But the rules just say "killing is evil", No, they don't. They say a lot more then just that. We're talking about excusing killing, for any reason, by doing sufficiently many good deeds. Your the only (or first) one to take portions of a definition out of context here. We're not talking about excusing any killing. You are. Others are talking about extenuating circumstanses. But since that makes sense; you are free to ignore it. Your deductions are nonsensical: "Good and evil are the same thing." "Elves are oppressing people! :crazy: " "This rule says this, so ..." "That rule doesn't make sense ..." "What's wrong with you people. Can't stand a logical intellectual debate?" Congratulations! You found an exception to a rule (concerning zombies and skeletons). You win a :cookie: ! But, there are more. So for the grand No-Prize you must find the rest before time runs out! :detect: |
| CharlieRock03-04-07, 08:18 AM | There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and accepting blatantly contradictory rules. If alignment wasn't a major part of both the setting and the rules, no one would care. But it is, and as such the fact that it doesn't make for a good game is important. It's only contradictory when taken in part. The alignment definitions say nothing about waking up and going to work. So I guess nobody does that. I wonder how things get made then ? :thinks: It also says at the end of each description that this alignment is best because ... So all of them must be the best alignments to have. :confused: It also says they reflect your character's general outlook, and are not to be considered straitjackets of behavior. (right at the very beginning, which you would have noticed if you took the whole article into consideration instead of cherry-picking only the bits that support your erroneous claim.) |
| Pfisiar03-04-07, 08:23 AM | The alignment system and rules make sense when you don't take one sentence out of context and imply that that one sentance describes everything that can ever occur in the entire system. |
| zvbxrpl03-04-07, 09:06 AM | Am I being scolded for using absolutes when the first four words of this post are ... absolutes...? I absolutely am usinig absolutes. I want to, and I'm correct in doing so. You don't agree? That's cool. I can do that repetitive word stuff too. Wanna see? "Correct, right, right, right. :)" This isn't an arguement. It's a marketing tactic.... Your reasoning is faulty because this isn't the real world: Evolution probably doesn't exist in D&D. The reason orcs haven't commited self geniocide with their psychotic minds and mindset is that adventurers need something to kill. If orcs go, then WotC has to replace them with something else. Actually, they've filled their "evolutionary" role exceptionally well as crazy psycho killers. We want them to use as pretend target practice. They suit that role well :P. Try not to take things too seriously. This is a game played at 3am on saturday nights with mountain dew and "attacking the darkness...." I am absolutely correct in this stance. Orcs wouldn't exist in D&D if they weren't working out as adventurer fodder. :) You think we'd all sit around and talk about nice squishy cuddley orcs? No.... "Awww, look at that, it's Squishy the Orc. He's everyone's favorite lil green tusked guy. Isn't he cute?" Come on... We made orcs like that for a reason.... This is their purpose. As for all orcs not being chaotic evil: Hurray, it doesn't matter. Each person has the choice to run away instead of following those orders or to just not follow them. This is a cop out on a massive scale.... "Well sorry little child, my orc warlord told me to kill everything in your village. I'm a Lawful Neutral orc so I have to follow orders. *Sigh* It's not my fault though.... I just can't think for myself and mindlessly conform. Too bad about you and your whole town having to die for it. " Huh? So let me see? If I'm spineless enough to follow the order to kill an entire village, then I get away with it completely? No matter the cost, everyone has a choice to disobey. You might get killed for doing it, but it might be worth it. Would you really wanna live if your life could only be paid for by killing innocents and waging war on other people "because the leader said so?" To me, choosing to exist on someone else's blood isn't a choice. I sacrifice everything I am the moment I choose that and what survives isn't me.... It's just a monstriousity.... Human beings don't stand for this for very long. Orcs have done it forever. They aren't stopping any time soon. They are evil.... (in action). As an endnote, this is not the real world. It is neither cute, nor cuddley. We made it violent. We made it bloody. We like it that way. If we didn't like it that way, it wouldn't have been made that way. Later Truean Your metagame assumption is that all worlds are run like this. Who's to say evolution does not exist? You could run Eberron-style deities in normal DnD, and have cleric magic work based on belief, but lose its power in the face of hypocritical rationalizations. But I digress. The point is that Core DnD varies wildly from group to group. Ultimately, all these arguments have no bearing. Nobody's going to persuade anybody because the flavor of the game is subjective. The only reason this thread continues is argument for its own sake. I can't stand stuff like that, and in retrospect, I should have stayed out of this. So long to this thread; it's going nowhere in a very heated manner. |
| EvilIdiot03-04-07, 09:17 AM | Nice use of ad hominem to respond to an argument by the way. Yes, anyone who tries to have a logical discussion of something must be crazy. When you'd like to discuss things rationally, make a post that actually has something to say. 1) I didn't say you're crazy. IF you think you've got the real meaning of life and goodness, by studying some philosophers (there are other ones who can tell the opposite you reported) you're beyond mankind,religions, and philosophy itself. Why? because you would be able to answer to the main questions about us: why we are, what we are,..... Mine was a provocation... 2)You said racism is wrong, I believe it too, but can you say why? You said you fight bigotry, can you prove it? Isn't it an ad hominem? I said we aren't in a real world, did you read it? nothing to say? It makes me think you actually believe to have got the meaning of life itself, as I already said. Nothing to say either? 3)You keep saying that our answers have fallacies, are illogical, and such. Why can you do so? Is it rational to decide not to answer others, just saying they're wrong? A lot of incoherent explanations. Unless you truly believe all adventurers must be evil because they kill things... :rolleyes: Everything you can't understand is wrong? As already discussed, objective morality is incoherent. D+D doesn't even given any objective definitions of alignments or method by which to determine them. I've already quoted the rules to prove that LG and LE are really the same thing! (probably back a page or two now). Not in DeD, and the fact you can't understand something does not mean it's wrong You aren't even trying to defend the PHB definitions. I have read them, repeatedly. Heck, the PHB's Good vs. Evil section is identical to the SRD's, and the specific alignment descriptions only additionally include an example which makes it even more incoherent than it was without that example. Descriptive text is much more than a single phrase. First, remember: Quote: Originally Posted by PHB "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. emphasis added. Quote: Originally Posted by PHB Alhandra, a Paladin who fights evil without mercy... In other words, she kills evil creatures. (Without mercy means she never accepts surrender or spares a defeated creatures life, so long as they are evil.) I already said that DeD is roleplaying. Trying to apply strict interpretation of words and statements is wrong, mainly because: current language is ambiguous, real life is ambiguous, D&D is based on assumptions, axioms you refuse ,since you're an anti-authoritarian utopist. This is not ad hominem: I'm saying that you're supporting your ideas by refusing authoritative assumptions, a trick, creating a utopist hierarchy of values. Roleplaying can't be strictly logic, otherwise it could be understood by automatons , computer. As I already said, your logic is perfect, as the one inside my computer. Is ded/real world based on it? no, fortunately Does it assure you to be always correct? no, there's something beyond logic. 'll just leave you with this: is it only a good act because the baron is evil? If so, why are the taxes felt to be 'evil', or the tax collectors 'evil'. An evil baron is still perfectly capable of assessing taxes at a reasonable rate. It's a brief description. Do you need a mathematical demonstration of why those particular taxes are evil? And, again, baron is evil because someone, phb, made such hypothesis. As orcs are evil, because someone made such hypothesis. Instead, when you read evil, you delete that word, and ask:"why?" For you, evil does not exist, because authorities said it does. Is this a rational, objective way of reasoning? I think it's childish,because you're aprioristically refusing something. Not every act of an evil character needs to be evil Oh, did you discover it? we did it as soon as we read phb. - maybe the "evil baron" is only evil because he tortures prisoners for pleasure - an activity which has nothing to do with the running of the barony or the assessment of taxes. ... Evil means, by manuals, that he does damage people, while he could do in a different way, by definition. This is priceless. Everyone take note - wandering and having wits are both chaotic neutral acts! All adventurers are C/N! Wandering== go anywhere for no special reason. Wandering is the main aspect of devis' life. The L/N and N alignment examples are identical... Ember "follows her discipline" and so is L/N. Mialee is "devoted to her art", and so is N. Huh? They're both devoted to something - those examples are *identical*. Oh, god. Current language is ambiguous, you need to comprehend contexts to understand them Ember follows her discipline because she thinks it's the best way to live for every one, more or less. Mialee studies magic for herself, because she likes so. So your argument is "it's just a game, so the rules don't actually apply"? I already said that strict logic can't apply completely to DeD and anything that has assumptions, and DeD has. You can find them in PHB and DMG, as descriptive text. Wow, you realize you managed to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next there. DeD is made of rules, descriptions ,assumptions and interpretation. You use only the first, so you're wrong. Its not like this is a choice between two positions, one of which is totally stupid. Its a choice between two (or more) positions, all of which have real-world philosophical support of one form or another, often religious. So don't tell me the intention is obvious - the intention is clear as mud. In real world, not in ded, as alignments and concepts are defined. Oh, guys, please, learn to interpret books, descriptive text and contexts. Do not only stop at the first word you would find useless(distinction between good and evil for example). |
| Leo03-04-07, 09:58 AM | I can't believe this. You acept that 99% of the rules of physics are thrown of the window, but you can't acept that the morality in D&D doesn't work the same way that it works in the real world. Seriously, you just get out of town, and you'll find endless streams of evil monsters. How come the entire civilization hasn't been wiped out? Who cares anyway? Just talk with your group about your definitons of good and evil in the begginning of the game, and then don't be a jackass trying to find ways to go around them. |
| MindLich03-04-07, 11:28 AM | It is completely different. "white people" and "black people" are the same species. Orcs and humans are different species, which means it is logically possible for them to have a completely different brain structure. Just like a monkey has a tail and a human doesn't. :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: |
| *Truean*03-04-07, 02:00 PM | Blatent Mistake 1 - Assuming the Orcs are attacking a village. If an orc is attacking a village, then you are perfectly justified in killing him regardless of his alignment. But since this is a group of Chaotic Good orcs (which is just as likely by alignment rules as a camp of Chaotic Good Halflings), they weren't attacking your village. At least not until the first human assassination squad tried to wipe out their tribe for being orcs. Blatent Mistake 2 - Assuming the Orc race is any more connected then the human race. The acts of one tribe of orcs does not make the race as a whole guilty of a crime. I figure that's self explanitory. As for things being bloody, so? It's just as bloody when you admit that your evil. If it's not supposed to be cute and cuddly why do you care if your actions are evil? And as for everyone saying D&D doesn't have to make sense, that's true. But why insist on deliberatly ignoring one part of the alignment rules that does make sense? Actually I made no blantant mistakes or mistakes at all: Orcs will probably attack a village. It's a sterotype that's correct. Almost every single game I've played in has the sterotypical orc raiders. You're mistake is invoking a sterotypical chicken and the egg arguement. This does not apply because you have 3 factors, not two. Yes, this uses the commonly accepted D&D mythology of 1st elves, then 2nd orcs, and finally humans. That's the creation order. "But my game doesn't work that way...." isn't a valid excuse or counterarguement. For all I know, your game has flying monkeys that are player races. Hurray, I'm sticking with the majority on this one, because you're subjective arguements make any logic impossible. The first step in logic is "Identification." If you loose that, then you loose everything. So that's what I'm identifying it as. Orcs and elves were at it before human ever came to the world. Whatever those two races may have doesn't enter into how orcs and humans get along (or don't). The orc existed in his blood thristy state long before humans existed in game. Seeing as the human didn't exist to shape the orc's behavior, said humand couldn't possibly be responsible for that. Further the orc's behavior are shaped by devine influence ... you know Grumish... the one eyed guy? He claims that all land belongs to the orcs and that they should take it by force.... I know they don't all worship him but the overwhelming majority do. The rest have little objection to it. As for number 2, no it isn't self explanatory. Everything in D&D comes from Lord of the Rings. Yes, yes, yes, I know that things split off and formed different things over the years. That's not the point. It's about tracing something back to its origins. It's a heck of a coincidence that we use all the races he did isn't it? WotC can't admit it (legally), but it's pretty much true. Again, please don't say, "but my game doesn't work that way..." or "so and so's game doesn't work that way." It doesn't enter into it. D&D came from LotR. Before that, Elves worked for Santa or were in norse myth, or were tiny lil forest tricky guys.They seem pretty united in there.... Well, except for that canbalistic part in the forest when the orcs are bringing the hobbits back to Mordor.... Being Bloody: This has everything to do with Orcs and D&D as a whole. We want things violent and bloody. No one started a game to debate the rights of the creatures they set up as target practice. D&D was written with orcs as imaginary target practice, this implies that their purpose is to be killed in your head as you sit around a table at 3 am with your friends. You tried a red herring and a distraction tactic. My arguement remains in tact. Orcs = imaginary target practice. Everyone here chose to play D&D. Why not monopoly? D&D has an entire page of weapons and weapon stats. In fact I believe it's multiple pages. Those weapons were intended to be used on something.... Monopoly has... no weapon characteristics.... You could probably kick somebody with the shoe or something but they'd look at you really really funny.... The point is that the game is bloody and orcs are designed to bleed... on an adventurer's sword and or other weapon you picked out.... Ignoring the part of the alignment rules that do make sense: Which part would that be again? Heated? Man, it's just a discussion.... This is supposed to be recreational. It is for me. Isn't it for you? Later Truean |
| Squirrelloid03-04-07, 08:03 PM | First, an open challenge - find anywhere in the alignment rules where it specifically says any kind of killing is a good act or even a N act. Quote me that passage. Because we all know where it says killing is evil. It makes no exception, anywhere. And mechanically there are ways to battle monsters without killing them (ie, knock them unconscious). Of course, then you couldn't take their stuff and still be good, because that would be stealing, but one problem at a time... This is really an important part of the pro-alignment viewpoint here, is that you're assuming there can be extenuating circumstances but thus far no one has demonstrated that the rules actually support that. I'll remind you that, in your own words "its not the real world" and "real world philosophy has no place here." Ok, so prove it in D+D terms, that there can be extenuating circumstances for killing. Because it 'seems right' to you is not good enough. Second, the pro-alignment viewpoint here is really arguing from a "the text is infallible" viewpoint. In fact, because the only side that is actually referencing the text is the "alignment as written doesn't make sense" side, its doubtful the pro-alignment side actually understands what the alignment rules say. Otherwise they would *quote the rules* and show how the alignment doesn't make sense side was wrong. Saying 'my understanding makes sense' doesn't mean alignment as written makes sense - I can't argue the imagined text in your head, I can only argue what's on paper. Arguments made without reference to whats in the book I will hereafter consider irrelevant to the question of what alignment in D+D is claimed to be by the rules (which really is the issue at hand). 1) I didn't say you're crazy. IF you think you've got the real meaning of life and goodness, by studying some philosophers (there are other ones who can tell the opposite you reported) you're beyond mankind,religions, and philosophy itself. Why? because you would be able to answer to the main questions about us: why we are, what we are,..... Mine was a provocation... Thanks for admitting you violated the CoC. I don't think I have all the answers, but at least I have a framework within which I can understand and evaluate the question. Which is important since its a question that comes up every day. 2)You said racism is wrong, I believe it too, but can you say why? You said you fight bigotry, can you prove it? Isn't it an ad hominem? I said we aren't in a real world, did you read it? nothing to say? It makes me think you actually believe to have got the meaning of life itself, as I already said. Nothing to say either? Racism and bigotry is wrong because it judges people by arbitrary features of their appearance, not by their actions. Having black skin or being an orc says nothing about the kind of person you are. Further, as a consequentialist, I realize that discriminating against people for arbitrary reasons potentially eliminates the best ideas for solutions to problems. The more people that are considered capable of contributing to a solution for something, the more likely the best solution will be reached, or that the quality of the solution reached will be better than otherwise. Hence bigotry reduces the average quality of solutions to problems, regardless of what sort of problem we're talking about. Are you actually going to disagree with me? Or are you just being ridiculous? 3)You keep saying that our answers have fallacies, are illogical, and such. Why can you do so? Is it rational to decide not to answer others, just saying they're wrong? There is no need to answer a fallacious argument. By committing a fallacy it has guaranteed it has no merit. As fallacies are easily looked up online, I see no reason to describe them other than to name them. You are welcome to look them up and try to explain why you haven't committed that fallacy, at which point I will either conceed that it wasn't fallacious or demonstrate how it was. Everything you can't understand is wrong? Incoherent does not mean I don't understand it. In fact, I have to understand (know what they said) in order to find it incoherent. Incoherent means a system fails to make sense as described, usually because it is contradictory. Not in DeD, and the fact you can't understand something does not mean it's wrong If objective morality is incoherent in general, it cannot be coherent in a specific instance. (Try using a Ven Diagram: If all objective moral systems are incoherent, then objective moral system x is inconsistent for all x). If you wish to debate the coherency of objective moral systems, I refer you to my post here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11651634&postcount=149). Descriptive text is much more than a single phrase. Please try re-reading the passage of mine you quoted, and your argument that it was responding to. To whit, you told me to read the PHB section, because it had stuff different than the SRD. I responded that the only difference between the SRD and PHB on alignment was the PHB had an example for some of the alignments. I'd already extensively quoted the SRD text. Therefore, the difference between the SRD and the PHB on the subject of alignment really is a few 'single' phrases, and I quoted or paraphrased all of them. And you have yet to quote any text whatsoever, outside of what you've quoted me quoting. I already said that DeD is roleplaying. Trying to apply strict interpretation of words and statements is wrong, mainly because: current language is ambiguous, real life is ambiguous, D&D is based on assumptions, axioms you refuse ,since you're an anti-authoritarian utopist. This is not ad hominem: I'm saying that you're supporting your ideas by refusing authoritative assumptions, a trick, creating a utopist hierarchy of values. (1) That is an ad hominem - my personal beliefs have no bearing on my arguments, which would be equally true or false if made by a die-hard stalinist or a fascist. (The fact that they wouldn't make many of these arguments is irrelevant). (2) Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Look it up on wikipedia. They'll even explain why its a fallacy. (3) Providing argument is not a trick. Its how you debate. I can't debate someone who's major argument is "X says this", because I'm not X, and X might very well say that. That doesn't make X right, it just means X said that. (There is no authority that isn't capable of being wrong. This is why providing argument is important, because then the value of that argument can be judged). Roleplaying can't be strictly logic, otherwise it could be understood by automatons , computer. As I already said, your logic is perfect, as the one inside my computer. Is ded/real world based on it? no, fortunately Does it assure you to be always correct? no, there's something beyond logic. The actual act of roleplaying is not strictly logic. However, evaluating the morality of a given action needs to be strictly logic in an objective moral system, otherwise its *not objective*. Please look up the word objective in a dictionary if you doubt me. It's a brief description. Do you need a mathematical demonstration of why those particular taxes are evil? And, again, baron is evil because someone, phb, made such hypothesis. As orcs are evil, because someone made such hypothesis. Instead, when you read evil, you delete that word, and ask:"why?" For you, evil does not exist, because authorities said it does. Is this a rational, objective way of reasoning? I think it's childish,because you're aprioristically refusing something. I agree, the Baron has "evil" written on his character sheet, and has done something to deserve that. None of this necessarily makes his *taxation policy* evil, nor does it make the *tax collectors* evil. So unless you want to argue that all taxation is evil in D+D (and good luck supporting that one, though you could do it with some real world philosophies), there is no reason to believe, from that example, that Soveliss is actually good. In fact, it might make him evil, because he's causing harm to the tax collectors (even if he only knocks them out, he knows they're going to suffer because of his actions). Oh, did you discover it? we did it as soon as we read phb. The PHB says every act of an evil character must be evil? Uh... Would you care to provide evidence for that? No really. And talk about the stupidest campaign world ever. Having evil on your character sheet automatically means you eat babies, sacrifice virgins, and can't do a single good or neutral act in your life? Not only is there 0 support for this in the rules, it totally violates every shred of common sense any person has. No one can be evil all the time. How do you go to the bathroom evilly? Or get dressed evilly? If you can't, then clearly evil characters don't need to behave evilly all the time. Evil means, by manuals, that he does damage people, while he could do in a different way, by definition. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Thats the definition of evil in the PHB. If you do any of those things, you're evil. End of sentence. Wandering== go anywhere for no special reason. Wandering is the main aspect of devis' life. So the Paladin who wanders the land looking for wrongs to right and good deeds to do is suddenly C/N? Seriously, that description of Devis describes all adventurers. Oh, god. Current language is ambiguous, you need to comprehend contexts to understand them Ember follows her discipline because she thinks it's the best way to live for every one, more or less. Mialee studies magic for herself, because she likes so. No, she follows her discipline because she thinks its the best for *her* to do. Monks aren't required to proselytize. Similarly, Mialee studies magic because she thinks its the best for *her* to do. Identical examples. I already said that strict logic can't apply completely to DeD and anything that has assumptions, and DeD has. You can find them in PHB and DMG, as descriptive text. Rules are by definition a set of logical propositions that let you evaluate the consequences of actions that are defined by the game. (To whit: "moves") Thats what rules are. Now, how you determine which actions you take can be decided by whim, intuition, coolness factor, or anything else you want, but the consequences follow logically from them according to the rules. Why have rules if you don't follow them? DeD is made of rules, descriptions ,assumptions and interpretation. You use only the first, so you're wrong. First, this doesnt excuse blatantly contradicting yourself. (Or whomever it was originally). A contradiction implies you've made an error that makes your conclusion wrong, because one or more of your premises are unsound. Therefore your argument fails. Basic rules of argument construction. There is no reason to accept two contradictory statements as true - they can't be. Its *impossible*. Second, descriptions = flavor text unless they behave as described above under rules, in which case they are rules. Assumptions are the axioms of the rules, and are explicitly written into them. There can be no other assumptions, because there is no way for everyone to magically know what those assumptions are. You can't have assumptions that aren't explained. Interpretation of rules is done by comprehension of text and analysis of its outcome as applied to specific situations. If rules are fuzzy, its a flaw in the rules, but then *differences* in interpretation might effect how you decide the consequences, but all such interpretations must have textual support or *they are wrong*. End of story. Now, actually playing the game involves a lot of dynamics that aren't described by the rules at all. (eg, roleplaying, social contract issues, etc...). But none of these require the invocation of the mechanics of the game to determine consequences, and are thus totally independent of the rules. In real world, not in ded, as alignments and concepts are defined. Totally missing the point. Given real world support of all viable interpretations of the rules (and many inviable interpretations), there is no reason to prefer any of them from an intuitive perspective or a common sense perspective, and every reason to choose the one that the text best supports. In the case in question, the text supports the position that all killing is evil. QED. Oh, guys, please, learn to interpret books, descriptive text and contexts. Do not only stop at the first word you would find useless(distinction between good and evil for example). I could ask the same of you. I've analyzed basically the entire alignment section at this point - its a whole ~3 pages long, this isn't hard. Just because I haven't quoted *all* the text doesn't mean I've left out material which directly contradicts my points. If I have, you're welcome to quote them in response to my previous arguments. |
| Squirrelloid03-04-07, 08:08 PM | I can't believe this. You acept that 99% of the rules of physics are thrown of the window, but you can't acept that the morality in D&D doesn't work the same way that it works in the real world. Seriously, you just get out of town, and you'll find endless streams of evil monsters. How come the entire civilization hasn't been wiped out? Who cares anyway? Just talk with your group about your definitons of good and evil in the begginning of the game, and then don't be a jackass trying to find ways to go around them. Did you miss the all the discussion about how alignment as written doesn't make any sense? If not, how do you expect people to try to understand alignment without using a real world perspective? I mean, the rules are useless. Talking about good and evil with your group => using real world criteria. Which I agree isn't especially useful iff you want alignment to be objective (like the rules claim it is), because almost no one in the real world subscribes to a truly objective moral system. Finally, if the monsters are going to be evil, they have to do "evil" things, otherwise alignment becomes totally arbitrary, and good and evil can mean anything. (Not that they don't already as written in the PHB, but thats a counter-intuitive result that shouldn't be true.) |
| Squirrelloid03-04-07, 08:14 PM | The alignment system and rules make sense when you don't take one sentence out of context and imply that that one sentance describes everything that can ever occur in the entire system. Great. Put up or shut up. Where does it give reasons for killing that make the act of killing not evil? Claiming I took a sentence out of context is a lot easier than proving it. It also doesn't mean anything. Provide some evidence or you're just wrong. (Note, having repeatedly read that section of the PHB at this point, *I* can find no text which supports some killing being not evil. So good luck, but I doubt you'll be able to disprove the claim that the PHB states all killing is evil.) |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-04-07, 09:05 PM | This whole orcs: born evil or not debate reminds me of a Star Trek convention I attended many many years ago. A couple of friends and I were listening to James Doohan talk. (he was a load of fun and excellent speaker before he got sick) During the question/answer an over the top Trekkie nerd stood up and started asking him "why in episode blah blah didn't you blah blah the dilithium crystals and blah blah etc." Mr. Doohan looked at the guy and said "because it was in the script". Orcs are usually evil because they are written that way. You can go into all of this relativistic morality vs objective morality b.s. all you want. You can over analyze it all you want. But the bottom line is that they are the way they are because it's a game and we need bad guys. The game is meant to be a fun time. If I wanted dwell on the whole good/evil is relative issue, I would be RPing a game that explores how the Israelis segregate Palastinians into ghetto's or some other morally ambiguous scenario. (and yes I'm Jewish, not all Jews are blindly pro Israel) |
| *Truean*03-04-07, 09:45 PM | To ElberethSilverleaf, Thank you, that's pretty much my point about the orcs being invented as "bad guys." We made/ invented those figments of our imagination for that reason. Squirrelloid: If objective morality is incoherent in general, it cannot be coherent in a specific instance. Out of curiousity and as politely as I can, how did you reach the conclusion that objective morality is incoherent? Am I missing something when you say that it is wrong to judge a person by something of no consequence, like say skin color? I'm in perfect agreement with that point. It's completely wrong to say that a person is good/bad because of an exterior trait. This is a non subjective point isn't it? It is absolute and does not vary. Ergo, isn't that objective? It doesn't matter what culture you're in, doing whole "racist thing" is wrong. Where's the subjectivity in that? I say that it is objectively wrong to judge a book by it's cover. Further, it's objectively correct to judge a person by their actions. Isn't that the whole gist of MLK's "I have a Dream" speech? Isn't, "To be judged, not by color of their skin, but content of their character" an objective point? To judge something implies that there are objective standards against which one is judged. Here the standards appear to be behaviorally based as opposed to exteriorly based (skin color). Subjective standards have historically been bad haven't they: "One law for the king and another for the commoner," "One law for natives and another for colonists?" I'm in no way attempting to be inflamatory here, but I don't see how what you're saying isn't objective. An absolute principal (anti discrimination) is objectivist in nature. Peace out, Truean |
| Squirrelloid03-04-07, 09:55 PM | To ElberethSilverleaf, Thank you, that's pretty much my point about the orcs being invented as "bad guys." We made/ invented those figments of our imagination for that reason. Squirrelloid: Out of curiousity and as politely as I can, how did you reach the conclusion that objective morality is incoherent? Am I missing something when you say that it is wrong to judge a person by something of no consequence, like say skin color? I'm in perfect agreement with that point. It's completely wrong to say that a person is good/bad because of an exterior trait. This is a non subjective point isn't it? It is absolute and does not vary. Ergo, isn't that objective? It doesn't matter what culture you're in, doing whole "racist thing" is wrong. Where's the subjectivity in that? I say that it is objectively wrong to judge a book by it's cover. Further, it's objectively correct to judge a person by their actions. Isn't that the whole gist of MLK's "I have a Dream" speech? Isn't, "To be judged, not by color of their skin, but content of their character" an objective point? To judge something implies that there are objective standards against which one is judged. Here the standards appear to be behaviorally based as opposed to exteriorly based (skin color). Subjective standards have historically been bad haven't they: "One law for the king and another for the commoner," "One law for natives and another for colonists?" I'm in no way attempting to be inflamatory here, but I don't see how what you're saying isn't objective. An absolute principal (anti discrimination) is objectivist in nature. Peace out, Truean You know, if you read two sentences farther, you'd have seen the link to the post where I argued that objective morality is incoherent. On racism/bigotry/whatever: Its not objective. It requires making particular value judgements. If you don't make them, I might well conclude you're wrong and/or evil, but that doesn't make you *objectively* wrong, just wrong from my point of view. That's an important distinction. I'm even entitled to argue my point of view is the best, but its still subjective unless you agree with my axioms. When the axioms are in contention, nothing can be concluded. (It doesn't matter how many people believe some value judgement is the correct one. # of people doesn't say anything about the objectivity of a statement, as clearly evidenced by the number of times the majority is often wrong historically. (For instance - the sun revolving around the earth, lamarckian evolution, etc...). |
| CharlieRock03-04-07, 10:09 PM | Great. Put up or shut up. Where does it give reasons for killing that make the act of killing not evil? "Fights evil mercilessly" It also says that neutral characters with regard to good have compunctions against killing the innocent. But, you'd be required to make a logical deduction there. Don't hurt yourself. |
| *Truean*03-04-07, 10:32 PM | Squirrelloid Hey Squirrelloid, wow that was pretty quick :). You know, if you read two sentences farther, you'd have seen the link to the post where I argued that objective morality is incoherent. On racism/bigotry/whatever: Its not objective. It requires making particular value judgements. If you don't make them, I might well conclude you're wrong and/or evil, but that doesn't make you *objectively* wrong, just wrong from my point of view. That's an important distinction. I'm even entitled to argue my point of view is the best, but its still subjective unless you agree with my axioms. When the axioms are in contention, nothing can be concluded. (It doesn't matter how many people believe some value judgement is the correct one. # of people doesn't say anything about the objectivity of a statement, as clearly evidenced by the number of times the majority is often wrong historically. (For instance - the sun revolving around the earth, lamarckian evolution, etc...). I did in fact read two sentences farther. I read your entire arguement and everything you've posted to date on this thread from the time I joined. I have made no assumption as to what you have or have not read, please do the same for me.... I picked up that you were a little tense. Are you? I'm not attempting to threaten your belief system. I was very polite in my post or at least thought I was. Have I done something to upset you? If so then I missed it. The comment you're refering to is the one about logic? If not, then please point me in the right direction as I would like to handle this properly: The actual act of roleplaying is not strictly logic. However, evaluating the morality of a given action needs to be strictly logic in an objective moral system, otherwise its *not objective*. Please look up the word objective in a dictionary if you doubt me. First, I think we have some differences on the definition of an Axiom. An Axiom is given and truthful no matter what. Euclid thought that geometry was composed of axioms, but those were just theories. The only axioms that exist were thought up by Aristotle (primarily) For example: A is A: "Identity." A thing is what it is. Existance exists.... This is true by it's very nature and because the opposit is absurd. "Existance doesn't exist? A is non A? A thing is not what it is?.... *blink... blink* The opposit does not compute.... So it's an axiom. Value judgements can in fact be objective. I don't see why you're listing this against objectivity. If a person's actions meet a given criterion/criteria, then they are good. If they fall short of that, then they aren't. Assign points to actions with negative for bad and positive for good. Anything above the cut off point is good... anything below is not. This is objective math.... Is it not? The individual instances of behavior and people may vary, but so long as the standards by which they are judged remain the same, then it is objective. Would they not be objectively sorted into groups if such a system could be devised? Is not judging an objective process so long as the standards remain fixed? Sort into catagory A or Catagory B... above or below the line of acceptability.... Roleplaying logic? Do you state that roleplaying is not logic? I would argue that it is logic, but with some of the rules changed. If a given spellcaster meets a given criteria then they can cast fireball. Certain laws of physics may change, but those new laws remain constant within the system of the game. The fact that individual games vary doesn't enter into it because within that one individual game, the rules are set. The rules are how "so and so DM" does it. It is merely defined into a smaller catagory in a different "reality." I admit the terms may be a bit confusing as they reference non real objects, actions, and characters, but the underlying assumptions remain the same. All that has changed is the definitions of what is possible. It's not like there's complete chaos or something. Once I'm in "So and So DM's" game and learn his rules, he's not going to suddenly change every single thing on me is he? Up becomes down and down becomes up? Huh? On racism/bigotry/whatever: Its not objective. It requires making particular value judgements. If you don't make them, I might well conclude you're wrong and/or evil, but that doesn't make you *objectively* wrong, just wrong from my point of view. That's an important distinction. I'm even entitled to argue my point of view is the best, but its still subjective unless you agree with my axioms. When the axioms are in contention, nothing can be concluded. I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean? I do hope I'm very lost here.... How can racism or bigotry be correct in any point of view? If someone is racist then they are wrong without question. Further they are wrong objectively and not just in my point of view. Where is it ever ok to be racist towards anyone? No one can disagree about racism being wrong and still be "correct." To do so is to argue that racism is right.... which is incorrect. No one has the right to be racist.... which is an objective principal.... It is unbending and absolute.... It doesn't matter who a given person is, any racism is wrong. Perhaps I grossly misinterpreted that. I very much hope I did. (It doesn't matter how many people believe some value judgement is the correct one. # of people doesn't say anything about the objectivity of a statement, as clearly evidenced by the number of times the majority is often wrong historically. (For instance - the sun revolving around the earth, lamarckian evolution, etc...). Your final point refers to an argument ad numerum. This is factored out by the very nature of objectivism. You're correct that it doesn't matter how many people like something with an objective prinicipal.... Objective is unchanging and absolute no matter what people think of it.... A is A. No one took an opinion poll about that one.... Thanks again for your time Squirrelloid. I'm finding this is great practice for my debates. I'm actually enjoying myself. Thanks again for your time, Truean |
| Squirrelloid03-04-07, 11:05 PM | Squirrelloid Hey Squirrelloid, wow that was pretty quick :). I did in fact read two sentences farther. I read your entire arguement and everything you've posted to date on this thread from the time I joined. I have made no assumption as to what you have or have not read, please do the same for me.... I picked up that you were a little tense. Are you? I'm not attempting to threaten your belief system. I was very polite in my post or at least thought I was. Have I done something to upset you? If so then I missed it. The "here" at the end of the sentence two sentences later was hyperlinked. Here's the link:http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11651634&postcount=149. I'm hardly upset or tense, it just galled me a little bit that it was right there and you seemed to have missed it. First, I think we have some differences on the definition of an Axiom. An Axiom is given and truthful no matter what. Euclid thought that geometry was composed of axioms, but those were just theories. The only axioms that exist were thought up by Aristotle (primarily) For example: An axiom is something that is *assumed* to be true absolutely, not that is true absolutely. I don't know where to find Truth. As far as I know, it doesn't exist. A is A: "Identity." A thing is what it is. Existance exists.... This is true by it's very nature and because the opposit is absurd. "Existance doesn't exist? A is non A? A thing is not what it is?.... *blink... blink* The opposit does not compute.... So it's an axiom. I'm going to agree with you its an axiom, because it *cannot* be proven. Plenty of philosophers haven't agreed though - read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, many of the Surrealist philosophers, and a number of others to boot. Heck, I'm also going to agree with you that its a good axiom to assume. This doesn't mean anything about its objective truth, merely that I agree that it is something that should be assumed. The fact that we assume it means it has not been proven. (Nothing can be proven from first principles without some first principles. What those are is up to the people having the discussion.) Value judgements can in fact be objective. I don't see why you're listing this against objectivity. If a person's actions meet a given criterion/criteria, then they are good. If they fall short of that, then they aren't. Assign points to actions with negative for bad and positive for good. Anything above the cut off point is good... anything below is not. This is objective math.... Is it not? The individual instances of behavior and people may vary, but so long as the standards by which they are judged remain the same, then it is objective. Would they not be objectively sorted into groups if such a system could be devised? A value judgement assumes someone doing the valuing. That automatically makes it subjective. Further, any criteria you choose for evaluating some value is also subjective, because you chose it. Other criteria could arrive at other value judgements. Even math isn't perfectly objective because it requires axioms. Mathematicians might assume the Axiom of Choice, and then everything they prove following that is true so long as the Axiom of Choice holds. However, they could equally well assume the Axiom of Choice wasn't true, and prove totally different things in that system. Mathematicians have in fact done both. (The Axiom of Choice is equivalent to Zorn's Lemma, and effectively states that the real numbers are well-orderable, if i remember correctly. Sounds like common sense, but they can't prove it, and interesting results have been found by assuming it wasn't true). Is not judging an objective process so long as the standards remain fixed? Sort into catagory A or Catagory B... above or below the line of acceptability.... Except everyone prefers different standards. As long as you need actors to be doing the evaluation, the process is subjective. Roleplaying logic? Do you state that roleplaying is not logic? I would argue that it is logic, but with some of the rules changed. If a given spellcaster meets a given criteria then they can cast fireball. Certain laws of physics may change, but those new laws remain constant within the system of the game. The fact that individual games vary doesn't enter into it because within that one individual game, the rules are set. The rules are how "so and so DM" does it. It is merely defined into a smaller catagory in a different "reality." I admit the terms may be a bit confusing as they reference non real objects, actions, and characters, but the underlying assumptions remain the same. All that has changed is the definitions of what is possible. It's not like there's complete chaos or something. Once I'm in "So and So DM's" game and learn his rules, he's not going to suddenly change every single thing on me is he? Up becomes down and down becomes up? Huh? Let me distinguish between using the mechanics (rules) of D+D and roleplaying. The mechanics are a logical system within which any two people should be able to arrive at the same conclusion. (Divergence in conclusions reflects either a flaw in understanding of the evaluators or a flaw in the rules themselves). These determine the consequences of actions. However, the mechanics don't dictate what those actions are. A character with Fireball and Blink prepared might choose to cast either one or none based upon whatever strategy they are using, or based on no strategy at all. They might think Blink looks cool, that Fireball will be effective, or that running away is the best action. Whatever metric they use, it doesn't need to be logical - they could flip a coin to decide their action! The act of roleplaying is in deciding what actions to make. Many times these won't interact with mechanics at all - such as when the characters are deciding whether to go investigate the mysterious keep or whether to go present themself to the mayor to see if he needs any help (or similar). When the action does have mechanical implications, the rules do determine the consequences of those actions, but the rules did not force those actions to occur. It is the conscious decision-making process that constitutes roleplaying - the rules exist to tell you what happens. I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean? I do hope I'm very lost here.... How can racism or bigotry be correct in any point of view? If someone is racist then they are wrong without question. Further they are wrong objectively and not just in my point of view. Where is it ever ok to be racist towards anyone? No one can disagree about racism being wrong and still be "correct." To do so is to argue that racism is right.... which is incorrect. No one has the right to be racist.... which is an objective principal.... It is unbending and absolute.... It doesn't matter who a given person is, any racism is wrong. Perhaps I grossly misinterpreted that. I very much hope I did. Well, no point of view *I* agree with. But that is a subjective judgement on my part. I would certainly try to persuade anyone with such an attitude that they were wrong. Sometimes I'll succeed and sometimes I'll fail. But none of that suggests that its objectively wrong, no matter how strong my conviction. I can't even say I understand any viewpoint which finds racism to be ok. I don't. But I am not omniscient and I certainly don't establish objective truth. And anyone who tells you they do is deluded, lying, or both. (No matter how strongly held a conviction is, there is no way of knowing whether it is True in an objective sense. Truth with a capital T is unknowable.) Your final point refers to an argument ad numerum. This is factored out by the very nature of objectivism. You're correct that it doesn't matter how many people like something with an objective prinicipal.... Objective is unchanging and absolute no matter what people think of it.... A is A. No one took an opinion poll about that one.... Thanks again for your time Squirrelloid. I'm finding this is great practice for my debates. I'm actually enjoying myself. Thanks again for your time, Truean And objectively true things cannot be proven so. Now, in the case of the sciences we can formulate hypotheses and see how closely they confirm with real data. We can never conclude that, say Evolution, is True, but we can conclude its more likely than every other hypothesis we know of. This is a probabilistic statement. And even Science makes some axiomatic assumptions which bias the types of conclusions it can reach - for instance, science assumes that reality as we perceive it is real and sensory data conveys real information. There have been plenty of philosophers who would dispute this (though its basically equivalent to A is A for sensory data) - and science will never disprove that we are really just brains in vats being fed data by a computer. In the case of ethics, we can't even collect data. What kind of hypotheses can you make and what kind of data could you collect? Any testing mechanisms assumes a criteria by which "good" is defined, such as "number of people fed", or "amount of harm averted", and some of these aren't even measurable (how do you define harm? Is it incidences of harmful activity or some sort of value assessed to each harmful action - how do you determine the values?) People are going to disagree because all of these steps are subjective, based upon differences in value judgements and value priorities between people. |
| Squirrelloid03-04-07, 11:13 PM | "Fights evil mercilessly" As an example, that hardly has weight against an absolute statement, especially when it never says anywhere killing evil is a good act. Examples are supposed to be just that, examples of the preceeding less concrete text, not establishing new ground on their own. May I suggest you look up the definition of "example"? I'll also note that statement creates another contradiction, in that L/E characters are the ones who judge by things like racism, but that blatantly states that its ok for a L/G character to discriminate. Its probably the worst line in the alignment section. (Correction, the worst is the example of C/N, which implies all adventurers are C/N. That one only rates second worst by comparison). It also says that neutral characters with regard to good have compunctions against killing the innocent. But, you'd be required to make a logical deduction there. Don't hurt yourself. Lets keep this straight, N characters don't kill "the innocent". Now, ignoring for a moment what that means, keep in mind N characters commit good and evil acts. So a N character *can* kill (commit an evil act), he just does some good as well. The only thing this implies is killing "the innocent" is more evil than killing otherwise, not that killing otherwise isn't evil. |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 08:02 AM | As an example, that hardly has weight against an absolute statement, What absolute statement would this be? The one you made up ; "Killing is evil." Or, the one the book actually says, that killing implies evil behavior. Implies means that there is room for exceptions. An alien concept to you ,I know. Exceptions work like this. "All even numbers are not prime numbers." Now here is the exception: "The number two (2) is a prime number". Now do you understand? Thought not. There are several exceptions in the corebooks of D&D: *It states nowhere that dead PCs are unable to cast spells or fight. *It states nowhere that tigers have stripes (or fur). *It states nowhere that orcs occupy only desolate terrain. May I suggest you look up the definition of "example"? I am quite familiar with the english lexicon. You would do well to establish the same knowledge. (Correction, the worst is the example of C/N, which implies all adventurers are C/N. That one only rates second worst by comparison). Indeed. Your show a lack of commanding grasp for the english language. It is stated that wandering aimlessly is the example for CN. But, even in your own rebuttal : So the Paladin who wanders the land looking for wrongs to right and good deeds to do is suddenly C/N? You have included a goal. Thus you could not apply this to wandering 'aimlessly' as you have an aim and a goal. The only thing this implies is killing "the innocent" is more evil than killing otherwise, not that killing otherwise isn't evil. Your use of this word indicates familiarity. Yet, you fail to use it in the definition of evil. Purposefully being obtuse? That's no excuse for the rules to be broken, nonsensical, or incoherent. Then what is your excuse? "The elves are oppressing people!" (Otherwise known as show me a campaign world where orcs are "usually evil" and aren't limited to marginal land). You show a remarkable disdain for all things non-core so far in this thread. Yet, show me where in the corebooks it says that orcs are marginalized. First, an open challenge - find anywhere in the alignment rules where it specifically says any kind of killing is a good act or even a N act. Quote me that passage. Then show me an absolute statement with regard to killing being evil. Try not to imply anything. We want to be 100% certain. And now I'll take shifted goalposts for $1,000: Seriously, the PHB gives you *no idea* what alignment is, because actions fall under mutually exclusive alignments simultaneously. Hence, you can't confine them to by-the-book rules because the rules are incoherent. Prior to your "it must say it for it to be so" crockery you were knee deep into "evil and good are indestinguishable". |
| Pfisiar03-05-07, 09:21 AM | If the PHB was meant to imply that all killing is evil, the cleric spell Implosion would be classified under the Evil spell domain. Since it is classified under the destruction domain, the spell itself, which only has the purpose of killing creatures, is not inherently evil. Since the spell is not inherently evil by the game rules, then the action created by the spell is not inherently evil. Consider also that the spell Holy Word kills and maims evil creatures. If Killing was inherently evil, then the Good domain would not have access to spells that can kill. Thus, killing is not inherently evil in D&D. Bah, this is doing no good. |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 09:47 AM | Consider also that the spell Holy Word kills and maims evil creatures. If Killing was inherently evil, then the Good domain would not have access to spells that can kill. Thus, killing is not inherently evil in D&D. Bah, this is doing no good. Hey! Finger of death isn't evil ,either. It is [death] and in necromancy school, but not [evil]. And Wee Jas (LN deity, allowing LG to be clerics) has the death domain, gaining death touch. |
| Leo03-05-07, 09:52 AM | yeah, because D&D is fullof logic:rolleyes: You can gain infinite money by selling iron pots as raw iron. John Mc John is at -8. Trow him into water and he starts drowning, thus geting at -1.Wait, wasn't drowning suposed t be something negative? Druid? wizard? Cleric? They are nothing. Especially when every commoner has the potentical to become pun-pun if he chooses his skills wisely. The BBEG will never just teleport to your party while you are still asleep and lv1 and kill you all. You never find red ancient wyrms when you are tsill lv1 as well. Strange since red ancient wyrms love to eat lv1 people. Your nonmagical component pouch never runs out of anything. |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 10:43 AM | What absolute statement would this be? The one you made up ; "Killing is evil." Or, the one the book actually says, that killing implies evil behavior. But killing is only listed under evil. By implies it means you don't have to do all of those things (or necessarily any of those things - its not an exhaustive list) to be evil. But doing *any* of them makes you evil. Evil implies killing is not the same as killing implies evil. If the second statement was made, you'd be correct. Implies means that there is room for exceptions. An alien concept to you ,I know. See above. Exceptions work like this. "All even numbers are not prime numbers." Now here is the exception: "The number two (2) is a prime number". Now do you understand? Thought not. There is no exception to "All even numbers are not prime numbers". its a true statement. It claims there exist some even numbers which are not prime numbers. If it claimed "No even number is a prime number" it would be a false statement, because 2 is prime. The truth value of a statement is assessed without exception - a single counter-example and its false. There are several exceptions in the corebooks of D&D: *It states nowhere that dead PCs are unable to cast spells or fight. *It states nowhere that tigers have stripes (or fur). *It states nowhere that orcs occupy only desolate terrain. The first is an oversight in the rules. It should. The second is solved by *looking at the picture*, which clearly has stripes. All 3.x published campaigns (with the possible exception of eberron) have marginalized orc populations. Mystara wasn't even 2nd edition, it was D+D. Is it core? no. But there is no reason in core why orcs are evil. Indeed. Your show a lack of commanding grasp for the english language. It is stated that wandering aimlessly is the example for CN. But, even in your own rebuttal : You have included a goal. Thus you could not apply this to wandering 'aimlessly' as you have an aim and a goal. But devis doesn't "wander aimlessly", he "wanders the land". Thats not necessarily aimless. Yes, we can change the meaning of lots of sentences if we imagine words into them. Furthermore, looking for stuff to do is not a goal, its looking for a goal, which is virtually the definition of aimless. I mean, by your implication, having any reason to wander makes it 'not aimless', which means you'd have to be brain-dead to wander aimlessly. Your use of this word indicates familiarity. Yet, you fail to use it in the definition of evil. Purposefully being obtuse? See above. Also, you didn't even respond to what I said - I'll take it that means you agree with me that the passage in question doesn't say its a neutral or even good act for a N person to kill non-"innocent" people, merely that killing the innocent is more evil (and thus more likely to push his alignment into E), which is why he has qualms about it? Then what is your excuse? "The elves are oppressing people!" I used that as an *example* of how a lot of published campaign worlds are portrayed if you look at them from an orcs perspective. Also, what the heck does this have to do with the statement you replied to? That has nothing to do with _rules_ being broken, etc..., merely demonstrating how morality in D+D really is subjective, even if they tell you its objective. You show a remarkable disdain for all things non-core so far in this thread. Yet, show me where in the corebooks it says that orcs are marginalized. You know, I've referenced published campaign settings, I do believe they are not Core. Try FR, Greyhawk, Dragonlance - they all have marginalized orc populations. (Won't swear to Eberron offhand). What I do refuse to accept is any non-core material that changes how Core behaves, because all splatbooks only assume you own the core books, and thus nothing else can use those rules. Especially not rules from Dragon. I mean, your position is basically that you have to have a subscription to Dragon to use the core rules - ridiculous. Further, the alignment rules have to be complete and sensical as presented in the Core books, because it is a core concept. (If you don't want to talk about published campaign worlds in that context, then I submit there is no reason to believe orcs are evil in Core except that it labels them as such. Given that there are plenty of mathematical mistakes in the monster entries, anything that can't be independently reconstructed is put in doubt). Then show me an absolute statement with regard to killing being evil. Try not to imply anything. We want to be 100% certain. And now I'll take shifted goalposts for $1,000: See above (evil implies vs. killing implies). How is it a shifted goalpost? I can't wait to hear the explanation on this one. Show me a post where I have maintained anything other than the PHB claims all killing is evil. I have shown where the PHB contradicts itself on this repeatedly, but that doesn't mean I'm letting the PHB off the hook. Prior to your "it must say it for it to be so" crockery you were knee deep into "evil and good are indestinguishable". And they still are. Check out the L/E description that I quoted a few pages back in the context of L/G. Second, given killing is evil, since the L/G example clearly condones killing, then L/G is evil. That makes the alignments indistinguishable. If the shoe fits... And that's how rules analysis works. If it isn't stated, it isn't true in that rules system. |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 10:49 AM | But killing is only listed under evil. By implies it means you don't have to do all of those things (or necessarily any of those things - its not an exhaustive list) to be evil. But doing *any* of them makes you evil. First off, the MM1 has no picture of the tiger :P Second, no that is not how you read that sentence. "Evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others." You could look at that as exclusive domain of that alignment, but in the context of the rest of the whole book, it doesn't make sense. You could look at it as what it says. Evil implies certain behavior, but not absolutely. There were several examples there for you, you just chose to ignore them. |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 10:50 AM | If the PHB was meant to imply that all killing is evil, the cleric spell Implosion would be classified under the Evil spell domain. Since it is classified under the destruction domain, the spell itself, which only has the purpose of killing creatures, is not inherently evil. Since the spell is not inherently evil by the game rules, then the action created by the spell is not inherently evil. Consider also that the spell Holy Word kills and maims evil creatures. If Killing was inherently evil, then the Good domain would not have access to spells that can kill. Thus, killing is not inherently evil in D&D. Bah, this is doing no good. Don't you get the point? Examples of killing which aren't defined as evil, when the rules say "evil implies... killing others" means the rules contradict themself repeatedly. You're just providing additional evidence for my point. No amount of examples changes the fact that "evil implies... killing others" without qualification. Now, its not that all characters who kill are evil - some will be Neutral because they do sufficiently many good acts to keep from being evil. But being Good and killing things, especially on a regular basis? According to the alignment rules that's impossible. Also, just because casting the spell isn't [evil] doesn't mean some given instance of casting the spell wouldn't be an evil act, or quite possibly the spell actually working (they fail their save) is an evil act, even if casting it wasn't. In fact, according to the rules that is exactly what happens - you can cast implosion all you want, but for every person you kill you've committed an evil act. Aside from the fact that this is a game about stabbing things in the face, which makes the given definition of evil somewhat at odds with how people expect the game to play (which is a design problem), there is nothing odd about morality. Does Spider-Man kill? Ok, he has a few times - and he's felt terrible about it afterwards every time. He feels killing is wrong, even when he's locked in mortal combat with his foe. Not only is "killing is evil" not a terrible proposition for an alignment system, it is workable in a combat oriented game. Knock them out and tie them up. (Of course, then you can't take their stuff, because that would be stealing, but you're a good guy - them's the breaks.) Edit: Also note - killing *others* is evil, i suppose you could kill yourself without any moral implications in D+D... I'd have to go re-read implosion, but if you're a legal target, killing yourself with it is a N act. Silly, I know... |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 10:53 AM | But devis doesn't "wander aimlessly", he "wanders the land". Thats not necessarily aimless. wan·der [won-der]verb (used without object) 1. to ramble without a definite purpose or objective; roam, rove, or stray: to wander over the earth. 2. to go aimlessly, indirectly, or casually; meander: The river wanders among the rocks. :rolleye2: |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 10:53 AM | First off, the MM1 has no picture of the tiger :P Well, I guess that means 2 things are true. We can go by the DMG which tells us to refer to the realworld unless it contradicts the rules, and look up a real picture of a tiger. Or tigers don't have stripes in D+D because we can't reference the real world. Either conclusion is acceptable to me. Second, no that is not how you read that sentence. "Evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others." You could look at that as exclusive domain of that alignment, but in the context of the rest of the whole book, it doesn't make sense. You could look at it as what it says. Evil implies certain behavior, but not absolutely. There were several examples there for you, you just chose to ignore them. If the alignment section came out and said "A good character can kill when lives are at stake", I'd agree with you, but killing is *only* associated with evil according to the alignment rules. Evil implies you have done some of a set of behaviours, one of which is killing others. Thus, if you have killed others, you have committed evil acts (your alignment may not be evil yet - it could very well be neutral - but those acts were just as evil). Edit: wan·der [won-der]verb (used without object) 1. to ramble without a definite purpose or objective; roam, rove, or stray: to wander over the earth. 2. to go aimlessly, indirectly, or casually; meander: The river wanders among the rocks. Emphasis added. Looking for good deeds to do is not a *definite* purpose. Its no less aimless than going about looking for fun. See my previous argument - by your use of aimless you must mean all C/N characters are braindead. |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 10:55 AM | No amount of examples changes the fact that "evil implies... killing others" without qualification. You mean no amount of examples you will accept. You are closed-minded. |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 10:58 AM | Also, just because casting the spell isn't [evil] doesn't mean some given instance of casting the spell wouldn't be an evil act, or quite possibly the spell actually working (they fail their save) is an evil act, even if casting it wasn't. Your stretching credulity. Past the breaking point. Making nonsense. Business as usual for some people, I guess. |
| CharlieRock03-05-07, 10:59 AM | Looking for good deeds to do is not a *definite* purpose. OMG you are truly and persistantly dense. |
| Pfisiar03-05-07, 11:04 AM | The PHB also says that protecting others is an act of good. Killing a demon bent on wiping out a large city is not an act of evil. It is an act of protecting the city. It is an act of good. The real motivation for an act is all that matters. It doesn't matter if the alignment section is worded poorly. You play the rules as they were intended. |
| Kresalak03-05-07, 11:10 AM | Your stretching credulity. Past the breaking point. Making nonsense. Business as usual for some people, I guess. So that means I can go around using Fireball to wipe out villages, and it's not evil because the spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor? |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 11:19 AM | Your stretching credulity. Past the breaking point. Making nonsense. Business as usual for some people, I guess. Translation: I don't actually have an argument. Are guns evil? No. Is using a gun evil? No. Can you kill people with them? Yes. The evil is in the act of killing (or attempting to do so), not in the act of using the gun. Perfectly logical, and a perfect analogy to a spell capable of killing someone. OMG you are truly and persistantly dense. Nice ad hominem. Translation: I can't actually think of a reason he's wrong, so I'm going to insult him instead. Response: Huh? Ok, give me an example of someone actually wandering aimlessly? How is your implication not that any such person is braindead because they can't have any purpose whatsoever. They aren't looking for fun, or adventure, or food, or something new, because those are all the same type of thing as looking for good deeds. How am I making nonsense? Its your claim which is totally ridiculous. (What makes good deeds special that *looking for the possibility of them* is any more purposeful than looking for anything else?) You mean no amount of examples you will accept. You are closed-minded. Note that argument from example doesn't prove anything. Especially when your opponent is arguing that those very examples contradict the rules they are supposed to be examples of. The sentence is pretty absolute. If you perform actions from a particular set, including the following (hurting, oppressing, killing), you are doing evil. Period. No amount of examples changes the text of the things they are supposed to be examples of. That they fail to actually be examples of the text they reference (explicitly as in the examples in the alignment section or implicitly as in other parts of the text which should have alignment implications) makes them faulty examples. It doesn't magically add text to the alignment section. That's not being closed-minded. That's knowing how to read. The PHB also says that protecting others is an act of good. Killing a demon bent on wiping out a large city is not an act of evil. It is an act of protecting the city. It is an act of good. So you perform an act of good by protecting the city, and an act of evil by killing the demon. Sounds like a neutral character according to the rules. You had options other than killing the demon, including (1) banishing it, (2) subduing it. Neither of those would have killed it, both would have protected the city. The real motivation for an act is all that matters. It doesn't matter if the alignment section is worded poorly. You play the rules as they were intended. Rules as intended means "Rules as I want them to read". I don't know what was intended. Heck, the statement 'killing is evil' is a perfectly reasonable moral stance to take - let me repeat myself: Aside from the fact that this is a game about stabbing things in the face, which makes the given definition of evil somewhat at odds with how people expect the game to play (which is a design problem), there is nothing odd about morality. Does Spider-Man kill? Ok, he has a few times - and he's felt terrible about it afterwards every time. He feels killing is wrong, even when he's locked in mortal combat with his foe. Not only is "killing is evil" not a terrible proposition for an alignment system, it is workable in a combat oriented game. Knock them out and tie them up. (Of course, then you can't take their stuff, because that would be stealing, but you're a good guy - them's the breaks.) There are plenty of fictional "good" characters who refused to take an enemies life, and when they did or had to they felt guilt over having done it, and often took action to make up for it. (ie, atoning) How do we know that isn't what the authors intended? Its reasonable from examples of good characters in fiction. Its reasonable from real-world philosophy. Its *what they wrote*. Why should I decide they intended otherwise? |
| Pfisiar03-05-07, 01:03 PM | Protecting the village by slaying a demon is a singular act. You are preserving the sanctity of life by preventing wonton desctruction. By slaying the demon, you are performing an act of good. By your definition, the PHB says that hurting anyone and interfering with anyone is an act of evil. And that to be good, a player must do nothing. That is not what the PHB rules on alignments say and that is not how they intended to work. I don't give a damn about your fixation on one sentance in the PHB. The alignment rules, as widely interpreted and applied by the majority of D&D players, makes sense. |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 01:35 PM | Protecting the village by slaying a demon is a singular act. First, the ends don't justify the means. Second, they are most definitely separable, because you could have *not slain the demon* and protected the village at the same time, as discussed in my previous post. Since you chose to protect the village by slaying the demon, you deserve to suffer the repercussions of that decision. Its not like the rules provide no alternative to killing your enemies... You are preserving the sanctity of life by preventing wonton desctruction. By slaying the demon, you are performing an act of good. You could have not slain the demon - see above. By your definition, the PHB says that hurting anyone and interfering with anyone is an act of evil. And that to be good, a player must do nothing. Don't put words in my mouth. "Interfering" with someone is not listed as belonging to any alignment, and I never said it was. There is clearly a difference between "interfering" and killing. That is not what the PHB rules on alignments say and that is not how they intended to work. I don't give a damn about your fixation on one sentance in the PHB. The alignment rules, as widely interpreted and applied by the majority of D&D players, makes sense. Its the only sentence that directly addresses the morality of killing. If its not what the PHB rules on alignment say, *actually quote some rules on alignment* that say otherwise. And nice ad numerum fallacy - the number of people who believe something doesn't make them right. The majority can and has been wrong. (Unless you want to play Mage, but thats a totally different topic altogether). On intended to work: Rules as intended means "Rules as I want them to read". I don't know what was intended. Heck, the statement 'killing is evil' is a perfectly reasonable moral stance to take - let me repeat myself: Aside from the fact that this is a game about stabbing things in the face, which makes the given definition of evil somewhat at odds with how people expect the game to play (which is a design problem), there is nothing odd about morality. Does Spider-Man kill? Ok, he has a few times - and he's felt terrible about it afterwards every time. He feels killing is wrong, even when he's locked in mortal combat with his foe. Not only is "killing is evil" not a terrible proposition for an alignment system, it is workable in a combat oriented game. Knock them out and tie them up. (Of course, then you can't take their stuff, because that would be stealing, but you're a good guy - them's the breaks.) There are plenty of fictional "good" characters who refused to take an enemies life, and when they did or had to they felt guilt over having done it, and often took action to make up for it. (ie, atoning) How do we know that isn't what the authors intended? Its reasonable from examples of good characters in fiction. Its reasonable from real-world philosophy. Its *what they wrote*. Why should I decide they intended otherwise? Either answer that, or stop bringing up "how it was intended to work". Honestly, repeating the same points without refuting arguments against them *doesn't work* in a debate. |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-05-07, 01:47 PM | Orcs will probably attack a village. It's a sterotype that's correct. Almost every single game I've played in has the sterotypical orc raiders. Orc Standard Alignment: Often chaotic evil Based on this... 1 - The rules state that 50% of Orcs are not Chaotic evil. 2 - Those that are not Chaotic Evil will have an alignment (absolute in D&D) 3 - That alignment is Chaotic Good for some percentage (likely true for say 5% of the population) 4 - Those orcs do not raid innocent villages, because otherwise they would cease to be Chaotic Good. (Circular yes, but alignment is a circular bit anyway. You're Good because you commit good acts and you commit good acts because you like being good) That your DM house rules orcs to Always be Chaotic Evil, or the fact that you never encounted one of the good orc tribes (because that would be a fairly dull encounter) does not change the fact that the rules state that such tribes almost certainly exist. You're mistake is invoking a sterotypical chicken and the egg arguement.This does not apply because you have 3 factors, not two. Yes, this uses the commonly accepted D&D mythology of 1st elves, then 2nd orcs, and finally humans. That's the creation order. "But my game doesn't work that way...." isn't a valid excuse or counterarguement. For all I know, your game has flying monkeys that are player races. Hurray, I'm sticking with the majority on this one, because you're subjective arguements make any logic impossible. The first step in logic is "Identification." If you loose that, then you loose everything. So that's what I'm identifying it as. This isn't true for many existing campaign settings, but it doesn't matter for this arguement so I won't bother reaserching them. Lets say your right. Orcs and elves were at it before human ever came to the world. Whatever those two races may have doesn't enter into how orcs and humans get along (or don't). The orc existed in his blood thristy state long before humans existed in game. Seeing as the human didn't exist to shape the orc's behavior, said humand couldn't possibly be responsible for that. Yes humans are not responsible for how the orcs turned out. Nor are orcs responsible for the actions of their predesessors. Alignment cares about what you do. So even if both your parents are LE, you could still end up being LG, (or more likely LN). Further the orc's behavior are shaped by devine influence ... you know Grumish... the one eyed guy? He claims that all land belongs to the orcs and that they should take it by force.... I know they don't all worship him but the overwhelming majority do. The rest have little objection to it. Prove those last 2 sentances please. Hamans have a racial god too you know. Yeah, that one in races of Destiny. How many people worship that guy? How many players even know his name? For that matter do you? As for number 2, no it isn't self explanatory. Everything in D&D comes from Lord of the Rings. Yes, yes, yes, I know that things split off and formed different things over the years. That's not the point. Actually it's totally the point. The rules have changed. Being Bloody: This has everything to do with Orcs and D&D as a whole. We want things violent and bloody. No one started a game to debate the rights of the creatures they set up as target practice. D&D was written with orcs as imaginary target practice, this implies that their purpose is to be killed in your head as you sit around a table at 3 am with your friends. You tried a red herring and a distraction tactic. My arguement remains in tact. Orcs = imaginary target practice. Everyone here chose to play D&D. Why not monopoly? D&D has an entire page of weapons and weapon stats. In fact I believe it's multiple pages. Those weapons were intended to be used on something.... Monopoly has... no weapon characteristics.... You could probably kick somebody with the shoe or something but they'd look at you really really funny.... The point is that the game is bloody and orcs are designed to bleed... on an adventurer's sword and or other weapon you picked out.... So? What in this mess changes the fact that the rules say there are non evil orcs somewhere? You don't want to deal with hard issues? Fine. There are plenty of Orcs that are Chaotic Evil (50% no less) and are trying to burn your stuff. Kill them without qualms. I don't care. But the OP was making a blatently untrue statement and then altering the rules of the game to conform to it. I see no reason to allow that idea to get off the ground. Ignoring the part of the alignment rules that do make sense: Which part would that be again? The part that indicates all sentient creatures not molded from raw primal energies and the very stuff of alignments have free will, because they don't have the always descriptor in their alignments. |
| *Truean*03-05-07, 01:50 PM | Hey Squirrelloid, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on our definition of Axioms. Thank you for agreeing that A is A. However, I don't think there is a rational ground to dispute this just because we can't inductively or deductively dispute the matter of reality being real.... Just because we as human beings can't prove it doesn't make it true or false. The fact that we can't scientifically test it at present doesn't do that either. It's a limitation of current technology. If we could conduct economic studies that showed the effects of any given action without error (or very very small error), then we could find an objectivity based upon rewards and punishments: payoffs and costs. We just haven't figured out how to do this yet. I will always state an Axiom is something that is true with a Capital "T." I would submit that it would exist in the absence of human beings. As such, it can not be subjective. Hydrogen would be Hydrogen. It wouldn't have anyone around to name it, but it would still be the same in the absence of humans. As such, the partical make up of hydrogen would not be subjective. There are subcatagories of the isotopes of hydrogen, but that doesn't matter. Those would still be the same if we weren't around. Your referenced post 149 I guess I did miss that post. I wasn't aware it was linked. As such, this is at least partially my fault. I"m actually surprized and impressed that you listed my particular school of philosophy: Objectivism, primarily by Ayn Rand. She is indeed hard to do justice to: (B) Objectivism (Ayn Rand): This actually takes a long time to do any justice whatsoever, but the basic thrust of the matter is relatively straightforward. Basically, there are certain things that are required to live as a human being. Not just survive, because human beings have special capabilities (according to Rand), such as reason, and thus are capable of far more than mere survival. Rand's definition of living life as a human being can probably best be described as "allowed to live in a manner such that you are capable of self-actualizing." However, she also doesn't believe that anyone else should do any work for you - you have to achieve your values on your own. (She's a capitalist, after all - no free lunch and all that). So while she requires you to be capable of self-actualizing, she doesn't require anyone to help you get there. Her judgements of good and evil (and thus what she would like everyone else to believe are good and evil) are therefore based on a strongly individual rights (ie, Lockian) approach that maximizes a person's capability to make choices and act on them, and minimizes their security against making poor choices. Also notably, Rand defines altruism (=self-sacrifice, giving up a greater value for a lesser value) as evil. Problems: (1) Her definition of "live as a human being" is at least partially subjective. Different definition leads to different conclusion. (2) Even given that definition, it is possible to come to different conclusions about what good and evil are to a human being, although the scope of disagreement here isn't all that large. (3) The status of other animals isn't really discussed. If capacity for reason is the important part, might not some animals be deserving of similar consideration (most likely Dolphins, less likely some great apes). What happens when their requirements to live in a manner suitable to a rational being are contrary to a humans? (4) Contradiction: Rand assumes a minimalist state is necessary. However, she also finds the initiation of force to be evil (this is the person who's against taxes!). But the imposition of the sovereignty of such a state is still an initiation of force against its inhabitants. She even knows this is a contradiction, but she finds anarchy to be untenable. (Now, a contradiction might suggest the system fails - except there is no ethical system without a contradiction somewhere. Alternately, the contradiction isn't necessary - there is a large body of literature on Anarcho-Capitalism in theory and practice(!), which is more philosophically "pure", although still vulnerable to 1-3). What have we learned? Even the 'best' objective systems ever created aren't as objective as their author and adherents would like you to believe. They still require value judgements made outside the system before you accept their premise and agree with them. They also have places they break down. Finally, they rarely lead to agreement with conventional wisdom about what "good" and "evil" are (although Objectivism, for those who get past the "front door", comes to natural conclusions - its the people who don't buy the basic premises of objectivism who finds it comes to unconventional conclusions. The CI often comes to counter-intuitive conclusions, even if you want to believe in it.) I would respectfully dispute your presented contradictions to Rand's arguements. (1) "To live as a human being" as her defination. Subjective or Objective? This is defined based off her discussion of animals, (which she does do numerous times in Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead). She states that an animal is without reason and at the mercy of the nature it lives in with no exception. As one example, this is hinted at in Franciso's speach to Rearden at the party, which starts out something like, "A night like this makes you apprecaite being a man, as it is terrible for any animal caught in this storm (not an exact quote)." A human being is distinguished for animals in that they have ambitions beyound mere survival and reprodution in a plentiful environment. If human beings have different capabilities than animals, then they have different states of achievement. This is our distinction from the animals. Thus, there is a difference between "living as an animal" (not derogatory) and "living as a human being." (2) Actually Rand clearly states what good and evil are in Atlas Shrugged. The good is all that which furthers mankind's life. Evil is that which destroys it. This is a binary distinction of good or evil... 1 or 0.... There are many different kinds of good, but they are all good. Just as there are many different kinds of evil, but they are all evil. Which kind of good a person chooses is a choice left to them to decide, so long as they choose something within the realm of "good." They are also free to practice one of the many self deceptive feats of evil.... This is not subjective, because Rand did not choose what makes human beings live. Rand draws this line objectively, because good is helpful to an individual while not harming anyone else Evil is not only harm, but zero sum improvement. That is if the only way you can get ahead is by harming someone else, then that is defined as evil and parasitic. In objectivism, this amounts to theft. Harm and "parasitic behavior" of this type are evil. (3) As for the status of other animals, Rand discusses this. She states that any being with lesser reasoning capacity deserves the smaller rewards it gets. Further lesser animals are below human beings are denied human rights. This is because the brain of an animal is inferior to man. It is a behavioral difference engine and little if anything more. Animals are treated as little more than natural resources requiring some upkeep. They have value only their continued existance or consumption furthers human life. This actually favors the preservation of endangered species as those animals may have unknown chemical/medical benefits to human beings. Rand would disagree with the current incarnation of the Endangered Species Act in the US, but not the spirit and logic behind it. (4) What contradiction? Rand never advocates the use of force, especially for setting up Galt's Glutch (the minimalist state you reference). She posits that rational human beings would choose to live in such a state. They are free to not live in this state, but they bear the natural consequences of doing so either way. If they live in such a minimalist state, then they will have to support themselves of their own effort ultimately alone. They will rise or fall on their own. If a person chooses to leave and live in another type of state they will face the societal limitations of that state including taxes. She never advocates the use of force except in retribution and retaliation.... Such a state could never be "imposed." You can't order and demand that people be free. This is evident in Atlas Shrugged, when Galt was offered the job of "Economic Dictator." He refused stating that it is impossible and absurd. Rand stated that people have to choose and not be forced into anything ever. May I ask how is that contradictory? Roleplaying Logic Let me distinguish between using the mechanics (rules) of D+D and roleplaying. The mechanics are a logical system within which any two people should be able to arrive at the same conclusion. (Divergence in conclusions reflects either a flaw in understanding of the evaluators or a flaw in the rules themselves). These determine the consequences of actions. However, the mechanics don't dictate what those actions are. A character with Fireball and Blink prepared might choose to cast either one or none based upon whatever strategy they are using, or based on no strategy at all. They might think Blink looks cool, that Fireball will be effective, or that running away is the best action. Whatever metric they use, it doesn't need to be logical - they could flip a coin to decide their action! The act of roleplaying is in deciding what actions to make. Many times these won't interact with mechanics at all - such as when the characters are deciding whether to go investigate the mysterious keep or whether to go present themself to the mayor to see if he needs any help (or similar). When the action does have mechanical implications, the rules do determine the consequences of those actions, but the rules did not force those actions to occur. It is the conscious decision-making process that constitutes roleplaying - the rules exist to tell you what happens. What you're refering to in the beginning of this part is measurement error. In any given situation, there is in fact a strategy with the greatest amount of effectiveness. We may not understand what it is, but certainly it does exist. The situation may be hopeless in that the forces arrayed against us are such that no possible action is sufficient to overcome it. However, there would be a "best suboptimal action" that comes closest to solving the problem.... The fact that a spell "looks cool" to a certan person is an error on their part. Congrats... it looks cool, but it won't save you. You'll have more time to look at and create cool things if you live through the present problem than if you don't. Use the effective to stay alive and the cool for recreation when appropreate. No one is correctly stating that mechanics dicate what actions will occur. They provide a framework within which to work with: "reality." Here reality is defined as what is possible given resource constraints. Resources can include material, such as money and equipment, mental, such as attention and will, as well as others. Roleplaying is merely a hypothetical example that opperates on these principals. Our understanding of rules are imperfect, but that does not mean the rules themselves are flawed. We just don't completely understand them yet in real life. If we don't understand them in real life, then how could we make a simulation mimicing real life were we did? Huh? Well, no point of view *I* agree with. But that is a subjective judgement on my part. I would certainly try to persuade anyone with such an attitude that they were wrong. Sometimes I'll succeed and sometimes I'll fail. But none of that suggests that its objectively wrong, no matter how strong my conviction. I can't even say I understand any viewpoint which finds racism to be ok. I don't. But I am not omniscient and I certainly don't establish objective truth. And anyone who tells you they do is deluded, lying, or both. (No matter how strongly held a conviction is, there is no way of knowing whether it is True in an objective sense. Truth with a capital T is unknowable.) Racism is objectively wrong. This is because each person has absolute rights, which can not be violated by anyone. Mistakes may be made by governments or individuals at times where they do infringe upon a person's rights. However the moment a given person impedes upon someone else's rights.... they are wrong. Further, it is not in a person's self interest to discriminate on such a characteristic. In economic terms, they are restricting their supply without reason. This supply could be friends, potential employees (labor force), etc. When supply is restricted, price always increases. The person who restricts their own supply is the one who pays the higher price. Company (Firm) A will not hire a given race? Fine, Company (Firm) B will and in so doing will have access to a wider labor pool to choose from. Firm B wins. Ergo, racism is wrong by objective morality and economic utility maximizaton. I can appreciate what you say, but not the logic behind it. Respectfully, I submit that there is no just racism ever. It doesn't matter if I understand it or not. There is not and can not be a just answer to permit it. It's foolish. And objectively true things cannot be proven so. Correct in many cases. However they also can not be proven false. As stated earlier, this is not a limitation on objective truth, but rather human beings. We do not understand a way to prove or disprove. If we can't see a given thing, then how do we know it's there: poke it and watch what happens around it (secondary effects). We just haven't figured out how to poke certain things yet. I admit that we can't prove certain things as of this point. You're completely correct on that front and I agree. However, there will most likely come a day when we can. However, until that point in time, we must assume the most practical stance. What is practical? That depends entirely upon what one wishes to practice. To further human life is the best goal. As such, we must assume those practices which offer the best results at present are correct until proven incorrect. I understand that this runs contra to the usual Null hypothesis arguement. However consider the alternative: floating around in uncertainty. The soupy mess of subjective unknowns can not yeild any positive results except one: questioning dogmatism. This is the one virtue of this school of thought that I recognize. It began back in the days of the Greek skeptics. The question is, "but why?" The lesson is to keep an open mind. However even there I would state that it is objectively beneficial to keep an open mind. This is for the same reason that I state racism is objectively wrong. You shorten your supply of ideas..... Just as you would shorten your supply of friends, etc if biased. Overall: I have to say I disagree with you on almost every point (even the definition of an axiom). However, I respect your method even if I don't agree with the results. Can I ask where you studied logic? Are you self taught in your spare time? Or did you major in it? See you soon, Truean |
| *Truean*03-05-07, 02:41 PM | Hello DaidojiTaidoru, I didn't see your post there as I was responding to Sqirrelloid at the time. Let's have some fun shall we? Orc Standard Alignment: Often chaotic evil Based on this... 1 - The rules state that 50% of Orcs are not Chaotic evil. 2 - Those that are not Chaotic Evil will have an alignment (absolute in D&D) 3 - That alignment is Chaotic Good for some percentage (likely true for say 5% of the population) 4 - Those orcs do not raid innocent villages, because otherwise they would cease to be Chaotic Good. (Circular yes, but alignment is a circular bit anyway. You're Good because you commit good acts and you commit good acts because you like being good) That your DM house rules orcs to Always be Chaotic Evil, or the fact that you never encounted one of the good orc tribes (because that would be a fairly dull encounter) does not change the fact that the rules state that such tribes almost certainly exist. The key phrase in your arguement appears near the top, "based on this." I submit that your basis is false. The rules for alignment don't add up. 50% of orcs are not chaotic evil, and? You are assuming that these 50% are distributed into all other groups of alignment. This is not nessasarily true and does not follow from what you've posted. The question is one of distribution: For all we know the remaining 50% are in the other two evil catagories: Lawful evil and neutral evil. They could be split among the some of the neutral and evil catagories. Chaotic neutral, true neutral lawful neutral (I doubt it). as well as the other two evils. Nowhere does it say that there are Good aligned Orcs. With respect you are infering that based on an assumption that some of the other 50% of non chaotic evil orcs are in some way good. Again, this does not follow. For all we know they are distrubuted outside that range of alignments (non good and perhaps non lawful). In any case, what do you think having a society where half the people are choatic evil will do? What impilcations does having one of every two people as psychopaths imply? Do you think the others are going to stand up to them? Further you assume that My DM ruled that all orcs are chaotic evil. He didn't (I usually do, but that's just me). Your point is self correcting in that you assume that there are good orc tribes. We know for a fact that there are evil orc tribes (50% of the members are evil). We do not know that there are good orcs. Which is the more likely assumption to be true in the face of uncertainty? (I posit that would be mine). Yes humans are not responsible for how the orcs turned out. Nor are orcs responsible for the actions of their predesessors. Alignment cares about what you do. So even if both your parents are LE, you could still end up being LG, (or more likely LN). Correct, alignment cares about what you do. I would posit that it is easier to be a given alignment if you were raised that way. I completely agree that you can choose to be anything you want. There is free will but no free lunch. It will cost you a lot more effort to break your upbringing. It can be done, but not lightly. If your parents were choatic evil, then you can be lawful good. However, it's going to be one heck of an uphill battle for the offspring personally. We know that when costs are high, people tend to do that option less. It's possible, I've done something similar myself. It is however, incredibily difficult. How many people do you think could manage this? It's difficult and therefor less likely to occur. I know they don't all worship him but the overwhelming majority do. The rest have little objection to it. Prove those last 2 sentances please. Hamans have a racial god too you know. Yeah, that one in races of Destiny. How many people worship that guy? How many players even know his name? For that matter do you? Races of destiny = non core material. This was a move by WotC to answer the lingering question, "but other races have gods, why not humans." I recognize that people have free choice as to what to worship. However, Grumish created orcs (well... we did but that's later in the post). As such he molded them into psychopaths. Take a look at what he preaches. There's a reason 50% of orcs are choatic evil. He's the reason. Most Orcs worship him because they have to. They do it because the 50% of the population is crazy and psychopathic (chaotic evil). Do you think there's much religious tolerance in such a society? I would posit that there isn't. If orcs got their chaotic tendencies from their creator (Grumish), then that probably happened for a reason. If he made them, then don't you think he could destroy them? Rather, he could abandon the orcs to the mercy of the elves or one of the many other racial enemies they have. Said enemies would be backed by their devine patrons. The orcs would have been abandoned. It's not a good thing to bite the hand that feeds/created you; such hands have a tendency to smack when angry. And... it hurts.... Actually it's totally the point. The rules have changed. How so? Changed yes. For the better? That's the question. Which rules are you refering to? No matter what rules change/changed, the purpose of an orc remains the same: imaginary target practice. Can you dispute that? What would happen if orcs were suddenly relieved of that painful duty? something else would have to take their place. I refer you to my arguement of "Squishy the Orc." No one wants a fuzzy cuddley orc. The forms may change but the purpose remains the same. In fact I submit that's what happens to orcs who disobey grumish. They get changed into fuzzy cuddley things that have to be around things they don't like. They end up this way for all time hating their cute cuddley existance when they used to be warriors.... (joking but come on...). So? What in this mess changes the fact that the rules say there are non evil orcs somewhere? You don't want to deal with hard issues? Fine. There are plenty of Orcs that are Chaotic Evil (50% no less) and are trying to burn your stuff. Kill them without qualms. I don't care. But the OP was making a blatently untrue statement and then altering the rules of the game to conform to it. I see no reason to allow that idea to get off the ground. I did deal with the hard facts. See the top of the post. You are in fact the one who has assumed that there are good orcs based on the assumption that only 50% of them are chaotic evil. You see no reason to allow that idea to get off the ground? I see no reason to allow you to stop it. You've no right to disallow someone to think, ever. The same is true of anyone including me. These boards exist as a form of free and respectful exchange of ideas (and to get us to buy more WotC products by stimulating our interest in them...). You want a reason? Someone's fun. That's all that's nessasary. Which brings be back to the origins arguement. The little tiny parts may change but the overarching purpose of an orc remains the same: imaginary target practice. I like to take my aggresion out on something that isn't real: a figment of my imagination. I make this thing, large, green, tusked, and hateful. Why? because it's fun to destroy such things in my mind with my friends at 3am drinking moutain dew.... If I don't pretend to kill orcs, then I'm going to pretend to kill something else. The same is true of everyone who has a weapon and or damaging potential on any character sheet. This isn't a new idea.... Again, why do you think there are multiple pages of weapon and damage spell data in the books. They were put there to use... on something.... *cough* "orc" *cough* It's a game. It's fun. Otherwise you wouldn't play, nor would anyone else. (Don't worry ... be happy... ridddde happy now wooo hoo ho ho ho hoo hohoooo, lol :) ) Originally Posted by *Truean* Ignoring the part of the alignment rules that do make sense: Which part would that be again? The part that indicates all sentient creatures not molded from raw primal energies and the very stuff of alignments have free will, because they don't have the always descriptor in their alignments. Who ignored that? Look, I'm an advoate of free will. The thing is that I can't "free will" myself to fly unless I have some means of doing it. I can: A.) build or buy a plane or other flying device B.) cast a spell (in the make believe land of D&D) C.) realize I can't fly I have free will within those choices. That is I can choose within my resources. If I don't have the resources, then I can't make the choice a reality. It takes some real effort to change who you are based on where you came from. Again it can be done, but it's hard. You came from an orc family that taught that chaotic evil was cool and the points of that alignment path are alright. It's tricky to go from that to any kind of good or even neutral. The clicking your heels to a different alignment method doesn't quite pan out. Hey, I look forward to debating with you for a bit. I'm curious as to what your reply will be. Peace out, Truean |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-05-07, 03:08 PM | The key phrase in your arguement appears near the top, "based on this." I submit that your basis is false. The rules for alignment don't add up. 50% of orcs are not chaotic evil, and? You are assuming that these 50% are distributed into all other groups of alignment. This is not nessasarily true and does not follow from what you've posted. I can't prove how the alignment spead is for orcs. The rules do state that 50% of orcs are not Chaotic evil, but proving what alignments those 50% can be will be difficult as not many people write about orcs. I will have to settle proving that it is exceedingly likely there are orcs who are good. I'll do this by using a race that gets far more storytime, elves. (Btw elves are listed as Usually in their alignment sections, which indicates they are far more closely tied to their alignments then orcs are). Unfortunatly I'll have to research the names of all the evil elves (and elf groups), so it'll take some time to present proof. But I know for a fact that I can rustle up 1 NE elf, and one LE group of elves, and I imagine it won't be too hard to find more. As LE is much further from CG then CG is from CE, the existance of such a group indicates that it is almost certain there will be one or more Chaotic Good orc groups. (Remember by the rules orcs are tied to their alignments less then elves.) As for the rest, it's a non issue. The existance of Good orcs somewhere by the rules neither prevents you from killing the evil ones en mass or prevents your DM from making a house rule for your amusement. It doesn't change the fact that claiming all orcs are evil by RAW is wrong. You want to argue the rules, you stick to them until they're contradicted by other rules. And this is one of the few alignment areas that doesn't cotain a contradiction. |
| EvilIdiot03-05-07, 03:28 PM | First, an open challenge - find anywhere in the alignment rules where it specifically says any kind of killing is a good act or even a N act. Quote me that passage. You're asking a rule for something which can't be defined as a rule, especially by your pov. DeD is an imaginary world, and makes some assumptions, because it's artificial. you keep ignoring them, by mean of formal logic and denials of validity. This is really an important part of the pro-alignment viewpoint here, is that you're assuming there can be extenuating circumstances but thus far no one has demonstrated that the rules actually support that. I'll remind you that, in your own words "its not the real world" and "real world philosophy has no place here." Ok, so prove it in D+D terms, that there can be extenuating circumstances for killing. Because it 'seems right' to you is not good enough. Can you demonstrate that rules ,in this case, would be sensed or needed? 1 circumstance? killing a summoner who wants to bring demons on material plane killing a evil character ,according to ALs, who has also shown is evilness killing a druid who wants to spread illness through a kingdom because of his disturbed childhood. ... Uh, according to DeD ,naturally Philosophy has place in DeD. DeD took some philosophical definitions, then simplified them, and invented "alignments" Do you know what abstraction, simplifications are? Not all the philosophical modern concepts can fit DeD, if you want a meaningful game. You keep ignoring this, while trying to say that ALs sucks, a countersense. Great. Your choice. Second, the pro-alignment viewpoint here is really arguing from a "the text is infallible" viewpoint. DeD is described in manuals, don't you know? No, because reality isn't ,and for you they're the same thing Thanks for admitting you violated the CoC. Who said that You're fooling yourself if you believe your behavior in a fantasy world isn't related to how you'd like to behave in reality. So, according to you, If I think undeath is evil, It's because I'm a moralistic moron? If I think orcs are evil 'cos they're described in a proper way, It's because I'm a racist? Indirectly, you made provocation as well, putting ad hominem ,as well, otherwise, who are you to tell other people they're bigot and moron? I don't think I have all the answers, but at least I have a framework within which I can understand and evaluate the question. Which is important since its a question that comes up every day. You can't say what evil/good are, but you can say ,for sure, what they are not, or that they do not exist? From a logical point of view, this is a contradiction. Uh, without considering we're in an imaginary, simplified ,world Racism and bigotry is wrong because it judges people by arbitrary features of their appearance, not by their actions. Having black skin or being an orc says nothing about the kind of person you are. Orcs are said to be evil by rules, in fact. You just not understand what AL are; it's rather different from saying that some moralistic morons tried to hide racism inside ded, as you said before. <off topic :logic> Further, as a consequentialist, I realize that discriminating against people for arbitrary reasons I'm not racist, not bigot, but who decides what's arbitrary, from your logical point of view? Hence bigotry reduces the average quality of solutions to problems, regardless of what sort of problem we're talking about. Do this always prevent bigotry ,from your pov, to find proper solutions? I can't say so, you seem to, instead You can be good at logic, but logic is based on propositions, and operators. atomic propositions have their logic values based on context and given interpretation, thus logic isn't enough to understand real world, not DeD- </off topic> There is no need to answer a fallacious argument. By committing a fallacy it has guaranteed it has no merit. As fallacies are easily looked up online, I see no reason to describe them other than to name them. You are welcome to look them up and try to explain why you haven't committed that fallacy, at which point I will either conceed that it wasn't fallacious or demonstrate how it was. And, in fact, this is your favoured trick When I said that I appealed to cultures and religions because Ded was based on them, you said "-appeal to- fallacy". You're hiding behind logic rules, which are yet to be proved of being meaningful, considering the way you use them, as well. Debates are based on assumptions ,as well, don't you know? You just ignore them.Is it meaningful? I doubt. Incoherent does not mean I don't understand it. In fact, I have to understand (know what they said) in order to find it incoherent. Incoherent means a system fails to make sense as described, usually because it is contradictory. You're saying that they're incoherent, but this statement is your opinion, not a dogma, so, you may say so, but it doesn't mean they're incoherent I already showed you you're wrong from basis, and that you should interpret manuals, not try to find a rule for everything, without exceptions. If objective morality is incoherent in general, it cannot be coherent in a specific instance. (Try using a Ven Diagram: If all objective moral systems are incoherent, then objective moral system x is inconsistent for all x). If you wish to debate the coherency of objective moral systems, I refer you to my post Do you think that in My Little Ponies d20 morality isn't objective and coherent? This is why I suggested it to you. This is so in DeD as well, but you're finding harder to understand its manuals as written... Therefore, the difference between the SRD and the PHB on the subject of alignment really is a few 'single' phrases, and I quoted or paraphrased all of them. You read it wrongly because you need all things being described in a boolean way,clear and without exceptions, both in DeD, an imaginary, simplified fantastic world suitable for roleplaying, and in real world, which isn't created by humans, therefore it could be incomprehensible to yours and everyone's else logic,or mind. Uh, do you know they invented fuzzy logic, don't you? Maybe you could update? (1) That is an ad hominem - my personal beliefs have no bearing on my arguments, which would be equally true or false if made by a die-hard stalinist or a fascist. (The fact that they wouldn't make many of these arguments is irrelevant). No. I'm saying that there's only one reason you can't find our arguments valid: you find excuses to refute them aprioristically. If I say to someone he can't hear me because he's plugging his ears, I'm not making a fallacy, I'm pointing out the matter. (2) Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Look it up on wikipedia. They'll even explain why its a fallacy. "Appealing to an authority" isn't a fallacy at all "appeal to an authority" is the name of a proper fallacy, usually called "appeal to a misleading authority" It depends on contexts. Before using it, you should prove that such authority is effectively "misleading" on the matter of the debate. Google a bit, please. You claim to have found this kind of fallacy in our answers, forgetting that citing Kant&friends is appealing to authority too.... (3) Providing argument is not a trick. Invalidating could be. That doesn't make X right, it just means X said that. (There is no authority that isn't capable of being wrong. This is why providing argument is important, because then the value of that argument can be judged). Wrong according to what? DeD is a WotC product, who created some assumption for it. You're not discussing about real world, where there aren't axioms, which exist in DeD, instead. The actual act of roleplaying is not strictly logic. However, evaluating the morality of a given action needs to be strictly logic in an objective moral system, otherwise its *not objective*. Objective: Once you can define what is G aligned, you cannot consider other facts as excuses (not) to be G. Having had a disturbed childhood and killing whoever whenever, mercilessly,for example, is evil, unless the second situation doesn't make you G aligned according to your idea. DeD says it works with proper ideas about ALs, period. I agree, the Baron has "evil" written on his character sheet, and has done something to deserve that. None of this necessarily makes his *taxation policy* evil, nor does it make the *tax collectors* evil. So unless you want to argue that all taxation is evil in D+D (and good luck supporting that one, though you could do it with some real world philosophies), there is no reason to believe, from that example, that Soveliss is actually good. In fact, it might make him evil, because he's causing harm to the tax collectors (even if he only knocks them out, he knows they're going to suffer because of his actions). Taxation doesn't make him non-evil either. The fact that all tax collectors and taxations ,as a whole, can't be said to be evil doesn't make him non-evil either. Anyway, text suggested so. The PHB says every act of an evil character must be evil? Uh... No, as you said before. I just said that you said something we had already got the first times we read PHB :P And talk about the stupidest campaign world ever. Having evil on your character sheet automatically means you eat babies, sacrifice virgins, and can't do a single good or neutral act in your life? Not only is there 0 support for this in the rules, it totally violates every shred of common sense any person has. No one can be evil all the time. How do you go to the bathroom evilly? Or get dressed evilly? If you can't, then clearly evil characters don't need to behave evilly all the time. Common sense isn't an authority? an assumption? something we said it was needed outside strict logic to understand, at least, DeD? Anyway, where did I say you weren't right about Quote: Not every act of an evil character needs to be evil I've just said: Oh, did you discover it? we did it as soon as we read phb. Thats the definition of evil in the PHB. If you do any of those things, you're evil. End of sentence. In a given context. Rules are by definition a set of logical propositions that let you evaluate the consequences of actions that are defined by the game. (To whit: "moves") Thats what rules are. In PHB they say ALs are descriptive, they aren't to be read literally, and they're guidelines. Anyway, you need something other than what you would validate as rules, to understand ded, real world,and whatever you may face. Why have rules if you don't follow them? You're the one who cannot find the "right" mix of strict rules, descriptions and assumptions to understand DeD. We do follow rules. What about undeath evilness? it's in the rules. Does it go against other rules? Is there a rule that say you won't meet exceptions?no Do you find it a "stupid" rule because you think that who wrote it was a moralistic moron, which made ,therefore, an "appeal to authority"? Do it, but it's not a so-logic-objective reasoning, as the ones you did before while invalidating/ignoring our posts. First, this doesnt excuse blatantly contradicting yourself. (Or whomever it was originally). ... Contradicting according to you. You have been asking us rules, which can't be rules, from your strictly-logic/automaton point of view. You said descriptive text was useless. When did you prove you considered and understood manuals as whole? You just admitted you didn't consider assumptions, and text, which needed them to be understood, a close circuit, a fault of yours. I'm sorry Second, descriptions = flavor text unless they behave as described above under rules, Assumptions are the axioms of the rules, and are explicitly written into them. What makes you say that descriptions don't behave, or can't be considered,as "rules"? Who says to you that rules must be in this or that manner, and, if they aren't, you can just throw them away? I believe it's you. If rules are fuzzy, its a flaw in the rules, but then *differences* in interpretation might effect how you decide the consequences, but all such interpretations must have textual support or *they are wrong*. End of story. see what i said about fuzzy logic. Now, actually playing the game involves a lot of dynamics that aren't described by the rules at all. (eg, roleplaying, social contract issues, etc...). But none of these require the invocation of the mechanics of the game to determine consequences, and are thus totally independent of the rules. Why can't you implement some rules as dynamics , and viceversa? This is how ded actually works. Have you ever heard about perform as skill?and alignments as a fundamental part of universe? Totally missing the point. Given real world support of all viable interpretations of the rules (and many inviable interpretations), there is no reason to prefer any of them from an intuitive perspective or a common sense perspective, and every reason to choose the one that the text best supports. In the case in question, the text supports the position that all killing is evil. QED. When I talked about undeath, in previous post, I used common sense, can you prove I didn't? When did common sense become something to appeal to? You think there are no reason for (some pieces of) DeD design? Because DeD has actually lots of elements from usual fantasy arts? because someone created and updated it? Why shouldn't be so? And, if there hadn't been logical reasons, have you thought about something better? I could ask the same of you. I've analyzed basically the entire alignment section at this point - its a whole ~3 pages long, this isn't hard. Just because I haven't quoted *all* the text doesn't mean I've left out material which directly contradicts my points. If I have, you're welcome to quote them in response to my previous arguments. You're the one who'd been arguing that text was almost meaningless. |
| a_psh03-05-07, 03:35 PM | For all we know the remaining 50% are in the other two evil catagories: Lawful evil and neutral evil.Incorrect. That's what labels like "any evil" are for. |
| DaidojiTaidoru03-05-07, 03:37 PM | Incorrect. That's what labels like "any evil" are for. :blink: Good catch there. Guess I don't have to search through piles of D&D material to look up evil elves. Thank you sir. |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 03:48 PM | Hey Squirrelloid, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on our definition of Axioms. Thank you for agreeing that A is A. However, I don't think there is a rational ground to dispute this just because we can't inductively or deductively dispute the matter of reality being real.... Just because we as human beings can't prove it doesn't make it true or false. The fact that we can't scientifically test it at present doesn't do that either. It's a limitation of current technology. If we could conduct economic studies that showed the effects of any given action without error (or very very small error), then we could find an objectivity based upon rewards and punishments: payoffs and costs. We just haven't figured out how to do this yet. I will always state an Axiom is something that is true with a Capital "T." I would submit that it would exist in the absence of human beings. As such, it can not be subjective. Hydrogen would be Hydrogen. It wouldn't have anyone around to name it, but it would still be the same in the absence of humans. As such, the partical make up of hydrogen would not be subjective. There are subcatagories of the isotopes of hydrogen, but that doesn't matter. Those would still be the same if we weren't around. I respectfully submit your definition of axiom is wrong. Ax-i-om 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. 2. a universally accepted principle or rule. 3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. Now, the problem with (1) of course is what is self-evident to one person is not self-evident to another, which makes the definition of axioms a subjective act. (Similarly, 2 is subjective because it depends on the agreement of people to something, not the veracity of that something in any objective sense). The third is of course the relevant one for logical systems, and you'll note the word "assumed" is right in there. Its not True, its assumed to be True. You could always be wrong. I"m actually surprized and impressed that you listed my particular school of philosophy: Objectivism, primarily by Ayn Rand. Hard not to list it. Objectivism is the culmination of the Aristotelean and Lockean school of thought. Kant is the best representative of the Platonic school of thought. As such, everything else in ethics is a derivative or inspiration for one of the two. She is indeed hard to do justice to: I would respectfully dispute your presented contradictions to Rand's arguements. Before I go into the specifics, I would recommend you read her nonfiction, especially the Virtue of Selfishness. I will keep my responses below brief for a couple of reasons: (1) I don't necessary disagree with her definitions or assumptions. I'm just capable of realizing they are based on assumptions, and don't need to pretend otherwise. (2) Reading Virtue of Selfishness will make her ethics and metaphysics clearer, which may obviate the need for lengthy explanations on my part. (1) "To live as a human being" as her defination. Subjective or Objective? This is defined based off her discussion of animals, (which she does do numerous times in Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead). She states that an animal is without reason and at the mercy of the nature it lives in with no exception. As one example, this is hinted at in Franciso's speach to Rearden at the party, which starts out something like, "A night like this makes you apprecaite being a man, as it is terrible for any animal caught in this storm (not an exact quote)." A human being is distinguished for animals in that they have ambitions beyound mere survival and reprodution in a plentiful environment. If human beings have different capabilities than animals, then they have different states of achievement. This is our distinction from the animals. Thus, there is a difference between "living as an animal" (not derogatory) and "living as a human being." You seem to have combined 1+3 together. Thats fine, I'll respond to both here. Part of the problem is that Rand was not an expert in psychology, animal behavior, ethology, or any other relevant field. Her distinction between humans and animals might as well be "humans have souls and animals don't" (thats the classical distinction - obviously Rand doesn't believe in souls - but there isn't much difference between that and Rand's). Rand asks you to take on faith, based on popular prejudices about the superiority of human intelligence, that humans are superior to animals. Now, I'm no expert in these specific fields either, but I know that Dolphin's have more complex brains than humans do, and are possibly capable of greater reasoning capacity as a result. Now, Rand attributes special recognition to humans because of their capacity to reason (Virtue of Selfishness, 1st essay). If there are "animals" that have even greater reasoning capacity than humans, does that mean that they can treat us like animals? Does that put them on a level playing field with humans so that they are also ascribed rights? Given x with greater reasoning capacity than humans, if x and humans get the same rights, shouldn't we extend rights down to creatures with slightly less reasoning capacity than humans too? (otherwise, why do humans get rights?) Of course, this process could theoretically proceed ad infinitum - where do you draw the line on this slippery slope? Rand's explanation of what is proper for a human life requires you to accept that free will exists. This is one of the longest standing debates in philosophy, and there is no a priori reason to believe either the free will or the determinists are right. Its an axiomatic assumption, and thus you could easily assume either one - making Rand's "life as a human" totally subjective. Modern cognitive science even has found evidence to suggest that our biology constrains our decision-making processes. (Reviewed by Pinker, but I'm forgetting the name of the book offhand - its the one about the human brain). (2) Actually Rand clearly states what good and evil are in Atlas Shrugged. The good is all that which furthers mankind's life. Evil is that which destroys it. This is a binary distinction of good or evil... 1 or 0.... There are many different kinds of good, but they are all good. Just as there are many different kinds of evil, but they are all evil. Which kind of good a person chooses is a choice left to them to decide, so long as they choose something within the realm of "good." They are also free to practice one of the many self deceptive feats of evil.... Rand presents a much more explicit definition of good in Virtue of Selfishness. Basically, she asserts that any given person's value heirarchy should have their life as their ultimate value, anything else is self-destructive and evil. She later rationalizes reasons why one might sacrifice their life (such as in a revolution for a concept - freedom and the Revolutionary War for example - and how such behavior can be good. Its really unclear how that is not altruism - even though Rand is strictly anti-altruist elsewhere). Thus there is some internal contradiction here. However, as I said the scope of the disagreement is not large. This is not subjective, because Rand did not choose what makes human beings live. Ah, but she goes beyond survival. And what beyond survival is essential is ultimately a subjective discussion. Rand draws this line objectively, because good is helpful to an individual while not harming anyone else Evil is not only harm, but zero sum improvement. That is if the only way you can get ahead is by harming someone else, then that is defined as evil and parasitic. In objectivism, this amounts to theft. Harm and "parasitic behavior" of this type are evil. What happens in a situation where helping yourself necessarily harms someone else, and not helping yourself involves harming yourself. For any example I could give you Rand's answer, but there is plenty of room for rational disagreement. Objectivism also allows for situations where harm is likely to occur, even accidentally, but so long as it hasn't happened yet no one can interfere. (3) As for the status of other animals, Rand discusses this. She states that any being with lesser reasoning capacity deserves the smaller rewards it gets. Further lesser animals are below human beings are denied human rights. This is because the brain of an animal is inferior to man. It is a behavioral difference engine and little if anything more. Animals are treated as little more than natural resources requiring some upkeep. They have value only their continued existance or consumption furthers human life. This actually favors the preservation of endangered species as those animals may have unknown chemical/medical benefits to human beings. Rand would disagree with the current incarnation of the Endangered Species Act in the US, but not the spirit and logic behind it. See 1 above. (4) What contradiction? Rand never advocates the use of force, especially for setting up Galt's Glutch (the minimalist state you reference). She posits that rational human beings would choose to live in such a state. They are free to not live in this state, but they bear the natural consequences of doing so either way. If they live in such a minimalist state, then they will have to support themselves of their own effort ultimately alone. They will rise or fall on their own. If a person chooses to leave and live in another type of state they will face the societal limitations of that state including taxes. She never advocates the use of force except in retribution and retaliation.... She doesn't believe in taxation no, she believes in a minimalist state funded by voluntary contributions. However, getting any population to accept a minimalist state is an imposition of force, because it has to establish the territory as its jurisdiction. She discusses her beliefs on government in Virtue of Selfishness (i think its ~6th essay, but the title will make it obvious). This problem is solved by anarcho-objectivism, much of whose theory is available online. Rand 'excommunicated' (Rand's personality was very much exactly the sort of thing she wrote against, which is rather ironic) the anarcho-objectivists because she thought a minimalist state was essential to guarantee protection of rights. The anarcho-objectivists basically have competing protection agencies so you can choose the "rights" of yours that get protected, and these companies make deals for extradition between each other. See www.mises.org, which has a number of anarcho-objectivist articles. Such a state could never be "imposed." You can't order and demand that people be free. This is evident in Atlas Shrugged, when Galt was offered the job of "Economic Dictator." He refused stating that it is impossible and absurd. Rand stated that people have to choose and not be forced into anything ever. I direct you to Virtue of Selfishness. Basically Rand couldn't accept anarchy as a viable solution. I know I reference Virtue of Selfishness a lot, but its really the most concise work on her part about the metaphysics and ethics of her philosophy. I was once an objectivist, and i've naturally slid into consequentialism as the passions of youth burned lower and the realization that the best solutions to real world problems needed to be decided based upon the state reality was in, not how I'd like it to be. Roleplaying Logic What you're refering to in the beginning of this part is measurement error. In any given situation, there is in fact a strategy with the greatest amount of effectiveness. We may not understand what it is, but certainly it does exist. The situation may be hopeless in that the forces arrayed against us are such that no possible action is sufficient to overcome it. However, there would be a "best suboptimal action" that comes closest to solving the problem.... The fact that a spell "looks cool" to a certan person is an error on their part. Congrats... it looks cool, but it won't save you. You'll have more time to look at and create cool things if you live through the present problem than if you don't. Use the effective to stay alive and the cool for recreation when appropreate. No one is correctly stating that mechanics dicate what actions will occur. They provide a framework within which to work with: "reality." Here reality is defined as what is possible given resource constraints. Resources can include material, such as money and equipment, mental, such as attention and will, as well as others. Roleplaying is merely a hypothetical example that opperates on these principals. Our understanding of rules are imperfect, but that does not mean the rules themselves are flawed. We just don't completely understand them yet in real life. If we don't understand them in real life, then how could we make a simulation mimicing real life were we did? There might be an optimal roleplaying strategy, but nothing compels you to make those choices. If people did that, no one would ever play anything other than Cleric/Wizard/Druid (or Artificer in Eberron). My point is basically that you can separate out the mechanical aspects (which are purely logical) with the activity of roleplaying a character, which is very often subjective. And many RP decisions involve no mechanics whatsoever (deciding where to go next, for instance - see previous post). This isn't measurement error, this comes down to a philosophy or RPGs. Not everyone plays or wants to play in a Gamist paradigm (where making optimal strategic choices is the goal). Some people want to play in a Simulationist paradigm, and some want a Narrativist paradigm. None of these are wrong. (I direct you to www.theforge.net - i think that's right - for articles on GNS). In a Simulationist paradigm, you can develop a personality and make decisions in that personality, and thats an optimal decision from the perspective of *playing your character*, even if its a worse decision from the mechanical perspective. What doesn't change between the three paradigms is that the rules are a logical system which can be followed to inevitable conclusions about the effects of your actions (note: narrativists will occasionally ignore the rules for dramatic effect, but that is explicitly ignoring the rules, not pretending the rules work differently). Basically, distinguishing between the mechanics and the act of roleplaying is necessary and important, because using the mechanics and roleplaying really are distinct activities. Racism is objectively wrong. This is because each person has absolute rights, which can not be violated by anyone. Mistakes may be made by governments or individuals at times where they do infringe upon a person's rights. However the moment a given person impedes upon someone else's rights.... they are wrong. If you make sufficient assumptions to get to rights at all. And if you assume you're not a solipsist. And if you assume you aren't just a brain in a vat plugged into a computer feeding you sensory data. And if you assume that there isn't some devil altering your perceptions of the world around you. (heck, schizophrenia is a mental disorder where they don't perceive reality 'correctly', where correctly is defined by majority consensus. Who's to say the majority is perceiving "True" reality? - I'm not a psychologist, so that description is intended to be a rough approximation) Further, it is not in a person's self interest to discriminate on such a characteristic. In economic terms, they are restricting their supply without reason. This supply could be friends, potential employees (labor force), etc. When supply is restricted, price always increases. The person who restricts their own supply is the one who pays the higher price. Company (Firm) A will not hire a given race? Fine, Company (Firm) B will and in so doing will have access to a wider labor pool to choose from. Firm B wins. Only if they value their economic self-interest over other possible values. Doing so is a subjective decision based on the arrangement of a person's value-heirarchy. Ergo, racism is wrong by objective morality and economic utility maximizaton. Racism is wrong if you accept natural rights as real (as defined by Locke). Its also wrong if you assume economic utility maximization is the most important thing. There are also other conditions under which its wrong. That doesn't mean all possible ethical systems find it to be wrong. You'd call such systems evil, so would I, but that doesn't make them *objectively* evil, merely evil under whatever values heirarchy we're each using. I can appreciate what you say, but not the logic behind it. Respectfully, I submit that there is no just racism ever. It doesn't matter if I understand it or not. There is not and can not be a just answer to permit it. It's foolish. You realize 'just' is a value judgement. I agree with you. But I realize my conclusion is subject to my values heirarchy. Correct in many cases. However they also can not be proven false. As stated earlier, this is not a limitation on objective truth, but rather human beings. We do not understand a way to prove or disprove. It is a limitation of epistomology and our nature as observers in the 'world' (universe, physical reality, whatever). However, the fact remains that since we have no way of knowing Truth, we can't claim anything as Truth either. If we can't see a given thing, then how do we know it's there: poke it and watch what happens around it (secondary effects). We just haven't figured out how to poke certain things yet. So what if i proposed that your body wasn't real. You merely thought you had a body because someone was feeding your brain the appropriate visual, aural, oral, tactile, and olfactory sensations to mimic your having a body. Instead your brain is really preserved in a vat with electrodes hooking it up to a computer, and that computer stimulates your brain with sensory input to make you believe that you have a body and are in a world. Similarly - The Matrix (which is a modern incarnation of this). How do you know its *not* the real world? Biologically speaking, the only reason your brain knows it has a body is because it receives sensory data from it. Now, I agree, this is a complex set of assumptions. But that doesn't prove its false. We can't prove it either way. The "Truth" of the matter is uncertain, we axiomatically assume the reality we see is real because the question ceases to be interesting as soon as we realize we can't decide either way. I admit that we can't prove certain things as of this point. You're completely correct on that front and I agree. However, there will most likely come a day when we can. However, until that point in time, we must assume the most practical stance. What is practical? That depends entirely upon what one wishes to practice. To further human life is the best goal. As such, we must assume those practices which offer the best results at present are correct until proven incorrect. There will never come a day when we can because the answer is provably unknowable. Similarly, in any sufficiently complex logical systems there are statements which are proveably true, statements which are proveably false, and statements which we can't prove are either true or false. I understand that this runs contra to the usual Null hypothesis arguement. However consider the alternative: floating around in uncertainty. The soupy mess of subjective unknowns can not yeild any positive results except one: questioning dogmatism. This is the one virtue of this school of thought that I recognize. It began back in the days of the Greek skeptics. The question is, "but why?" The lesson is to keep an open mind. I agree it is the right assumption to make. But it is still an assumption, and should not be confused with "Truth". Overall: I have to say I disagree with you on almost every point (even the definition of an axiom). However, I respect your method even if I don't agree with the results. Can I ask where you studied logic? Are you self taught in your spare time? Or did you major in it? I didn't major in it - actually, I read most of my philosophy before college. I did Lincoln Douglas debate in high school (and we had a philosophy grad student - who was an objectivist strangely enough - who came and assisted us). I also took a logic class at some point in there, and in college I took enough math to get to the point where math and logic aren't that different. I took a couple of philosophy classes in college, but was generally bored with them because I'd read most of the stuff. My interests moved from ethics to epistomology and metaphysics, and I keep reading because I enjoy it. (I majored in Biology). So I guess that falls somewhere between self-taught and received a bunch of instruction. |
| EvilIdiot03-05-07, 03:59 PM | So that means I can go around using Fireball to wipe out villages, and it's not evil because the spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor? 0)wiping out villages ,for your own interests, or because you're crazy,or ,broadly speaking, evil, is evil by manuals, both with a fireball and farts. 1)DeD chose to include a believe common in fantasy: undeath is evil 1.2)Reasons of this are explained in lots of cultures, religions and ethical debates 2)Spells for animating undead have [evil] descriptor, so they're carried out in a evil way by raw, which one is left to your imagination 3)if you're a fire-blaster,you practice with fireballs, which could likely not cause harm to anyone, except, naturally, when used to attack. If you're a undeath-fan necrowiz, you practice with dead people. If you really need a lot of practice, you'll need lots of corpse, maybe corpse of other creatures, and thus, practising with this kind necromancy means practising for your own, at cost of others life and nature's biodiversity/life balance. And all these things cost you just a 3< level spell. How is this not evil? |
| a_psh03-05-07, 04:01 PM | (I direct you to www.theforge.net - i think that's right - for articles on GNS).You want www.indie-rpgs.com. If it's just basic GNS theory stuff, this (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=284) is also a decent (though detail-flawed) summary. |
| Squirrelloid03-05-07, 04:22 PM | Debates are based on assumptions ,as well, don't you know? You just ignore them.Is it meaningful? I doubt. My response to most of your post was "what is he talking about?". Debate does make some assumptions, it assumes both sides will actually address the other person's *argument*, which you have generally failed to do. In general, see my previous posts - you've posted little new or interesting here. In specific, actually respond to my points please. (For the debate terminology fluent: extend all my previous arguments, he hasn't refuted anything, he's basically accused me of knowing what I'm doing, and asking a bunch of questions that have nothing to do with the topics at hand). Things that needed to be individually addressed follow. Can you demonstrate that rules ,in this case, would be sensed or needed? 1 circumstance? A "Good" solution, as best as I can determine from the rules, follows each example. killing a summoner who wants to bring demons on material plane Knock the summoner unconscious. Lock him in a cell with a permanent Antimagic effect. If you think dealing int damage is possible without being evil (i don't know, the alignment rules aren't clear), you can damage his int down to 1. killing a evil character ,according to ALs, who has also shown is evilness Knock him unconscious, tie him up, send him to prison. killing a druid who wants to spread illness through a kingdom because of his disturbed childhood. Knock him unconscious, jail him in a cell with a permanent antimagic effect. Wis damage is also a possible solution here if you believe thats not evil. See, no killing needed. And, in fact, this is your favoured trick Yes, knowing how to debate is my favorite trick. You've got me there. Uh, do you know they invented fuzzy logic, don't you? Do you even know what fuzzy logic is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/mar98/fuz/flindex.html Here's some reading material. Hint - fuzzy logic has almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. No. I'm saying that there's only one reason you can't find our arguments valid: you find excuses to refute them aprioristically. ... you mean a priori? Well, if something is a priori invalid or unsound, there's no point in debating it a posteriori now is there? Invalid is invalid, period. "Appealing to an authority" isn't a fallacy at all "appeal to an authority" is the name of a proper fallacy, usually called "appeal to a misleading authority" It depends on contexts. Before using it, you should prove that such authority is effectively "misleading" on the matter of the debate. Google a bit, please. I have consistently referred to it as "appeal to authority". Here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority You claim to have found this kind of fallacy in our answers, forgetting that citing Kant&friends is appealing to authority too.... Please actually read what appeal to authority is. I didn't just say "Kant says x, therefore x is true." I said, "Kant says x", explained what x is, and then made my conclusions based on the strength of Kant's argument. If you explain the argument, you aren't appealing to the authority for the truth value of the statement, its that simple. Taxation doesn't make him non-evil either. The fact that all tax collectors and taxations ,as a whole, can't be said to be evil doesn't make him non-evil either. Anyway, text suggested so. Who cares what the text suggested - you are *harming* the tax collectors who are engaged in a neutral profession, and possibly harming the peasantry in the long term if the tax burden is light. Common sense isn't an authority? an assumption? something we said it was needed outside strict logic to understand, at least, DeD? The difference is I don't just say "common sense says x", I explain why it violates common sense. To whit, can you tell me how getting dressed can be done evilly? If you can explain to me how that's even possible, you might have some ground to stand on. In PHB they say ALs are descriptive, they aren't to be read literally, and they're guidelines. They're descriptive in that they describe and classify behavioral categories. To know if something fits into a category, you have to actually read the description of those categories and interpret what the text says... You're the one who'd been arguing that text was almost meaningless. I'm arguing alignment is meaningless because the text is contradictory. There's a difference. |
| CharlieRock03-06-07, 03:55 AM | So that means I can go around using Fireball to wipe out villages, and it's not evil because the spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor? Your being purposefully obtuse here. I noticed in your example we're looking at fireballing villages. Why? Is it because you couldn't have made your point if you said ,"So that means I can go around using Fireball to wipe out evil warlords and their minions, and it's not evil because the spell doesn't have thr [Evil] descriptor?" So you have already acknowledged that it isn't the act of fireballing someone that is evil but who (and possibly why). Thank you for continuing the argument for the sole sake of arguing. You've been a tedious waste of time. |
| EscherEnigma03-06-07, 03:57 AM | You've been a tedious waste of time. :rofl: For the sake of the code of conduct, I think I'll leave this post at that. |
| Kresalak03-06-07, 08:04 AM | Your being purposefully obtuse here. I noticed in your example we're looking at fireballing villages. Why? Is it because you couldn't have made your point if you said ,"So that means I can go around using Fireball to wipe out evil warlords and their minions, and it's not evil because the spell doesn't have thr [Evil] descriptor?" So you have already acknowledged that it isn't the act of fireballing someone that is evil but who (and possibly why). Thank you for continuing the argument for the sole sake of arguing. You've been a tedious waste of time. My response is a quote from you. Also, just because casting the spell isn't [evil] doesn't mean some given instance of casting the spell wouldn't be an evil act, or quite possibly the spell actually working (they fail their save) is an evil act, even if casting it wasn't.Your stretching credulity. Past the breaking point. Making nonsense. Business as usual for some people, I guess. Seriously, are you deliberately contradicting yourself? |
| CharlieRock03-06-07, 08:19 AM | I don't see the contradiction as I wasn't the one making those claims. You were (whilest shifting the goalpost from killing en totum to killing villagers specifically) :bored: |
| Kresalak03-06-07, 09:05 AM | Squirrelloid said that the act of killing someone with the spell was evil, not the spell itself. You implied that it was "nonsense", and spells were only evil if they actually had the [Evil] subtype, so I showed how that was ridiculous. Also, that's not shifting the goalposts, that's argumentum ad rediculum or whatever you call it when you cast doubt on an argument by showing that it leads to ridiculous conclusions. |
| CharlieRock03-06-07, 09:48 AM | Also, that's not shifting the goalposts, that's argumentum ad rediculum or whatever you call it when you cast doubt on an argument by showing that it leads to ridiculous conclusions. No, you showed that using the spell to do an action that is by itself an evil action was evil use of a spell. Killing the village was evil to begin with. So you proved nada. Except that you are arguing just for the delight of it all. Brilliant! |
| Squirrelloid03-06-07, 10:11 AM | No, you showed that using the spell to do an action that is by itself an evil action was evil use of a spell. Killing the village was evil to begin with. So you proved nada. Except that you are arguing just for the delight of it all. Brilliant! Killing is evil to begin with... I have to agree with Kresalak, this really is the correct response. Also, just because casting the spell isn't [evil] doesn't mean some given instance of casting the spell wouldn't be an evil act, or quite possibly the spell actually working (they fail their save) is an evil act, even if casting it wasn't. Your stretching credulity. Past the breaking point. Making nonsense. Business as usual for some people, I guess. Seriously. Do we have to spell it out for you? Casting the spell is *not* in-and-of itself an evil action. Using the spell to kill someone is. For all spells. Some spells can't help but do that when targetting a person. Guess what, some guns can't help but kill someone when targetting a person. |
| Kresalak03-06-07, 10:15 AM | No, you showed that using the spell to do an action that is by itself an evil action was evil use of a spell. Killing the village was evil to begin with. So you proved nada. Except that you are arguing just for the delight of it all. Brilliant! Your argument was that using Implosion to kill someone wasn't evil because Implosion lacks the [Evil] tag. |
| twad03-06-07, 10:21 AM | Quote: Originally Posted by Singer_of_the_Song No, orcs are chaotic evil because their societies are. No, their societies are evil cos they are. So, wich came first, the chiken or the egg? |
| CharlieRock03-06-07, 10:27 AM | Your argument was that using Implosion to kill someone wasn't evil because Implosion lacks the [Evil] tag. Don't try that 'restatement with subtle differences' stuff here. I said that killing is not an absolute evil act. Plain and simple. You've tried to argue that trap the soul wasn't evil. So, trapping the soul of people must not be an evil act in and of itself. Now you change the goalposts for finger of death. Or, you apply that argument of 'well, what if you killed a bunch of innocent people with that spell' which doesn't prove anything. |
| ArchmageGromph03-06-07, 10:38 AM | i Understand your argument but the game isnt meant to be translated into real life answers. its like this people always have free will even if u think they do not take the person who you said who always acts impulsivelly due to deffect. anyways get ten of those in a room and ask them what theyd like to do the most. youd probably get ten different answers and its a choice they made on there own. truth is there is varying levels of free will |
| Kresalak03-06-07, 10:38 AM | Do you even know what changing the goalposts means? All I was arguing was that killing with a spell that lacks the [Evil] descriptor can be evil if it is the act of killing is evil. Is your strategy here to confuse and irritate us until we give up? |
| CharlieRock03-06-07, 10:54 AM | Do you even know what changing the goalposts means? All I was arguing was that killing with a spell that lacks the [Evil] descriptor can be evil if it is the act of killing is evil. Is your strategy here to confuse and irritate us until we give up? And I'm showing that when the sole result of a spell is killing, and it is not evil; then killing is not absolutely evil (there are enough mitigating circumstances that sometimes it can be non-evil). Is your strategy here to just listen to your own mish-mash logic and ignore everything else that contradicts that? |
| Kresalak03-06-07, 10:58 AM | Implosion can target nonliving things, like Constructs, and hence is not always evil. |
| CharlieRock03-06-07, 11:08 AM | Implosion can target nonliving things, like Constructs, and hence is not always evil. :rofl: Implosion wasn't my example. I used finger of death . But, there is also holy word to consider. You might want to consider the latter first, since it kills and is absolutely a [good] spell. |
| Squirrelloid03-06-07, 11:24 AM | And I'm showing that when the sole result of a spell is killing, and it is not evil; then killing is not absolutely evil (there are enough mitigating circumstances that sometimes it can be non-evil). Is your strategy here to just listen to your own mish-mash logic and ignore everything else that contradicts that? Prove the alignment rules allow for mitigating circumstances. The *alignment* rules. (Anything anywhere else is merely a violation of the alignment rules. Because rules unassociated with them are, by design, not intended to alter the alignment rules. Otherwise they would have been included with the rules on alignment.) The alignment rules say that killing others is evil. There is no situation where killing someone is the only option - you can always knock them unconscious (or polymorph other them into a rabbit which you then cage, and so forth). Edit: Of course, demonstrating there are spells which are clearly intended to kill things and aren't [evil], in fact are sometimes [good], in combination with the alignment rule claim that killing others is evil, merely furthers my argument that the game's rules on alignment make no sense whatsoever. |
| Squirrelloid03-06-07, 11:30 AM | :rofl: Implosion wasn't my example. I used finger of death . But, there is also holy word to consider. You might want to consider the latter first, since it kills and is absolutely a [good] spell. Despite having the [Good] tag, it is an evil action to cast Holy Word when living non-good creatures with HD = Caster Level-10 or lower are around you. Now, since the act of casting it is a good act, and killing with it is an evil act, the combination is net neutral for one to a few deaths (probably, since neutral characters are allowed to perform evil acts), and definitely evil for lots of deaths. Now, undead are not living, so you can freely use it to "kill" undead, because you don't actually kill them, you destroy them. Similarly, Holy Word can also "kill" constructs. (Anything that is "dead" at 0 hp is destroyed, not "killed"). So it is possible to use Holy Word against HD=CL-10 or lower and not have it be an evil act, up until you actually kill something with it. While not inherently [Evil], most castings of Finger of Death will be evil actions (because it doesn't work against Undead or Constructs). However, since the PHB says "killing others" is evil, it is not an evil act to use Finger of Death on yourself. Silly? Sure. But there exists a non-evil use of Finger of Death. |
| EvilIdiot03-06-07, 01:51 PM | In general, see my previous posts - you've posted little new or interesting here. In specific, actually respond to my points please. (For the debate terminology fluent: extend all my previous arguments, he hasn't refuted anything, he's basically accused me of knowing what I'm doing, and asking a bunch of questions that have nothing to do with the topics at hand). I said you can't find answers because you made wrong assumptions, that I've already addressed in previous post. A "Good" solution, as best as I can determine from the rules, follows each example. you said Ok, so prove it in D+D terms, that there can be extenuating circumstances for killing. Because it 'seems right' to you is not good enough. So, if I have to defeat those foes I taken as examples, I must fight them. During fight, I could kill them, or make them unconscious. If the former happens, no problem, I defeated my foes, who were acting as evil. Finally, your solutions used things such antimagic fields, which aren't easy to get at any level. Instead of you, normal people accept that something can be unexcepted or unforeseeable. So, the fact that you find an exception to a possible scenario doesn't mean that scenario isn't valid any more. Moreover, saying that something must go in a proper way, because it's logical, or simply support you, doesn't mean it will go in that way, especially if you're considering something aleatory as a fight. Your question would have been correct if you could accept exceptions and practice , which can be both outside from your stric-logic pov Do you even know what fuzzy logic is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/mar98/fuz/flindex.html Here's some reading material. Hint - fuzzy logic has almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. Do you really think so? I think ALs rules can be explained, from the pov of logic only, thus without considering other stuff like interpretation, being in a fantasy world, etc... by fuzzy logic. Define following items: Exalted(ex), Good(g),Neutral(e),Evil(e),Vile(v). Let's put ex=0% and v=100%. g and e can be put in any way you want, assuming they must have some degree of difference(as PHB states, after all) for example: 0%<=g<=50% and 50%<=e<=100% and, finally: 35%<=n<=65% someone could also argue that neutrality is "wider" than other two ALs, so we could say also for example: 0%<=g<=40% and 60%<=e<=100% and, finally: 35%<=n<=65% Different representations have different meanings, with this model; DeD can accept all of them, if DM wants so, even the following obtuse case: g=ex, v=e and 0%<n<100% uh, about wiki Fuzzy logic is derived from fuzzy set theory dealing with reasoning that is approximate rather than precisely deduced from classical predicate logic. You should know,as a scientist, that every theory, or model, humans may create, approximates reality and practical situations. Approximating something that can't be precisely deduced, is better than making a forced deduction. Well, if something is a priori invalid or unsound, there's no point in debating it a posteriori now is there? Invalid is invalid, period. This is what you're doing, in fact. the point is that you invalidate others' statements whenever they could seem fallacious. I didn't just say "Kant says x, therefore x is true." I said, "Kant says x", explained what x is, and then made my conclusions based on the strength of Kant's argument. I have a feeling it is you who don't understand good and evil. I'm going to try to explain it, because its really not that hard. ....Good for whom? Things can only be good or evil with respect to an agent capable of pursuing those things. A neutral value judgement is really a failure to render a preference between two ideas that are anathema to each other. Its not really a neutral judgement, its the absence of a judgement. And that's a basis for ethics. Its how good and evil work before we even get to the point of deciding what is good or evil. Ethics is the domain of arguing about how we *should* value things, not how we do. How we do value things is the subject of metaphysics. Now, in the above context, almost any attempt at an objective moral system is provably incoherent. The best two attempts are as follows, and both have serious problems: (A) Kantian Categorical Imperative: (paraphrasing) I will call no thing good unless I would simultaneously declare it to be universal law. (By law he means everyone doing it - law in the physics sense, not the legal sense). Please also note that the CI is not to be used by splitting hairs - you submit whole categories of actions to the CI for a judgement on the lot of them. You cannot separate things by difference in degree, only difference in kind. (All killing must be evaluated simultaneously. All theft must be evaluated simultaneously, etc... It should be noted that Kant did believe that having a soul constituted a difference in kind of creature, so killing animals is a difference in kind than killing people. Not all modern Kantians believe so). On Kant's use of the CI I direct you to his work Metaphysics of Morals (original is in German, translation not exact). This is what is known as a criteria for rendering a particular value judgement. If value x fails the CI test, it cannot be good.... Despite yo didn't cite any particular philosopher in the first part, someone must have told you those things, and you've taken them as true. That is one way to explain ethics, in real world as well, and you didn't prove that. As you can use ethic's definition, I can use DeD definition. Except that the main question here regards DeD, not (real world )ethics Moreover, you said CI had some problems, true. But you keep using it, because you asked , and suggested, that if killing is an evil act (I'd say non-good, try to get it out from a fuzzy model) it can't be a good act. I'm not saying you agree to this definition of E/G, rather you disagree with it, which is deduced instead by use of CI. I misread your post I quoted: you not only appeal to authority, you contradict yourself. If you explain the argument, you aren't appealing to the authority for the truth value of the statement, its that simple. The initial problem was that you refused DeD as an imaginary world, inspired by fantasy and pre-existing cultures and believes, ie as it is. I said: however... DeD assumes to be based on certain believes, so it's a moral "authority" itself You answered You more or less admitted in your last post that you cannot or will not actually provide argument. So you're asking me why DeD is based on common fantasy ideas, saying that DeD is an authority itself; more precisely, a misleading one. A close circuit, a trap, a trick... You said DeD is wrong because it contains arbitrary fantasy elements :eek: , which arent' proved to be worse than simple obtuse/objective relativism. Who cares what the text suggested - you are *harming* the tax collectors who are engaged in a neutral profession, and possibly harming the peasantry in the long term if the tax burden is light. Wait. You conceded the tax collector was evil, so, if a CG attacks him, there' s nothing strange. The text suggest taxes made by the evil one are wrong, not all taxes, and it doesn't say either taxes won't be collected any more after the good guy deeds. As far as I can understood you're saying that since the evil-guy is a tax-collector, a neutral activity per se, he can't be evil? The difference is I don't just say "common sense says x", I explain why it violates common sense. To whit, can you tell me how getting dressed can be done evilly? If you can explain to me how that's even possible, you might have some ground to stand on. I agreed with you that being aligned doesn't mean you must do only aligned actions,so, what's the matter? Is it against common sense to consider undeath evil in fantasy art? Is it against common sense presuming a simplified morality which is also objective? The fact that someone who I never met said objective morality doesn't exist in real world, doesn't prove it can't exist in imaginary,simplified ones. They're descriptive in that they describe and classify behavioral categories. To know if something fits into a category, you have to actually read the description of those categories and interpret what the text says... What's the point? I'm arguing alignment is meaningless because the text is contradictory. There's a difference. It is by your pov, there's a difference. Do you think that the fact you find it that way is because it is universally so? What about other people trying to explain it? Ad numerum or whaterver is called, can't be used when you're saying you can't find meaning of a text everyone understand. Why?because there's something more beyond logic, and you keep believing that what is in DeD must be true in real world,as well, a hard idea to demonstrate. My point is basically that you can separate out the mechanical aspects ....This isn't measurement error, this comes down to a philosophy or RPGs. Not everyone plays or wants to play in a Gamist paradigm (where making optimal strategic choices is the goal). ....Simulationist paradigm, and some want a Narrativist paradigm. None of these are wrong. (I direct you to www.theforge.net - i think that's right - for articles on GNS). In a Simulationist ....What doesn't change between the three paradigms is that the rules are a logical system which can be followed to inevitable conclusions about the effects of your actions (note: narrativists will occasionally ignore the rules for dramatic effect, but that is explicitly ignoring the rules, not pretending the rules work differently). Basically, distinguishing between the mechanics and the act of roleplaying is necessary and important, because using the mechanics and roleplaying really are distinct activities. Definition you given are made on something abstract, as DeD I don't care about someone saying that there are Simulationist and Narratives. They're models for DeD and others RPG, but RPG themselves weren't born with such assumptions, especially the last one you wrote. If objective morality is incoherent in general, it cannot be coherent in a specific instance. (Try using a Ven Diagram: If all objective moral systems are incoherent, then objective moral system x is inconsistent for all x). If you wish to debate the coherency of objective moral systems, I refer you to my post here. Let me explain something about science:science tries to find models to some targets, usually pieces of reality. Science, and mankind, can't truly know anything about reality, or another target. You modelled ALs as an objective morality, with a mathematical punctual model. I modelled DeD as objective alignments, which defines morality in-game, by means of fuzzy logic Models aren't perfect, and they can represent reality, or whatever target, in different ways, with different results and different degrees of goodness. period. You need to find a better model, not a better target. Seriously. Do we have to spell it out for you? Casting the spell is *not* in-and-of itself an evil action. Except for the evil-tagged ones, by raw Why? because they imply evil ,before, during and after being cast. Why?Beacause DeD is based on cultures and common fantasy,where undeath is evil. And common sense (see my previous posts) may make you imagine what would have been the consequences of saying (mindless) undeath is not evil In A-Team d20, if exist, they wouldn't put undeath as evil, because it doesn't fit it In Vampires , they didn't put undeath as evil, because it's a different kind of fantasy. If AD was equal to Animate Object, they wouldn't have invented it, isn't it? PS: check the srd, trap the soul doesn't kill anyone, so, the victim's soul wouldn't go to the outer planes anyway. |
| Leo03-06-07, 02:27 PM | Well, if every good character used this, prisons would get full very very quikcly, and then maybe even trap dimensions would colapse:P |
| Squirrelloid03-06-07, 03:38 PM | Assumptions? We don't need no stinking assumptions! I said you can't find answers because you made wrong assumptions, that I've already addressed in previous post. Prove they're wrong. The bases of my arguments are as follows (none of these are assumptions because they can be proven): (1) Alignment in D+D is meant to be objective. Proof: You cast detect evil. It tells you exactly what is evil and what isn't. This is verifiable and repeatable. Alternately, conjure up some outsiders who are *made of* the stuff. (2) The PHB rules on alignment define what alignment is. Proof: In a rules system, the rules are what the rules say they are. Nothing more and nothing less. If the alignment rules don't tell you what alignment is, you can't know what it is in game, and it ceases to be a useable mechanic. You're welcome to disprove either of those points. But hint: i don't think it helps your position. How to fight like a Good guy: So, if I have to defeat those foes I taken as examples, I must fight them. During fight, I could kill them, or make them unconscious. If the former happens, no problem, I defeated my foes, who were acting as evil. Finally, your solutions used things such antimagic fields, which aren't easy to get at any level. You could kill them, but that would be evil according to the PHB. So if you *want* to be good, you have to knock them unconscious. There are dead magic zones in some campaign worlds, build your prison there. Further, as you've noted, Trap the Soul doesn't kill them, so trap their souls. Alternately, Imprisonment also works. (Note, this does require large towns to have high-level spellcasters - but according to RAW, large towns *do* have high level spellcasters, so this isn't a problem). Both of these solutions get rid of the need for anti-magic effects. Objective morality and Fuzzy Logic? System fault at 0000:F Instead of you, normal people accept that something can be unexcepted or unforeseeable. So, the fact that you find an exception to a possible scenario doesn't mean that scenario isn't valid any more. Moreover, saying that something must go in a proper way, because it's logical, or simply support you, doesn't mean it will go in that way, especially if you're considering something aleatory as a fight. Your question would have been correct if you could accept exceptions and practice , which can be both outside from your stric-logic pov Do you really think so? I think ALs rules can be explained, from the pov of logic only, thus without considering other stuff like interpretation, being in a fantasy world, etc... by fuzzy logic. Define following items: Exalted(ex), Good(g),Neutral(e),Evil(e),Vile(v). Let's put ex=0% and v=100%. g and e can be put in any way you want, assuming they must have some degree of difference(as PHB states, after all) for example: 0%<=g<=50% and 50%<=e<=100% and, finally: 35%<=n<=65% someone could also argue that neutrality is "wider" than other two ALs, so we could say also for example: 0%<=g<=40% and 60%<=e<=100% and, finally: 35%<=n<=65% Different representations have different meanings, with this model; DeD can accept all of them, if DM wants so, even the following obtuse case: g=ex, v=e and 0%<n<100% uh, about wiki You should know,as a scientist, that every theory, or model, humans may create, approximates reality and practical situations. Approximating something that can't be precisely deduced, is better than making a forced deduction. Sigh... Here's the problem, there can be nothing fuzzy about an objective system. Otherwise it ceases to be objective because it is not verifiable or repeatable. Furthermore, even if we do allow fuzzy logic, the PHB tells us "killing others" is evil, which means 100% of actions that kill others are evil. Now, you might be able to balance your alignment towards neutral by killing in defense of others, but the act of killing was *still evil*. Now, in your fuzzy paradigm, this means we're dividing "actions which kill others" between evil and vile, with 0% for all the others. Logic 101: This is what you're doing, in fact. the point is that you invalidate others' statements whenever they could seem fallacious. :banghead: Valid and invalid are technical terms in logic. Invalid means that there is a logical error in an argument that causes the conclusion to not follow from the premises, even if the premises are sound. Given premises (A implies B) and (B implies C), the argument (A implies B), (B implies C), (A), (therefore C) is valid. It is sound iff the premises is true. If however you tried to build an argument (A implies B), (C implies D), (A), (therefore D), that argument would be invalid because A tells us nothing about D. The premises could be true, but the argument is still invalid. Of course, when we argue in english, premises don't come with convenient letter tags. Arguments can still be invalid, it happens a lot more frequently because people leave out steps or think two things are the same when they're not, or otherwise make mistakes. Committing a fallacy is such a mistake, and automatically guarantees the argument fails, even if the other premises are true. For instance, in Appeal to Authority, the argument claims that because the authority says X is true, it is. That doesn't actually do anything to demonstrate the truth-value of the conclusion, and so we can't actually conclude X is true. All it proves is the authority thinks its true. Metaphysics, Ethics, and All. That. Jaaazzzz! Despite yo didn't cite any particular philosopher in the first part, someone must have told you those things, and you've taken them as true. That is one way to explain ethics, in real world as well, and you didn't prove that. As you can use ethic's definition, I can use DeD definition. Except that the main question here regards DeD, not (real world )ethics Moreover, you said CI had some problems, true. But you keep using it, because you asked , and suggested, that if killing is an evil act (I'd say non-good, try to get it out from a fuzzy model) it can't be a good act. Lets examine these shall we? ....Good for whom? Things can only be good or evil with respect to an agent capable of pursuing those things. How do you know when something is good? Oh wait, I just presupposed you, an agent, making a value judgement. You can't even talk about something being good without referring to someone who made that judgement. Therefore good, as far as we are capable of knowing it or defining it, requires an agent to make that judgement. Is food good? Not to a rock. Is extinction good (as in the K-T extinction or similar)? Depends on whether you're one of the creatures that went extinct or not - its good for the survivors (such as mammals across the K-T), not good for those who went extinct (dinosaurs excluding birds for the K-T). Is the liberty to own an assault rifle good? Not if you're a concerned parent afraid that someone is going to shoot up their child's school. Is equal income for everyone good? Not if you're in the top 40% of earners in the country. Even if there is something you can get all humans to agree is good or evil, that's still only all humans. Objective? Please - stop anthropomorphizing. And that's a basis for ethics. Its how good and evil work before we even get to the point of deciding what is good or evil. Ethics is the domain of arguing about how we *should* value things, not how we do. How we do value things is the subject of metaphysics. I'm not sure what you take issue with. Ethics being the subject of what people *should* do is the definition of ethics. Ethics doesn't care about how we determine what's good, only what the result of that determination should be. I'm not about to provide argument for what words mean - that's why we have dictionaries. Metaphysics, similarly, is the philosophy of how the world works, which would include an examination of how people decide something like good and evil. Again, this is definitional. And by basis I mean its a metaphysics which lets us rationally approach the discussion of ethics. Again, thats the very definition of basis. (More specifically, a basis spans the set of elements you wish to discuss, which this does). Now, in the above context, almost any attempt at an objective moral system is provably incoherent. The best two attempts are as follows, and both have serious problems: In the above context, meaning the metaphysics presented, objective moral systems are incoherent because you require a valuer to make value judgements. That is inherently a subjective process, hence no objective value judgements are possible. By all means, if you have specific arguments against the presented metaphysics you're welcome to make them. I can then argue against your points. And come now, just because I didn't explicitly make the argument doesn't mean it wasn't implicitly there and *readily accessible* if you took the time to actually understand what was being said. All it required is an understanding of what *subjective* means, and that its the antithesis of objective. I'm not saying you agree to this definition of E/G, rather you disagree with it, which is deduced instead by use of CI. I misread your post I quoted: you not only appeal to authority, you contradict yourself First, I used Kant's CI as an example of an "objective" moral system. I'm not even saying Kant is right. I can't be guilty of Appeal to Authority for presenting someone's system, with no claims about its veracity. Appeal to Authority specifically requires that you claim X, and X is true because Y (authority) says so. If you never claim X is true, you don't even start down that path at all. What I did claim was Kant said X. I even listed the source (Metaphysics of Morals), which is evidence that Kant said X, and you can go look it up if you don't believe me. Finally, given that I brought up Ayn Rand 2 paragraphs later in the same context, accusing me of arguing one was true would, structurally, necessitate I was arguing both were true. Anyone at all familiar with their philosophies would realize how much of a gross impossibility this was, because they are complete opposites. They were referenced for example purposes only, as both are candidates for objective ethical systems. Death and Taxes: Wait. You conceded the tax collector was evil, so, if a CG attacks him, there' s nothing strange. The text suggest taxes made by the evil one are wrong, not all taxes, and it doesn't say either taxes won't be collected any more after the good guy deeds. As far as I can understood you're saying that since the evil-guy is a tax-collector, a neutral activity per se, he can't be evil? No, the tax collector is not evil, the Baron who employs the tax collector is the one specified as evil. Nothing about the text suggests the taxation metric is evil, only that the Baron is evil. It doesn't even suggest why he is evil. Regardless, harming the tax collectors, who are only doing their job and engaged in a N activity, is certainly an evil act. Nonsensical, nonsequitur, and otherwise uninterpretable replies: You said: The initial problem was that you refused DeD as an imaginary world, inspired by fantasy and pre-existing cultures and believes, ie as it is. I said: In response to: If you explain the argument, you aren't appealing to the authority for the truth value of the statement, its that simple. You comment has *nothing* to do with that statement. Which mostly leaves me confused. however... DeD assumes to be based on certain believes, so it's a moral "authority" itself. You more or less admitted in your last post that you cannot or will not actually provide argument. So you're asking me why DeD is based on common fantasy ideas, saying that DeD is an authority itself; more precisely, a misleading one. A close circuit, a trap, a trick... You said DeD is wrong because it contains arbitrary fantasy elements :eek: , which arent' proved to be worse than simple obtuse/objective relativism. (1) D+D alignment is based on exactly what the PHB says alignment is. (The fact that the PHB descriptions of alignment are basically useless as a whole is besides the point - those *are* the rules for alignment.) (2) If you want to argue D+D is meant to be based on some moral philosophy that *actually makes sense*, please do so. But *actually explain the philosophy*. (3) Until you fail to either provide argument that the D+D alignment rules as detailed in the PHB makes sense *or* the merits of some other moral philosophy which is objective (and that D+D is provably trying to use, even though the alignment rules don't say so), you have failed to argue the point. Is it against common sense to consider undeath evil in fantasy art? Nope. Never met something undead. Common sense has nothing to do with it, because common people have *no experience* with it. Is it against common sense presuming a simplified morality which is also objective? Is it common sense to assume the vacuum of space is actually filled with ether, because everything needs a medium through which it travels, and light travels through space. Whether or not its common sense, its wrong because the ether doesn't exist. Similarly, no objective moral system exists. The fact that someone who I never met said objective morality doesn't exist in real world, doesn't prove it can't exist in imaginary,simplified ones. Who decided what objective good was again? Oops, subjective judgement. Regardless, even if you assume objective good, which D+D does (and I grant that), that doesn't mean D+D's alignment rules come anywhere close to providing for such a system, even in a rough approximation. They're descriptive in that they describe and classify behavioral categories. To know if something fits into a category, you have to actually read the description of those categories and interpret what the text says... What's the point? That makes the alignment descriptions rules... It is by your pov, there's a difference. Do you think that the fact you find it that way is because it is universally so? What about other people trying to explain it? Ad numerum or whaterver is called, can't be used when you're saying you can't find meaning of a text everyone understand. Why?because there's something more beyond logic, and you keep believing that what is in DeD must be true in real world,as well, a hard idea to demonstrate. (emphasis added) Thats a textbook example of ad numerum. If everyone told you the sun revolved around the earth, would that make them right? Hint, read a biography of Galileo. Contradictions automatically imply no conclusions can be drawn from it. That makes it incoherent. If the same action is both G and E, then there is no difference between G and E. Thus there is no spectrum of actions, and everything collapses to a point at infinity. End of story. Definition you given are made on something abstract, as DeD I don't care about someone saying that there are Simulationist and Narratives. They're models for DeD and others RPG, but RPG themselves weren't born with such assumptions, especially the last one you wrote. ... I thought about just quoting this with no response, because i can't understand what you're saying, or why you're commenting on something in my discussion with Truean that has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing. But it does behoove me to point out that this response is totally meaningless in the context of the text he quoted from my previous post. Let me explain something about science:science tries to find models to some targets, usually pieces of reality. Science, and mankind, can't truly know anything about reality, or another target. You modelled ALs as an objective morality, with a mathematical punctual model. I modelled DeD as objective alignments, which defines morality in-game, by means of fuzzy logic Models aren't perfect, and they can represent reality, or whatever target, in different ways, with different results and different degrees of goodness. period. You need to find a good model, not a good target. If people cannot create an objective moral system, then games made by people cannot contain an objective moral system. QED. Furthermore, if you wanted to create a close approximation of an objective moral system, the D+D alignment rules *totally fail*. (In an approximation, you define things that are to be treated as if they were objectively true. However, such a system must be free of contradictions, because two contradictory objectively true statements lead to the conclusion that the world/universe/multiverse doesn't exist, or your objective labels are meaningless - in this case G and E (or L and C)). In A-Team d20, if exist, they wouldn't put undeath as evil, because it doesn't fit it In Vampires , they didn't put undeath as evil, because it's a different kind of fantasy. There's A-Team d20? Dude. I pity de fool who messes wit Mister T. Vampire does consider the necessities of life as a vampire evil. Please see the Humanity moral scale. The whole point of the game is its a struggle to fight off the evil cravings of being undead. Appendix: Spells If AD was equal to Animate Object, they wouldn't have invented it, isn't it? There are functional differences, but no ethical differences. PS: check the srd, trap the soul doesn't kill anyone, so, the victim's soul wouldn't go to the outer planes anyway. I know, its still messing with their soul. But ok, noted and useful for a Good character intent on capturing and containing evil. See the fighting evil section. |
| Kresalak03-06-07, 07:25 PM | There are functional differences, but no ethical differences. The difference is that Animate Dead is evil, even though nothing about it is evil. Basically, the force of evil itself just jumps in while you're casting the spell, no matter how you do it. I don't get it either. |
| *Truean*03-06-07, 09:20 PM | Hey everyone, Sorry I haven't been around to post. I'm currently applying to law schools. I have a new definition of evil for all of you: Law School Application instructions.... "Please list all Academic Honors, Fellowships, (list 7 miles long) on line C12. Line C12 is about as long as my finger and can not hold half of what I've done :P *Grumble, grumble, grumble* mumble "LSAT"... mumble mumble mumble lol Just joking, but I figured it might get a laugh. Maybe not, but eh... :) Later, Truean |
| DarthMidget03-06-07, 11:10 PM | Regardless, harming the tax collectors, who are only doing their job and engaged in a N activity, is certainly an evil act. Not if the tax collector is an Orc! :D |
| a_psh03-07-07, 01:07 AM | (I'm trying not to get drawn into the rabid philosophical debate here.) Even if there is something you can get all humans to agree is good or evil, that's still only all humans. Objective? Please - stop anthropomorphizing.You're onto something here. Many "objective" world-views can be transformed into "subjective" philosophies with a privileged "observer" figure (e.g. God or Ayn Rand) making judgements that others can then follow. Alignment is most definitely a value judgement. But, here's the trick: in D&D, the "universe" itself is judging you. Alignment tells you how the gods, magic, &c. judge you. Now, D&D gives us a big blob of various divine beings and whatnot, this is a bit incoherent. In some of the works that inspired D&D, "alignment" makes a fair bit of sense: in LotR, good and evil are defined based on their relationship to Eru Iluvatar, the distant and near-omnipotent creator figure, for example (which many D&D settings effectively lack). So, without the same kind of God-the-Father-type figure, alignment gets a bit weird. It doesn't quite make sense in Greyhawk where there is no such figure per se, nor does it really work in FR because Ao is supposedly dispassionate and Neutral, for example. A system that presupposes a single privileged observer acting as the judge without such an observer is on rather shaky ground. Though, of course, like the Ilwrath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilwrath), maybe some folks/monsters/gods just want to be "evil," which you could use to explain why the standard D&D pantheon is split between good and evil, and then use those figures put together as privileged observers who judge the mortals of the world. They're not one entity, but alignment as a quasi-"objective" system still holds up as long as all the gods agree on what is "good" and "evil." Anyway, I have a much bigger problem with alignment: you need a privileged observer to exist in the game rather than just in the context of the shared fiction. In other words, the GM is sitting there judging all the characters. Which means he's basically asking you questions with the right answers already in mind. There goes all your moral exploration, right down the toilet. |
| CharlieRock03-07-07, 03:40 AM | While not inherently [Evil], most castings of Finger of Death will be evil actions (because it doesn't work against Undead or Constructs). However, since the PHB says "killing others" is evil, it is not an evil act to use Finger of Death on yourself. Silly? Sure. But there exists a non-evil use of Finger of Death. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of ... and I've heard a lot from you. |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 10:13 AM | That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of ... and I've heard a lot from you. Yep, a deductive conclusion based on the rules is stupid. Congratulations on your ad hominem attack btw. Premise 1: Killing others is an evil action. Premise 2: If you cast Finger of Death, then you will kill the target Given: You target someone else. Conclusion: Targetting someone else with Finger of Death is an evil action. Given: You target yourself. Conclusion: Targetting yourself with Finger of Death is not an evil action. Demonstration of Soundness: (1) The PHB says it explicitly. (2) Finger of Death cannot effect constructs or undead. Everything else is alive, which means it can be killed. Note on saves: Yes, the creature could make it's saves, but your intention was to kill it. Demonstration of Validity: If you kill another creature, then it is an evil action (B=>C) If you cast Finger of Death on another creature, you will kill another creature (A=>B) Given: You cast Finger of Death. (A) Conclusion: Targetting another creature with finger of death is an evil action (Conclude C). Given: -A Therefore: -C QED |
| DarthMidget03-07-07, 10:31 AM | But if you are a Living Creature, and you kill yourself with Finger of Death wouldn't that be taking a life, and, therefore, Evil? So could you, arguably, not do anything with Finger of Death without it being an Evil act? |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 10:34 AM | But if you are a Living Creature, and you kill yourself with Finger of Death wouldn't that be taking a life, and, therefore, Evil? So could you, arguably, not do anything with Finger of Death without it being an Evil act? Quoth the PHB: "evil implies... killing others." Suicide (killing oneself) is never mentioned by the alignment rules. |
| CharlieRock03-07-07, 11:20 AM | I know some people like to zoom in on one sentence of a paragraph and go "Zomg! Killing is evil". Settle down then ,and read the rest of the paragraph. The rule says that : "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms when it is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or outof duty to some evil deity or master. So to be evil you must: Hurt ,oppress, or kill others For one of the following reason(s): *no compassion *without qualm for convenience *sport *duty to an evil cause That is all it says. The reader may choose to infer whatever else they may like. But, extraneous definitions of evil are not supported by that 'one' line taken out of context (deliberatly it would seem). And it makes more sense then : "I can use finger of death on myself and it won't be evil" or "But the elves are oppressing people!" Which of these interpretations just seems to make more sense? |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 12:12 PM | I know some people like to zoom in on one sentence of a paragraph and go "Zomg! Killing is evil". Settle down then ,and read the rest of the paragraph. The rule says that : "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms when it is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or outof duty to some evil deity or master. So to be evil you must: Hurt ,oppress, or kill others For one of the following reason(s): *no compassion *without qualm for convenience *sport *duty to an evil cause That is all it says. The reader may choose to infer whatever else they may like. But, extraneous definitions of evil are not supported by that 'one' line taken out of context (deliberatly it would seem). Hint, learn to use a Venn Diagram. Killing others is evil. Check. All killing of others. Some evil creatures have no compassion, some kill when its convenient, others kill for sport, and others kill for duty. However, that doesn't span the set of *all evil creatures who kill*. So if we draw a big circle of "killing others", we know from sentence 1 we draw this inside the bigger circle of "evil actions". The next two sentences let us draw four smaller circles inside the killing others circle - we do not know, however, that they cover all of that circle. If it had said all others, or had the second sentence be: "All evil creatures kill for one of the following reasons:", then we would have known we'd spanned the "killing others" that qualified as evil. As it doesn't do anything to limit killing others to just those examples, we can't conclude that other motives for killing can't be evil specifically because they weren't mentioned. The first line is an absolute claim, the following lines are examples. They are sufficient, but not necessary, to conclude evil. Look, a basic logic class would teach you the difference between "some" and "all" and how they interact in a deductive argument. The classic: All Men are Mortal Socrates is a Man Therefore Socrates is Mortal. stops working if you claim "Some Men are Mortal" instead of all men. And it makes more sense then : "I can use finger of death on myself and it won't be evil" or "But the elves are oppressing people!" Which of these interpretations just seems to make more sense? Actually, suicide not being evil makes plenty of sense, depending on what other moral assumptions you make. (As D+D doesn't even mention it, I would guess suicide is a neutral act). The only way good and evil is defined for D+D alignment is a literal reading of *what the alignment rules say*. Anything else has nothing to do with the rules. |
| Kresalak03-07-07, 01:55 PM | I know some people like to zoom in on one sentence of a paragraph and go "Zomg! Killing is evil". Settle down then ,and read the rest of the paragraph. The rule says that : "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms when it is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or outof duty to some evil deity or master. So to be evil you must: Hurt ,oppress, or kill others For one of the following reason(s): *no compassion *without qualm for convenience *sport *duty to an evil cause That is all it says. The reader may choose to infer whatever else they may like. But, extraneous definitions of evil are not supported by that 'one' line taken out of context (deliberatly it would seem). And it makes more sense then : "I can use finger of death on myself and it won't be evil" or "But the elves are oppressing people!" Which of these interpretations just seems to make more sense? Some four sided objects are rectangles. Others are rhombuses. Hence, all four sided objects are rectangles or rhombuses. |
| EvilIdiot03-07-07, 04:22 PM | Assumptions? We don't need no stinking assumptions! Neither that we're in an artificial simplified world? (1) Alignment in D+D is meant to be objective. Not in the way you think, again, current language is ambiguous, the fact that you believe 'objective' means something doesn't imply it means that precise thing, it has different subtle meanings, depending on contexts as well. In DeD ,definition of what is AL is made in general, broad, fuzzy way. Determining AL for characters is made objectively, i.e. once the character falls in one AL, according to your (as DM) view, which should be similar to other people's, you can't take in account things like different points of views, different cultures... Example: the CE elf who kills people because he likes blood Now, consider the CE drow, who kills prisoners because its society taught him to do so. They're both evil ,because they harm other people for their own. If the alignment rules don't tell you what alignment is, you can't know what it is in game, and it ceases to be a useable mechanic. The fact that someone told you rules must be always written and read in 1 way, doesn't mean they can be written in a clear and simple way, which you couldn't understand You could kill them, but that would be evil according to the PHB. So if you *want* to be good, you have to knock them unconscious. Here are the possible situations: - DeD writers .and playtesters, wrote something impossible to be understood by anyone, including writers from other firms. What they wrote is horribly illogical - you can't understand what they wrote because you're trying to get something anyone can't get: the universal-without-exception definition of goodness in real world (Note, this does require large towns to have high-level spellcasters - but according to RAW, large towns *do* have high level spellcasters, so this isn't a problem). Both of these solutions get rid of the need for anti-magic effects. Actually this can be true or false, depending on which level of power the campaign gets Here's the problem, there can be nothing fuzzy about an objective system. Otherwise it ceases to be objective because it is not verifiable or repeatable. You can easily define Exalted and Vile, then get good, neutral and evil. After that, you create a graph of the fuzzy repartition of degrees of values between 5 items. Your character? he's a range inside the graph, whose position helps you evaluate his proper AL . According to the graph, the prevalence of some types of actions, can slide his alignment toward two different directions: left or right. Furthermore, even if we do allow fuzzy logic, the PHB tells us "killing others" is evil, which means 100% of actions that kill others are evil. You mean AL are incoherent because they say everyone who kills is evil? "Everyone who kills is E-aligned" would sound so stupid that would make someone think : (1)to have got a wrong meaning of what he read (2)that what he read is incoherent Have you ever thought about (1)? Now, you might be able to balance your alignment towards neutral by killing in defense of others, but the act of killing was *still evil*. killing is evil, but it can be avoided only in perfect worlds, where everyone is "(L)G" ,according to DeD. If killing, according to phb, were a evil-ALgned only action, what's the meaning of MM? Now, in your fuzzy paradigm, this means we're dividing "actions which kill others" between evil and vile, with 0% for all the others. Actually you should assign values to ALs before evaluating an action, and the n analysing it by the configuration you've got. So, this is a possible configuration. Invalid means that there is a logical error in an argument that causes the conclusion to not follow from the premises, even if the premises are sound. Your knowledge is tremendous , and your logic perfect, however I have still to disagree about somethings For instance, in Appeal to Authority, the argument claims that because the authority says X is true, it is. You said we must demonstrate why cultures believe undeath is evil, or why DeD creators chose to adhere to them. You said we must demonstrate why common fantasy defines something as evil, or why DeD creators chose to adhere to it. It's a matter of tastes after all. It's like saying that Faust behaviour would have been wrong because he could have logically deduced that Mephistopheles didn't exist, or that selling his soul was something stupid. Why didn't he do so? because the author chose so. Was it a wrong decision?No , it was the correct decision, considering the type of romance the author chose to write. As in DeD: being a fantasy-related rpg, it has its own assumptions. There are lots of reasons for this, considering that in DeD there are living creatures, who have believes, so, whatever you say, I would find difficult for normal people say that undeath isn't evil. You never proved that undeath is neutral or nonevil, you proved only that there are possible points of views and scenarios where it can be achieved without harming others for your own. To be precise: - people do not care anything about their corpse (if they do, who is the necromancer not to respect their will?) - nature balance and integrity may not be harmed by undeath practise - you may find ways to practise with necromancy without killing more creatures than the ones you would kill anyway due to your adventurous life ( but, if you really need/want to practise, you may not have patience to wait) Lets examine these shall we? sure. religions say good and evil exists, without needing to imagine any agent. Is food good? Not to a rock. Is extinction good (as in the K-T extinction or similar)? Depends on whether you're one of the creatures that went extinct or not - its good for the survivors (such as mammals across the K-T), not good for those who went extinct (dinosaurs excluding birds for the K-T). Is the liberty to own an assault rifle good? Convenience and good may be different. Volunteers in hospitals haven't always got convenience while doing voluntary services. Despite that acting good makes you feel good, someone says it's human nature... In the above context, meaning the metaphysics presented, objective moral systems are incoherent because you require a valuer to make value judgements. That is inherently a subjective process, hence no objective value judgements are possible. In DeD judgement is made (suggested) by manuals All it required is an understanding of what *subjective* means, and that its the antithesis of objective. You can always see things from different pov, making something objective subjective, and viceversa As a-psh said: Many "objective" world-views can be transformed into "subjective" philosophies with a privileged "observer" figure (e.g. God or Ayn Rand) making judgements that others can then follow. First, I used Kant's CI as an example of an "objective" moral system. however, look: (A) Kantian Categorical Imperative: (paraphrasing) I will call no thing good unless I would simultaneously declare it to be universal law. So, why you must find that kill is always either evil or good, if you're not applying CI? Because you know AL system is objective? What about "objective" meaning something different from what you thought ? No, the tax collector is not evil, the Baron who employs the tax collector is the one specified as evil. Nothing about the text suggests the taxation metric is evil, only that the Baron is evil. It doesn't even suggest why he is evil. I misread final words from your phb quote, my apologize.:embarrass Well, what to say...they simplified.:rolleyes: what you should do is to imagine something from descriptive text... If they say it's a good character, you could just assume that collectors, in given example. were evil, or, as you said, Sovellis could harm them in a non-lethal way, did you have to presume he was acting significantly against his AL? You said that, since the text may be incoherent in a particular situation, it was absolutely wrong, or "non-true" As I said before, there's something beyond (boolean) logic. Have you ever heard about Robin Hood? Regardless, harming the tax collectors, who are only doing their job and engaged in a N activity, is certainly an evil act. It depends on the way they pursue it, as well You said: Quote: The initial problem was that you refused DeD as an imaginary world, inspired by fantasy and pre-existing cultures and believes, ie as it is. I said: In response to: Quote: Originally Posted by Squirrelloid If you explain the argument, you aren't appealing to the authority for the truth value of the statement, its that simple. You comment has *nothing* to do with that statement. Which mostly leaves me confused. That comment was introductory :rolleyes: , you correctly quoted the next one in the same post,in the end. (1) D+D alignment is based on exactly what the PHB says alignment is. This doesn't mean it is something you can define with a brief statement/rule. If someone describes you something, it doesn't mean that you must be able to define it by logical/mathematical rules. "Monet's paintings are an examples of impressionist art" Can you find a mathematical/logical description of a rule to find what paintings are impressionist-inspired? (2) If you want to argue D+D is meant to be based on some moral philosophy that *actually makes sense*, please do so. But *actually explain the philosophy*. I did. You said it wasn't coherent according to real world's modern theories about ethics. (3) Until you fail to either provide argument that the D+D alignment rules as detailed in the PHB makes sense *or* the merits of some other moral philosophy which is objective (and that D+D is provably trying to use, even though the alignment rules don't say so), you have failed to argue the point. It is objective, provided you make simplifications ,since you're not in real world... Nope. Never met something undead. Common sense has nothing to do with it, because common people have *no experience* with it. Dead bodies have values, according to common sense, otherwise, why someone would build graveyards? Is it common sense to assume the vacuum of space is actually filled with ether, because everything needs a medium through which it travels, and light travels through space. Can you prove physically that objective morality doesn't exist in any imaginary world? Who decided what objective good was again? Oops, subjective judgement. Manuals, common fantasy assumptions and dm. Regardless, even if you assume objective good, which D+D does (and I grant that), that doesn't mean D+D's alignment rules come anywhere close to providing for such a system, even in a rough approximation. Because you interprets AL definitions differently from other people , as me, who claim to understand them (emphasis added) Thats a textbook example of ad numerum. If everyone told you the sun revolved around the earth, would that make them right? Hint, read a biography of Galileo. Comprehending text is something much more relative than saying how solar system works. Which telescope do you use to read PHB text as you do? If people cannot create an objective moral system, then games made by people cannot contain an objective moral system. QED. Know I'm imaging of eating fire and flying with power of my mind. Can people do this? In an approximation, you define things that are to be treated as if they were objectively true. No. approximating something means finding a model which represent it, with some degrees of abstractions and errors. In boolean logic, "something" is the value of a statement:T/F Vampire does consider the necessities of life as a vampire evil. Please see the Humanity moral scale. The whole point of the game is its a struggle to fight off the evil cravings of being undead. Yes, but you can be a N vampire who belongs to a N clan. In ded, this is almost possible (there may be some exceptions(as always, it's a matter of fantasy)) ,maybe in eberron. There are functional differences, but no ethical differences. I could say the opposite. You said that skeletons where a bunch of animated bones... Why did authors choose different spells? Oh, yes, they used negative energy, AniObj no. Why? Because skeletons are undeads? What prevented authors to make mindless undead created by AniObj, instead of AniUnd? |
| Pfisiar03-07-07, 04:34 PM | Personally, I'm glad I don't play D&D with someone like Squirrel boy. A missing comma would turn into a 4-hour rule debate on what the rules actually allow you to do. It doesn't matter what the rules say. It matters how they are interpreted and applied through the DM. This is a freakin' pointless discussion. Squirrly is looking for hard and fast, word-by-word deffinitions of what is always true. That's not how D&D works, I'm sorry to say. This thread has officially worn out it's usefullness. It has degraded into feet-dragging and flames. |
| Aliquid03-07-07, 04:43 PM | This thread has officially worn out it's usefullness. It has degraded into feet-dragging and flames.This thread was hi-jacked and went off topic over 180 posts ago... The original point was the suggestion that it was logically possible for a sentient and intelligent creature to be "always evil". i.e. Even thought it has "free will", the creature wouldn't be capable of "choosing" to become "good", or it would never have a reason to make such a choice. |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 05:00 PM | This thread was hi-jacked and went off topic over 180 posts ago... The original point was the suggestion that it was logically possible for a sentient and intelligent creature to be "always evil". i.e. Even thought it has "free will", the creature wouldn't be capable of "choosing" to become "good", or it would never have a reason to make such a choice. It wasn't actually a hijack, it was the natural evolution given the proposition that: The rules say mindless creatures aren't evil because they can't take moral action. Therefore, evil requires deliberately making choices that are evil over choices that are otherwise. Thus, if something necessarily makes evil choices, its not actually capable of moral action (because it doesn't have the choice to do otherwise) and thus is neutral. Which led to mindless undead, which yada yada yada. The point being, the alignment rules specifically state a creature must be capable of "moral action" (the ability to choose to be good or evil) in order to have a non-N alignment. |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 05:07 PM | Personally, I'm glad I don't play D&D with someone like Squirrel boy. A missing comma would turn into a 4-hour rule debate on what the rules actually allow you to do. It doesn't matter what the rules say. It matters how they are interpreted and applied through the DM. This is a freakin' pointless discussion. Squirrly is looking for hard and fast, word-by-word deffinitions of what is always true. That's not how D&D works, I'm sorry to say. This thread has officially worn out it's usefullness. It has degraded into feet-dragging and flames. As a DM? I removed alignment from my games a decade ago, and have a book's worth of houserules at this point. Message board discussions are not about what I do, its about what the rules say. I can't even talk about my games without writing out the pages of houserules - otherwise someone will say "You're wrong about X,Y,Z" - and they'd be right according to the published rules - but in my campaign they're wrong. That is hardly a logical basis for discussion. I mean, imagine this thread's starting post, and me going: "But nothing has alignment, so clearly no race has an evil disposition." You'd go: 'Dude, WTF. Read your rulebook'. Which is why it really confuses me that people say "that's not how anyone plays". True. But if everyone posted based on how they played, no discussion would be possible. If we can't assume the rules as written, we can't have a discussion. Its that simple. So if It doesn't matter what the rules say. It matters how they are interpreted and applied through the DM. then how are you and I ever going to talk about alignment in the game if I don't even *play* with alignment? (This does not in any way prohibit us from pointing out where the rules as written contradict each other - eg, alignment rules defining mindless creatures as N whereas Skeletons have alignment N/E. One of these *has* to be wrong.) |
| a_psh03-07-07, 05:21 PM | But if everyone posted based on how they played, no discussion would be possible. If we can't assume the rules as written, we can't have a discussion. Its that simple.We'd just be having a different (arguably much more productive) discussion. |
| Aliquid03-07-07, 05:26 PM | It wasn't actually a hijack, it was the natural evolution given the proposition that: The rules say mindless creatures aren't evil because they can't take moral action. Therefore, evil requires deliberately making choices that are evil over choices that are otherwise. Thus, if something necessarily makes evil choices, its not actually capable of moral action (because it doesn't have the choice to do otherwise) and thus is neutral. Which led to mindless undead, which yada yada yada. The point being, the alignment rules specifically state a creature must be capable of "moral action" (the ability to choose to be good or evil) in order to have a non-N alignment.Fair enough... but the original post was talking about intelligent and sentient creatures, not mindless ones. A Red Dragon for instance, highly intelligent, fully capable of making choices, yet still "always evil". The argument would be that even though the Dragon is intelligent, sentient, and probably has free will, it isn't capable of "choosing" to be good. Either that or it is "capable" of making such a choice, but no mentally stable Red Dragon would make such a choice (just like no mentally stable human would poke their eyes out "just for fun", even though they are capable of making such a choice). |
| Morits03-07-07, 05:47 PM | Squirreloid: Which is why it really confuses me that people say "that's not how anyone plays". True. But if everyone posted based on how they played, no discussion would be possible. If we can't assume the rules as written, we can't have a discussion. Its that simple. Rules as Written provide a common basis for debate. "My Houserule is better than your Houserule" usually produces arguements which disappear up their own as**les. Squirreloid spotted the Flint that PHB alignment rules define that killing is Evil, whereas slaying Monsters is the whole point of the Game. "How anyone plays": such a Huge Majority of DnD groups ignore the "Killing is automatically Evil" rule that this [B]particular /B] Houserule constitutes a common basis for debate. |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 06:12 PM | You know, you could actually read my previous posts and all the answers are there... I've deleted responses that made no sense in the context of the discussion. Neither that we're in an artificial simplified world? And the *rules* of the world define that world. If the rules are contradictory, that's a problem (eg, contradictions in the alignment rules). If the rules say things that defy common sense, the *rules* are right and common sense is wrong (eg, alignment rules *as written* clearly not making sense in the context of your preconceptions). Not in the way you think, again, current language is ambiguous, the fact that you believe 'objective' means something doesn't imply it means that precise thing, it has different subtle meanings, depending on contexts as well. "Objective" cannot be subjective. That defies all reason. The word means exactly what it means, nothing more and nothing less. Objectively true statements are provable and verifiable. Alignment is provable and verifiable in D+D, unless Detect Evil detects a person as evil for one person and not for another person (both using the spell) *at the exact same moment*. I mean, I could equally well say that all language is metaphor, and the rules are totally meaningless because words can't have precise definitions. And then how are we going to talk about the game? Oh right, we can't. (See response to Pfisiar above). In DeD ,definition of what is AL is made in general, broad, fuzzy way. Determining AL for characters is made objectively, i.e. once the character falls in one AL, according to your (as DM) view, which should be similar to other people's, you can't take in account things like different points of views, different cultures... It can't be fuzzy because it can be verified. Further, the text gives no (that's 0%, none, nada, zero) reason to believe killing is ever a good act. Also, note that character alignments are a composition of the alignments of their actions, but *actions* have well-defined alignment. Ie, killing is *evil*. Period. Someone who kills might be evil, neutral, or rarely good (and they better feel remorse afterwards). The more evil acts someone commits, the farther they fall towards evil. Example: the CE elf who kills people because he likes blood Now, consider the CE drow, who kills prisoners because its society taught him to do so. They're both evil ,because they harm other people for their own. They committed the same evil action. Congratulations. The fact that someone told you rules must be always written and read in 1 way, doesn't mean they can be written in a clear and simple way, which you couldn't understand. Prove the passage on alignment can be read a different way in a manner *actually consistent with its language*. Again, i'll note you have never once quoted a single rules passage this entire discussion unless I quoted it first. Here are the possible situations: - DeD writers .and playtesters, wrote something impossible to be understood by anyone, including writers from other firms. What they wrote is horribly illogical - you can't understand what they wrote because you're trying to get something anyone can't get: the universal-without-exception definition of goodness in real world Actually, I am fairly confident the designers didn't fully understand the rules because one of them made shapechange more powerful because his druid (!!!) wasn't powerful enough in playtesting. They then published the Planar Shepherd PrC! And lets not forget Artificer and Incantatrix. Or Divine Metamagic! Seriously, things that are game-breaking out-of-the-box should never have been published in the first place. (I could go on and on about ridiculous stuff, like the Sarukh or the White Raven nonsense.) Further, the fact that game designers wrote a system that demanded objective morality yet spent a mere 3 pages describing the system when books have been written on the subject (without reaching such a system), and failed to actually provide one, is not a surprise. Its a ridiculous burden to put on a game designer. From a game design perspective, the alignment passage should have looked as follows: "A character can belong to one of two teams - Good or Evil, and one of two other teams whose goals do not interfere with the first - Law or Chaos. A character may alternately be Neutral, meaning they have not committed to either team." "Good characters defend the lives of others, and only kill when it cannot be averted, and avoid inflicting unnecessary harm. Evil characters only look out for themselves, have little to no compunctions against killing for any reason, and care nothing about people in general (though they might care about a few specific people). Neutral characters are somewhere in-between here, such that they might act as a member of either team at various times, but if their actions are sufficiently one-sided they might slide towards being on that team." Write a similar paragraph about Law and Chaos once you've decided what those are. "A DM should ignore what alignment PCs write on their character sheets for most purposes unless they are acting grossly contrary to their stated alignment. Alignment mostly defines which team the PC fights for, and thus actual behavior only matters when a PC is consistently violating the tenants of his alignment. A PC may choose to switch alignment for any suitable reason. Note that alignment is important to some classes, and these characters often additionally have a code of conduct which ensures they behave appropriately - violations of Codes of Conduct should be dealt with as described in the class description." This would maintain alignment as a viable mechanic (interactions with spells, etc...), provide sufficiently general descriptions that you get a vague idea what those alignments mean *without actually making behavior that important to your alignment* (so the fact that its vague *isn't* important to the rules), and provides ground for things that we all seem to want (good characters can kill evil creatures). Actually this can be true or false, depending on which level of power the campaign gets Irrelevant. The DMG has rules for NPC level based on city size. That is the default assumption - the DM is responsible for the consequences of any houserules he makes. You can easily define Exalted and Vile, then get good, neutral and evil. After that, you create a graph of the fuzzy repartition of degrees of values between 5 items. Your character? he's a range inside the graph, whose position helps you evaluate his proper AL . According to the graph, the prevalence of some types of actions, can slide his alignment toward two different directions: left or right. But actions are absolutes (or well bounded). Killing others *is* evil. Therefore, the net effect of killing on a character's alignment is to pull it towards evil. You mean AL are incoherent because they say everyone who kills is evil? "Everyone who kills is E-aligned" would sound so stupid that would make someone think : (1)to have got a wrong meaning of what he read (2)that what he read is incoherent Have you ever thought about (1)? Sigh, I've pointed out a number of reasons why the alignment rules are incoherent. (everyone who wanders is C/N! Sorry, you can't play a Paladin adventurer - alignment violation). Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate any alignment rules text which supports the notion that there exists an act of killing another person that isn't an evil *action*. (You are still conflating a character's alignment with the repercussions of actions on their alignment). killing is evil, but it can be avoided only in perfect worlds, where everyone is "(L)G" ,according to DeD. If killing, according to phb, were a evil-ALgned only action, what's the meaning of MM? Uh... Do you mean the Monster Manual? You can subdue them. You said we must demonstrate why cultures believe undeath is evil, or why DeD creators chose to adhere to them. You said we must demonstrate why common fantasy defines something as evil, or why DeD creators chose to adhere to it. It's a matter of tastes after all. If you would like to debate it and you are in favor of it, you have to present argument for it. Otherwise its just a meaningless statement. Rules cannot be a matter of taste. They have to *actually work* and *make sense in the context of all the other rules*. It's like saying that Faust behaviour would have been wrong because he could have logically deduced that Mephistopheles didn't exist, or that selling his soul was something stupid. Why didn't he do so? because the author chose so. Was it a wrong decision?No , it was the correct decision, considering the type of romance the author chose to write. Irrelevant - not a game. No one else has to figure out what his moral code was en minutiae. Authors of stories have it easy - they can make anything they want to be true about their fictional world and no one else has to suffer the consequences. (Of course, if they make blatantly contradictory things true at the same time, the story will suck). As in DeD: being a fantasy-related rpg, it has its own assumptions. There are lots of reasons for this, considering that in DeD there are living creatures, who have believes, so, whatever you say, I would find difficult for normal people say that undeath isn't evil. You never proved that undeath is neutral or nonevil, you proved only that there are possible points of views and scenarios where it can be achieved without harming others for your own. To be precise: - people do not care anything about their corpse (if they do, who is the necromancer not to respect their will?) - nature balance and integrity may not be harmed by undeath practise - you may find ways to practise with necromancy without killing more creatures than the ones you would kill anyway due to your adventurous life ( but, if you really need/want to practise, you may not have patience to wait) Do souls have property rights? If stealing someone's corpse is immoral, so is taking their stuff after you kill them. If they don't 'own' their body after death, they can't object to someone else using it after they die from any moral perspective. (Ie, after you kill a monster it is not an evil act to take its stuff == treasure. Therefore, taking its body is also not an evil act) Further, undead are animated with Negative Energy, which is perfectly natural (its a freaking inner plane!). Negative energy is not itself evil. (And not that it matters, but balance requires destruction as well as creation). Sentient undead may well be evil (but note ghosts are not by default). However, mindless undead, as they are without the capacity to take moral action, are defined as N by the alignment rules. This is totally independent of the act of animating them - the animator could commit an evil act in animating them and the skeletons should still be N. sure. religions say good and evil exists, without needing to imagine any agent. The agent for a religion is God or gods. Note that moses brought down the 10 commandments which were handed to him by God - and they are God's Commandments - not good in and of themselves, but good insofar as God Himself commanded it. Thus if God is wrong, the commandments are not good because he said so (they may still be good, but we'd need to find our justification elsewhere). Therefore their goodness is independent of the fact God so commanded them, or is good only in the context of God as the subjective judger. (And independent validation of a commandment will only validate it to the person making that judgement - another person could find differently). In DeD judgement is made (suggested) by manuals So why do you argue against what the manual says is true? You can always see things from different pov, making something objective subjective, and viceversa As a-psh said: however, look: So, why you must find that kill is always either evil or good, if you're not applying CI? Because you know AL system is objective? What about "objective" meaning something different from what you thought ? Please go back and read the post I brought up Kant again. I gave him as an example at an attempt at an objective system, and proceeded to demonstrate why it wasn't actually objective. I have not (and will not - ick) use Kant to demonstrate anything about D+D, or any other moral system aside from his own. I misread final words from your phb quote, my apologize.:embarrass Well, what to say...they simplified.:rolleyes: what you should do is to imagine something from descriptive text... If they say it's a good character, you could just assume that collectors, in given example. were evil, or, as you said, Sovellis could harm them in a non-lethal way, did you have to presume he was acting significantly against his AL? You said that, since the text may be incoherent in a particular situation, it was absolutely wrong, or "non-true" As I said before, there's something beyond (boolean) logic. Have you ever heard about Robin Hood? In Robin Hood the Sheriff of Nottingham is specifically evil because of cruel taxation. They could have written: "The evil baron who imposes harsh taxes on the poor" instead of "The evil baron". As to harming the tax collectors - they aren't going to be able to hand the baron the taxes, and he will take it out on them. Thus Soveliss knows he is directly harming the tax collectors. This doesn't mean it is something you can define with a brief statement/rule. If someone describes you something, it doesn't mean that you must be able to define it by logical/mathematical rules. "Monet's paintings are an examples of impressionist art" Can you find a mathematical/logical description of a rule to find what paintings are impressionist-inspired? Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that _All_ Monet's paintings are impressionist if your statement above is true, however. Further, nothing requires Impressionism to be an objective category. Which makes it totally different than alignment in D+D. I did. You said it wasn't coherent according to real world's modern theories about ethics. My incoherency claims are as follows (and there are two distinct ones): (1) D+D alignment is incoherent with respect to itself and other rules in the Core rules set. (2) Objective morality is incoherent in terms of the metaphysics of value judgements. It is objective, provided you make simplifications ,since you're not in real world... If it contradicts itself, it is not objective, because G=E. Therefore spells like Detect Evil should just fail every time they are cast. The game requires an objective distinction between good and evil, which means a well-defined barrier between the two. Dead bodies have values, according to common sense, otherwise, why someone would build graveyards? Ah, but in the real world when you kill someone you aren't allowed to take their stuff without moral implications (its still thieving - it belongs to next of kin). In D+D, when you kill someone, you're entitled to their stuff. The corpse is legally treated exactly like other possessions for the same ethical reasons. Any emotional value people place in a corpse is no different than emotional value people place in items - it doesn't effect the ethics of the situation at all. Thus, D+D is already expressly different than the real world in this regard. Further, if the corpse belongs to a race that doesn't bury its dead, or doesn't care, does your objection go away? Can you prove physically that objective morality doesn't exist in any imaginary world? Find me any judgement that wasn't made by an agent. If you can't, objective morality is impossible. Manuals, common fantasy assumptions and dm. Except I'm the only one who's quoting the manual here. RtFM already - it supports my position on what the alignment rules say. Because you interprets AL definitions differently from other people , as me, who claim to understand them If your understanding was correct, you'd actually be quoting the alignment rules at me. That I've been quoting them at you *strongly suggests* you don't understand them at all (and that my interpretation is correct). Comprehending text is something much more relative than saying how solar system works. Which telescope do you use to read PHB text as you do? You aren't even using the text. If you would like to argue interpretation of the text, interpret the text. Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm clearly the only person using it. Know I'm imaging of eating fire and flying with power of my mind. Can people do this? People can eat fire, but that's beside the point. Here's the difference - in order to have people fly with the power of their mind in the game, you just have to write "you can fly with the power of your mind". If you want to have an objective moral system in a game, you can't just write "morality is objective". You have to actually specify an objective moral system. Because its value is in its idea content, not in its label. (As opposed to "fly with the power of your mind", whose value to the game need only be imagined - you don't need to have something actually flying in such a way in front of you to evaluate its usefulness). For instance, I can't have a game that says "there's a number that is both finite and infinite" *and* have game rules depend on *the specific nature and operation of that number in mathematics* because that number doesn't actually exist and cannot exist. However, I can have a "number that is both finite and infinite" if that's all it is, and it never interacts with the rules after that. The first is the actual thought object (which is impossible), the second is just a label (which my ability to actually type it demonstrates the existence of the *label*). No. approximating something means finding a model which represent it, with some degrees of abstractions and errors. In boolean logic, "something" is the value of a statement:T/F The model is the 3 pages of text in the PHB on alignment. Nothing else. Yes, but you can be a N vampire who belongs to a N clan. In ded, this is almost possible (there may be some exceptions(as always, it's a matter of fantasy)) ,maybe in eberron. Please actually look at the Vampire books again. There is no G or N or E. There are varying levels of Goodness from 1 to 10. Each level has a set of acts associated with it that if you commit one or more of them you cannot be at that level or higher. Its black or white. If you kill someone, your humanity drops down to the appropriate level, and you can only raise it again with great effort. The whole point of the game is being a vampire makes you "sin" (commit forbidden acts on that chart), and thus you have to resist the lure of evil for as long as possible - before it destroys you and the beast takes hold. I could say the opposite. You said that skeletons where a bunch of animated bones... Why did authors choose different spells? Oh, yes, they used negative energy, AniObj no. Why? Because skeletons are undeads? What prevented authors to make mindless undead created by AniObj, instead of AniUnd? Neg Energy is Neutral. It comes from the Elemental Plane of Negative Energy (NEPlane). Its a natural non-aligned force for entropy and decay. Skeletons are incapable of moral action because they are mindless. I've quoted the relevant rules. Therefore, according to the alignment rules, they are N. If the MM entry is right, that only serves to reinforce the notion that the D+D rules on alignment are incoherent with respect to themselves. |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 06:21 PM | Squirreloid: Which is why it really confuses me that people say "that's not how anyone plays". True. But if everyone posted based on how they played, no discussion would be possible. If we can't assume the rules as written, we can't have a discussion. Its that simple. Rules as Written provide a common basis for debate. "My Houserule is better than your Houserule" usually produces arguements which disappear up their own as**les. Squirreloid spotted the Flint that PHB alignment rules define that killing is Evil, whereas slaying Monsters is the whole point of the Game. "How anyone plays": such a Huge Majority of DnD groups ignore the "Killing is automatically Evil" rule that this [B]particular /B] Houserule constitutes a common basis for debate. Except we have 3 people claiming that (which is hardly a huge majority), and Kresalak has supported my interpretation thus far based on the rules text. How do you know it is a huge majority. I certainly haven't played in a 'huge majority of D+D games', I doubt any set of people who have all posted in one thread have. How do I know what "how anyone plays" is? Basically, your argument is an ad numerum argument. And you're excluding people from the discussion who want to actually play how alignment is written. I mean, its easily possible that Good in D+D is supposed to be like the Avengers or the X-Men, who *don't kill* unless there is literally no other option, and even then they feel remorse for having to do so. (I'm specifically referring to the comic incarnations silver age-1995, i can't vouch for after that). Captain America *doesn't kill people* intentionally, and he is a paragon of Good. And the D+D game *can* be played that way. Many people _might_ play that way - neither you nor I have any reason or evidence to say otherwise. |
| Archtyrant Terevoth03-07-07, 06:35 PM | Yeah you're not going to find hard and fast definitions of good and evil, because they don't exist. Moral philosophers argue back and forth about what constitutes a good act or an evil one and you want the PHB alignment section to finally end the moral debate once and for all? Does anyone here really expect RPG designers to be an expert moral authority? |
| Archtyrant Terevoth03-07-07, 06:38 PM | Yeah you're not going to find hard and fast definitions of good and evil, because they don't exist. Moral philosophers argue back and forth about what constitutes a good act or an evil one and you want the PHB alignment section to finally end the moral debate once and for all? We are talking about guys who still don't even know gate is broken yet and haven't fixed it. Does anyone here really expect RPG designers to be an expert moral authority? |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 06:52 PM | Yeah you're not going to find hard and fast definitions of good and evil, because they don't exist. Moral philosophers argue back and forth about what constitutes a good act or an evil one and you want the PHB alignment section to finally end the moral debate once and for all? We are talking about guys who still don't even know gate is broken yet and haven't fixed it. Does anyone here really expect RPG designers to be an expert moral authority? I don't expect them to provide the One True Answer (TM). Rather I expect one of three things: (1) They provide a "moral" system that is objectively true in the gaming world. This can be totally independent of what characters opinions about good and evil are. Heck, we could call it Blue and Orange, not Good and Evil. But it has to be verifiable because we have Detect Blue floating around. In such a system, people who have Evil alignment may well think they're one of the good guys. Thats fine - their subjective definition of good just contradicts the verifiable Good definition of the universe (or Blue, or whatever). (For example, a system in which having hair past your shoulders is an evil act is acceptable - its verifiable and reproduceable, with the little bit of uncertainty at approximately the shoulder length being neutral. Now, instead we could imagine a world where all killing is evil (as D+D claims is true). Characters who kill on a regular basis are evil or neutral. This doesn't have to reflect on *their* views on morality, but it does effect how spells interact with them, and is perfectly adjudicable in an objective manner). (2) Make alignment not integral to the operation of game mechanics (detect alignment abilities, class abilities that function based on alignment, spells that work depending on alignment, etc... no longer exist). (3) Say there are two teams: team evil and team good. The characters align themselves with one team. It has nothing to do with behavior (or very little), its just an arbitrary choice made during character creation and subject to change at the player's discretion. |
| Morits03-07-07, 07:18 PM | Except we have 3 people claiming that (which is hardly a huge majority), and Kresalak has supported my interpretation thus far based on the rules text. How do you know it is a huge majority. I certainly haven't played in a 'huge majority of D+D games', I doubt any set of people who have all posted in one thread have. How do I know what "how anyone plays" is? Basically, your argument is an ad numerum argument. And you're excluding people from the discussion who want to actually play how alignment is written. I mean, its easily possible that Good in D+D is supposed to be like the Avengers or the X-Men, who *don't kill* unless there is literally no other option, and even then they feel remorse for having to do so. (I'm specifically referring to the comic incarnations silver age-1995, i can't vouch for after that). Captain America *doesn't kill people* intentionally, and he is a paragon of Good. And the D+D game *can* be played that way. Many people _might_ play that way - neither you nor I have any reason or evidence to say otherwise. The Game is slaying Monsters. We gain xps by slaying Monsters. X-Men are mutants who start at 20th lvl or more, they fight 15th lvl Villains and easily defeat them non-lethally because the Author doesn't have to roll dice. In the Game, we start as lvl 1: we are Peasants plus 1, we kill enough Peasant minus 1 Monsters e.g. Kobolds until we are 2nd lvl. Then we kill enough Goblins to become 3rd lvl and we are mighty enough to kill Orcs. My arguement is indeed ad numerum: a large number of DnD gangs play slaying Monsters and ignore the broken "killing is automatically evil" rule. Ad numerum is sometimes false, but it is not necessarily false. Before 1904, the Majority did not agree with Relativity: on the other hand, if the Majority doesn't choose the President, who should? PHB page 13 has a picture of a clean-shaven female Dwarf; PHB 19 calls Hobbits "halflings" for copyright reasons. Another ad numerum arguement: can you cite any DnD gang that plays those broken rules? |
| Squirrelloid03-07-07, 07:27 PM | The Game is slaying Monsters. We gain xps by slaying Monsters. X-Men are mutants who start at 20th lvl or more, they fight 15th lvl Villains and easily defeat them non-lethally because the Author doesn't have to roll dice. In the Game, we start as lvl 1: we are Peasants plus 1, we kill enough Peasant minus 1 Monsters e.g. Kobolds until we are 2nd lvl. Then we kill enough Goblins to become 3rd lvl and we are mighty enough to kill Orcs. Come now, Magneto can and has handed the entire X-Men team their asses. See UXM 43, 112, 150 for starters. It was a big deal for the X-Men to decide that the Brood had to be killed the first time around. (See UXM 161-166). XP is awarded for defeating challenges. Killing monsters does defeat the challenge they pose. So does knocking them unconscious. So does avoiding the encounter entirely by sneaking past them. So does using diplomacy to make them all your friend. Killing the monsters need not be the only choice. My arguement is indeed ad numerum: a large number of DnD gangs play slaying Monsters and ignore the broken "killing is automatically evil" rule. Ad numerum is sometimes false, but it is not necessarily false. Before 1904, the Majority did not agree with Relativity: on the other hand, if the Majority doesn't choose the President, who should? Talk about faulty analogy. The majority chooses the president because the constitution says so. (Technically, the majority of *electors* chooses the president). The majority doesn't choose the president *because* the majority says so. All arguments ad numerum are false because they use the fact that a majority believes something to claim that statement is true. Its only true if there are *reasons* it is true, which is independent of what the majority believes. |
| Leo03-07-07, 07:33 PM | Somethings are bizzare in the D&D world. But they still are. Even something as a weapon can be good or evil. If we can igonre the laws of physics, gods DO exist, we must acept moralities don't work in the D&D world as they do in real world. Honestly, I like to think it is up to the gods what is good and evil. And if the gods say orcs are evil, and, honestly, it was an evil god who created them and guides them, well, I wait for orcs to also be evil. If you try to make everything in D&D work as in the real world, or even just make logic you'll just get an headache. A big one at that. |
| Morits03-07-07, 07:45 PM | All arguments ad numerum are false because they use the fact that a majority believes something to claim that statement is true. Its only true if there are *reasons* it is true, which is independent of what the majority believes. I did not say that Slaying Monsters is the only way of playing DnD because many Gangs apply that Houserule. I said that many Gangs slay Monsters and have enjoyable Games. The ad numerum arguement is that slaying Monsters is a valid Game format because it has been proven to work for many people. |
| Giant_Moth03-07-07, 08:10 PM | I find this discussion very intriguing, but I feel that I must add a small thing, that maybe hasn't been said yet. In the start of the thread, people used examples as orcs and similiarities as evil. But don't forget that alignment in the book says "Usually X" or "Often X". I think, when it says "Usually" or "Often", the alignment is probably what it is simply because of the sociaty they live in. Think for example, Orcs in Eberron. They're the orcs we know, except the majority of them are peacefull swamp living nomads. There are however, Orcs in Eberron that are the normal aggresive orcs that we know of. So we got both mixes there. |
| CharlieRock03-07-07, 09:46 PM | Some four sided objects are rectangles. Others are rhombuses. Hence, all four sided objects are rectangles or rhombuses. You can houserule this or that. Your rules and the RAW are two very different things because of this. |
| WizO_Cat03-07-07, 10:44 PM | Ok, just a reminder to keep the discussion to the topic of the thread and not other guests. Otherwise, it is considered baiting which is against the Code of Conduct. If it continues, we'll have no other choice than to carry out disciplinary actions. Fair warning and thanks in advance to those who have posted on topic. |
| Kresalak03-08-07, 07:27 AM | You can houserule this or that. Your rules and the RAW are two very different things because of this. Huh? How does that have anything to do with my example of the faulty logic you used? |
| CharlieRock03-08-07, 07:56 AM | Huh? How does that have anything to do with my example of the faulty logic you used? Because it is not faulty logic. Evil is X as written in that paragraph. You are adding to that. In other words you are making a houserule to include X+Y as evil. That is your perogative. But, not mine. And not RAW. Edit: Even by your own comparison you are alluding to extra added material to the definition. |
| Kresalak03-08-07, 08:29 AM | The statement "Some X are Y, other X are Z, so all X are either Y or Z" is false. You can't argue that. If it said "Some X are Y, all other X are Z, so all X are either Y or Z" would be correct, but that's not what the book says. You're claiming: All X are Y. Some Y are done because of Z, other Y are done because of A. All X are done because of either Z or A. This is false, because nothing is limiting Y to only being done because of A or Z. You don't even need to know why Y is done, because Y is an action and X only references the action, not the reason. |
| Geogoose03-08-07, 08:41 AM | 1) I support the original posters main idea. People and monsters are not created the same. Even if some monsters hae freedom of choice(free will) they are not as often born with the natural disposition to feel pleasure from doing things outside thier alignment entries. A Red Dragon can certainly choose to do a Good Deed, but he'd probably think it foul and unnatural. Wheras the Human entry in the MM implies it is just as often a human is born who will enjoy doing good deeds as born to enjoy evil. 2) I support DnD alignment system. I haven't had much problem with it. Problems arise simply when two people at the table disagree on how to interpret alignment or an ingame action or both. This problem is fixed by talking about how the game will be run by the DM before starting, or simply playing with people you know all agree on the rules. 3) However you may rule certain actions as a DM, remember DnD alignment is Objective. There is a universal standard for things that are Good and Evil. While there are many Neutral and borderline things, what there aren't are problems arising from different points of view. Orcs know they are Evil, and that those pesky Elves and Dwarves are Good. Orcs just happen to think Evil is the correct way to live. |
| CharlieRock03-08-07, 08:56 AM | The statement "Some X are Y, other X are Z, so all X are either Y or Z" is false. You can't argue that. If it said "Some X are Y, all other X are Z, so all X are either Y or Z" would be correct, but that's not what the book says. You're claiming: All X are Y. Some Y are done because of Z, other Y are done because of A. All X are done because of either Z or A. This is false, because nothing is limiting Y to only being done because of A or Z. You don't even need to know why Y is done, because Y is an action and X only references the action, not the reason. No, what I am saying is (as far as D&D is concerned) is evil is described in the book as what it says. You keep trying to add more stuff to it (which you are free to do). Once you have added to it, that becomes your rule .Not RAW. In other words if X = Y or Z because those are the only variables given, you may not add A, B, or C, and call that RAW. |
| kintire03-08-07, 09:58 AM | Squirelloid: You've made some interesting comments about both DnD alignment and morality, but there are a few flaws in both. Objectivism; Your exposition of objectivism was interesting, but I am afraid you are confused. Objectivism is one of the major strands of morality through the ages, and in fact is the dominant one in most cultures. Williams identifies three, and I think his is the standard position; Subjectivism, Relativism and Objectivism. DnD is an Objective moral system in this sense, that is that there are moral facts about the universe such that moral statements can be described as true or false, independent of the observer's opinions. Now, it is true that a philosopher called Ayn Rand has produced an ultra libertarian system that she calls objectivism, but this has little or nothing to do with the term as it is commonly used. Her system has found little acceptance either among the public or philosophical thought generally, and it certainly isn't what is usually meant by "Objective" or "Objectivism" unqualified. Proving that Rand's objectivism is incoherent absolutely does not prove that Objectivism generally is incoherent; nor is the Categorical Imperative your only other option. Much of your remarks that followed also seem to be based on the assumption that objectivism means Rand's, so for example it is certainly not true that most objectivism contradicts commonly held morality, for example. Also, including it as one of the "best" attempts at an objective morality would be supported by few. Objectivism is not incoherent; the problems with it come from accepting the authority of the precepts not from internal problems with the idea. DnD doesn't have this problem. The PHB is defining the way things work, so it requires no authority beyond itself. That said, Objectivism works fine. In fact, its the only option (in my opinion :D ) because relativism (morality is defined by your culture) actually is incoherent, and subjectivism (morality is defined by the individual) collapses into amoralism. In other words, you have an objective moral system, or you don't have one at all; which removes all heroism from this heroic fantasy game. And why do we want that? As far as the DnD alignment system in particular goes, I do see where you're coming from, but I think firstly that you are actually being misled by your background in logic, and secondly that you are placing restrictions on interpretation that cannot be supported. The first point centers around the line quoted so often "evil implies... killing others". In logic, "Implies" means "entails". That is, if x implies y, and x, then necessarily y. This isn't always its meaning in normal speech however; implies is more often used to mean "indirectly suggest". To pinch dictionary.com's example ". to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith." hence, "evil... implies killing" simply isn't the absolute statement that you think it is. I think part of the problem is you are focussing excessively on this: the definitive statement is the first one: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit The subsequent explanatory notes on this can't be read without bearing the defining statement in mind. secondly, when considering what these phrases mean, you demand counterexamples from the alignment rules. I don't think this limitation is supportable. The Paladin, for example, is a perfect example of proof that killing is not intended to be evil. All Paladins must be lawful good, but there is no prohibition on killing in the Paladin's code. There are several other examples that you have quoted yourself, but because they aren't in the section headed alignment, you have declared them contradictions. That's an artificial restriction. Actually, they are proof that "implies" in the alignment rules is not being used in the sense of entails: realise that, and the problem is gone. |
| Squirrelloid03-08-07, 11:10 AM | Squirelloid: You've made some interesting comments about both DnD alignment and morality, but there are a few flaws in both. Objectivism; Your exposition of objectivism was interesting, but I am afraid you are confused. Objectivism is one of the major strands of morality through the ages, and in fact is the dominant one in most cultures. Williams identifies three, and I think his is the standard position; Subjectivism, Relativism and Objectivism. DnD is an Objective moral system in this sense, that is that there are moral facts about the universe such that moral statements can be described as true or false, independent of the observer's opinions. Now, it is true that a philosopher called Ayn Rand has produced an ultra libertarian system that she calls objectivism, but this has little or nothing to do with the term as it is commonly used. Her system has found little acceptance either among the public or philosophical thought generally, and it certainly isn't what is usually meant by "Objective" or "Objectivism" unqualified. Proving that Rand's objectivism is incoherent absolutely does not prove that Objectivism generally is incoherent; nor is the Categorical Imperative your only other option. Much of your remarks that followed also seem to be based on the assumption that objectivism means Rand's, so for example it is certainly not true that most objectivism contradicts commonly held morality, for example. Also, including it as one of the "best" attempts at an objective morality would be supported by few. Objectivism is not incoherent; the problems with it come from accepting the authority of the precepts not from internal problems with the idea. DnD doesn't have this problem. The PHB is defining the way things work, so it requires no authority beyond itself. That said, Objectivism works fine. In fact, its the only option (in my opinion :D ) because relativism (morality is defined by your culture) actually is incoherent, and subjectivism (morality is defined by the individual) collapses into amoralism. In other words, you have an objective moral system, or you don't have one at all; which removes all heroism from this heroic fantasy game. And why do we want that? (1) My argument that objective moral systems are incoherent is based on the metaphysics that I discuss before I even get to the examples of the Categorical Imperative and Objectivism (note I use the capital 'O' specifically for Rand's philosophy). If you want to address my claims that objective moral systems are incoherent, you have to address my argument that any value judgement requires a valuer, and as there can be no objective valuer (because all valuers are subjective), then there can be no objective value judgement. (2) I explicitly recognize that Objectivism and the Kantian CI are *examples* of objective moral systems. They are also well-constructed systems (regardless of their general acceptance) that try to minimize assumptions, and thus abstract the process of valuing away from the individual as much as possible. Ultimately, there are still subjective decisions being made, but very few (which is why I discuss flaws in them - because even well constructed 'objective' systems are actually subjective). What other "objective" systems would you have me consider? Religious moral systems are trivially subjective. (Hint, take a religion you don't follow and analyze its principles. Why do they make particular value judgements? Because their God(s) told them they were good. In a religious system, God is taken as an objective valuer, but this is subjective on two levels: first, God is a subjective valuer and what he finds to be good is so from *his* viewpoint. Second, its not even the case that anyone can ask God what he believes - his moral commands are available in texts that are millenia old, proveably had multiple authors, and proveably have been altered over time through translation, word of mouth, and so forth. There are additional reasons why religious moral systems are subjective, but you could write a book on the subject.) The most popular systems are not always the best constructed or closest to 'objective'. I stand by my examples as (a) representing the two types of ethical philosophy (Aristotelean and Platonic ethics - individual vs society focused), and (b) being good attempts at creating 'objective moral systems' which minimized the need for subjective value judgements by the adherent. As far as the DnD alignment system in particular goes, I do see where you're coming from, but I think firstly that you are actually being misled by your background in logic, and secondly that you are placing restrictions on interpretation that cannot be supported. The first point centers around the line quoted so often "evil implies... killing others". In logic, "Implies" means "entails". That is, if x implies y, and x, then necessarily y. This isn't always its meaning in normal speech however; implies is more often used to mean "indirectly suggest". To pinch dictionary.com's example ". to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith." hence, "evil... implies killing" simply isn't the absolute statement that you think it is. I think part of the problem is you are focussing excessively on this: the definitive statement is the first one: Except the alignment rules never tell you its ok to kill others for any reason. Either the sentence "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" means that hurting, oppressing, and killing others are evil acts, or that sentence is meaningless. Even despite this sentence, a single sentence "Good creatures may kill when forced to defend themselves or others" would have been all that was needed. Its not there. The subsequent explanatory notes on this can't be read without bearing the defining statement in mind. The subsequent examples give you reasons why creatures might kill - that list is by no means exhaustive. secondly, when considering what these phrases mean, you demand counterexamples from the alignment rules. I don't think this limitation is supportable. The Paladin, for example, is a perfect example of proof that killing is not intended to be evil. All Paladins must be lawful good, but there is no prohibition on killing in the Paladin's code. There are several other examples that you have quoted yourself, but because they aren't in the section headed alignment, you have declared them contradictions. That's an artificial restriction. Actually, they are proof that "implies" in the alignment rules is not being used in the sense of entails: realise that, and the problem is gone. I demand modifying or mollifying rules. Examples are supposed to be, well, examples. So when the Paladin example for LG says nothing that has anything to do with the LG section, it fails to be an example of LG in any way whatsoever. (You'll notice the examples are left out of the SRD and thus are not rules text as well). Its not like a world where the act of killing someone being evil is totally incomprehensible. There are plenty of examples of heroes who refused to kill their foes. There are rules for subduing - use them. That is the only conclusion supported by the alignment rules. Heck, if you don't mind being Neutral you can still kill your enemies, so long as you otherwise do good deeds (protect people, etc...). Furthermore, we've spent so much time discussing "Evil implies... killing others" because everyone seems to object to that so much. But that's hardly the only problem with the alignment rules that i've presented. If you want to take the examples as rules text, then the CN example makes all adventures CN. Yes, wandering and surviving by your wits are traits that make you CN... Please. Either those alignment examples have *nothing* to do with alignment and are terrible examples, or playing a Paladin adventurer is impossible because the moment you start wandering you commit a CN act. Or the fact that skeletons are listed as N/E, when the alignment text explicitly and absolutely says creatures incapable of moral action are N. Period. And I could go on. The number of contradictions in the alignment system is enormous. Over the last 10 pages a lot of them have been mentioned. There are yet more. This is most definitely a problem if alignment is "objective". |
| Squirrelloid03-08-07, 11:19 AM | No, what I am saying is (as far as D&D is concerned) is evil is described in the book as what it says. You keep trying to add more stuff to it (which you are free to do). Once you have added to it, that becomes your rule .Not RAW. In other words if X = Y or Z because those are the only variables given, you may not add A, B, or C, and call that RAW. He's not adding anything to it, he's telling you what it is possible to logically deduce given the language in the PHB. It doesn't say X = Y or Z. It says X includes Y and Z. X could also include other things. Your argument above further supports the notion that killing is never a good act, because the alignment rules never say it is. There is no text anywhere which even leads you in that direction except a single example which doesn't actually give an example of anything in the rules text preceeding it! (and thus fails to be an example of LG). Even if we took that example as rules text, as its (theoretically) an example for LG, it would only permit *lawful* good characters to kill. Of course, it would also only permit them to kill evil creatures, but it would allow them to kill *all* evil creatures without question. (This in turn makes LG equivalent to LE, because creatures can detect as [evil] and still be good - N clerics of an E deity, outsiders with alignment different from their subtype - which means they are judging creatures solely on the basis of the results of detect evil - which is bigoted and therefore a lawful evil act - leading to yet another contradiction). Quoting you: you may not add A, B, or C, and call that RAW. Ok, I agree. Stop claiming some killing can be good is RAW. (Or prove it - your choice). |
| kintire03-08-07, 12:28 PM | If you want to address my claims that objective moral systems are incoherent, you have to address my argument that any value judgement requires a valuer, and as there can be no objective valuer (because all valuers are subjective), then there can be no objective value judgement. Easy. Your argument is irrelevant to any question about objective moral systems. An objective morality exists... or it does not. Our ability to work out what it is in the field affects this in no way. Even if an objective value judgement is impossible, which is pessimistic but not impossible, an objective morality can still exist. They are also well-constructed systems (regardless of their general acceptance) that try to minimize assumptions, and thus abstract the process of valuing away from the individual as much as possible. You appear to be confused about what an objective moral system is. It isn't a set of rules that remove the process of making judgements from individual people (well, not as such. Some of them ARE of course, but that isn't the quality that makes them objective). An objective moral system is one that reflects an external reality: objectivism is the belief that there IS an external moral reality to reflect. Removing the individual from the decision making process has nothing to do with it. Its a while since I read any Rand, but I'm not at all sure that she actually believes this. What other "objective" systems would you have me consider? Religious moral systems are trivially subjective. (Hint, take a religion you don't follow and analyze its principles. Why do they make particular value judgements? Because their God(s) told them they were good Usually, that's very true. And if their god(s) in fact exist, then these are indeed objective principles. How is this trivially subjective? In a religious system, God is taken as an objective valuer, but this is subjective on two levels: first, God is a subjective valuer and what he finds to be good is so from *his* viewpoint This is absurd. If God is the universal creator he defines reality, including the laws of morality. If he decides something is good, it IS good. It isn't "his point of view" any more, or less, than the speed of light is. Second, its not even the case that anyone can ask God what he believes - his moral commands are available in texts that are millenia old, proveably had multiple authors, and proveably have been altered over time through translation, word of mouth, and so forth You might want to set about proving it then! In any case, this is irrelevant; an objective morality exists or not irrespective of our level of knowledge about it. I stand by my examples as (a) representing the two types of ethical philosophy (Aristotelean and Platonic ethics - individual vs society focused), and (b) being good attempts at creating 'objective moral systems' which minimized the need for subjective value judgements by the adherent. a) the TWO types of Ethical philosophy? wowsers... and I'm not sure Aristotle would appreciate being described as "Individual focussed". I am absolutely sure he would not appreciate Ayn Rand being held up as "Aristotelean" either, as I doubt they have a belief in common. Except the alignment rules never tell you its ok to kill others for any reason And you limit your field of search because? There are plenty of examples throughout the rules that tell you exactly that. Either the sentence "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" means that hurting, oppressing, and killing others are evil acts, or that sentence is meaningless False dilemma. The sentence is giving a general feel as to the sort of things that evil people do: its descriptive, not prescriptive. The definition is in the line above. If you want to take the examples as rules text, then the CN example makes all adventures CN. Yes, wandering and surviving by your wits are traits that make you CN Actually I think these are the weakest parts of your argument; I was avoiding them initially because I wanted to start on a constructive basis. The problem here is that you seem inclined both to absolute literalism and universalisation. These are brief summaries designed to give you the flavour of the alignment, not literal Credos. Actually, yes, wandering with no fixed abode and living by your wits from moment to moment with no long term plans DO sound pretty CN to me. Does that make all adventurers CN? of course not. Paladins can travel from place to place, but as LG I would expect them to have a goal in mind and I reasonable idea how travelling will achieve that goal, even if it's only "find a way to be of service" and "the more places I go, the greater my chances of meeting someone who needs help". Also, I would NOT expect a Paladin to spend an entire career like this. A period doing it as a developmental,experience gaining thing perhaps, but with a definite idea of how it will help in the longer run. Or the fact that skeletons are listed as N/E, when the alignment text explicitly and absolutely says creatures incapable of moral action are N. Period. Unless they are evil for another reason. Its not just actions that makes evil: places and objects can also be evil. Take the Nine Lives Stealer for example: it radiates evil, and its a non sentient sword. Skeletons are NE because they are created using evil techniques, not because of their own actions, just like the NLS or a Desecrated area. Hence, they show up under Detect Evil, they are repelled by PfE, they are affected by Holy Word etc etc. Yes, maybe that should have been made more explicit. Yes, this is a molehill, not a mountain. And I could go on. The number of contradictions in the alignment system is enormous. Over the last 10 pages a lot of them have been mentioned. There are yet more. And they all represent no problem at all if you give them a moments common sense. The only people who find them a problem are people who don't like the alignment system already. |
| Pfisiar03-08-07, 01:03 PM | Some killing is good because that's the way the game was intended to work. It absolutely doesn't matter if one sentence is phrased differently. Supplemental material published outside the PHB clearly indicates that not all killing is evil. The fault, Squirl, is that you take one sentance, obsess over it, and forget about everything else. |
| EvilIdiot03-08-07, 01:03 PM | Coming back in-topic: I agree ,more or less, with Aliquid. It remembers me of a post about "roleplaying" vancian spellcasting system. Someone told that spells and related levels could be seen as electrons disposed around atoms, floating in different levels of energy which can be accessed only when mental energy is enough to make the caster "jump" on them An interesting "comparison" between real world and DeD, as the one at the beginning of the topic I'm sorry we got off topic :ton: , but the idea , without considering the effective correctness of singular statements about real neurology, which I don't know and I don't care, is, I think, easy to accept :cheer: , once you've understood ALs of course :tie: just to answer Squill: "Objective" cannot be subjective. That defies all reason. The word means exactly what it means, nothing more and nothing less. Objectively true statements are provable and verifiable. The word 'Objective' can't have different meanings and interpretations according to contexts, as any freaking word in dictionaries? Is it a special word? It can't be fuzzy because it can be verified. Well ,links you gave me talked about fuzzy logic mechanism, so, unless you're saying that fuzzy means aleatory, which would imply that modern air conditioners are really useless, I can't agree with you that it isn't "repeatable" Further, the text gives no (that's 0%, none, nada, zero) reason to believe killing is ever a good act. While protecting something, you could engage fights, which could lead to death, yours or of your foes. That's obvious. They committed the same evil action. Congratulations. :rolleyes: look in the way I said it was objective please. Let's look at another ex: Allahndra, who kills demons and evil people Urbenur, the wizard who kills demons for grafting their flesh on his own body. The first is good, or LN, since she risk her life for other people, seeking evil to defeat. The second is evil, or (C)N, since he risk his life for his own, augmenting his power with fiends' flesh, which he won't use for house keeping, of course. Uh, he may do so, in which case he's literally mad, and (C)N may be the correct AL. In descriptive text they say fiendish power usually corrupts ,as well, so having ubenur not evil or CN is hard. By rules ,as well, grafting classes and feats have varying AL as requirements, no one of them allows good people. Prove the passage on alignment can be read a different way in a manner When you read about Soveillis there were some scenarios where the character could have been non-good.(2) There were others ,as well, which where coherent with his AL: trying not to kill collectors while fighting them, collectors were evil.... You chose only the ones which could be contradictory with CG AL, so, your fault. You read what you want to read, see what you want to see...help you out, please. Actually, I am fairly confident the designers didn't fully understand the rules because one of them This proves only their work isn't perfect, but still playable. Different degrees of truth,reality and effectiveness, remember? Try something else than boolean. Uh, the ALs you wrote , G/C/L/E, are very similar to the AL we have in mind. Why can't you get them out from phb? I believe your only problem is that you are too concentrated on definitions and jargons from some books, which haven't the same meaning in current general language Killing others *is* evil Evilness of an action maybe interpreted according to contexts: pain is evil, but clerics who could inflict it, while making Heal checks, may be not. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate any alignment rules text which supports the notion that there exists an act of killing another person that isn't an evil *action*. Common sense tells you that protecting others may involve hurting what would harm them. uthors of stories have it easy - they can make anything they want to be true about their fictional world Well, DeD is fictional... Do souls have property rights? If stealing someone's corpse is immoral, so is taking their stuff after you kill them. If they don't 'own' their body after death, they can't object to someone else using it after they die from any moral perspective. I remind you my question: in real world people care about dead corpses, which have moral weight. DeD adhere to this view, which had regarded laical and religious people, since beginning of mankind. Animals don't have this, not all at least, but I believe we have something different from them. I have not (and will not - ick) use Kant to demonstrate anything about D+D, or any other moral system aside from his own. My apologizes, all your problems in comprehending ALs ,perhaps, are due to misconceptions about words in common language, see above. It led me to think you applied CI. In Robin Hood the Sheriff of Nottingham is specifically evil because of cruel taxation. They could have written: "The evil baron who imposes harsh taxes on the poor" instead of "The evil baron". ...see (2) Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that _All_ Monet's paintings are impressionist if your statement above is true, however. Further, nothing requires Impressionism to be an objective category. Which makes it totally different than alignment in D+D. This do not prevent people to study, understand and analyse art, by use of reasoning, which is made, in part, by logic. As with any other description you may encounter in texts You can say that a paint is impressionist-inspired with various degrees of certainty ,as you can say that a char is G -Aligned by various degrees of certainty. Quote: Can you prove physically that objective morality doesn't exist in any imaginary world? Find me any judgement that wasn't made by an agent. If you can't, objective morality is impossible. Quote: Manuals, common fantasy assumptions and dm. Except I'm the only one who's quoting the manual here. RtFM already - it supports my position on what the alignment rules say. You read it in order to have it incoherent, as I already told, if it is so logical, simple ,straightforward and clear that it is really incoherent, it would be incoherent for anyone, and no one could actually play with AL. You aren't even using the text. If you would like to argue interpretation of the text, interpret the text. Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm clearly the only person using it. I don't need to quote the same text you find ways to tell it's incoherent. Here's the difference - in order to have people fly with the power of their mind in the game, you just have to write "you can fly with the power of your mind". It was in response to your statement which negated the existence of obj.morality in fantasy/imaginary word; the fact that you can't find manuals to be clear, is a different issue Please actually look at the Vampire books again. There is no G or N or E. There are varying levels of Goodness from 1 to 10. Each level has a set of acts associated with it that if you commit one or more of them you cannot be at that level or higher. Its black or white. If you kill someone, your humanity drops down to the appropriate level, and you can only raise it again with great effort. I didn't highlighted the point: in DeD being undead lead you to become inexorably evil, because undeath is. In Vampire isn't, because your actions can lift your humanity up. and thus you have to resist the lure of evil for as long as possible - before it destroys you and the beast takes hold. In DeD, in fact, they assume this is quite,quite rare About final part: why creators made 2 different spells for AniObj and AniUnd? That's important. The answer, if I may anticipate, is that they intended undeath to be different from simple animated object, because it was assumed to have moral implications. About religions: again, I didn't highlighted the point. In ethical debates were religious people are invited, they use message and concepts coming from their religious believes, not the notion that their god exist. They neither claim that since their god exist ,whatever comes from his holy book, or clergy, is true, even if, according to a very strict interpretation of their faith, it may be so. So ,while faith may consider god as the valuer, not so do the ethical concepts derived from relative religions |
| Squirrelloid03-08-07, 01:53 PM | Easy. Your argument is irrelevant to any question about objective moral systems. An objective morality exists... or it does not. Our ability to work out what it is in the field affects this in no way. Even if an objective value judgement is impossible, which is pessimistic but not impossible, an objective morality can still exist. Lets actually use some definitions, because we're clearly talking about *two entirely different things* using the same terms. I'm going to use my own words since these are what I was basing my argument on, and are valid thought constructs - we can discuss definitions or appropriate language labels for thought constructs as we go. Definition: Moral System (or Ethical System) A method of determining good and evil. Definition: Objective Absolutely True in principle, arbitrarily repeatable in practice. Definition: Value Judgement Assessing the relative goodness of some thing, condition, etc... Definition: Good (for later) Some thing, condition, etc... you should act to gain and/or keep. Therefore, in order for a Moral System to be objective, it must ensure that individuals reach the same conclusions about good and evil while using that system. Therefore, it must take value judgements away from the individual, because if the individual is allowed to make value judgements (assess whatever good or evil value he chooses) to things then the system is no longer objective. When following an objective moral system (should one exist), differences in conclusions on good and evil are due to user-error. Thus, the individual is reduced to putting actions and objects into boxes based on the rules of the system, and thus not actually making value judgements, but determining values based on what box the system tells him to put that action or object in. The system has already made all the value judgements. You appear to be confused about what an objective moral system is. It isn't a set of rules that remove the process of making judgements from individual people (well, not as such. Some of them ARE of course, but that isn't the quality that makes them objective). An objective moral system is one that reflects an external reality: objectivism is the belief that there IS an external moral reality to reflect. Removing the individual from the decision making process has nothing to do with it. Its a while since I read any Rand, but I'm not at all sure that she actually believes this. And if it reflects an external reality, it must consistently reach identical conclusions. Therefore, individuals cannot be allowed to make value judgements. Rand makes claims about people making values judgements, but mostly in talking about metaphysics. To follow objectivism, you have to make the value judgements as laid out in her works (see esp: Virtue of Selfishness). She specifically says that a good person has to put their own life at the top of their values heirarchy, which is a strong statement about what values judgements are "good". Rand paints a very black and white picture of the world - and spends a lot of time trying to derive that picture logically. If you are an Objectivist (and the system works), you do not need to make value judgements - the system has already made them for you. Usually, that's very true. And if their god(s) in fact exist, then these are indeed objective principles. How is this trivially subjective? First - do we know that any given God exists? You can have *faith* he does, but you can't *know* he does. Not that there is anything wrong with faith, but that is a subjective decision. (And one can hardly accuse me of thinking ill of subjective moral systems - I'm a consequentialist after all). If multiple gods exist, they're going to support different things. Whatever a god is in favor of is "good" according to him - you should act to gain and/or keep it. Competing goods means subjective value judgements, pure and simple. This is absurd. If God is the universal creator he defines reality, including the laws of morality. If he decides something is good, it IS good. It isn't "his point of view" any more, or less, than the speed of light is. You clearly haven't heard of Gnosticism - one of its basic tenents was that the god and creator of this universe is evil, and that the goal of the soul is to become enlightened such that it can escape this reality and return to the true god who is outside of this reality. (Just because all the Gnostics were put to the sword by what would become the Catholic church doesn't make them wrong - the idea has just as much legitimacy as any Catholic or Protestant faith today. In fact, in terms of textual interpretation the Gnostics were actually more parsimonious). You might want to set about proving it then! In any case, this is irrelevant; an objective morality exists or not irrespective of our level of knowledge about it. As I am not an expert on ancient hebrew, ancient greek, aramaic, or any of the related disciplines, I sadly have to refer you to expert work on the subject (as much of the demonstration of those points requires testimony and not argument, and thus an expert opinion is needed). I might be able to provide some sources to get you started if you were interested, but it would take a little time. (Much of my information in this area came from talking to theologians who are interested in the analysis of biblical texts and its implications). I would agree that if an objective morality can exist, it must exist independent of our knowledge of it. However, you still must deal with the fact that it must also be possible. a) the TWO types of Ethical philosophy? wowsers... and I'm not sure Aristotle would appreciate being described as "Individual focussed". I am absolutely sure he would not appreciate Ayn Rand being held up as "Aristotelean" either, as I doubt they have a belief in common. Generally, all ethical philosophers are pro-individual or pro-group (society, etc...). Pro-individual ethics descends from Aristotle, and pro-group ethics descend from Plato (see his Republic, for instance). Now, Rand specifically refers to her philosophy as Aristotelean. As Aristotle didn't live long enough to meet Rand, its impossible to know what he would have thought of her philosophy. That in no way means it is not a representative of Aristotelean philosophy - he might have been appalled by John Locke too, whose ethics are clearly Aristotelean. Now, not all philosophers are ethicists. However, a few other types of philosophy can be divided into Aristotelian and Platonic (note it is possible to be a Platonic ethicist and an Aristotelian epistemologist!). Epistemology: Aristoteleans believe you can know reality by observation, Platonists believe you can't (although you can determine things by a priori reasoning, divine revelation, and so forth - or perhaps reality doesn't matter at all). Metaphysics: Aristoteleans are of the school that reality is real. Platonists believe that "reality" masks the true reality underneath, or reality is subjective (socially constructed, whatever). I do not know enough about Aesthetics to know if Plato and Aristotle are diametrically opposed there as well. Political philosophy is vaguely connected to ethics, although you get wide divergence in political philosophies even within each of the above paradigms, so the distinction isn't nearly as useful there. (Both Hobbes and Marx are Platonists, for instance). More modern branches of philosophy (eg, Philosophy of Language) clearly post-date Aristotle and Plato. And you limit your field of search because? There are plenty of examples throughout the rules that tell you exactly that. But they aren't the rules that define alignment. Its that simple. If I told you a feat (in general) was defined as X (basically: an ability you select off a list at appropriate levels), and then proceeded to use "feat" in a way that made no sense in the context of that definition, you'd think those other uses were contradictions because they don't relate to what "feat" was defined as. Why should alignment be any different? False dilemma. The sentence is giving a general feel as to the sort of things that evil people do: its descriptive, not prescriptive. The definition is in the line above. The line above what? You mean this line? Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. What is "innocent life"? What does "protect" entail and how far are you allowed to go? Are you allowed to slaughter orc infants because it will prevent them from attacking your village 15 years later, thereby protecting your village? So evil characters kill for profit - ie, killing an "innocent" monster and then taking its stuff makes you evil, but killing it and not taking its stuff doesn't? (So long as you didn't enjoy it). Again, what does "innocent" mean? Are Red Dragon wyrmlings innocent the second they hatch from their egg? Are baby Illithids innocent? When do they become not-innocent? Is it innocent in the legal sense - if they haven't been convicted of a crime yet they're innocent? (A crime according to whom?) If an illithid, who kills sentient creatures to survive (not for fun or profit), kills only non-innocent creatures, does that make him N? Possibly good even? Actually I think these are the weakest parts of your argument; I was avoiding them initially because I wanted to start on a constructive basis. The problem here is that you seem inclined both to absolute literalism and universalisation. These are brief summaries designed to give you the flavour of the alignment, not literal Credos. Actually, yes, wandering with no fixed abode and living by your wits from moment to moment with no long term plans DO sound pretty CN to me. Does that make all adventurers CN? of course not. Paladins can travel from place to place, but as LG I would expect them to have a goal in mind and I reasonable idea how travelling will achieve that goal, even if it's only "find a way to be of service" and "the more places I go, the greater my chances of meeting someone who needs help". Also, I would NOT expect a Paladin to spend an entire career like this. A period doing it as a developmental,experience gaining thing perhaps, but with a definite idea of how it will help in the longer run. How is "wandering to find good deeds to do" any different from "wandering to find lodging for the night" or "wandering for fun"? Oh, I agree, looking for good deeds probably makes you good, but how does it relate to law or chaos at all? If you want to discount the example of Devis, you have to discount *all* the examples, which takes away the only textual support that possibly allows any good characters to kill. If you allow that to have rules status, the example of Devis also has rules status - and that is in no small part problematic. Unless they are evil for another reason. Its not just actions that makes evil: places and objects can also be evil. Take the Nine Lives Stealer for example: it radiates evil, and its a non sentient sword. Skeletons are NE because they are created using evil techniques, not because of their own actions, just like the NLS or a Desecrated area. Hence, they show up under Detect Evil, they are repelled by PfE, they are affected by Holy Word etc etc. Yes, maybe that should have been made more explicit. Yes, this is a molehill, not a mountain. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. No exceptions. Technically, this doesn't prevent items from being evil, because it only mentions creatures. Although it makes 'evil' unintelligent weapons rather bizarre from a consistency standpoint. Being made through evil actions makes your creator evil, not you evil. Your creators actions and their moral worth have *nothing to do* with your actions or the moral worth of those actions. I mean, a human child isn't compelled to be evil because he was conceived during rape, which was clearly an evil act on the part of the father (or mother, possibly, though less likely). And they all represent no problem at all if you give them a moments common sense. The only people who find them a problem are people who don't like the alignment system already. Alignment doesn't have to "make sense" in a general notion. It has to be consistently and repeatably evaluable. Otherwise its not objective, and Detect Evil fails to work. Evil could be defined as "wearing leather", and that would be perfectly objective and useable from a rules standpoint. What the alignment rules need is a specific definition of what is and is not good, and what is and is not evil. The DM is of course free to houserule alignment as defined away - its probably already the most house-ruled system in the game. That doesn't mean the game should come with rules that fail to fulfill their intended role. Edit: To EvilIdiot Lets be clear. I'm interested in what the alignment rules actually and specifically say. You are interested in reading your preconceived notions into what the alignment rules say. Application of "common sense" to a rules document automatically means you are applying assumptions that don't necessarily exist in the text or the minds of the people who wrote the text. The text says what it says, nothing more nothing less. Our discussion is pointless because you are unwilling to discuss just that and nothing more. Cheers. (And yes, my version of what the alignment rules should have said was equivalent to what you were saying - because I specifically wrote it to say what you seemed to want it to say. It would be easy enough to change it so that all killing was an evil action, or that wearing skimpy clothing is an evil action, or *anything* else.) |
| EvilIdiot03-08-07, 02:28 PM | Edit: To EvilIdiot Lets be clear. I'm interested in what the alignment rules actually and specifically say. You are interested in reading your preconceived notions into what the alignment rules say. Application of "common sense" to a rules document automatically means you are applying assumptions that don't necessarily exist in the text or the minds of the people who wrote the text. The text says what it says, nothing more nothing less. Except that: 1)you're the one who claims ALs to be incoherent, and thus incomprehensible, so, if I can read ALs without problems, the one who needs something else to understand the text it's you, not me, perhaps you need "preconceived notions" ,which are some of the assumptions I wrote about before. 2)Writers of ALs rules may have the same notions I have, or other similar ones, otherwise they would have written something they couldn't understand on their own, according to your idea, but that would be absurd. bye! :tiphat: |
| CharlieRock03-08-07, 03:42 PM | The fault, Squirl, is that you take one sentance, obsess over it, and forget about everything else. And that one sentence as it relates to the rest of it's paragraph is ignored. |
| Squirrelloid03-08-07, 04:33 PM | And that one sentence as it relates to the rest of it's paragraph is ignored. Ok, lets look at the entire paragraph. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Particularly, lets consider "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient". Now, anything that can be killed can be knocked unconscious. Killing is just easier (and thus "convenient"). Now, if you kill someone because it was the only sure way to stop them *that instant* when they *absolutely needed to be stopped that instant* (ie, were about to sacrifice a baby or something), and you feel remorse for having to have killed him afterwards, then perhaps its not evil. However, you must both have qualms against killing and not kill merely because it is easier in order to be good, according to your reading of this section. Thus, most killing should be avoided by good characters, because they *can* solve the problem by knocking their foes unconscious. |
| 1CentSage03-08-07, 06:22 PM | "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. While the definition of Evil seems to imply killing, the reverse is not necessarilly true. Now, anything that can be killed can be knocked unconscious. Killing is just easier (and thus "convenient"). Now, if you kill someone because it was the only sure way to stop them *that instant* when they *absolutely needed to be stopped that instant* (ie, were about to sacrifice a baby or something), and you feel remorse for having to have killed him afterwards, then perhaps its not evil. However, you must both have qualms against killing and not kill merely because it is easier in order to be good, according to your reading of this section. Thus, most killing should be avoided by good characters, because they *can* solve the problem by knocking their foes unconscious. Now in the D&D universe there are actually a lot of creatures which can not be knocked unconscious because they are immune to subdual damage. As for the rest, I tend to agree that a Good creature should have very good (whatever that may mean in detail) reasons for killing, the fact that the foe is evil or that it was an "easy" solution being not sufficient. I would like to add, that for example the Book of Exalted Deeds has exalted feats (for which you must qualify by adhering to moral standards higher than "normal" Good) that can lead to death, allows killing under certain circumstances even for Vow of Nonviolence and that has a PrC for lg "assassins" (including an instant death ability). While all of these are not explicit rules statements involving a definition of good, they in total strongly suggest that killing itself is not always considered an evil act in D&D and that the moral standards used to adjucate the killing of creatures are much lower in D&D than the ones you suggested above. |
| Geogoose03-09-07, 12:53 AM | Squirrelloid- I'd like to clarify that me, and possibly other posters as well, are not using the phrase "DnD is an Objective morality system" in the way you use it. DnD is Objective NOT because every person or creature can easily figure out for themselves how every single action is aligned but rather because the DnD Multiverse itself imposes the judgment(yay DM). Not a specific God, not a Religion, and not the character. Good and Evil are forces in DnD much like heat or electricity are to you and me. A character does enough Evil things (intentionally or misguided) and they become Evil aligned. We all understand that an individual character must make a Subjective decision about his action with regard to Good and Evil, simply because no single character is expected to fully understand the workings of all the forces of the multiverse. But it does not matter if the Paladin though he was doing a good deed by killing the King, the DM makes the call (acting the part of the Objective morality system). |
| kintire03-09-07, 07:22 AM | Definition: Moral System (or Ethical System) A method of determining good and evil. As long as we are clear that "Moral System" and "Morality" are not synonyms, thats fine. Definition: Objective Absolutely True in principle, arbitrarily repeatable in practice Absolutely True, fine. The rest? How is something that is true "repeatable"? Do you mean that if you repeatedly (and successfully) determine whether or not it will be true the answer will always be yes? I'd be happy with that. Definition: Value Judgement Assessing the relative goodness of some thing, condition, etc... Fine. Definition: Good (for later) Some thing, condition, etc... you should act to gain and/or keep. I am uneasy with this. Goodness exists more often as a property of an action or condition than an action or condition in its own right. I am not a Kantian; I believe that a given action (like killing, for example) can possess different levels of goodness depending on circumstance. Also, I am suspicious you are trying to sneak consequentialism into the definitions... Therefore, in order for a Moral System to be objective, it must ensure that individuals reach the same conclusions about good and evil while using that system. Therefore, it must take value judgements away from the individual, because if the individual is allowed to make value judgements (assess whatever good or evil value he chooses) to things then the system is no longer objective. When following an objective moral system (should one exist), differences in conclusions on good and evil are due to user-error. Thus, the individual is reduced to putting actions and objects into boxes based on the rules of the system, and thus not actually making value judgements, but determining values based on what box the system tells him to put that action or object in. The system has already made all the value judgements. Any moral system has two questions to answer, and you are rolling them into one. The first is "What is Good?" and the second is "what should we actually do?". An Objectivist moral system is one that assigns absolute truth to the answer to the first question. An Objectivist believes that there is a real external answer to the question "what is Good" that will be essentially the same everywhere. In DnD, this answer is '"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.' or a close variant. That's it: that's the objective bit. The question "what should we actually do?" is in one sense now simple: do whatever is most altruistic, respects life most, and has the highest concern for the dignity of sentient beings. In practice, of course, it is often far from clear just what that action is, hence the complex and often heated debates about what Paladins should and shouldn't do in a variety of likely and absurd situations. But that is a problem with gathering information when faced with limited resources and abilities, not with the moral system itself. There IS a right answer (or more than one: there may well be examples where there are multiple equally valid approaches), its just we can't always reliably figure out what it is. One of the pitfalls with an objective moral system is assuming that because the morality is objective, your conclusions are too. It ain't necessarily so. And if it reflects an external reality, it must consistently reach identical conclusions. Therefore, individuals cannot be allowed to make value judgements. If you are an Objectivist (and the system works), you do not need to make value judgements - the system has already made them for you. This is a serious misunderstanding. Objectivist systems define the value hierarchy, they don't make the value judgements. They tell you that, for example, altruism is the highest good, but they don't tell you what is the Altruistic act in every given situation. They may give you a large number of practical examples with the solution worked out to give you a start, but that's all. When Robin Hood sees the tax collector coming down the road, He doesn't check "Moral Law volume XXXVI, Page 2037 Column 2 Paragraph 7: Tax Collection in Medieval Economies" for what to do next. He plugs his objective moral law ("Love God and love your neighbour as yourself" in his case) into the current situation and derives the result himself. I daresay the tax collector disagrees with his conclusions, but he's allowed greed to tilt his calculations, so Robin's is more accurate than his. And we can say that because his moral imperative (we will assume for the sake of argument) is objectively true, so statements like "his moral decision is good and the tax collector's is not" has meaning. This may be your problem with the DnD Alignment section. It works very much this way, in brief form. It gives the basic objective imperatives and then some examples to give the reader a better idea of the sort of behaviour they are talking about. If you are reading these latter sections, like the reference to "implies killing" and "wandering" as if they were excerpts from the Objective Moral Law That Is Always True For Everyone Everywhere, I can see why you are so fixed on them, and why you think the alignment section is inadequate. If this is the case there's a problem here, but its yours- your demands are absurd. No system of ethics has ever supplied a detailed solution for every concievable situation, and its irrational to demand that the DnD alignment system should be the first. First - do we know that any given God exists? You can have *faith* he does, but you can't *know* he does. Not that there is anything wrong with faith, but that is a subjective decision. (And one can hardly accuse me of thinking ill of subjective moral systems - I'm a consequentialist after all). It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether we "Know" he exists or not. If he does, and he's set some moral laws up when he created the universe, then those moral laws objectively exist, even if we've never heard of them. Independence from the observer is what objectivism is all about! You clearly haven't heard of Gnosticism - one of its basic tenents was that the god and creator of this universe is evil, and that the goal of the soul is to become enlightened such that it can escape this reality and return to the true god who is outside of this reality. Your assumption is noted... and wrong. Actually, I am familar with Gnosticism, one of whose basic tenents was that the God and creator of this universe is good and pure spirit, as all good things in the universe are. The evil demiurge(s) created matter in order to trap and pollute pure spiritual beings, ourselves, and the goal of the soul is to transcend material illusion and return to the reality of spirit. This is done by the acquistion of secret and complex knowledge, including magical rituals, that allow you to seperate yourself from your flesh. In fact, of course, that's a very brief summary of a hugely varied belief system; mostly derived from the Marcionist version. Incidentally, they were NOT "Put to the sword by the church that would become Catholics" they flourished in the first to third centuries, and were well into their final decline before the church was in a position to put anyone to anything. I'm not sure what comments about their "equal validity" is supposed to mean; that's a factual statement that is far from proven. Generally, all ethical philosophers are pro-individual or pro-group (society, etc...). Pro-individual ethics descends from Aristotle, and pro-group ethics descend from Plato (see his Republic, for instance). This is a serious oversimplification, but this isn't really the place to get into it. However, a few other types of philosophy can be divided into Aristotelian and Platonic And its just as useless and misleading as it is in ethics. There are Aristotelean and Platonic ideas in philosophy still, but to split the discipline into the two, as if no one has come up with anything new in 2000 years, isn't helpful. Do that, and you end up calling Ayn Rand, who believes that selfishness is the ultimate good, a follower of Aristotle, who believed that behaving justly was. But they aren't the rules that define alignment. Its that simple. If I told you a feat (in general) was defined as X (basically: an ability you select off a list at appropriate levels), and then proceeded to use "feat" in a way that made no sense in the context of that definition, you'd think those other uses were contradictions because they don't relate to what "feat" was defined as. Why should alignment be any different? But we are not talking about definitions, we are talking about illustrative text. And they don't contradict, anyway, except under your over-prescriptive view. What is "innocent life"? What does "protect" entail and how far are you allowed to go? Are you allowed to slaughter orc infants because it will prevent them from attacking your village 15 years later, thereby protecting your village? Ah...Semantics! I can play too. What is an "infant"? at what point does an infant become a child? what do you mean by "prevent"? make less likely? Make impossible? can we ever have absolute certainty in a world with Undead? If "make less likely", how much? 10%? 90%? where is the dividing line at which it becomes prevention? We can keep this nonsense up all day. Lets just take "innocent" as meaning "has committed no crime worthy of death" and answer your second question with No, it has to be a clear and present danger, and get away from the 70s style silliness. How is "wandering to find good deeds to do" any different from "wandering to find lodging for the night" or "wandering for fun"? Oh, I agree, looking for good deeds probably makes you good, but how does it relate to law or chaos at all? The problem here is that the flavour text for CN says "wandering", then YOU define ALL long term travel as "wandering", and then claim there's a problem. If there is, you made it. Wandering carries implications of aimlessness and lack of planning which is not carried by, say, travelling. Who says all or even most adventurers "wander"? The behaviour of the Paladin in my example could just as well be described as "Patrol". CN tendencies fading away... If you want to discount the example of Devis, you have to discount *all* the examples, which takes away the only textual support that possibly allows any good characters to kill. If you allow that to have rules status, the example of Devis also has rules status - and that is in no small part problematic. But I don't. Originally Posted by SRD Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. No exceptions. Yes there are. Skeletons and other mindless undead. Why are they different? because they are tainted with evil due to their creating, like the nine lives stealer, not any moral actions of their own, so it isn't a contradiction. You seem to demand that all rules should be complete and in one place: the former demand is reasonable, the latter is not. When you find two rules that seem to contradict, the correct response is to check and see if they actually do, not hit the panic button right away. Yes, it might have been helpful if the passage above had mentioned the tainted by evil caveat, but its obvious from elsewhere in the rules. Being made through evil actions makes your creator evil, not you evil. Your creators actions and their moral worth have *nothing to do* with your actions or the moral worth of those actions These statements are a non sequiter. DnD has the concept of evil as an active force in and of itself; it is not just a property of actions. There are evil swords, places, books and entire planes. The lower planes are evil. They just are. They are MADE of evil. Even if nothing is happening in a given spot, even if nothing has ever happened there, it is still evil because its in the lower planes. Areas or things, or people, that acquire a connection to the lower planes can also acquire this property, and evil enough acts can do that. Thus, while the second sentence above is true, it doesn't follow from the first which is (in DnD) false. Alignment doesn't have to "make sense" in a general notion. It has to be consistently and repeatably evaluable. And it is. Does this action help others, or myself. The more it helps others, especially at your expense, the better it is. The more it helps yourself at other's expense, especially if that "expense" involves degrading, pain or death, the more evil it is. Evil could be defined as "wearing leather", and that would be perfectly objective and useable from a rules standpoint. Quite true, although you'd have trouble selling the idea on the flavour front. What the alignment rules need is a specific definition of what is and is not good, and what is and is not evil. If you mean what the fundamental principles are, you've got it. If you mean an assessment of every single concievable act in every conceivable situation, you're asking the impossible, if not the absurd. |