Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CryoSilver 09-05-05, 09:19 PM	What is Evil? I ask this question in the hopes of finding a simple universally applicable standard. From the SRD: ““Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others” Sadly, it just contains what evil implies; what the end products are. I propose the following definition: Evil is the needless harming of someone or something other than oneself for one’s own gain or the advancement of a cause that advocates needlessly harming others. Needless can mean several things: that the harmful actions were harmful for no reason other than to be thus, that they were unnecessary and that other means less or non-harmful were available or that the action itself advanced a harmful cause. Harming simply means somehow at their expense. In D&D, obviously there are certain mitigating factors, but I propose narrowing them to the following: Harming an evil creature requires hard evidence that by doing so, one prevented a specific evil act from occurring. Any creature that is a pure representation of evil (demons, devils, etc) being evil in and of themselves, may be harmed/destroyed at will due to that their very existence is evil, advancing the cause of harm of the soul. An evil act is not justified by a good end, though the good act may gain one absolution for the evil act without need of formal atonement at the sole discretion of one’s deity. One’s gain can be defined as the following: profit, enjoyment, and anything not necessary to the sustenance of one’s life. This includes striking first, but not self-defense, though the initial blow does not need to connect. Defending another is not for one’s profit if it not done for compensation, so in effect, attacking a murderer etc is not evil because the first blow has already fallen and the perceived “first strike” by the avenger/defender is in actuality a vicarious retaliation. However, violence may only be pursued so far as to assure that further harm will not befall those victimized: quarter must be accepted and an enemy that can no longer fight may not be killed. Some people will argue with me, and I expect to see the “What about Robin Hood?” point brought up. Stealing from the rich was evil because there were alternate means of acquiring wealth for the sustenance of the poor. Giving it away was good, and the two about balance; I’m of the school of thought that Robin Hood was Chaotic neutral, not good. I do, however, welcome any and all comments; just try and keep them low-key so this doesn’t get moved to the Mature Forums and we lose a lot of input, eh? In the end, I ask that your arguments sum up what you believe evil is a single sentence. You can do it, trust me. And for god's sake, I don't want a flame war, because I'm actually looking for an answer.
Seeker95 09-05-05, 09:35 PM	Evil is advancing one's own position at the expense of others.
Angry Nutter 09-05-05, 10:00 PM	To me, evil (moral rather than ethical) is deriving satisfaction (usually psychological) from harming others (or simply enjoying their pain, emotional or physical, whether you caused it or not). Using others for ones own gain (stepping on them or over them, so to speak) is more of an ethical question, though general morality can come into play if the individual prefers to use others to get ahead. Remember that evil is not so much the result of the action as the intent. If you decide that you’ll become the president of a company by any means necessary, then your most likely neutral by D&D standards, if you decide you’ll become the president of a company by ruining (economically, socially, or physically) as many people as possible to get rid of the competition, then your most likely evil by D&D standards.
insomnambulist 09-05-05, 10:01 PM	I'd agree with your definition of evil, CryoSilver. To put it in my own words: Evil is the conscious decision to harm others by action or inaction for personal reasons, such as greed, whim, or revenge.
Longarms 09-05-05, 10:18 PM	Well, there are two types of evil that I see on the boards: 1 - "comic book evil" - people who play comic book evil characters use undead armies, wear skulls, talk in a scary voice, destroy things, and generaly hatch schemes where the "end" is to make people miserable. This type of evil actively looks for opportunities to take an "evil" course of action. I think this type of evil uncreative and I would disuade/bar characters in my campaigns from playing it. 2 - realistic evil - simply put, this evil is an absense of good. The characters with this type of evil have the same ends as good characters. It is just that nothing is off limits morally to achieve those goods. An evil character will simply consider more means to acheive their ends than a good character. These type of characters might NEVER perform an evil act if the ends they are attempting to acheive do not require so. These characters will avoid morally off-limits means if moral means exist because they know that they are better served by appearing good. I find these characters much more subdle and much more interesting.
Thorak 09-05-05, 10:50 PM	Evil is advancing one's own position at the expense of others. What if the "other" is a mass murderering psychotic, and you're "advancing your own position" by putting them away and thus keeping them from possibly killing you? Is that evil? How about stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving to death from a rich baker? That advances your position, and is at his expense. Is it evil? This is the problem with trying to simplify what "evil" is. It doesn't break down that easy. There are shades of grey to everything, and it often depends on perspective. If you're on a war front, who's evil, the invaders who are destroying your homeland and crops and pushing you to starvation, or the cruel warlord they're trying to depose who, while being cruel and vicious, didn't let his people starve to death? Are you evil if you resist those invaders when they try and destroy your township? If I had to simplify Evil, it would have to be based on one's own perspective. Namely, if you enjoy hurting, oppressing, or killing others, you're evil. Anything less and there are shades of grey that creep in; is it evil to torture information needed to save millions of lives out of someone, if they are the only ones who have it and won't give it up otherwise? That's hurting others, but is it evil? Even if the intent is to save so many from being unnecessarily hurt, and the guy being hurt is the horrible scientist who created the vicious biological agent that he's hiding the cure for because he'll be paid handsomely for the weapon, and he's already immunized himself?
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-05-05, 10:58 PM	"Whoever the game designer wants to PCs to be able to murder with little or no thought or remorse"
caeruleus 09-05-05, 11:19 PM	What is Evil? I ask this question in the hopes of finding a simple universally applicable standard. [...] I'm actually looking for an answer. Great minds have been working on this problem for thousands of years. Not one has come up with a "simple universally applicable standard", despite claims to the contrary. Just a little heads up, so you don't feel too disappointed when you don't actually get the "Answer".
Chaotic Nothing 09-06-05, 12:03 AM	Ive said my opinion before...... I think evil exists, but it is nothing more than an opinion carried by one or many people. It is not a force. It is a perspective. In the real world, the perspective of evil is mostly the same. Most people agree that a mass murderer who rapes, tortures, and kills is evil.... but it is still just a label tacked on to him. In his eyes, he might not be evil, maybe even good. I myself would call him evil...... but its still just my own opinion, and probably shared by most normal people. But just because a lot of people label something evil means only that a lot of people have the same opinion.
Thorak 09-06-05, 12:14 AM	Ive said my opinion before...... I think evil exists, but it is nothing more than an opinion carried by one or many people. It is not a force. It is a perspective. In the real world, the perspective of evil is mostly the same. Most people agree that a mass murderer who rapes, tortures, and kills is evil.... but it is still just a label tacked on to him. In his eyes, he might not be evil, maybe even good. I myself would call him evil...... but its still just my own opinion, and probably shared by most normal people. But just because a lot of people label something evil means only that a lot of people have the same opinion. Interesting fact. Nobody, ever, in the history of the world, chooses to do something they don't think is the "right" thing to do. They might acknowledge that other people would think it's wrong, but to them, in that situation, it's "right". This goes for mass murderers, serial killers, drug dealers, biological weapons developers, evil dictators, and genocidal maniacs. They all thought they were doing the right thing. Personal opinion has absolutely no relevance to the concept of good and evil for this reason. If we're going to discuss the concept, we absolutely have to determine a baseline for who gets to determine which is which, and why. Of course, that's where the debate has raged for thousands of years. I'm just saying lets leave personal opinion out of it. It is utterly irrelevant what you, personally, think is evil. Hitler thought killing millions of Jews was the right thing to do. Guys selling cocaine to children don't think that's a bad thing. Pedophiles raping children think those who have a problem with their acts are the ones who are wrong. I'm not condoning these things. They're horrible. My point is that the opinion of the perpetrator is irrelevant. By that measure, evil doesn't exist. Nobody ever does anything wrong.
Slyde Shadowdart 09-06-05, 12:23 AM	Of course, if you mean "what is evil with respect to the game D&D", it's anything with the "evil" descriptor. Simple enough. If you mean IRL, and you hope to find a "real" definition of "evil" so that you can better understand how to run "evil" in D&D, then remind me to never play in one of your games. :rolleyes: If you're after the meaning of "evil" as an absolute IRL, good luck with that.
Thorak 09-06-05, 01:32 AM	If you're after the meaning of "evil" as an absolute IRL, good luck with that. The problem with "evil" as an absolute is that it isn't a yes or no thing. It's a question of "how much". Almost everyone agrees there are shades of grey and justifications for certain acts. Killing someone is generally seen as evil, unless it was self defense, in which case it's allowed, or they're the enemy in a war, in which case you're praised for it. So what this boils down to, essentially, is a "pile of rice" argument. We can agree that a certain horrendous act is evil, fairly unanimously. Just like we can agree that a big pile of rice is a pile. So start taking away grains of rice one at a time. Which grain is the one that makes it no longer a pile, what element makes an act no longer evil? You can't judge the matter incrementally. It has to be done on the spot, considering the big picture, an a per-pile basis. And some might disagree on certain piles.
Scipion Emilien 09-06-05, 01:45 AM	In my opinion, the essence of evil is a being of ultimate egocentrism.If you didn't have see it later, it seem that all evil people have a bit ego (and for a diplomatic character, it is a good to know when dealing with the BBEG) An evil mind will always pose to himself this question (not consciently of course): If I do this, will it do good or pleasure to me without allowing me harm? Of course this kind of evil in a good society will perhaps never express himself to a big point, but when he will have the possibility to rob someone (even if it involve killing) and know that he will be able to get along with, he will done it. After that you have the level of evil that goes from egocentrical pleasure that are more a psychotical problem than really a mental thought: rape, sadism, hurting others for pleasures etc... In D&D you also have the lawful evil where the same person will ask: If I do this, will it do good to the society without causing harm to her? (An easy justification to mass murdering or tyranny, a tyran probably have en ego that allow him to think he is the one that know better than the others what they must do for the good of all) And finally you have the chaotic evil that will ask to himself: If I do this, will it do good or pleasure to me? I must admit that the chaotic evil is really close to mental disorder, i had play LM and NM character that could be considered sane (while really more selfish than the average individual) but I never succeed in playing a sane chaotic evil (and this is not by fault of not trying it).
Puca 09-06-05, 03:00 PM	Just to clarify a couple of points: 1) Were talking about the D&D definition of Evil, which includes discussion of the D&D definition of its opposite, Good. 2) Thats not the same as my definition, or your definition, or a biblical definition. 3) I find the discussion of topics like this enjoyable. A another thing we should probably agree on first: The D&D system of Good and Evil is absolute and objective. Absolute means that there arent “shades of gray.” There is no “more Good” or “less Evil.” There is Good and there is Evil. There are things that are neither. Period. The real world might have that, or at least a significant number of people in the real world might, but this is a game, and its rules are clear. Objective means, well, not subjective. This means that Good and Evil do not depend on the actors motivation, intention, perspective. They arent a product of an actions outcome. They have nothing to do with the situation. I propose the following definition: Evil is the needless harming of someone or something other than oneself for one’s own gain or the advancement of a cause that advocates needlessly harming others. So, I have three problems with this: First, who determines needless? What is need? How do you define this? When pushed, it is easy for “need” to look a lot like “want.” Second, What is gain? Is that material? Or would my own personal amusement be considered gain? Third, both of these serious relaxations of the existing rule add subjectivity, which can be a serious problem, and are vague enough that I could just about fit anything into that definition. In D&D, obviously there are certain mitigating factors, but I propose narrowing them to the following: Harming an evil creature requires hard evidence that by doing so, one prevented a specific evil act from occurring. I disagree that there are mitigating factors. Where does this come from? What would constitute “hard evidence?” The only way I could see for you to be able to offer this is in a situation where there was a clear and immediate danger, and that would, I think, already be ok under the existing rules. Any creature that is a pure representation of evil (demons, devils, etc) being evil in and of themselves, may be harmed/destroyed at will due to that their very existence is evil, advancing the cause of harm of the soul.One, there is no “pure” evil. Evil is evil. A human with an evil alignment is no less smite-able than a demon. A devil with a good alignment (never mind how) is not. Two, and this is hard, is that what you are doing is classifying some sentient beings as worthy of respect (as sentient beings) and others as not worthy of that respect. But the definition of Good is clear, and it draws the line at sentience. You are proposing to draw it elsewhere, but what you end up with is a Good that only respects the things that agree with it. That looks just like Evil.
Thorak 09-06-05, 03:07 PM	Just to clarify a couple of points: 1) Were talking about the D&D definition of Evil, which includes discussion of the D&D definition of its opposite, Good. 2) Thats not the same as my definition, or your definition, or a biblical definition. 3) I find the discussion of topics like this enjoyable. 1>The OP's question had nothing to do with the D&D definition of Evil. 2> That's exactly what I've been saying 3> Sort of obviously, ditto. A another thing we should probably agree on first: The D&D system of Good and Evil is absolute and objective. Absolute means that there arent “shades of gray.” There is no “more Good” or “less Evil.” There is Good and there is Evil. There are things that are neither. Period. Really? It says killing others is evil. So any paladin who kills an orc, even to stop said orc from raping and killing a defenceless woman, is Evil. Or maybe there are shades of grey, and the D&D definition is self-destructive. Two, and this is hard, is that what you are doing is classifying some sentient beings as worthy of respect (as sentient beings) and others as not worthy of that respect. But the definition of Good is clear, and it draws the line at sentience. You are proposing to draw it elsewhere, but what you end up with is a Good that respects the things that agree with it. That looks just like Evil. Yay! Shades of grey!
Puca 09-06-05, 03:22 PM	1>The OP's question had nothing to do with the D&D definition of Evil.But I am. When I say it is absolute and objective. Really? It says killing others is evil. So any paladin who kills an orc, even to stop said orc from raping and killing a defenceless woman, is Evil. Or maybe there are shades of grey, and the D&D definition is self-destructive.See, thats what I meant to avoid. It never says killing others is evil. I never said that it did. You just sort of came out of no where with that. No. No shades of gray. If there were “shades of gray” in D&D, how would Smite Evil or similar abilities like Detect Evil work? Thats why I said that making it into a more subjective system would be a problem. Youd have to change Detect Evil to something like “Detect Something that Sees Things Differently than I” or some such thing.
Slyde Shadowdart 09-06-05, 03:38 PM	so any paladin who kills an orc, even to stop said orc from raping and killing a defenceless woman, is Evil. Negative, Ghostrider. The orc is by alignment and by action, evil. Objectively, D&D rules, evil. Therefore killing it is a good act. Why is this so hard for some people? The alignment rules mechanics are right there, in the book. It has the evil descriptor or is of evil alignment? It's evil. It has the good descriptor or is of good alignment? Good. See? Pie.
Puca 09-06-05, 03:44 PM	Therefore killing it is a good act.Not necessarily. Is it a necessarily a good act when an evil orc kills another evil orc? I wouldnt think so. The fact that you encounter an evil being doesnt mean that the definition of Good changes or ceases to apply to you.
Thorak 09-06-05, 05:22 PM	But I am. When I say it is absolute and objective. See, thats what I meant to avoid. It never says killing others is evil. I never said that it did. You just sort of came out of no where with that. No. No shades of gray. From the SRD and the OP's post; “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" So yes, it does say that. If there were “shades of gray” in D&D, how would Smite Evil or similar abilities like Detect Evil work? Because it's not "detect black". There are plenty of shades of gray dark enough to be considered evil, even if they're not as evil as they could possibly be. Thats why I said that making it into a more subjective system would be a problem. Youd have to change Detect Evil to something like “Detect Something that Sees Things Differently than I” or some such thing. Or acknowledge that there are degrees to evil. Kicking a puppy, while evil, isn't really in the same league as torturing thousands because you like how they scream. Negative, Ghostrider. The orc is by alignment and by action, evil. Objectively, D&D rules, evil. Therefore killing it is a good act. Why is this so hard for some people? The alignment rules mechanics are right there, in the book. It has the evil descriptor or is of evil alignment? It's evil. It has the good descriptor or is of good alignment? Good. See? Pie. Sure. Now show me where it says that killing is peachy as long as the target is Evil. The way I read the PHB, Evil implies killing others. Period. It doesn't matter if they're innocent or not. Here's a question. Let's say I see a guy kick a puppy. Since kicking a puppy is evil, he must be evil. Does this mean I am thus morally justified if I abduct him and slowly peel the skin off of him in strips so I can enjoy how he screams?
Slyde Shadowdart 09-06-05, 05:45 PM	Not necessarily. Is it a necessarily a good act when an evil orc kills another evil orc? I wouldnt think so. The fact that you encounter an evil being doesnt mean that the definition of Good changes or ceases to apply to you. Actually, the killing of an orc (evil) by another orc (evil) would be an evil act. The killing of an orc (evil) by a pally (good) to keep it from hurting someone (which would be an evil act) is good. It really isn't all that hard. Look at each case, make a ruling. Also, nowhere did I say that "good" stopped applying to the orc-killer in the example. Actually, it's that compulsion to do good that would drive the character to kill the orc (evil, committing evil act) in the first place. Methinks you all desire to sit around debating your own takes on the "cosmic" nature of alignment more than you actually desire to play the game.
Aliquid 09-06-05, 07:05 PM	Moral standard (A) Character will cause someone else suffering for his own personal gain. (not for the greater good) Moral standard (B) Character will make a personal sacrafice to help someone else. (with no personal gain) An Evil character will be willing to follow standard “A”, and will hesitate at following standard “B” A Good character will be willing to follow standard “B”, and will hesitate at following standard “A” A Neutral character will hesitate at following standard “A” or “B” Note: “Willing to” does not mean “will always do”, or “must do”. “Will hesitate at”, means they will do this under special circumstances, and not very often.
Seeker95 09-06-05, 07:22 PM	Here's a question. Let's say I see a guy kick a puppy. Since kicking a puppy is evil, he must be evil.Thorak is mixing up the definition of an evil act with the definition of an evil creature. Here is his straw argument: Premise: Kicking a puppy is evil. (I agree, for purposes of this post only) Premise: Man A kicked a puppy. Conclusion: Man A is evil. The comparative analogy: Premise: The dead do not breathe. Premise: I am currently not breathing. (I happen to be holding my breath as I type.) Conclusion: I am dead. An additional fallacy in the argument Thorak is presenting is reinforced by the fallacy that others are presenting. (I am breathing again, by the way). This fallacy lies in assuming "shades of gray" is applicable to conditional events. Thorak is right in that the application of the term "evil" is conditional upon the circumstances of the event in question. However, that does not make it "gray". It makes the categorization of "evil" dependent upon the circumstances of the instance being labelled. However, that event is either "evil" or it is "not evil". There is no "gray". The third fallacy of this duscussion (from a D&D perspective) is the erroneous assumption that the opposite of "evil" is "good". In an absolute world, this is not true. The opposite of "evil" is "not evil". The only relationship between "evil" and "good" in an absolute world is that a single event or creature cannot be both "good" and "evil". They are mutually exclusive. A fourth fallacy argued in this thread is that "evil" creatures cannot commit "good" acts, or that "good" creatures cannot commit "evil" acts. They can, and do, frequently. A paladin who commits an evil act (such a ruling inherently assumes that a lawful good paladin is capable of doing so, else no penalty would be needed) is not declared evil. he does not lose his Lawful Good alignment. He is simply stripped of his paladinhood. This simple ruling inherently proves that, within the rules of the game (by the RAW) the alignment label of acts and the alignment label of creatures are not inherently causative. They are related, with creature alignment often guiding actions, and overall actions defining alignment. I now return you to your rather interesting debate.
Thorak 09-06-05, 07:40 PM	Thorak is mixing up the definition of an evil act with the definition of an evil creature. Here is his straw argument: Premise: Kicking a puppy is evil. (I agree, for purposes of this post only) Premise: Man A kicked a puppy. Conclusion: Man A is evil. Hey, look. I can fix my fallacy. Man A enjoys kicking puppies. He enjoys hurting little creatures. Therefore, he is evil, and committing an evil act. As if that weren't enough, a Paladin checked him out earlier, and he definitely glowed Evil. That's your straw man argument; assuming man A isn't evil. He very well might be, and if I adjust my argument such that he is, my example stands. Because he enjoys kicking puppies and is thus evil, does that mean I can morally torture him for kicks and be Good? The third fallacy of this duscussion (from a D&D perspective) is the erroneous assumption that the opposite of "evil" is "good". In an absolute world, this is not true. The opposite of "evil" is "not evil". The only relationship between "evil" and "good" in an absolute world is that a single event or creature cannot be both "good" and "evil". They are mutually exclusive. I agree completely. It's like light and dark. Dark isn't the opposite of light. Dark is merely the absence of it. Though I'm not suggesting that evil is merely the absence of good, just that the relationship is similar; related but not antipodal concepts. A fourth fallacy argued in this thread is that "evil" creatures cannot commit "good" acts, or that "good" creatures cannot commit "evil" acts. They can, and do, frequently. A paladin who commits an evil act (such a ruling inherently assumes that a lawful good paladin is capable of doing so, else no penalty would be needed) is not declared evil. he does not lose his Lawful Good alignment. He is simply stripped of his paladinhood. This simple ruling inherently proves that, within the rules of the game (by the RAW) the alignment label of acts and the alignment label of creatures are not inherently causative. They are related, with creature alignment often guiding actions, and overall actions defining alignment. I now return you to your rather interesting debate. Right. So back to my question; if it's Good to hurt and kill Evil, do I get to torture and kill Evil people with my paladin, even if they've done nothing? And yes, the alignment section says alignment describes your "general moral and personal attitudes", like Seeker95 said, it's not just your actions. So you can be Evil and have never hurt anyone. Maybe you just like thinking about hurting puppies. Do I get to torture you to death then? The killing of an orc (evil) by a pally (good) to keep it from hurting someone (which would be an evil act) is good. Careful. You're edging darn close to the concept that you can A> determine alignment through actions, and B> that good actions allow you to get away with evil actions. So, by that token, do I get to torture a baby to death if it saves 2 people's lives? How about 10 people? 1000? The whole world? Is the torture to death of a baby ever justified? And if it's because the baby isn't Evil, how about torturing evil people? Is it ok to torture one evil person to death to save the world? To save 10 people? To save 1? To save $10? And, in a more general note, if I can do evil with the eventual goal of good, does that mean that genocide is all right, because the intent is to make the world a better place? How about invading sovereign nations because you think they'd be better off under your rule? Or how about doing IQ tests and castrating anyone with a below-average score, with the intent to breed humanity into a smarter collective creature through selective breeding, something we do to animals all the time? And yes, I have an answer to all the above. But they're the kind of questions you have to be able to answer if you're going to claim you have a solid moral viewpoint for debate.
Chaotic Nothing 09-06-05, 07:44 PM	If a man commits an evil act, he is considered evil. The same mans' evil act can be viewed as good by, say, his country. He is evil in one place and a hero in another. What alignment is he? He is a human. As are those who judge him. The two opposing viewpoints are only opinions. They mean only whatever other people interpret them to mean. A human has no alignment, he only has what other people, and he himself, think about him. Alignments are perspective. Nothing more.
CryoSilver 09-06-05, 08:01 PM	Very interesting, all of this. BTW, my question is in regard to D&D, at least mostly, wherein the definition is objective.
Slyde Shadowdart 09-06-05, 08:45 PM	<snip> Not in D&D. Because he enjoys kicking puppies and is thus evil, does that mean I can morally torture him for kicks and be Good? No, because torturing something would be an evil act. On top of that, you're deliberately being obtuse. You're giving a situation that isn't likely to exist, and picking an even more ridiculous method of dealing with it. I would argue that no "good" character would resort to something as drastic as killing or torture to put this puppy-kicker back on the moral path. Again, circumstance is the best evidence for application of alignment and the alignment mechanics. If your "good" character saw the puppy-kicker, and said to me (as DM), I'm going to kill him for kicking that puppy, I'd look at you like you'd lost your mind and ask "Isn't there probably a more in-character way for you to deal with this situation? As a good aligned character, you wouldn't do that." If you persisted in dealing with things in that manner (overreacting), an alignment change would eventually be in order. Careful. You're edging darn close to the concept that you can A> determine alignment through actions, and B> that good actions allow you to get away with evil actions. Actually, one could argue that there is no better litmus test for alignment than someone's actions. Would the good aligned guy be kicking puppies? Maybe if the puppy had committed an evil act (peeing on new boots, which for purposes of discussion is an evil act). But again, even in this hypothetical case, there are better ways than jumping to murder and torture, and a good aligned character would choose such. Also, nowhere did I say that good actions allow you to get away with evil actions. I have a feeling you're going to point out that I said "killing an orc (evil) is a good act" and try to say that even in this instance killing is an evil act, but I'm just going to counter that you're wrong, as the act was, IIRC, saving lives. In that particular case, the "evil" act is merely part of a larger "good" act: the saving of innocent lives (good). You have to look at then entire situation, not just the tiny little portion that happens to support your argument when taken completely out of context. And, in a more general note, if I can do evil with the eventual goal of good, does that mean that genocide is all right, because the intent is to make the world a better place? How about invading sovereign nations because you think they'd be better off under your rule? Or how about doing IQ tests and castrating anyone with a below-average score, with the intent to breed humanity into a smarter collective creature through selective breeding, something we do to animals all the time? One thing you seem to be getting away from again is that good and evil are absolutes in D&D. There is no "character perspective" of the alignments. Genocide: evil. Invading a nation: would depend on why you think they'd be better off. If you think they'd be better off because your invading them will free them all from slavehood: good. If you think they'd be "better off" because by enslaving them you'll be giving them all jobs and daily bowls of gruel: evil. The castrating thing: if being done in D&D: evil. IRL? Not relevant to the topic at hand. The rest of your post is pure hyperbole. All of it depends highly on specific circumstances, which if happening in a game of D&D would be readily apparent and easily ruled on by the DM. That's why he/she's there, after all. The third fallacy of this duscussion (from a D&D perspective) is the erroneous assumption that the opposite of "evil" is "good". In an absolute world, this is not true. The opposite of "evil" is "not evil". The only relationship between "evil" and "good" in an absolute world is that a single event or creature cannot be both "good" and "evil". They are mutually exclusive. You make an excellent point. Leaving law and chaos aside for the moment, however, (as we all have so far for the most part), you still only have two options if one (evil) is not the case. If not absolutely evil, then your choices are absolutely neutral and absolutely good. Admittedly, throwing neutrality into the mix will bring up some interesting changes. However, again by definition, if a "neutral" character were to go around committing senseless puppy-kicking (evil) all the time, again we'd see an eventual shift to evil. If said neutral character went around giving gold dubloons to the poor with no thought to how he himself was going to pay for his next meal if he ran out, an eventual shift to good. That's not to say that a neutral character exists only for a moment and in a vacuum, don't get me wrong. Only that even by the RAW: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a committment to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil- after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rules rather than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Again, you'd be down to judging whether actions were good or evil, and any shown preponderance toward committing either one could be grounds for a shift. A fourth fallacy argued in this thread is that "evil" creatures cannot commit "good" acts, or that "good" creatures cannot commit "evil" acts. They can, and do, frequently. None of which actually change the creature's base alignment as presented in the RAW. If a particular creature, say an orc, is going around doing good deeds all the time, then his alignment probably isn't evil. By extrapolation, he probably also isn't a: travelling the countryside with other, evil orcs b: committing evil acts right in front of good aligned characters. Therefore, it would take some interesting conditions for a party to have reason to think he was evil after anything more than a cursory examination. Again, this one's going to fall to "What's the in game scenario?" All for now.
Lina_Inverse 09-06-05, 09:50 PM	good=sacrafice of self for people you dont care about. neutral=ignoreing people you dont care about. evil=sacraficeing others.
Thorak 09-06-05, 10:17 PM	No, because torturing something would be an evil act. On top of that, you're deliberately being obtuse. You're giving a situation that isn't likely to exist, and picking an even more ridiculous method of dealing with it. It's called reductio ad absurdum. I take your logical structure, provide an extreme example that shows incorrect results, and thus show that the logical structure is somehow flawed. You said "Actually, the killing of an orc (evil) by another orc (evil) would be an evil act. The killing of an orc (evil) by a pally (good) to keep it from hurting someone (which would be an evil act) is good." This boils down to "killing is evil" and "evil done to prevent evil is good". If you didn't mean that, then you shouldn't have said that killing the orc is innately evil. And, with that same structure, I take torturing (evil), apply it to punishing and killing an evil person, and thus because I'm doing it to "keep them from hurting someone", my act is good. Reductio ad absurdum. If I don't get to torture evil people and have it be Good, your paladin doesn't get to kill orcs to save people, either. Not by that logical structure, at least. I'm not saying torture's good, or killing is always evil, just that this isn't a useful avenue for discussing the issue. I would argue that no "good" character would resort to something as drastic as killing or torture to put this puppy-kicker back on the moral path. Again, circumstance is the best evidence for application of alignment and the alignment mechanics. Ahh. Evil A to prevent Evil B is Good but only if Evil A < Evil B. You're treading close to quantifying morality again. If your "good" character saw the puppy-kicker, and said to me (as DM), I'm going to kill him for kicking that puppy, I'd look at you like you'd lost your mind and ask "Isn't there probably a more in-character way for you to deal with this situation? As a good aligned character, you wouldn't do that." If you persisted in dealing with things in that manner (overreacting), an alignment change would eventually be in order. Right. I'm not suggesting this is wrong. Just that your logical support of this stance is flawed. Morality is fairly instinctive to people, we don't think about why we think something is wrong, we just know. I'm not saying it's innate, it's not, but it's learned before our ability to think is firmly developed. What we're discussing is why certain perceptions of morality are, intellectually, justifiable. I'm not saying yours isn't justifiable, just that the arguments you're using thus far aren't doing the trick. Actually, one could argue that there is no better litmus test for alignment than someone's actions. Would the good aligned guy be kicking puppies? Maybe if the puppy had committed an evil act (peeing on new boots, which for purposes of discussion is an evil act). But again, even in this hypothetical case, there are better ways than jumping to murder and torture, and a good aligned character would choose such. Also, nowhere did I say that good actions allow you to get away with evil actions. I have a feeling you're going to point out that I said "killing an orc (evil) is a good act" and try to say that even in this instance killing is an evil act, but I'm just going to counter that you're wrong, as the act was, IIRC, saving lives. In that particular case, the "evil" act is merely part of a larger "good" act: the saving of innocent lives (good). You have to look at then entire situation, not just the tiny little portion that happens to support your argument when taken completely out of context. Right. You're saying I can get away with evil as long as I'm doing more good. As long as my Good is at a higher level than my Evil, I'm a good person. So if I save a drowning kid, I get to kick a puppy for fun. What I think you're trying to aim for is the concept (and there's a specific term for the ideology, but it's been a while since I took my Phil classes) that evil can be justified by the purpose it's used for. And that is very dangerous ground; "the greater good" is a concept almost always used to justify horrors. One thing you seem to be getting away from again is that good and evil are absolutes in D&D. There is no "character perspective" of the alignments. Genocide: evil. Invading a nation: would depend on why you think they'd be better off. If you think they'd be better off because your invading them will free them all from slavehood: good. If you think they'd be "better off" because by enslaving them you'll be giving them all jobs and daily bowls of gruel: evil. The castrating thing: if being done in D&D: evil. IRL? Not relevant to the topic at hand. So what if a Paladin is given information that a certain individual is planning an assassination, tracks them down where the information said they would be, with a crossbow, and detects that they are Evil, and kills them? If his perception was right, then he did Good. If his perception was flawed, say, by the person who gave him the info having a darker intent and planting evidence, precisely to get the Paladin to kill the assassin, since that one was hired to kill the real assassin? Then he did Evil, he aided the assassination of an innocent man. Is the paladin's perception of what he was doing really not important here? The rest of your post is pure hyperbole. All of it depends highly on specific circumstances, which if happening in a game of D&D would be readily apparent and easily ruled on by the DM. That's why he/she's there, after all. Right. I'm discussing why a DM should or should not rule a certain way, and the logical structures they should or should not use to make that decision.
c0mA 09-06-05, 10:22 PM	I'm amused, Puca! How about you? :cheer:
Slyde Shadowdart 09-07-05, 12:40 AM	You're treading close to quantifying morality again. I'm treading close to quantifying morality in a game of D&D? Good. That's my job as DM. If I don't get to torture evil people and have it be Good, your paladin doesn't get to kill orcs to save people, either. Not by that logical structure, at least. Not by that structure, no. But then again, you're the one that's asserting that there is some connection between the two events. They are, in fact, two wholly separate occurrences with no bearing on each other whatsoever, and therefore not really eligible for direct comparison. By the very nature that they are two separate acts, they will call for two separate rulings. This boils down to "killing is evil" and "evil done to prevent evil is good". If you didn't mean that, then you shouldn't have said that killing the orc is innately evil. I don't see the word innate in my post anywhere. I said that in that circumstance, orc (evil) killing another orc (evil) = evil act. Mechanically, I'm correct. The rules make it pretty clear: Evil kills Good: Evil Evil kills Evil: Evil Good kills Evil: Good There are also certain assumptions that are basic to the game. Evil creatures don't usually go out of their way to commit good acts. Good creatures don't etcetera, etcetera. Whe circumstances fall outside these handy guidelines, it falls on the DM to decide, based on all factors involved, whether an act is good or evil. Also, if you'll consider, most acts in the game that fall outside of the normal boundaries are either plot devices inserted by the GM (in which case he will have already thought about and decided on things like motivations and outcome), or are committed by a PC that is not following their alignment (in which case it falls on the DM to nudge the player back on track, adjust alignments, whatever the situation may call for). As an aside, if you're going to rule all killing evil no matter what the circumstances, you could end up with either an extremely boring game (well, we could kill the leader of the orc army and stop a war that will result in the death of millions of good citizens of our nation, but too bad we can't, since we're good. what say we just, I dunno, stand around again today?) or one in which no PC is ever actually good (since in oh, 99.99999% of D&D games the PCs are going to kill something, be it orc, goblin, etcetera). Yes, the SRD entry for Evil says blah, blah, killing. It also contains the word "implies", and a more than cursory reading and understanding of the rest of the game should be quite enough to show that there are certain things that are understood to be "okay to kill". Such as things that say, I dunno, have the evil descriptor in their entry? The SRD does not say "all killing is wrong no matter what". A player might say that, a character may think that, and a DM might run the game like that, but in no way is that canon. Were I presented with any of the situations that Thorak has been using, I would rule based on the current character alignment and circumstances surrounding the event. Not by trying to reference the Gamer's Universal Reference to What Is Evil^tm. Again, my point (although now I don't remember if I actually made it thusly) is that you cannot merely "define" evil for use in everyone's game, with the end result being some sort of gamer agreement utopia. I was merely pointing out that when such things arise in D&D, there are mechanical ways of making such determinations. When these mechanics fall short, make something up. It's your game. ;) (Please pardon this post for being choppy, it was written in spurts in between having to run about the house taking care of a couple of things.)
Shemeska the Marauder 09-07-05, 12:50 AM	*smiles as only a yugoloth can* Evil is the betterment of the self at the detriment of others. More so when it's intentional. The end result is only half of what evil is about. Intention is the other half. EVIL is enjoying what you do, even when you don't gain anything from it. And it's so broad. Petty or passionate, random or complex enough to make a baatezu's head spin, it comes in all forms. But of course, perhaps what you call evil is simply a striving for perfection in the multiverse at the expense of mercy. That's what yugoloths are all about. Trust us. *flashes fangs and twirls fingers through razorvine tiara*
Slyde Shadowdart 09-07-05, 01:05 AM	That's what yugoloths are all about. Trust us. :rofl: :88E:
Thorak 09-07-05, 01:22 AM	I'm treading close to quantifying morality in a game of D&D? Good. That's my job as DM. No, it's not. Morality in D&D is not quantified. It is objectively defined, but that's a whole different thing. "Quantified" means saying things like "killing someone is +1 Evil, and if they're innocent, it's +2". Not by that structure, no. But then again, you're the one that's asserting that there is some connection between the two events. They are, in fact, two wholly separate occurrences with no bearing on each other whatsoever, and therefore not really eligible for direct comparison. By the very nature that they are two separate acts, they will call for two separate rulings. Really? Aren't you the one who distinguished between a Paladin killing an orc and an orc killing an orc based on the factor that the paladin was saving someone else in doing so? That's making a connection between the two. You essentially said the Paladin can kill because of X. Connection. I would, personally, say they aren't connected morally, but we're not discussing my personal views. At least, not yet. I don't see the word innate in my post anywhere. I said that in that circumstance, orc (evil) killing another orc (evil) = evil act. Mechanically, I'm correct. The rules make it pretty clear: Evil kills Good: Evil Evil kills Evil: Evil Good kills Evil: Good Really? Where's it say that? I just see "Evil implies ... killing others". Don't see anything about killing Evil being inherently Good. Guess my Paladin should go out and kill him some orc babies. They're Evil, so it's a Good thing. As an aside, if you're going to rule all killing evil no matter what the circumstances, you could end up with either an extremely boring game (well, we could kill the leader of the orc army and stop a war that will result in the death of millions of good citizens of our nation, but too bad we can't, since we're good. what say we just, I dunno, stand around again today?) or one in which no PC is ever actually good (since in oh, 99.99999% of D&D games the PCs are going to kill something, be it orc, goblin, etcetera). Yep. I agree. Never said what I was talking about was how things should be. Was pointing out that they're what you are saying they are, by extension of your earlier comments. Yes, the SRD entry for Evil says blah, blah, killing. It also contains the word "implies", and a more than cursory reading and understanding of the rest of the game should be quite enough to show that there are certain things that are understood to be "okay to kill". Such as things that say, I dunno, have the evil descriptor in their entry? Like orc babies, right? Or if you dislike the "babies" part, how about a Green Dragon the paladin-less party has encountered by happenstance, who defended itself when the party attacked (It's "always evil", kill it!), despite it's pleading for mercy and insistence that it isn't like its kin, it has never hurt another sentient creature without it being in self defense. Even so, it's described as "always evil", so killing it while it doesn't fight back and begs for mercy is wonderful and Good. The SRD does not say "all killing is wrong no matter what". A player might say that, a character may think that, and a DM might run the game like that, but in no way is that canon. Were I presented with any of the situations that Thorak has been using, I would rule based on the current character alignment and circumstances surrounding the event. Not by trying to reference the Gamer's Universal Reference to What Is Evil^tm. Again, my point (although now I don't remember if I actually made it thusly) is that you cannot merely "define" evil for use in everyone's game, with the end result being some sort of gamer agreement utopia. I was merely pointing out that when such things arise in D&D, there are mechanical ways of making such determinations. When these mechanics fall short, make something up. It's your game. ;) And yet, you've claimed that you could define things like "Good kills Evil: Good" based on D&D mechanics. Still waiting on that proof.
Slyde Shadowdart 09-07-05, 02:03 AM	Guess my Paladin should go out and kill him some orc babies. They're Evil, so it's a Good thing. Technically, yes, if the DM has decided that this group of baby orcs would have grown up to be evil, then it's a good act. The baby orc is going to grow up to be an evil big adult ork. See, this is another instance of taking something too realistically while playing a game. My final point and I rest. You are arguing from a meta-definitive point of view, in hopes of achieving some sort of ultimate explanation of evil for every situation that could arise. I'm arguing from the stance that all you can hope to do is adjudicate each situation as it arises by using simple guidelines and "norms" provided by the RAW and any house rules you have in place. I'm done. You seem to have started taking this far too personally.
Thorak 09-07-05, 07:39 AM	Technically, yes, if the DM has decided that this group of baby orcs would have grown up to be evil, then it's a good act. The baby orc is going to grow up to be an evil big adult ork. See, this is another instance of taking something too realistically while playing a game. If you think killing babies is Good because they might grow up to be Evil, then there's little else I can say. Incidentally, does this mean you think a mother who drowns all her children because she thinks they're demons did a Good act? My final point and I rest. You are arguing from a meta-definitive point of view, in hopes of achieving some sort of ultimate explanation of evil for every situation that could arise. I'm arguing from the stance that all you can hope to do is adjudicate each situation as it arises by using simple guidelines and "norms" provided by the RAW and any house rules you have in place. The difference being that you're not willing to examine your reasons for why you think certain things are evil. This is what I said earlier about a logically justifiable stance. If your moral view doesn't stand up to basic logic, it is fundamentally flawed. I'm not saying yours is, I'm just poking around in the arguments you're presenting to support it to show why they're flawed. Either you've got an ultimate explanation of evil somewhere in your head, or you're making stuff up on a whim with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever. I'm just trying to figure out what it is. I said early on that, for most people, their concept of "evil" is defined so early in life that it's instinctive. That doesn't mean we can't think about what it is. I'm done. You seem to have started taking this far too personally. I'm not taking it personally at all. It's a philosophical debate. Heck, most of the arguments and examples I've presented I've paraphrased from philosophical essays on the nature of Good and Evil. I'm taking this as personally as a philosophy class discussion.
Puca 09-07-05, 09:52 AM	Because it's not "detect black". There are plenty of shades of gray dark enough to be considered evil, even if they're not as evil as they could possibly be.So, how dark gray does it have to be to register? Where is the line? If it is like 10% on a gray scale, will my smite work? What shade is having an evil alignment? Sorry Thorak, theres got to be a line. Only in a black-and-white system can you draw it with consistency. Sure. Now show me where it says that killing is peachy as long as the target is Evil. The way I read the PHB, Evil implies killing others. Period. It doesn't matter if they're innocent or not.OK. Thats a bit more strict an interpretation than I would have gone with, but in a strict constructionist sort of way I guess you could go that far. Me, I wouldnt. Here's a question. Let's say I see a guy kick a puppy. Since kicking a puppy is evil, he must be evil. Does this mean I am thus morally justified if I abduct him and slowly peel the skin off of him in strips so I can enjoy how he screams?Whom are you talking to? Cryo? Not me. ______________ The killing of an orc (evil) by a pally (good) to keep it from hurting someone (which would be an evil act) is good.What if the orc (evil) killed someone (evil) to protect his master (evil?) The rules make it pretty clear: Evil kills Good: Evil Evil kills Evil: Evil Good kills Evil: Good At no point do the rules state this, and pulling this from the rules is just crazy. What youve done here is made the actor part of the definition of the act. Not only does that unnecessarily complicate your definition, it also opens your definition up to possible absurd problems. The paladin who kills an orc that is in the process of harming another is acting consistent with the principle of Good not because of who he is but because of the act of saving a life. Hes not “killing an orc because the orc is evil” hes trying to save the innocent and the the orc ended up dead. The death is incidental, an unfortunate consequence of his good act. Methinks you all desire to sit around debating your own takes on the "cosmic" nature of alignment more than you actually desire to play the game.Listen, this isnt playing the game. It is debating alignment. Methinks you failed to notice the title of the thread. ____________________ I'm amused, Puca! How about you?Thats why Im here.
Seeker95 09-07-05, 11:44 AM	If you think killing babies is Good because they might grow up to be Evil, then there's little else I can say.First: This statement is a Straw Man Argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). On the face of it, you could easily (and prematurely) agree that this sounds valid. Killing a baby because it might grow up to be evil raises the fears of most "Brave New World" readers. However, it is a distraction at best (adding the fallacy of Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html) to the mix), turning away from the definition of evil in D&D by presenting an emotional argument designed to be easily torn down. Second: Thorak has ignored a few important words in his sentence. Here is what he should have written to make it valid in this argument: If you think killing Evil Orc babies is Not Evil, then there's little else I can say. In the correct phrasing of the statement, there is little else he needs to say. Killing Evil is not inherently Evil. That's the thing. Thorak wants a gray area really bad. But in D&D, there isn't one. Evil is NOT quantified in "presence". (It may have varying strengths, but this is generally a function of HD and capacity -- the closest we come to "quantification" of alingment. The more powerful you are, the more your Evil can impact the world.) Something either *is* Evil, or it is NOT. Thorak is depending upon a non-existent-in-D&D moral ambiguity. Although there are such things as "good drow" (blech) and "good orcs", these are individual exceptions, as clearly defined by the Alignment field in the stat blocks. Orcs are Evil. An individual orc might not be evil. But orcs are Evil. This "being Evil" is not age dependent. Orc Babies are evil too. So are baby red dragons and baby demons. So, killing Orc babies because they *are* Evil is not an inherently Evil act. It is the *same* as killing baby copperheads in your backyard. They *might* eventually bite you (or your child), whether tomorrow or next year. Going into pristine wild lands and killing copperheads is probably not a good act, but this is where the circumstances surrounding the act come in to determine the explicit judgment. That brings up another case in point. Thorak is trying to prove "shades of gray" by presenting blanket statements. But it is only if his claim of shades of gray is true that blanket statements can prove anything. He cannot use his conclusion as his premise to prove his conclusion. D&D alignment is Absolute. It is not Universal. Every action, every event, every individual, when judged for being "Evil" will register as Evil or Not Evil. But the same act, viewed in a different set of circumstances, may register differently. But is still either Evil or Not Evil. No Grey. That said, Slyde makes an easy target by trying to use blanket statements as well. Slyde makes the same fallacy error as Thorak, although he has done so at different times with different blanket statements, and occasionally buys into the straw man that Thorak sets up. Killing Orc Babies is NOT an inherently Evil act. It might be a Good action. It might be a Neutral action. It might be an Evil action. But in every instance in which orc babies are killed, it is *definitely* either Good, Evil, or Neutral. Again, no Gray.
Aliquid 09-07-05, 12:04 PM	D&D alignment is Absolute. It is not Universal. Every action, every event, every individual, when judged for being "Evil" will register as Evil or Not Evil. But the same act, viewed in a different set of circumstances, may register differently. But is still either Evil or Not Evil. No Grey.Which is why I have always argued that it isn't the act that makes something evil. It is the intention behind the act. It is not "what" a person does that makes him evil. It is "why" I still say that my definition is valid (post 21).
Thorak 09-07-05, 12:16 PM	So, how dark gray does it have to be to register? Where is the line? If it is like 10% on a gray scale, will my smite work? What shade is having an evil alignment? Sorry Thorak, theres got to be a line. Only in a black-and-white system can you draw it with consistency. My point is that it's not black-and-white. There may not even be a visible line. It's like if I'm poor. If I have $1, I'm poor. If I get another $1, I'm still poor. And yet, after I get $1,000,000, I'm obviously no longer poor. There is, however, no specific dollar value where I am poor, but having another $1 makes me not-poor. The term isn't quantified. Neither is evil. OK. Thats a bit more strict an interpretation than I would have gone with, but in a strict constructionist sort of way I guess you could go that far. Me, I wouldnt. I agree, FWIW. I'm trying to discuss why a strict constructionist interpretation of the PHB turns out to be ridiculous. Whom are you talking to? Cryo? Not me. It was a general rhetorical question, but feel free to provide an answer if you like. Seeker95, I'll get back to you. My break's up.
Draco Strang 09-07-05, 12:31 PM	I agree, FWIW. I'm trying to discuss why a strict constructionist interpretation of the PHB turns out to be ridiculous. Thorak, I've followed this thread for a while and agree with virtually everything you've said. Your arguments are compelling and similar to my own. However, I disagree with the above statement. A strict constructionist intrepretation of the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos system as per the PHB is not only un-ridiculous, but it's down right necessary when playing the game with other people. Think about it. D&D is played by millions of different people all over the world. The game spans geographical and political borders, as well as a vast and dizzying strata of ages, religions, socioeconomic backgrounds, and systems of moral and ethical beliefs. As such, everyone who comes to the table will have different views on what's good and what's bad. Everyone has their own predetermined notions of right and wrong. As such, how can we hope to play a game without having a fairly strict benchmark with which to measure up against? In my case, I play with a kid who's a staunch believer in capital punishment. I on the other hand, believe that there's leeway and shades of grey involved in the system, and in many cases isn't necessary. Differences aside, issues like this have come up in-game before. Rather than getting sucked into a giant OOG debate on what's right and what's wrong, we've sucked it up and stuck to the already-written rules. We don't do this out of moral beliefs or anything, but simply because it's soooooo much easier for everyone to voluntarily limit themselves to the same playing field when the game starts. In summary, what I'm trying to say is that I feel it's best for a group (well, MY group anyway) to stick to the Good/Evil concepts as defined in the PHB as closely as possible, because once you start "houseruling" Good/Evil, things get sticky really quick.
Puca 09-07-05, 12:40 PM	My point is that it's not black-and-white.I know. Im saying it doesnt work with the rules. If there were a game mechanic like Smite Poor, youd have to give a dollar amount. There is a game mechanic called Smite Evil. I agree, FWIW. I'm trying to discuss why a strict constructionist interpretation of the PHB turns out to be ridiculous.So youre forcing it to be ridiculous to demonstrate that it is ridiculous? Why? It is perfectly possible to leave “respect for life and the dignity of sentient beings” well enough alone, where youre still capable of killing and being good as long as strive to stay committed to those values. ___________________ It is not "what" a person does that makes him evil. It is "why"Does your motivation for casting a spell with the Evil descriptor change the descriptor? No. Motivation would be a valid point in a conversation about morality, but not in one about the game rules. Changing the alignment systen to account for motivation would make things extraordinarily complex. Easier to cut the concepts of good and evil from the rules altogether.
Aliquid 09-07-05, 12:56 PM	Does your motivation for casting a spell with the Evil descriptor change the descriptor?Of course not. Your motivation would only effect your alignment. The spell will always be Evil because it gets it's energy from an evil source, but the individual casting the spell might be good (although they would be foolish to be messing with evil energy sources). The individual casting the spell and the spell are two different things. Changing the alignment systen to account for motivation would make things extraordinarily complex. Easier to cut the concepts of good and evil from the rules altogether.Change? How would you have to change it? How would this make things complicated?
Puca 09-07-05, 01:11 PM	The spell will always be Evil because it gets it's energy from an evil sourceIt doesnt say that anywhere. I do know there are references to spells being evil because they cause unnecessary pain and suffering, but those references arent core, and frankly, that argument is pretty weak. Look, based on the rules, some acts are Evil no matter what. Casting an Evil spell is just one example of this, and an easy one to point to when I have to support this claim. It is evil, casting it is evil even if you have a “really really really” good reason. A good cleric or a cleric of a good deity cant cast them even if it was the only way to save the world. Change? How would you have to change it? How would this make things complicated?Well, not the least of which is the gray-area problem Ive been arguing with Thorak. Youre also going to have a hard time separating Player motivation form character motivation. I think youll end up with good and evil being defined by which ever player (not character) is better, more creative, and rationalizing.
Aliquid 09-07-05, 01:46 PM	It doesnt say that anywhere. I do know there are references to spells being evil because they cause unnecessary pain and suffering, but those references arent core, and frankly, that argument is pretty weak.No, the point I was making is that the source of the magic is evil, and the source of the magic has evil motivation. A wizard casting an evil spell is typically getting the energy for the spell from the "plane negative energy" or whatever it's called (don't have rule book in front of me). Negative energy is a manifestation of evil, and as such is always evil. A cleric casting a spell gets the energy for the spell from his deity. A good deity won’t provide his cleric with any “evil” spell, an evil deity will. Thus evil spells for clerics come from an evil source (an evil deity) Look, based on the rules, some acts are Evil no matter what. Casting an Evil spell is just one example of this, and an easy one to point to when I have to support this claim. It is evil, casting it is evil even if you have a “really really really” good reason.I don't recall the rules saying that the act of casting an evil spell is "evil". I am sure it says that "it is evil to cast a spell with an evil descriptor", but you are assuming that this implies that the act of casting is evil, I on the other hand assume it means that the spell itself is evil. Well, not the least of which is the gray-area problem Ive been arguing with Thorak. Youre also going to have a hard time separating Player motivation form character motivation. I think youll end up with good and evil being defined by which ever player (not character) is better, more creative, and rationalizing.Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. One of your concerns is a situation coming up where a DM says to a player "your actions are regularly evil, therefore you will show up as 'evil' if a cleric casts 'detect evil'", and the player will argue "oh, but my motivations were pure" and then spin some big line of BS rationalizing his actions. It's a valid concern. I guess I just don't care about it because I haven't ever played with people that try to pull that kind of stunt. No matter what system you use to codify "good" and "evil", there will be people out there that disagree. I personally can't work with an environment where specific actions are strictly codified as "evil". Just to make things more complicated... I'm going to claim that's too "lawful" of a system for me (I'm chaotic in nature).
Gilean 09-07-05, 02:38 PM	It was asked for, so here are my definitions of evil actions. An evil character generally does a lot of evil actions. A good one does few evil actions and a lot of good ones. Neutrals are those who don't do a lot of either. Good action causes more benefit for others than you. A neutral one causes more benefit to you than it causes harm or benefit to others, or an equal amount. An evil action causes more harm to others than it benefits you. For example, let us take two starving humans in a place with no food. Say, a mine that has collapsed, a desolate island, whatever. A good action would be to offer your food to the other guy. And starve first. A very good action would be to offer you food, including yourself, to the other guy. A neutral action would be to share the food, and take all of it when end draws near, and to eat the other if it is a matter of survival. An evil act would be to take all food from the other guy, torture (or something like that) and probably eat after, or before death. EDIT Oh, and negative nergy isn't evil. See inflit spells.
Aliquid 09-07-05, 02:55 PM	Oh, and negative nergy isn't evil. See inflit spells.hmm... that blows my theory out of the water :(
Seeker95 09-07-05, 02:58 PM	hmm... that blows my theory out of the water[evil] spells are evil because there is an [evil] domain that needed a list of nine spells that would qualify as [domain] spells. Once the concept of domain spells took hold, [tags] expanded to more than just the nine [domain] slots. Any explanation of why a spell has the [alignment] tag is ad hoc (post hoc?) at best. The reason has nothing to do with alignment and everything to do with domains.
Thorak 09-07-05, 03:45 PM	First: This statement is a Straw Man Argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). On the face of it, you could easily (and prematurely) agree that this sounds valid. Killing a baby because it might grow up to be evil raises the fears of most "Brave New World" readers. However, it is a distraction at best (adding the fallacy of Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html) to the mix), turning away from the definition of evil in D&D by presenting an emotional argument designed to be easily torn down. Second: Thorak has ignored a few important words in his sentence. Here is what he should have written to make it valid in this argument: If you think killing Evil Orc babies is Not Evil, then there's little else I can say. In the correct phrasing of the statement, there is little else he needs to say. Killing Evil is not inherently Evil. That's the thing. Thorak wants a gray area really bad. But in D&D, there isn't one. Evil is NOT quantified in "presence". (It may have varying strengths, but this is generally a function of HD and capacity -- the closest we come to "quantification" of alingment. The more powerful you are, the more your Evil can impact the world.) Something either *is* Evil, or it is NOT. Ahh, but I was merely rewording Slyde's logical structure. I heartily admit the above statement is fundamentally flawed. That was my point. Slyde's the one who said Orc kills Orc = Evil, and Paladin kills Orc to save Girl = Good. Since I assumed it wasn't sheer paladin-ness that made the killing justified, since that seems beyond silly, I assumed it was the "to save girl" that made it Good. So I extended the logic. If doing evil A causes good B, and B is more good than A is evil, the act is Good. That's the logic that is flawed, and leads to statements like torturing babies to save lives. It ain't my logic. Thorak is depending upon a non-existent-in-D&D moral ambiguity. Although there are such things as "good drow" (blech) and "good orcs", these are individual exceptions, as clearly defined by the Alignment field in the stat blocks. Orcs are Evil. An individual orc might not be evil. But orcs are Evil. This "being Evil" is not age dependent. Orc Babies are evil too. So are baby red dragons and baby demons. So, killing Orc babies because they *are* Evil is not an inherently Evil act. It is the *same* as killing baby copperheads in your backyard. They *might* eventually bite you (or your child), whether tomorrow or next year. Going into pristine wild lands and killing copperheads is probably not a good act, but this is where the circumstances surrounding the act come in to determine the explicit judgment. The difference being that A> copperheads aren't evil, B> copperheads are inherently dangerous, and C> copperheads aren't sentient. That last one being the kicker. It's a straw man to liken killing non-sentients and sentients. Unless you agree that we can replace "copperheads" with "general populace", and "eventually bite you" with "eventually revolt against your rule", and thus morally allow the killing of babies to keep the population from possibly revolting. And no, that's not a straw man. It's a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the logical structure, taken to an extreme, is flawed. It's a valid logical argument. That brings up another case in point. Thorak is trying to prove "shades of gray" by presenting blanket statements. But it is only if his claim of shades of gray is true that blanket statements can prove anything. He cannot use his conclusion as his premise to prove his conclusion. D&D alignment is Absolute. It is not Universal. Every action, every event, every individual, when judged for being "Evil" will register as Evil or Not Evil. But the same act, viewed in a different set of circumstances, may register differently. But is still either Evil or Not Evil. No Grey. Okay. Let's try a different analogy. Let's say, instead of white/grey/black, we use light/dark. Same difference, just without terms for the extremes, which D&D admittedly doesn't have for alignment. So yes, you can Detect Dark. And distinguish it from Light or Dimly Lit. And yes, there are degrees. But there's no single point where it goes from Dark to Dimly Lit. Again, it isn't quantified, and just because it's objective doesn't mean it is always to the fullest extreme. You're arguing that because something is dark, it absolutely must be black. You're ignoring that D&D also has the large middle ground called Neutral, for things that fall between the two extremes. And that even those extremes are not perfect. Killing Orc Babies is NOT an inherently Evil act. It might be a Good action. It might be a Neutral action. It might be an Evil action. But in every instance in which orc babies are killed, it is *definitely* either Good, Evil, or Neutral. Again, no Gray. Kindly provide even one instance where killing said babies is Good. I could just as easily say that donating thousands of dollars to charity anonymously can be either Good, Neutral, or Evil. I'd be hard pressed to justify it evilly, though. And, of course, I never said killing, of babies or otherwise, was inherently evil. Any statements I made that seemed to imply that were based off Slyde's logical structures, which I disagree with. Thorak, I've followed this thread for a while and agree with virtually everything you've said. Your arguments are compelling and similar to my own. However, I disagree with the above statement. A strict constructionist intrepretation of the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos system as per the PHB is not only un-ridiculous, but it's down right necessary when playing the game with other people. Think about it. D&D is played by millions of different people all over the world. The game spans geographical and political borders, as well as a vast and dizzying strata of ages, religions, socioeconomic backgrounds, and systems of moral and ethical beliefs. As such, everyone who comes to the table will have different views on what's good and what's bad. Everyone has their own predetermined notions of right and wrong. As such, how can we hope to play a game without having a fairly strict benchmark with which to measure up against? The same way we can all agree that, when night comes, it's dark out, even if it's not absolutely pitch black. We might disagree at the specific point of evening where it shifts from "light out" to "dark out". My problem with the D&D rules is that they equate certain acts, like killing, to Evil. Is it Evil to kill in self defense? How about to kill a mosquito? Your white blood cells commit mass murder every day, killing microbes. Obviously, there need to be qualifications here on what kind of killing is Evil, and the PHB definition doesn't make them. That's why I say a strict constructionist view ends up ridiculous. In my case, I play with a kid who's a staunch believer in capital punishment. I on the other hand, believe that there's leeway and shades of grey involved in the system, and in many cases isn't necessary. Differences aside, issues like this have come up in-game before. Rather than getting sucked into a giant OOG debate on what's right and what's wrong, we've sucked it up and stuck to the already-written rules. We don't do this out of moral beliefs or anything, but simply because it's soooooo much easier for everyone to voluntarily limit themselves to the same playing field when the game starts. True. You'll note I'm not trying to push my own personal moral agenda, here. I'm just discussing the logical underpinnings any moral agenda, even D&D's, needs to take into account. In summary, what I'm trying to say is that I feel it's best for a group (well, MY group anyway) to stick to the Good/Evil concepts as defined in the PHB as closely as possible, because once you start "houseruling" Good/Evil, things get sticky really quick. As closely as reasonable, I can agree to. I'm not saying it needs to be scrapped. Just that the definition of Evil is based on acts instead of attitudes to some extent, and considering the PHB also says alignment is attitudes, not acts, it is being hypocritical. They shouldn't reference killing. They should reference why you kill. I know. Im saying it doesnt work with the rules. If there were a game mechanic like Smite Poor, youd have to give a dollar amount. There is a game mechanic called Smite Evil. You mean you can't tell a homeless person is poor without indexing their actual net worth? These are terms that aren't quantified. The mechanics that use them don't require that they be quantified either. Smite Poor wouldn't need a dollar value, just whether or not the creature is defined as Poor, either by the RAW or by the DM.. So youre forcing it to be ridiculous to demonstrate that it is ridiculous? Why? It is perfectly possible to leave “respect for life and the dignity of sentient beings” well enough alone, where youre still capable of killing and being good as long as strive to stay committed to those values. And I admit that. I'm forcing certain logical structures into ridiculous situations because doing so reveals that the fundamental structure is somehow flawed. If you claim that doing Evil A is justified by the result of Good B which is more Good than Evil A is Evil, as in the case of killing an orc (if we equate killing to evil as Slyde did and the PHB seems to) to save a girl, then that same structure that justifies that killing also justifies torturing innocents as long as enough Good comes out of it. My point is that this structure is flawed. It needs to be amended. By things such as "the killing of those who would kill another is justified but only in the physical prevention of the killing of that other". That's one possible amendment, and not one I'm saying I necessarily agree with. But that's what I'm getting at; there are other factors to morality that you guys aren't considering because they're so instinctive you don't notice them, like blinking. I'm just suggesting we take a moment and check out how we blink because it's kind of neat.
Aliquid 09-07-05, 04:12 PM	Kindly provide even one instance where killing said babies is Good. Hows this? ;) Scenario: There’s a strange monster on the loose, and it’s been terrorizing local villages. When it attacks, it doesn’t kill; it just poisons the victim and moves on. The poison takes 5 hours to kill the victim, and is an excruciatingly horrifically painful death. High level priests can’t remove the poison, nobody can find an antitoxin. The party has been hired to hunt down and exterminate this monster. After a day’s journey they find it hiding in a cave, and manage to kill it without getting poisoned. While searching the cave, they find a small band of Orcs, all poisoned by the creature. The Orcs are writhing in pain on the floor, and they don’t have much more than 4 hours left to live. The party knows they can’t heal the poison. Even if the local clerics found a cure, town is too far away. Out of mercy they quickly kill the Orcs to release them of their suffering (even the babies)
Andrew_980 09-07-05, 04:36 PM	Alignment is a combination of action, target, and circumstances/intent to kill has no morality by itself, although some is implied. Who/ what is your taget also matters. Why you do it matters, for fun is often evil/to save another often good To kill an orc baby for fun is evil, the intent is to harm another for fun. To kill an orc baby because it is too diseased to survive, out of mercy is good. To torture a peasant for information he may not have/not really important is evil. To torture a kidnapper who will let a child starve while refusing to talk, so that you can save the child is not evil, although probably not good either. (Sheild referance)
Thorak 09-07-05, 05:08 PM	Hows this? ;) Scenario: There’s a strange monster on the loose, and it’s been terrorizing local villages. When it attacks, it doesn’t kill; it just poisons the victim and moves on. The poison takes 5 hours to kill the victim, and is an excruciatingly horrifically painful death. High level priests can’t remove the poison, nobody can find an antitoxin. The party has been hired to hunt down and exterminate this monster. After a day’s journey they find it hiding in a cave, and manage to kill it without getting poisoned. While searching the cave, they find a small band of Orcs, all poisoned by the creature. The Orcs are writhing in pain on the floor, and they don’t have much more than 4 hours left to live. The party knows they can’t heal the poison. Even if the local clerics found a cure, town is too far away. Out of mercy they quickly kill the Orcs to release them of their suffering (even the babies) It's fine. Most especially because the killing is morally supported without reference to them being orcs or what their moral perspective might be, and entirely based on the killer's reasons for doing so. Which is what I was trying to get at.
Seeker95 09-07-05, 05:42 PM	And no, that's not a straw man. It's a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the logical structure, taken to an extreme, is flawed. It's a valid logical argument. Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) requires that there be a middle ground to be ignored. You are again using as your premise (the shades of grey or "middle ground") a conclusion (the shades of grey or "middle ground") we have not yet accepted. Evil either is or is not. There is no "kinda sorta evil" in D&D. For your absurdity to result in a valid conclusion, we must first accept that your blanket statement is one of degrees by which it can be reduced. Our conclusion is that there are no shades of grey. Each situation may need to be judged on its own, but the conclusion is discrete: Evil or Not Evil. There is no room for reduction. Your attempt to use a redction to the absurd requires that we reject the premise upon which our conclusion is based. But the point of reductio ad absurdum is to accept as true the conclusion you are attempting to refute. You cannot reject the argument that there are no shades of grey in alignment by reduction. "No shades of grey" cannot be reduced to an extreme. All you can do is provide an extreme example, by which our conclusion is that in the specific example, either the action is Evil or it is Not Evil. The only way for you to prove there are shades of grey in Evil in D&D is to provide an example thata DM cannot adjudicate. But the only thing a DM needs to adjudicate the example is "more information" about the circumnstances. "More information" is the bane of "shades of grey" and the boon of DMs everywhere. :DOkay. Let's try a different analogy. Let's say, instead of white/grey/black, we use light/dark. Same difference, just without terms for the extremes, which D&D admittedly doesn't have for alignment. So yes, you can Detect Dark. And distinguish it from Light or Dimly Lit. And yes, there are degrees. But there's no single point where it goes from Dark to Dimly Lit.Sure there is. A candle is "shadowy illumination". Remove the candle and it is dark. Add the candle and it is lit. Your analogy is perfect. There are three discrete light levels: Dark (no light) Shadowy Illumination (dimly lit) Bright A candle is the lowest form of illumination that will provide "shadowy illumination". Anything less than that is considered dark. And that's the beauty of the game versus real life. It provides on-or-off mechanics that remove shades of grey.
CryoSilver 09-07-05, 05:59 PM	So, Thorak, having skimmed the whole discussion, I have but a single question for you, and it is the original request in the first post: How would you define evil in one sentence? This isn't an attack or anything, mind you; I've great respect for your opinion, but in D&D, there is an objective quantifiable standard for evil: what would you say it is? I say quantifiable only in the sense that it is or is not evil; a clear cut line one one side of which it is evil and one side it is not.
Draco Strang 09-07-05, 06:06 PM	So, Thorak, having skimmed the whole discussion, I have but a single question for you, and it is the original request in the first post: How would you define evil in one sentence? I'm not Thorak, but I would have to say that evil is "The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness" as per Dictionary.com. There were several definitions, and I chose the one that I feel best quantifies pure and absolute evil, with no room for rebuttal. After all, when can being wicked be construed as an act of good?
Fiery_Overlord 09-07-05, 06:15 PM	By definition it is the level of compunction one has against killing innocents and the level of self sacrifice willing to undergo to avoid it that defines if someone is good, neutral, or evil. How much did the person personally sacrifice so they wouldn't have to kill the baby orc? A baby orc is innocent because orcs don't come into being evil, it is a strong cultural influence that makes them so, thus a baby orc is innocent. Good creatures protect innocents, and are willing to make personal sacrifices to do so. That is what seperates them from neutral or evil creatures. Would the person be willing to start an orphanage to raise displaced orc babies so they greow up to be good people even though it would take a personal sacrifice, of their time, their future ambitions, and their career as an adventurer? Good people make personal sacrifices. Lots of people talk about "the greater good" that is a matter the needs of the group verse the individual which is clearly a ethical question, not a moral one. (ie Law vs Chaos) What is a moral question is what are you personally willing to sacrifice of yourself for others? Are you willing to die for that orc baby? Are you willing to spend your life protecting and raising that orc baby? Are you willing to alienate your friends to save that orc baby?
Aliquid 09-07-05, 07:00 PM	A baby orc is innocent because orcs don't come into being evil, it is a strong cultural influence that makes them so, thus a baby orc is innocent.I don't think that's in the rules (although I might be wrong). The statement you made is your personal opinion on the "nature vs nurture" argument, and it isn't necessarily accurate in the D&D world. Is an Orc’s alignment purely based on how he/she is raised? Personally I don’t think so (but that’s an opinion). I believe that an Orc is born with a predisposition towards evil, and if he were raised in a good nurturing environment, there is still a good chance that he would turn out evil. Not guaranteed, but much more likely than a human raised in the same environment. To quantify this with some arbitrary numbers I pulled out of nowhere.... lets say that an Orc is born with an innate 60% chance of ending up evil. The environment the Orc is raised in has a chance of shifting this number by 30% either way. i.e. an Orc raised in a highly evil environment will have a 90% chance of ending up evil (60% + 30%). An Orc raised in a loving "good" environment has a 30% chance of ending up evil (60% - 30%). Please note I just made those numbers up, I'm not holding to them specifically. The point is, I prefer to think that "evil" creatures are born with evil tendencies, and "good" creatures are born with good tendencies. So, if 10 gnome babies and 10 orc babies were raised together in a completely isolated and completely neutral environment... more than half of the Orcs would end up evil, and more than half of the Gnomes would end up good.
Thorak 09-07-05, 10:55 PM	Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) requires that there be a middle ground to be ignored. Did you read your own link? It might make use of the law of the excluded middle, but it's by no means a requirement of reductio ad absurdum. You are again using as your premise (the shades of grey or "middle ground") a conclusion (the shades of grey or "middle ground") we have not yet accepted. Evil either is or is not. There is no "kinda sorta evil" in D&D. For your absurdity to result in a valid conclusion, we must first accept that your blanket statement is one of degrees by which it can be reduced. Our conclusion is that there are no shades of grey. Each situation may need to be judged on its own, but the conclusion is discrete: Evil or Not Evil. There is no room for reduction. Your attempt to use a redction to the absurd requires that we reject the premise upon which our conclusion is based. But the point of reductio ad absurdum is to accept as true the conclusion you are attempting to refute. Again, did you even read your own link about reductio ad absurdum? Here, I'll quote it; "[Reductio ad absurdum] is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result." That's what I'm doing. Concluding the original assumption must have been wrong. As for evidence of shades of grey to alignment in D&D, there's the whole issue of Neutrality. You know, the alignment that represents a "lack of commitment one way or the other" or "a balanced view". If all there is in alignment is black and white, then what does Neutral represent? Blackwhite? You cannot reject the argument that there are no shades of grey in alignment by reduction. "No shades of grey" cannot be reduced to an extreme. All you can do is provide an extreme example, by which our conclusion is that in the specific example, either the action is Evil or it is Not Evil. You missed what I was doing. I was using reduction to show that the assumption, that one evil is permissible if it does more good than harm, is flawed. Shades of grey weren't relevant to the reduction argument. Besides, I'd like your answer on what Neutrality is before we continue discussing shades of grey. Also, I'd like your hard-line definition of exactly when a Good character becomes Neutral. Since you claim they are absolutes, even if you admit that Neutral is its own color, say "Green", I'd like you to tell me at which exact point I stop being White and become Green. This is a pile of rice argument. We can agree that a single grain isn't a pile, and that ten thousand is, but which specific grain of sand did it change from a pile to a not-pile? There is no answer. And there doesn't need to be. We can still understand what is meant by "a pile" without that specific number defining it. The only way for you to prove there are shades of grey in Evil in D&D is to provide an example thata DM cannot adjudicate. But the only thing a DM needs to adjudicate the example is "more information" about the circumnstances. I don't need to show anything of the sort. I just need to show that something not-evil isn't necessarily good. So it's neutral. Yay, gray! "More information" is the bane of "shades of grey" and the boon of DMs everywhere. :DSure there is. A candle is "shadowy illumination". Remove the candle and it is dark. Add the candle and it is lit. But it isn't light (as an adjective of brightness, not a noun referring to illumination). It's Dimly Lit. Or Shadowy Illumination if you prefer. That doesn't mean Shadowy Illumination is the same as Brightly Lit. You're the one claiming there are only the two levels of brightness. There are at least three, as the PHB defines alignment. Your analogy is perfect. There are three discrete light levels: Dark (no light) Shadowy Illumination (dimly lit) Bright A candle is the lowest form of illumination that will provide "shadowy illumination". Anything less than that is considered dark. And that's the beauty of the game versus real life. It provides on-or-off mechanics that remove shades of grey. There are still shades of grey. They're just better defined than real life. We may just have "grey" in D&D, but one shade is still a shade. Not to mention, the only reason for DM adjudication in alignment issues is due to shades of grey. If everything were either White or Black, there would be no issue to require adjudication. Only an idiot can't tell the difference. The very existence of DM adjudication is yet another piece of evidence favouring the existence of shades of grey.
Puca 09-08-05, 10:35 AM	No, the point I was making is that the source of the magic is evil, and the source of the magic has evil motivation. A wizard casting an evil spell is typically getting the energy for the spell from the "plane negative energy" or whatever it's called (don't have rule book in front of me). Negative energy is a manifestation of evil, and as such is always evil. A cleric casting a spell gets the energy for the spell from his deity. A good deity won’t provide his cleric with any “evil” spell, an evil deity will. Thus evil spells for clerics come from an evil source (an evil deity)Where does it say this? I mean, it is nice, logically consistent, but it isnt a rule as far as I know. In fact, without my books here either, there are spells that using negative energy that arent evil. Nice, but it has nothing to do with the actual rules. The only thing that is written is that evil spells are evil. No whys or wherefores. They just are and theres no way around that fact. [evil] spells are evil because there is an [evil] domain that needed a list of nine spells that would qualify as [domain] spells. Once the concept of domain spells took hold, [tags] expanded to more than just the nine [domain] slots. Any explanation of why a spell has the [alignment] tag is ad hoc (post hoc?) at best. The reason has nothing to do with alignment and everything to do with domains.Eh, again. Of course, the tag is still there whether it is cast as a domain spell or not. Post hoc or ergo propter hoc, the tags are still there; the spells are still evil. I don't recall the rules saying that the act of casting an evil spell is "evil". I am sure it says that "it is evil to cast a spell with an evil descriptor", but you are assuming that this implies that the act of casting is evil, I on the other hand assume it means that the spell itself is evil.It doesnt have to say it. It is evil, tagged as such. When doing a thing that is evil, the doing would by definition be evil. Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. One of your concerns is a situation coming up where a DM says to a player "your actions are regularly evil, therefore you will show up as 'evil' if a cleric casts 'detect evil'", and the player will argue "oh, but my motivations were pure" and then spin some big line of BS rationalizing his actions. It's a valid concern. I guess I just don't care about it because I haven't ever played with people that try to pull that kind of stunt. No matter what system you use to codify "good" and "evil", there will be people out there that disagree. I personally can't work with an environment where specific actions are strictly codified as "evil". Just to make things more complicated... I'm going to claim that's too "lawful" of a system for me (I'm chaotic in nature).Yes, that is a concern. One way that this is avoided is if the DM and the Player both have a similar view of alignment, and in my experience, it is usually pretty laissez-faire. But, in a general discussion, this has to be taken into consideration. _______________ So yes, you can Detect Dark. And distinguish it from Light or Dimly Lit. And yes, there are degrees. But there's no single point where it goes from Dark to Dimly Lit.But detect evil doesnt tell you what shade of evil something is. It tells you if it is evil or not, thats it. (Yes, it also gives an indication of the power of the evils source, but that’s not the same thing as how evil is.) You mean you can't tell a homeless person is poor without indexing their actual net worth? These are terms that aren't quantified. The mechanics that use them don't require that they be quantified either. Smite Poor wouldn't need a dollar value, just whether or not the creature is defined as Poor, either by the RAW or by the DM.But what are you arguing? Thats exactly the way the rules are now? You are either evil by RAW or not? If you claim that doing Evil A is justified by the result of Good B which is more Good than Evil A is Evil, as in the case of killing an orc (if we equate killing to evil as Slyde did and the PHB seems to) to save a girl, then that same structure that justifies that killing also justifies torturing innocents as long as enough Good comes out of it.This is in a paragraph that appeared to be in response to a quote from me, so while you may have been talking to someone else, I feel that I need to point out that I specifically said this is not the case, that this is in fact wholly inconsistent with the rules. I'm forcing certain logical structures into ridiculous situations because doing so reveals that the fundamental structure is somehow flawed.This is where I disagree. Youre smashing the foundation and then saying it doesnt work because its rubble. By things such as "the killing of those who would kill another is justified but only in the physical prevention of the killing of that other".But attempting to save someone, even if it incidentally results in, nay requires, the death of another who poses an immediate threat to life, is not inconsistent with the defining principle of Good. There no problem but the one youre trying to create to prove your point. _________________ "The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness"Which is why dictionary.com sucks. This borders on the tautological. Youve merely defined your term with synonyms that are still undefined.
Thorak 09-08-05, 05:34 PM	But detect evil doesnt tell you what shade of evil something is. It tells you if it is evil or not, thats it. (Yes, it also gives an indication of the power of the evils source, but that’s not the same thing as how evil is.) It doesn't have to. Can you tell that it's dark out at night without being able to describe the exact scientifically measured amount of illumination? Same difference. But what are you arguing? Thats exactly the way the rules are now? You are either evil by RAW or not? Uh huh. I'm saying that the PHB definition of Evil is flawed in a few ways. Even though I agree with the uses of the term by the rest of the system, the definition is too loose and covers things it really shouldn't. Namely, killing. Killing isn't evil, inherently. Plenty of reasons to kill another creature that have nothing to do with evil intent. Enjoying killing, now that's another matter. This is in a paragraph that appeared to be in response to a quote from me, so while you may have been talking to someone else, I feel that I need to point out that I specifically said this is not the case, that this is in fact wholly inconsistent with the rules. Sorry about the confusion. It was Slyde that made the original comment that I distilled that bit from. This is where I disagree. Youre smashing the foundation and then saying it doesnt work because its rubble. Yes, I'm disagreeing with the PHB definition of evil. It says killing is evil. This means swatting a fly is evil, eating meat is evil, and that a paladin killing a raving orc barbarian to keep it from killing a defenceless woman is evil. I'm disagreeing, because I beleive everything else about the system also disagrees with that definition. I think they meant to say that Evil implies desiring or enjoying hurting, killing, and oppressing others. Otherwise, they're doing just what they said alignment isn't; based on acts done rather than moral attitudes towards those acts. But attempting to save someone, even if it incidentally results in, nay requires, the death of another who poses an immediate threat to life, is not inconsistent with the defining principle of Good. There no problem but the one youre trying to create to prove your point. I agree. I'm pointing out that it is also consistent with the defining principle of Evil. And I really, really don't agree with that. What I've been driving at is two things; 1> Alignment is determined by underlying attitudes, not actions taken. 2> Alignment isn't absolute and black-and-white. It is possible to be "gooder" than someone else. That you can "detect good" is irrelevant; I can tell that a millionaire and a billionaire are both "rich" without requiring that they have the same amount of money. Alignment is like a big color scale, say from light to dark for good-evil, and blue to red for law-chaos. If someone is a muddy pink color, I can tell that they are Chaotic Good, and yet I can still see a difference in moral viewpoints between them and someone who's a bright neon pink, who would also be CG. That they both qualify as "pink" doesn't mean they're the same exact shade.
Aliquid 09-08-05, 07:28 PM	1> Alignment is determined by underlying attitudes, not actions taken.I agree 2> Alignment isn't absolute and black-and-white. It is possible to be "gooder" than someone else. That you can "detect good" is irrelevant; I can tell that a millionaire and a billionaire are both "rich" without requiring that they have the same amount of money.Again I agree. Another analogy would be a smoke detector in your house. We can equate “detect evil” to “detect smoke”. All the smoke detector cares is if the amount of smoke in the room is above a certain threshold, and then the alarm goes off. The smoke detector has a black and white view of things “yes smoky” or “no smoky”, but that doesn’t mean that the room can’t have different shades of grey. Just because the smoke detector can’t detect the different shades of grey doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
c0mA 09-08-05, 08:54 PM	Just because the smoke detector can’t detect the different shades of grey doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. works for me.