Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Obiwho? 01-21-05, 12:42 AM	Can a deity act against its alignment? Or is the deity (as a deity) the pure embodiment of its alignment such that its inherent nature is to act always in accordance with it? Since the board really does love paladin questions, let me also ask it this way: could a paladin's LG god direct the paladin to commit a CE act? If so, what should the paladin do?
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-21-05, 01:30 AM	1): It's a god. Who are we mere mortals to understand alignments as they matters to the gods. 2): It's your story. If you decide it happens, it happens. The DM is NOT constrained by ANY rules, aside from: Thou shall make a fun game. 3): In our short views, the act may appears chaotic evil, but from a god's far viewing perspective, it may in fact be a lawfull good act. 4): It is for the greater good (kind of save a huge amount of people, prevent the birth of a death god 10 generations hence...). So, yes, he could.
Derren S. 01-21-05, 01:30 AM	That depends on your view of deities. If deities are just glorified humans like in the FR than it can certainly happen. If your deities are more of the omnipotent sort than rather no. And paladins serve no god, so the answer is no. A god can't direct a paladin to do anything because the paladin is independant from them.
janusthinker 01-21-05, 01:35 AM	That thoroughly depends on how you define the gods. If the gods exist because of the power of their worshippers, I imagine they are something closer to an embodiment of an ideal, and so cannot violate that idea. However, if they are actual beings with personalities as deep as any mortal, and they are gods by virtue of their power, perhaps even beings that ascended to that power, than I don't see why not. IMC, some racial gods have been adopted as that race's patron, and at least one god has killed his predecessor to take his place, worshippers be damned. Thus, if Nerull woke up tomorrow sick to his stomach with the nightmarish existence he's endured for, well...all of his existence, he could well turn Neutral Good and do his best to convince his followers to follow his example. Or he could go find Pelor and try to assist him in undoing some of the more unpleasant schemes his worshippers have going. Of course, with a greater deity, I imagine that would shake the foundations of the cosmology, and then we'd have to figure out what comes next... :schemes: Oh, and as for what should the Paladin do-doesn't particularly matter. No matter what he does, he's going to lose his abilities, at least in my book. I see Paladins very much as Samurai, signing on to a code that very consciously sometimes has no answers except "Well, you're boned." I suppose, giving it a more serious answer, that the Paladin should decide what he's more loyal to, goodness or his deity. If the former, go seek out an atonement and a new patron deity. If the latter, better hope you've got the right feats to become a Blackguard.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-21-05, 02:37 AM	A deity isn't so much the exemplar of an alignment, so much as the sum of their portfolios. The alignment tends to be secondary to the promotion of those portfolios that the deity holds and is in turn a reflection of. Gods in DnD tend to view the entire multiverse through a lens of their portfolios. A god of creation and healing might be some flavor of good since that alignment reflects best their portfolios, while a god of creation and destruction would be perhaps some flavor of neutral to best reflect those portfolios. In my view, the Planescape conceptualization of gods that forms the basis, by and large, for the core 3e standard, and the FR standard more often than not, is that portfolio defines the god and alignment simply reflects the portfolio. A god can act in whatever way it wishes so as to best promote that portfolio that in the end, more or less is that god.
Greyman 01-21-05, 03:39 AM	Can a deity act against its alignment? Or is the deity (as a deity) the pure embodiment of its alignment such that its inherent nature is to act always in accordance with it? Since the board really does love paladin questions, let me also ask it this way: could a paladin's LG god direct the paladin to commit a CE act? If so, what should the paladin do?The actions of Dieties aren't constrained by their alignment any more, or less, that is anything else. Contrawise, the alignments of Dieties are defined by how they behave, and what dogma they espouce, just as they are for everything else. Fiends don't do evil because they have an evil alignment, they have an evil alignment because they love doing evil things. Likewise a diety isn't prohibited from ordering paladin's from comitting chaotic evil type acts because she is chaotic good, so much as she has become chaotic good because that's just not the sort of thing she would ever consider doing (among other reasons).
MrkGrismer 01-21-05, 08:16 AM	Just keep in mind that if the diety (generally through a cleric) asks the Paladin to do something that will cause loss of Paladinhood (such as commiting that evil act) then it better be fairly easy for the Paladin to get atonment, probably not even costing the Cleric any XP (no interecession should be needed). And I agree that such would only occur if there were some type of long-term great good being accomlished thru the act. But personally I would avoid this type of situation.
Callista 01-21-05, 08:31 AM	Since when did Paladins not worship gods?... I mean, sure, their primary devotion is to an ideal--their code--but they most certainly worship gods... D&D deities aren't the sort that exist in monotheistic world-views. I.e., they're not omnipotent, they're not infallible... they're extremely wise/intelligent (though how that creates animals like, say, Jubilex, I'm at a loss...), but they don't know everything... Basically, a deity, in D&D (and you can tell this to your squeamish fundamentalist friends) is no more powerful than, say, an archangel in the Christian worldview. That means that, unlike a monotheistic god, the D&D gods are, while powerful and probably extreme embodiments of their alignments, fallible. They have free will as well... and when fallible creatures have free will, you'll end up with inevitable alignment changes. (So, yes, Level 50 Epic Cleric... it *is* possible to convert a god.) I wouldn't put any PC into this situation, though, unless they were already Epic level, and it was more than just an arbitrary "Your god tells you to do something evil"--say, maybe it's the lead-in to a plot about the gods themselves being at war, or doing things like dominating each other, et cetera. But other than that, it's just an arbitrary way to make the player annoyed, because now he pretty much has to choose between things that are pretty darn important to him, for next to no reason! If you ever put a player in a dilemma like that, you had better make darn sure to have a reaason, because if you don't, my "BAD DM" stamp (and probably that of your players) will land on your forehead hard enough to crack your skull.
Derren S. 01-21-05, 08:41 AM	Since when did Paladins not worship gods?... I mean, sure, their primary devotion is to an ideal--their code--but they most certainly worship gods... Look at the religion entry of the paladin in the PHB. Paladins get their powers only from devotion to goodness and not from gods. A paladin may choose to follow a god, but the god has no influence over the powers of the paladin. So, while the god can order a paladin to do something CE the paladin is not oblieged to do so and the god can not take the paladin powers away for disobeying.
Leap 01-21-05, 08:43 AM	All deities are actually Lawful Evil because they demand worship, obediance and sacrifice to them, debasing (lowering in status) the followers. Beyond that is DM choice ;)
Callista 01-21-05, 09:14 AM	Look at the religion entry of the paladin in the PHB. Paladins get their powers only from devotion to goodness and not from gods. A paladin may choose to follow a god, but the god has no influence over the powers of the paladin. So, while the god can order a paladin to do something CE the paladin is not oblieged to do so and the god can not take the paladin powers away for disobeying. Exactly. Paladins are not godless, though--they have deities just like anyone else. They just don't derive their powers directly from a deity. Now, with a *Cleric*... Time to convert! (If I were playing the cleric, I'd think "Trick!" at the first chance though.)
Obiwho? 01-21-05, 09:31 AM	Thanks to the everyone for the input. D&D deities aren't the sort that exist in monotheistic world-views. I.e., they're not omnipotent, they're not infallible... they're extremely wise/intelligent (though how that creates animals like, say, Jubilex, I'm at a loss...), but they don't know everything... I think this, in particular, is what I was hung up on; thanks for your thoughts and clarification. I wouldn't put any PC into this situation, though, unless they were already Epic level, and it was more than just an arbitrary "Your god tells you to do something evil"--say, maybe it's the lead-in to a plot about the gods themselves being at war, or doing things like dominating each other, et cetera. But other than that, it's just an arbitrary way to make the player annoyed, because now he pretty much has to choose between things that are pretty darn important to him, for next to no reason! If you ever put a player in a dilemma like that, you had better make darn sure to have a reaason, because if you don't, my "BAD DM" stamp (and probably that of your players) will land on your forehead hard enough to crack your skull. Agreed.
Derren S. 01-21-05, 02:43 PM	Exactly. Paladins are not godless, though--they have deities just like anyone else. They just don't derive their powers directly from a deity. Now, with a *Cleric*... Time to convert! (If I were playing the cleric, I'd think "Trick!" at the first chance though.) I never said that paladins can't follow a god when they want to, only that their power doesn't come from gods and that the order/wishes of the god they choose to follow don't influence the code in any way. If the paladin chooses to do something evil because he was ordered by a god to do so he would fall and if he refused to serve the god, the god might be angry but the paladin would be unaffected by it. As for what the paladin should do, he should say : "Shut up" to the god and search for a other patron god (or stay godless, imo the better way to serve the code)
Callista 01-21-05, 04:29 PM	...the god might be angry but the paladin would be unaffected by it. Unaffected by an angry god? Hmmm... :P
spasheridan 01-21-05, 06:46 PM	Can a deity act against its alignment? Or is the deity (as a deity) the pure embodiment of its alignment such that its inherent nature is to act always in accordance with it? Since the board really does love paladin questions, let me also ask it this way: could a paladin's LG god direct the paladin to commit a CE act? If so, what should the paladin do? 1) Tough one. I've always found the alignment system to be a bit weak myself, but I would say that it would be extremely rare for a diety to act against their stated alignment. THe problem in this, of course, is how do you have someone like Orcus give his orc priests healing spells. Healing is a good act, right? But Orcus is evil. See the problem? 2) THe paladin should behave Good and then Lawful. Knowingly commiting an evil act breaks a paladin permantly. Knowingly committing a chaotic act breaks a paladin until he atones. If the lawful authority of the paladin (their god, church, king, father) commands the paladin to do an evil thing the paladin should disobey and not perform the evil act. Otherwise it's blackguard time!
ManinDarkness 01-21-05, 07:13 PM	THe paladin should behave Good and then Lawful. Knowingly commiting an evil act breaks a paladin permantly. Knowingly committing a chaotic act breaks a paladin until he atones. He can still atone if he commited an evil act. And it should be willingly. Just nitpicking :D
Masker 01-21-05, 07:14 PM	Tough one. I've always found the alignment system to be a bit weak myself, but I would say that it would be extremely rare for a diety to act against their stated alignment. THe problem in this, of course, is how do you have someone like Orcus give his orc priests healing spells. Healing is a good act, right? But Orcus is evil. See the problem? I don't consider healing a good act (healing a dragon so it can continue destroying a village is not a good act). If Orcus gived healing spells to his orcs clerics with the order of use them to heals little rabits and birds in the woods, I would agree, but those spells are given to help a band of demonic/undead workshipers (usually orcs) in order to make them more able to kill, torture, destroy the previusly said rabbits and birds, animate undead, kill random pc's parties and so. I think that healing is rather a non-evil act rather than a good act. It depends on he use one gives to it.
ManinDarkness 01-21-05, 07:35 PM	Can Heironeous do good acts? Can Wee Jass make someone suffer if it serves magic? Of course a deity can (and often will) make evil acts. It is even not a matter of portafolio (although I agree completely), it is a matter that alignment is not restrictive, it is descriptive (that is why it is in the description chapter).
king_of_evil007 01-21-05, 07:42 PM	I believe it actually states in Deities & Demigods that deities, while a specific alignment, can easily perform stuff against their alignment without problems.
R-man 01-22-05, 03:58 AM	The answer is; It depends on your campaign and cosmology. Yes that is a cop out but it is also true. It depends on how you run gods in your campaign. Are they like the Greek gods and have character and generally act like spoiled humans or are they some greater being who is the sum of their portfolios? Certainly if you wish the Paladins god to demand he commit an evil act, you can do so, you are the DM. But keep in mind that if the Paladin is someones PC they may not appreciate your taking away their characters abilities. If however the Paladin in question is an NPC then go for it! The thing to keep in mind is what do you want out of your game and go with that. If everyone is having fun then you are doing it "right". :D
AntiDjinn 01-22-05, 04:34 AM	It probably varies from god to god. Hieroneous is the god of valor. Being Lawful Good more or less defines him. He is probably so rigid in his thinking that chaotic or evil actions don't even occur to him. Vecna is Neutral Evil, but neutrality and evil are not his main concern; gathering secrets is. He can take actions that others might consider good (if it furthers his evil agenda or garners him additional secret lore) but his motivations remain evil. Yondalla is the mother goddess of the halflings and her principle concern is that halflings thrive and prosper. She is Lawful Good, but she watches over a race whose favored class is rogue. If the halflings as a race are threatened with extinction it is likely she will do what she must to ensure their survival. In this case the big LG describes her actions and the nature of her character but it doesn't define her so much as her role as divine matron does.
Obiwho? 01-22-05, 11:58 AM	The answer is; It depends on your campaign and cosmology. Yes that is a cop out but it is also true. It depends on how you run gods in your campaign.IMC, all of the Good deities are facets of one larger Good God. (This is invisible to the players; their characters worship the various Gods available in D&D.) That ultimate God is the source of what is Good and Evil: she is the absolute measuring stick against which all acts are judged to be Good or Evil. Likewise, IMC, Evil is simply the absence of Good; it is not an independent, much less equal, "force" that counter-balances Good. It's basically the same concept as darkness being the absence of light and cold being the absence of heat. In the real world, neither "darkness" nor "cold" really exist; they are just words used to describe the absence of "light" and "heat", which do really exist. In this system, an LG God could commit a Chaotic act but not an Evil act. The LG God's nature is such that it is incapable of commiting Evil.
MrkGrismer 01-22-05, 02:00 PM	Does that mean that in your campaign neutral does not exist? If evil is only the abscence of good then it seems that there can never be any abscence of evil. Also it seems that this would mean that wild areas would be evil by nature (since there is no good there). Seems like a very bleak world.
Obiwho? 01-22-05, 02:52 PM	Does that mean that in your campaign neutral does not exist? If evil is only the abscence of good then it seems that there can never be any abscence of evil. Also it seems that this would mean that wild areas would be evil by nature (since there is no good there).I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit. Given my ground rules, I think neutral as such cannot exist in my campaign. There are things that lack a moral quality or capacity (like a rock sitting on the ground), but those things with a moral quality or capacity (like humans) are either Good or Evil. (Or am I missing something?) When I say "absence of Good", I don't mean the physical absence of a Good thing. What I mean is the degree to which a moral action (i.e., an action that has moral capacity or quality) lacks Good moral quality. In an attempt to articulate an illustration, the ultimate evil in my campaign would probably look something like a true, artifical intelligence: something wilful that posses moral capacity (i.e., intelligence) but utterly fails to express it (i.e., is totally devoid of Good, even perverted Good). From a story perspective, it's the difference between a villian who is embodied as a perverted intelligence that destroys because it enjoys it and a villian who is embodied as an uncaring and merciless intelligence who destroys not out of pleasure but out of sheer amoral efficiency. The latter has always seemed more terrifying to me for some reason. In other words, IMC the ultimate Evil is that which has a moral capacity or quality but is utterly devoid of Good (even perverted Good, like sadistic pleasure).
ShadowDragon8685 01-22-05, 02:58 PM	Hmmmmmm... You know, I think everyone generally regards Paladins as being Clerics with less spells and more BAB, and a stricter code to follow. That is to say, their powers DO come from their God. Which is why I think the requirement of Lawful Good is ludicrous. It should be be the alignment of a Good God. Blackguards service Evil gods, and Neutral gods get shafted. I guess they can always recruit Druids, eh? :)
Obiwho? 01-22-05, 04:27 PM	Thinking further, I guess Neutral could be expressed as that which has just as much Good as it lacks.
Derren S. 01-22-05, 05:29 PM	That is to say, their powers DO come from their God. Which is why I think the requirement of Lawful Good is ludicrous. It should be be the alignment of a Good God. Blackguards service Evil gods, and Neutral gods get shafted. I guess they can always recruit Druids, eh? :) Yes, everyone reagrds paladins as such, but by the RAW that is wrong. Paladins are warrior who serve goodness and righteousness, no one else. Paladins can choose to ally themself with a church, but that has no influence on their powers and when the churches dogma conflicts with the code a good paladin chooses the code over church. And the best thing is he suffers no negative consequences from this as clerics do because his powers don't come from that god. This is D&D standard. FR has its own rules where paladins have to serve a god (as stupid as it is implemented)
evangelion1010 01-23-05, 02:23 AM	I personally think its incredibly stupid if all paladins are merely doers of good, not worshiping any gods. Yes, there can be some, but through and through, the excessive mention of 'divine' in their class should count for something. Then again, the rules aren't always right, IMO. Rule 0 is a good thing...
GSHamster 01-23-05, 02:28 AM	Can a deity act against its alignment? Or is the deity (as a deity) the pure embodiment of its alignment such that its inherent nature is to act always in accordance with it? Since the board really does love paladin questions, let me also ask it this way: could a paladin's LG god direct the paladin to commit a CE act? If so, what should the paladin do? It really depends on your view of deities. In some campaigns (a good example is the Book of Immortals, by Mongoose Publishing) there is an explicit trade-off: a divine being sacrifices her free will in exchange for power. This gives rise to a form of symmetry between the divine and mortals. Divinities have enormous power, but very little free will; while mortals have little power, but enjoy free will. The other option is that deities are mortals, writ large. That is, they have all the urges, desires and freedoms of mortals, but also enormous power. In this case, an evil goddess acts evil because she wants to be evil. But she still has free will, and could change her mind and switch alignments like a mortal can. This fits the Greek Gods model. I think that which model you choose depends partially on if you subscribe to the Planescape model, where powers were all-powerful and could not be defeated by mortals, or the Deities & Demigods model, where the gods have stats and can be killed in battle by mortals. As for the second question, it again depends on which model you use. If you use the first model, the deity literally cannot order the paladin/cleric to commit a action that goes against the deity's portfolio, UNLESS that action will not come to pass, or will result in a greater gain for the deity's portfolio (and a deity may be willing to sacrifice her servant if the gain is large enough). If you use the second model, then the act is CE, and both the paladin/cleric and the deity will have their alignment tarnished. The classic example here is when a soldier is issued an illegal order by his commander. The fact that the soldier was given an order isn't a defence if prosecuted.
Derren S. 01-23-05, 03:03 AM	I personally think its incredibly stupid if all paladins are merely doers of good, not worshiping any gods. Yes, there can be some, but through and through, the excessive mention of 'divine' in their class should count for something. Then again, the rules aren't always right, IMO. Rule 0 is a good thing... Most divine casters don't require a god. Paladins, rangers and druids are not assoziated with a god in core D&D. The only divine caster who gets his powers from a god are clerics, and even they don't need a god (and that is imo stupid).
evangelion1010 01-23-05, 10:20 AM	What i meant by divine abilities was "divine health, divine grace" Divine A 1. Having the nature of or being a deity. 2. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation. 3. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred. B Superhuman; godlike. C 1. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto. 2. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball. A's defination is what most people usually consider divine in D&D, B's defination doesn't really fit the example, and C-1 could lend creedence to the paladin as the LG guy. I find clerics casting without a diety no more disturbing than paladins without one. With the ranger and druid, its clear - power comes from nature, which is enough of a justification for me. Clerics and paladins get knowledge (religion), get spells not related to nature, but rather spiritual/holy in nature. If the paladin doesn't serve a god, where is he getting his powers from? Himself, for being 'really really good'? A giant LG cloud that is somewhere in the planes, not a diety, not anything, but capable of granting such powers... I'm not arguing that the PHB doens't say that, but rather that its very stupid, and is something that most DM's to some degree rule 0 without even knowing it.
Derren S. 01-23-05, 10:37 AM	A giant LG cloud that is somewhere in the planes, not a diety, not anything, but capable of granting such powers... Thats exactly where paladins get their powers from. From goodness itself, something even bigger than gods.
MrkGrismer 01-23-05, 11:13 AM	I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit. Given my ground rules, I think neutral as such cannot exist in my campaign. There are things that lack a moral quality or capacity (like a rock sitting on the ground), but those things with a moral quality or capacity (like humans) are either Good or Evil. (Or am I missing something?) When I say "absence of Good", I don't mean the physical absence of a Good thing. What I mean is the degree to which a moral action (i.e., an action that has moral capacity or quality) lacks Good moral quality. In an attempt to articulate an illustration, the ultimate evil in my campaign would probably look something like a true, artifical intelligence: something wilful that posses moral capacity (i.e., intelligence) but utterly fails to express it (i.e., is totally devoid of Good, even perverted Good). From a story perspective, it's the difference between a villian who is embodied as a perverted intelligence that destroys because it enjoys it and a villian who is embodied as an uncaring and merciless intelligence who destroys not out of pleasure but out of sheer amoral efficiency. The latter has always seemed more terrifying to me for some reason. In other words, IMC the ultimate Evil is that which has a moral capacity or quality but is utterly devoid of Good (even perverted Good, like sadistic pleasure). It is an interesting concept. But what about those that DO kill for the sake of pleasure (fun and profit ;) )? If evil is simply an abscence of good, then kill just for the pleasure of it wouldn't be any more evil then killing for food, or self defense.
aaron3579 01-23-05, 01:15 PM	Can a deity act against its alignment? Or is the deity (as a deity) the pure embodiment of its alignment such that its inherent nature is to act always in accordance with it? Since the board really does love paladin questions, let me also ask it this way: could a paladin's LG god direct the paladin to commit a CE act? If so, what should the paladin do? Think about the Book of Job, and ask yourself this question again. (Or think about Abraham and his son Isaac) Or, if you're not into using real-world parallels to decide D&D moral questions, flip a coin, and stick to the answer it gives you. :)
Obiwho? 01-23-05, 02:23 PM	It is an interesting concept. But what about those that DO kill for the sake of pleasure (fun and profit ;) )? If evil is simply an abscence of good, then kill just for the pleasure of it wouldn't be any more evil then killing for food, or self defense.Howdy MrkGrismer. I've been thinking of it this it this way (which may, admittedly, be flawed): it's a continuum. Using the light/darkness example, pure Good is pure light at the source; pure Evil is the complete, unilluminated darkness. Everything in between is the hazy twilight of that which is less than completely Good but more than completely Evil. More specifically, on the one end, you have actions that are purely Good; only the ultimate God is really capable of these, because only a perfectly Good entity (i.e., the ultimate God) is perfectly Good by nature; the rest of us have to choose Good and even when we choose Good we are invariably motivated by something other than simply doing Good. (Think about the pride you take at being humble; or the internal pat on the back you give yourself for giving money to a homeless person; these flawed motivations and reactions don't make your humility or charity Evil, but they do make them less than perfectly Good.) Then you have actions that have about as much good in them as not good (e.g., killing to eat -- ending another life is not Good but eating and sustaining yourself is Good) and these would be described as Neutral. Recall, I'm really struggling with how to fit Neutrality into this, so I may be way off here (and elsewhere). Then you have actions that have some Good in them, but are mostly not Good (i.e., are Evil). An example of this would be killing for pleasure. Pleasure itself is a good thing. Perverted pleasure (i.e., pleasure in excess or pleasure at the expense of others), is less good (significantly so, even) but still has some good in it (the pleasure itself). At the furthest end of the spectrum, you have Ultimate Evil. For example, killing an innocent for no reason whatsoever. (Our other discussion rages on!) Cold. Emotionless. Not even perverted pleasure. Killing completely absent of any Good. This is my ultimate evil in the campaign. A cold, calculating intelligence that has determined to bring about the end of the world, not for power, not for glory, not to revel in the suffering of his enemies, but simply to destroy it. He is utterly devoid of compassion or anything else (e.g., pleasure) Good. So you know, this is all an attempt to adapt the philosphy of St. Augustine (Confessions) into the D&D system. Augustine basically taught that Good is a measure of existence. Ultimate good exists completely; ultimate evil, by contrast and definition, cannot "exist" at all (because it is devoid of all Good). If you want something challenging on this point, give Confessions a read. It is an amazing book. (Or think about Abraham and his son Isaac)Excellent point! This actually parses out a sloppiness in my OP. A LG God direct a paladin to do something without actually having (or even wanting) the paladin to actually do it. P.S. In the same campaign, the rise of Evil in the world (i.e., the staggering absence of Good) has awoken the Good dragons. True to their absolutely Good nature (they are serving more or less as Archangels in the campaign), the dragons once fully roused will bring judgment day upon the world, destroying everything (with the result of shifting every living entity out of the prime material plane and back to their respective planes of eternal existence). The characters (all of whom are Good) have two ways to save the world: (1) conquer the rising Evil before the Good dragons rise and burn the world clean (resulting in final, divine judgment upon each and every entity); (2) attempt to kill the Good dragons. So far they are still hopeful of succeeding with option 1; I'm curious to see if they will resort to option 2 if it becomes necessary to "save" the world.
aaron3579 01-23-05, 02:43 PM	Running the risk of opening a can of worms, but: Obi, would you consider an agnostic person that adhered to a LG alignment as good, evil, or neutral? http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm You seem to have given this a lot of thought, so I'm interested.
MrkGrismer 01-23-05, 03:44 PM	I'm following you on all of this, and as I said it is an interesting concept. The difficulty I see with this is in equating a 50% grey with neutrality. What you are saying is that the middle line is half way between complete lack of 'good' and completely selfless good. Unfortunately, because of the attachment of good for goodness sake only (I know that sounds weird) at the top end of the scale, everything that is not only for goodness sake is what is bringing good down towards the other end of the scale (lack of good, or evil). So now you have two interelated factors. 1) The goodness of the action. 2) The reasons for doing it. At the upper end you have your ultimate good that does no good for no reason, but as you add reasons to the mix you are falling from grace (towards the other end of the scale, evil). If you have a constant amount of 'good' being done, and the only variable that is changing is the reasons, then that means that selfish reasons will drag the action towards evil. Obviously, as long as the 'good' stays at the ultimate level the action could never drop below the 50% grey of neutrality. So let us shift gears slightly and look at the other element, the amount of good. Let us say that the amount of reason was to stay at the top of the scale, pure unselfishness and you were to remove the amount of good in the deed. Again, this would mean that you could only drop it tp the 50% grey of neutrality. So your unthinking, unfeeling AI would be neutral, not evil, because it is not capable of having reason to do the good, it can't drop below that because it would have to have a selfish reason in order to drop further from the top end of the scale. Thus ultimate evil in this system would have to be eradicating good for selfish purposes.