Post/Author/DateTime	Post
1BadazzBaatezu 11-22-04, 06:44 PM	I have a character, Memnoch, a pit fiend, which I have been running through various campaigns since 2000, and he is (Officially) Lawful Evil, yet he has repeatedly performed tasks to the greater good of whatever setting he's popped into this time. For Instance: Once upon a time in Krynn (I think), a good queen was to visit a town, there to decide whether or not to allow trade with her kingdom. Memnoch stood to profit much from the trade agreement, and did not want harm to befall the good queen. A messenger arrives, and notifies Memnoch that the town has recently been stricken with a particularly virulent plague. Memnoch, looking out for his business interests, proceeds to catch the queens caravan. Upon cowing the guards into submission (without harming them) Memnoch proceeds to warn the queen about the plague and urges her to turn back. The queen dismisses Memnoch out of hand, and proceeds on to the village. Memnoch, fearing for the queen's (and his business interests) safety, flies to the village ahead of the queen, and rounds up all those afflicted with the plague, places them in a pen, and burns them and their belongings, to halt the spread of the plague. The queen is saved, and the plague no longer a threat. The DM called this an act of unspeakable evil. His reasoning was that I was attacking and slaughtering a large portion of the village, most of which were young, elderly, and/or defenseless. I stated it was for the greater good, and that it eliminated the threat of plague, and saved the royal family. Who was right?
Talanall 11-22-04, 06:56 PM	He was. If you wanted to take the good-aligned route, you could just have smashed the wheels of the queen's baggage and supply wagons. It would have slowed her procession very seriously indeed. Or you could have quarantined the sick folks, rather than butcher them. But you DID say you're playing as a pit fiend. As a CR 16-20ish embodiment of the lawful evil alignment, you instead decided to commit what your DM very accurately called "an act of unspeakable evil." Which is perfectly appropriate for a devil. Devils are all about unspeakable evil, especially the sort which can be rationalized along the lines you have used.
The_other 11-22-04, 07:00 PM	First I wonder why hes letting you play a Pit Fiend, but id rather not know. Second your a pit fiend so burning villagers to save your client to save your business is what i think any devil would do. It wasnt a good act since more died to save a few and the poor died to save the rich. Although you did burn them alive..... I would rule it was both good and evil. You killed them and now they can't die a horrible and slow death and give it to others and saved the royal family. But you did burn them alive and only killed them and saved the queen only for the fact that he feared for his business. So I would think it was a neutral thing since if our america had a plague epidemic i would think our government would capture and quarentine the infected, and if they couldnt find a cure do tests on them and some tests might kill them. But then again im not a very good DM.
Talanall 11-22-04, 07:03 PM	Blah. Double Post.
1BadazzBaatezu 11-22-04, 07:51 PM	Just to clarify, the entire party is playing out of Players guide to Devils by Fast-Forward Press, where Pit Fiends are markedly toned down, (Elves, Halflings, and Dwarves are overdone anyways...). Also, I should have phrased that better... Is the act in it's entirety more good, or more evil, although given the neutral option, I kind of agree with that one.
Talanall 11-22-04, 08:01 PM	Your character killed a large number of innocent and defenseless invalids in order to protect his profit margins. He wasn't interested in saving anything except a chance for himself to make money, and he used this method of improving his bottom line over a variety of other options that undoubtedly existed. That's evil. To put it in terms of the title of this thread . . . this is not "evil means to a good end." It's not even close. It's horribly evil means to a neutral end, and hence, horribly evil.
Kar-Vermin 11-22-04, 08:17 PM	Most of the salient points have already been made here, but I'll chime in with my :twocents: here. Evil act. I wouldn't consider the pit fiend's desired result (protection of his profit margin) an innately good goal. Neutral or evil, depending on the circumstances. However, an evil act done to achieve even a good goal is still evil. Usually only paladins and exalted types are the ones to get caught in these moral quagmires, however. Happy Gaming.
Melpomene 11-22-04, 08:21 PM	I'm not going to call the act evil. All you really did was save the life of a queen, the queens convoy, and the lives of every other member of the town. But, more importantly, your heart was filled with nuetralness. If you killed those people to hear them scream, it would have been one thing. But, you did it for containment and sanitation of a virlent plague and for enlightened self-interest. And there is nothing more nuetral than enlightened self-interest.
1BadazzBaatezu 11-22-04, 08:29 PM	Your character killed a large number of innocent and defenseless invalids in order to protect his profit margins. He wasn't interested in saving anything except a chance for himself to make money, and he used this method of improving his bottom line over a variety of other options that undoubtedly existed. They were gonna die anyways! I just accelerated the process a little. With a little accelerant... The queen was immensely loved throughout her domain, besides being a rather shrewd businesswoman...
Talanall 11-22-04, 08:30 PM	All he really did was burn (alive) every individual in town who exhibited symptoms of the plague. The burning alive part was not necessary, nor was it even particularly hard to avoid it. It's not hard to knife invalids to death. So that leaves a bunch of people who've actually still got the plague, but probably have not come down with symptoms yet. It's possible the DM made things way too easy, but unless this disease has no defined incubation period in its stats, we're not dealing with anything that was even particularly likely to be effective in halting the spread of the disease. And, as I already pointed out, it wasn't necessary to burn the sick people alive. It wasn't about killing these people in a merciful way, in order to put an end to the plague in as efficient and reliable way as possible. That would have involved a relatively painless death, and then the cremation of the corpse. But that's not what happened. The sick were burned alive. It was grotesquely evil -- not because he killed, but because he killed in a horrifically painful way when he had the means to do it in a relatively painless fashion without significant inconvenience to himself. Complicating this, it was evil because it probably didn't do any good owing to the way most contagious diseases work, both in standard DnD mechanics and in real life.
Talanall 11-22-04, 08:32 PM	And again, this PC is a devil. So evil is perfectly In Character, and to be expected. I'm not criticizing that side of things. But, it was horrendously evil. Devilishly evil.
a18ffe 11-22-04, 08:35 PM	You know what they say about good intentions...
Melpomene 11-22-04, 08:40 PM	To counter the arguments against fire, I would say that fire is the absolute need to contain, as opposed to other ways of simply killing people. Anything less drastic might have caused the death of the queen. It may or may not have been hastey, but time was a factor. Again, it was without malace of intent. If you don't have evil intent, you can do anything you want and it's still not evil. Ask a formain.
Talanall 11-22-04, 09:09 PM	Fire works on corpses just as well as it works on live bodies, though. And a nice sharp knife across the throat is hardly going to impose a major time constraint. It's evil to burn the sick to death because it's unnecessary in the first place, probably didn't accomplish its stated goal, and is painful when it's not even inconvenient to make death itself almost painless.
1BadazzBaatezu 11-22-04, 09:22 PM	Well, I suppose I could have slit their throats first, but carrying around all those bloody corpses probably would have been more dangerous to the remaining populace than having the cleric tell me who was diseased and who wasn't (OOC he failed a few rolls, and accidentally condemned a few non-diseased souls to their early grave, but neither PC knew.) and corralling them all in a oil-soaked pen, tossing their belongings in with them, and torching them. If the cleric couldn't tell if they were or weren't diseased, they got torched too, just to be on the safe side. The Pit Fiend was known as the owner of the business, and busting up the queens caravan would have put his business on the fast track to hell (home?). Enlightened self interest, you know... I used to work in the medical field, and the proper way to dispose of medical waste is to incinerate it, along with any contaminated items. Dripping contaminated blood all over an entire city is NOT an acceptable way to contain a plague. Besides, I would have had to burn the knife, and knives cost money. Can't hurt the bottom line. People can be replaced, but good knives are hard to find.
Morwen 11-22-04, 09:48 PM	While I do agree that it was an evil act, it did after all stop the plague from spreading further throughout both the town in question and the rest of the country by the most efficient means possible. So, while it may not be unspeakably evil, it was undoubtedly evil (mostly due to the "burning alive" factor. Had you killed them first, I'm not sure I'd consider it evil at all). However, I do have to wonder why you care whether it was unspeakably evil or just evil means to a greater good? You're an Evil character, a Devil nonetheless, so why would you want to be affiliated with doing good? :)
Thorak 11-22-04, 10:31 PM	If at any point, you feel the need to use the term "greater good", you're considering/doing an Evil act. Because that's the only time you'll feel a need to justify your actions by looking at a possible good benefit to come out of them. "The greater good" is an excuse to do evil. Nothing more.
Xarian 11-22-04, 10:38 PM	Who cares if it was good or evil - it was smart, and it'll save you from having to go adventure for a plague. Plus now the queen won't be too tired/not alive enough to do whatever you had planned for her. Evil, schmevil.
ChaoticGod 11-22-04, 10:53 PM	Well, I suppose I could have slit their throats first, but carrying around all those bloody corpses probably would have been more dangerous to the remaining populace than having the cleric tell me who was diseased and who wasn't (OOC he failed a few rolls, and accidentally condemned a few non-diseased souls to their early grave, but neither PC knew.) and corralling them all in a oil-soaked pen, tossing their belongings in with them, and torching them. If the cleric couldn't tell if they were or weren't diseased, they got torched too, just to be on the safe side. The Pit Fiend was known as the owner of the business, and busting up the queens caravan would have put his business on the fast track to hell (home?). Enlightened self interest, you know... I used to work in the medical field, and the proper way to dispose of medical waste is to incinerate it, along with any contaminated items. Dripping contaminated blood all over an entire city is NOT an acceptable way to contain a plague. Besides, I would have had to burn the knife, and knives cost money. Can't hurt the bottom line. People can be replaced, but good knives are hard to find. LOL, so you know this was incredibly evil and you are just pulling our chains. If not, and you actually think like this, well I'm glad I don't live anywhere near you.
Melpomene 11-22-04, 11:08 PM	Not to mention that the plague was devil feaver...
Falkus 11-23-04, 12:37 AM	Evil Means to a Good End I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but the ends do not justify the means.
MCCCXXXVII 11-23-04, 02:25 AM	I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but the ends do not justify the means. In many cases, the end does justify the means, IMHO :D . If there was no other way of immediately containing the disease, then the burning of the civilians would have saved many others from considerable pain, followed by death. Of course, it could have been much more humane, although if the fire was hot enough all the effected nerve cells in the victims would have died before they felt TOO much pain :rolleyes: . They probably felt less pain overall than if the disease were left to run its course, actually! What's worse? The sacrifice of a bunch of people, or the infection and eventual death of many more? Anyway, I would overall classify the act as 'good' (albeit somewhat blurrily so), overall. Of couse, I am a bit of a pragmatist.
legolizard 11-23-04, 03:14 AM	You gathered a punch of innocent, defenceless people, and killed them for something that was tottaly out of there power. Why do you think that can be counted as even a nuetral act when killing a defenceless evil creature is dreading a thin line between good and evil. Anyway, what your character did might even can't as genecide. Know if your character had cureed the disease, you would be good. And if you really had tried to be good, you would have at least taken the people to a major church of pelor or another healing center. It wouldn't of been that much harder.
Jefuri no Oni 11-23-04, 03:51 AM	It was evil. But isn't that what being a Pit Fiend is all about. Your act is exactly the kind of evil devils are all about. An unspeakably evil act that can be rationalized as being for the greater good. There might have been another way to save the villagers and the queen and at the same time your business interests. But you chose the quick and evil way to stop the plauge. Which is good you are a Pit Fiend after all. Keep up the evil.
CaoSlayer 11-23-04, 04:05 AM	Your act is exactly the kind of evil devils are all about. An unspeakably evil act that can be rationalized as being for the greater good. There might have been another way to save the villagers and the queen and at the same time your business interests. But you chose the quick and evil way to stop the plauge. Which is good you are a Pit Fiend after all. Keep up the evil. sigh... why I have read all this stuff I remember the irak war... how many people killed for the mundial peace...
Slate King 11-23-04, 08:21 AM	For those of you who are old enough for the purchace of the book, the book of exalted deeds has a very good section on evil acts for good purposes. To sum them up, an evil act for a good purpose is still an evil act. It does not matter that you were trying to save the queen and you accidentally did a good thing. You said yourself that you wanted to protect your profit margin. You can use the analogy from the movie swordfish. If you could end all disease in the world by killing one innocent child could you do it. A good character (thus good acts) would say no. A neutral character would look for a volunteer, and an evil character would pick the first kid and then kill a second just to make sure. Also realize that you are evil. You should not be attempting to convince your dm that you were preforming a good act. The evil alignment takes as much work to maintain as the good alignment. Too many acts that help others can quicken the slide into neutral. As a pit fiend, sliding into neutral is not a benefficial. The infernal equivelent of the party whip in the house and senate will come after you. You don't want that.
Thorak 11-23-04, 08:56 AM	In many cases, the end does justify the means, IMHO :D . If there was no other way of immediately containing the disease, then the burning of the civilians would have saved many others from considerable pain, followed by death. Of course, it could have been much more humane, although if the fire was hot enough all the effected nerve cells in the victims would have died before they felt TOO much pain :rolleyes: . They probably felt less pain overall than if the disease were left to run its course, actually! What's worse? The sacrifice of a bunch of people, or the infection and eventual death of many more? Anyway, I would overall classify the act as 'good' (albeit somewhat blurrily so), overall. Of couse, I am a bit of a pragmatist. You would be incorrect to classify the act as "good". The act is horribly, horribly evil. Though, if done for the "right" (I think that's the term you were looking for) reasons, the character responsible for the act might only be Neutral. If you think the ends justify the means, or use the term "greater good" a lot to justify your actions, you're representing a Neutral, or possibly Lawful Evil alignment. "Good" people know it's never necessary to stoop to Evil acts; the choice may be difficult, and may result in more death, but it will still remain the better (as in "more good") choice. And again; this is distinct from what might be "right". Whether something's right or wrong is a personal viewpoint dependent on alignment. It's "right" to a CE character to brutally murder a guy's family because the guy insulted him publicly, to take a nasty example.
Melpomene 11-23-04, 10:36 AM	Again, the act itself isn't nearly so important as intent. If there's no malace of intent, there's no evil deed. If (and this assumes a great deal) the acts were done as a way to maintain self-interest, with no desire to help or harm any other than himself, the act is nuetral, at least insofar as the fiend is conserned. Alternitively, if he didn't do it to protect his queen and save the innocent, the act isn't good, either. Another example: Oozes kill thier victoms in a most terrable way. That is, namely, slowly digesting them alive, burning flesh away and generally making a mess of it. By your deffinitions, this would be evil. However, oozes do not possess malace, only hunger. Ergo, oozes are nuetral.
1BadazzBaatezu 11-23-04, 10:40 AM	I know the char's LE, but the DM seemed to think that I should slide into Chaotic Evil, even though there was a very planned, deliberate method to my actions. The town turned out split down the middle, half declaring me a saviour, half declaring me a devil (go figure.) Several other people in the party seemed to think it was Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Neutral. Even the most evil people sometimes do something beneficial to society. Look at the Biblical Satan. Everything evil he supposedly did, from tempting Eve, to Tempting Jesus in the desert, all of it worked towards a (supposedly) greater good. If the Devil is there just to prove God good, then isn't also the devil good by necessity. BTW, if there was a virulent plague with virtually no gestation time, a 100% kill rate, and a three day cycle running rampant in my town, you can be damn sure I'm gonna be holed up with the people and things I care about with a gun, gasoline, and a box of matches. Until I know it's over, I'm shooting on sight. So, yeah ChaoticGod, I'd stay away from me if such a plague should ever hit Zion, Illinois...
Melpomene 11-23-04, 10:49 AM	The act was LN or N. You worked within the system of the clericy and town. If you start destroying stuff just to watch it burn, then you're shifting into CE. Nuetrality is such a wonderful, if misunderstood, alignment.
Naeron 11-23-04, 11:34 AM	You harmed the innocent, thus the act cannot be good however you try and justify it. The Good route would have been to enforce a total curfew in the city, quarantine anyone who showed any sign of the disease and arrange for as much healing as could be brought into the city by beings immune to the disease. Food and water could have been distributed to each house by something that cannot carry the disease (elementals are one thought). The Queen could have been informed by any city official at a safe distance as soon as she got within shouting range (and no queen of a kingdom would be without access to cure disease in some form). The method of killing caused uneccessary suffering, also evil. Magic could have been used to kill almost instantly. If your Devil had performed these action solely to prevent the town from being wiped out it probably would have come out as overall neutral. However it was done for financial gain so its Evil. If you could end all disease in the world by killing one innocent child could you do it. A good character (thus good acts) would say no. A neutral character would look for a volunteer, and an evil character would pick the first kid and then kill a second just to make sure. I think you've got this back to front, an evil being wouldn't care about all the nobodies who might suffer from disease, unless they were using it to cure themselves they would have little motivation to perform such an act. A Good character probbaly would do this, they would look for a subject that mitigates the effect of the murder as far as possible such as a child who would die anyway but in committing one terrible act of evil (and that is exactly how they would see it) they can save countless innocent lives. Its an act that they would regret for the rest of their lives but it is one that they would perform, even a Paladin would probably do it in the certain knowledge that they would fall (of course the best result would be if the Paladin could work out a way to satisfy the requirements by killing themselves). The personal cost is irrelevant to the benefit conferred on innocent beings. A Neutral might or might not perform the killing. A persons alignment does not dicate their actions, rather their alignment is a result of the sum of their actions. A Good being can perfom an solitary evil act (and accept it as such) if neccesity requires it.
Talanall 11-23-04, 11:43 AM	Another example: Oozes kill thier victoms in a most terrable way. That is, namely, slowly digesting them alive, burning flesh away and generally making a mess of it. By your deffinitions, this would be evil. However, oozes do not possess malace, only hunger. Ergo, oozes are nuetral. Oozes have no intellect, and in any case this is their only available means of killing. If they could kill their prey in some other more merciful fashion and had the volition with which to choose that alternative method of sustaining themselves, then your argument would work. The prerequisites for moral action are: 1. Free will 2. Freedom of action 3. Moral awareness When any of these prerequisites are absent, moral action is not possible. An ooze has no will, because it has no intellect -- as exemplified by the "Int --" in its entry. By definition, this also means that it has no moral awareness. It also happens not to have freedom of action relative to how it kills its prey. By the same token, someone who is severely mentally retarded may have free will and a certain limited amount of freedom of action (enough, say, to harm someone deliberately and fatally, though perhaps not to kill deliberately, when not defending himself or herself). But unless this hypothetical retarded person is aware that harming people other than in self-defense is to be considered as morally evil, the action of doing so is morally neutral. On the other hand, you might also find yourself dealing with . . . oh, say, a red dragon. The red dragon is clearly very intelligent, and very powerful. Most of the time, it will have both free will and an unusual degree of freedom to act. Said red dragon will almost certainly have multiple food sources from which to select its diet, but is quite likely to prefer to dine exclusively on virginal human or elf youths and maidens, specifically because they are sentient and because their loss will distress the communities from which they come, thus pleasing the dragon not only in the gustatory sense, but also in the sense that it can enjoy the suffering of others, both in the aforementioned sense, and in the sense that it can torture its food as it eats. This, then, is evil. It is evil not merely because the dragon eats these youths and maidens, but because the dragon chooses to do so when there is no pressing reason why it must do so. Its own survival is not at stake. Moreover, the dragon needn't torture its food before consuming it. With its breath weapon, it's almost undoubtedly true that the wyrm might extinguish the life of its meal within a fraction of a second. With its vast jaws and enormous claws, it can decapitate or crush its prey into oblivion. But instead of doing so, it is more likely to nibble around the edges, consuming first arms, then legs, then head and body, in the manner of a small child twisting apart an Oreo. Except the Oreo is, in this case, sentient.
Melpomene 11-23-04, 12:02 PM	The red dragon example is clearly malace of intent. You said it yourself, the dragon wishes to cause distress. There is evil in his heart. I don't believe the devil, in this case, had malace in his heart. Or, because I like analogies... What would a Rimilni or an Inevidable do? These are bastions of pure, unmorality-influenced nuetrality. If you think an Inevidable is even going to blink funny if he thinks burning a town to cinders will do what he needs it to, you're in for a rude awakening. And yet, he is not evil.
1BadazzBaatezu 11-23-04, 12:35 PM	Moreover, the dragon needn't torture its food before consuming it. With its breath weapon, it's almost undoubtedly true that the wyrm might extinguish the life of its meal within a fraction of a second. With its vast jaws and enormous claws, it can decapitate or crush its prey into oblivion. But instead of doing so, it is more likely to nibble around the edges, consuming first arms, then legs, then head and body, in the manner of a small child twisting apart an Oreo. Except the Oreo is, in this case, sentient. I'll keep that in mind the next time an Oreo pisses me off... :cool: I didn't beat around the bush, or torture the incineratees, I just doused'em, and lit'em, and walked away. The only enjoyment I derived from their destruction was the steadily increasing bottom line in my coffers.
Thorak 11-23-04, 12:43 PM	The red dragon example is clearly malace of intent. You said it yourself, the dragon wishes to cause distress. There is evil in his heart. I don't believe the devil, in this case, had malace in his heart. He killed innocents. That's malice. Even if he's calling it something else. It doesn't matter if the serial murderer thinks he's killing demons in an effort to save the world. That doesn't make him CG. That makes him CE, and insane. Or, because I like analogies... What would a Rimilni or an Inevidable do? These are bastions of pure, unmorality-influenced nuetrality. If you think an Inevidable is even going to blink funny if he thinks burning a town to cinders will do what he needs it to, you're in for a rude awakening. And yet, he is not evil. Not familiar with either, but burning a town to cinders to further your purposes is Evil. If you consider burning the town bad, but a necessary evil for the greater good, that is Neutral. Because you've got moral qualms about it, but will still do what you feel is necessary. Too many people misunderstand Neutrality. It's either an unconscious balance between Good morals and Evil needs (want to stop the disease, need to kill the whole town to do so), or it's a conscious vision that both are necessary; Good needs Evil to keep it on it's toes, and Evil needs Good so the world doesn't become another Hell. It's the balance and struggle between the two which drive the engine of civilization, to a Neutral character of this sort. But if you're unflinchingly willing to do unspeakable acts because they're "necessary", you're Evil. Because you don't even consider the act, you only know that it's necessary, and do it.
sambudak 11-23-04, 03:45 PM	After reading this thread, and washing my hands a few times, I came to realize that it has been instructional in some way. It's given me another test question to weed out undesirable player types.
Talanall 11-23-04, 03:52 PM	The red dragon example is clearly malace of intent. You said it yourself, the dragon wishes to cause distress. There is evil in his heart. I don't believe the devil, in this case, had malace in his heart. Or, because I like analogies... What would a Rimilni or an Inevidable do? These are bastions of pure, unmorality-influenced nuetrality. If you think an Inevidable is even going to blink funny if he thinks burning a town to cinders will do what he needs it to, you're in for a rude awakening. And yet, he is not evil. A Rilmani believes that it would spell disaster for all of existence if chaos, evil, good, or law wins, and moreover believes this with every thread of its being; it exists explicitly to prevent one of these extremes from achieving final dominance. This come under provision #2, "Freedom of action." A Rilmani actively seeks to balance its evildoing with good deeds. It has to. Repeated, unrelieved comission of evil would shift its alignment to NE. Similarly, an Inevitable is charged with the enforcement of a law. It can't choose not to enforce the law. That's why it exists. If it has to do something terrible to enforce a law, it does it. It can't think about NOT doing it. It can't negotiate a compromise agreement. It's not a matter of "will not." It's a matter of "is not able to." The red dragon gets a much larger amount of choice. It has to be CE. But it doesn't have any directives about how it goes about doing so. The same thing goes for a pit fiend, except that it has to behave in a lawful and evil manner. The original poster's scenario is a classic example of LE behavior. It doesn't care about the suffering associated with the disease. It doesn't care about those who die of it. It wants money, though, and the plague is keeping business away from him. He reasons, "If I burn all the plague victims, the disease will go away. If it goes away, I profit. I like it when I profit. It pleases me. For maximum efficiency, I should just douse them in oil and set them alight. I can burn them much sooner if I don't take time to show them the token mercy of a clean, relatively painless death. It's not as if I really care about their pain, after all. Shame I don't have the equipment to extract agony from them as they die, though -- my supplies are running low already, and that stuff fetches a tidy sum." By comparison, a LN being might reason, "I can't cure the plague even if it were my job to do it, but I can at least contain it so that it stops spreading. At that point, it will run its course, and I'll get back into business sooner. Let's see . . . I need a quarantined area, with a pestilence tent. I'll need blankets, clean water, and things like that for whatever healers end up congregating there. It wouldn't do to have them running around spreading the disease. And I'll probably need to get some wagons circulating in town to move people who're too sick to walk. And I guess I'll have to get volunteers, or pay people, to burn the corpses of the plague victims so they don't infect anybody." And still further, a LG being might do all the same things as the LN one, except couch it in terms of saving what he can of the healthy population, easing the suffering of the ill, and looking for a cure if possible. The LE version is evil because it sets personal profit and efficiency above the deaths of innocent people, whether it's avoidable or not. There's no looking for a cure. There's no quarantine and waiting to see who survives, if anyone. It's horribly evil because, in the name of efficiency, not only are innocents being killed, they are being killed painfully. Admittedly, it's not quite as psychotic as the red dragon example, with the active enjoyment not just of profit from the suffering of others, but also of the suffering itself. But it's still really damn evil. It's not a matter of, "I have to do this, even though it makes me want to weep and tear my hair, because if I don't the town will be slain." It is, as the original poster put it, a matter of enjoying the fact that all those filthy sick people are bursting into flames, and hence are helping you get rich. It's a matter of being indifferent to the possibility of curing them, or of waiting for those who have a chance of surviving, to survive. And again, if the original poster is playing a devil, that's entirely appropriate behavior, because it is extremely orderly/lawful, and it is extremely evil. Morally, it is the equivalent of a corporation's up and deciding to set fire to a hospital full of people with SARS. It's evil. Yes, SARS kills people. Lots of people. Yes, it is contagious. But it doesn't kill all of them, and it doesn't spread to every single person who comes into contact with it. We're not talking about setting up an enforced quarantine, and killing anybody who tries to go in or out of it, even. We're talking about concentrating a bunch of sick people in one place, and then burning them alive. For money.
mean_liar 11-23-04, 04:17 PM	If at any point, you feel the need to use the term "greater good", you're considering/doing an Evil act. Because that's the only time you'll feel a need to justify your actions by looking at a possible good benefit to come out of them. "The greater good" is an excuse to do evil. Nothing more. :clap: Thats some fine quotage right there. If I didn't hate sigs, that would be mine.
Melpomene 11-23-04, 05:22 PM	Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. We do seem to agree on the point that intent is critically important. If the scenario you presented were correct, that the devil burned people because he thought they were unworthy and filthy, it would be evil. I don't think that was the case, however. If time was a limiting factor, or even it was presumed to be, a more efficient containment policy might have been needed than simple quarentine and care. To protect the incoming queen in a real way, more drastic steps may have been needed to be taken (Or, again, supposedly needed.) We also seem to differ on the fundimental concept that, by deffinition, everything a devil does has to be evil. Certainly, the is the general rule of thumb, but PCs, by deffinition, aren't the norm.
Lord Stigius 11-27-04, 12:24 AM	*** Straying on this thread *** *** Seeing the posters who consider this action good *** *** FAINTING *** Really, this by far surpasses all the famous paladins killing kobold babies, etc. I strongly agree that this is the very action the devil could take, rationalizing it as 'good'. Yes, this is a good piece of roleplaying a devil. But I cannot understand how anybody can even seriously argue whether this act is 'good' or only 'neutral'. Maybe it's the PHb definition of Evil that has made the bad job here, suggesting that Evil exist only when someone purposes to harm others for nothing else than his own delight in their suffering. Obviously things do not go this way. The character in question showed the highest grade of disregard for others. Had he sought to kill them painlessly, it still would be evil. The thing he did was.. well, THAT was vile. Not these poor efforts at being vile, while being only disgusting you can see in some threads on Mature boards. Again, good piece of roleplaying a devil. But by no means a good action.
Lord Stigius 11-27-04, 12:38 AM	Melpomene & others devil advocates ;) : By the logic you use, the devil's act was not evil, since he was only looking to his profit. A devil who tempts people and makes them go to 9 Hells in the afterlife (which is the most typical activity for a more typical NPC devil, after all) would be doing at worst a neutral thing then! After all, he is looking to his profit as well (more souls in his power... just like more wealth to this particular devil). Funny, isn't it?
The_Dark_One 11-27-04, 12:46 AM	To sum them up, an evil act for a good purpose is still an evil act. It does not matter that you were trying to save the queen and you accidentally did a good thing. You said yourself that you wanted to protect your profit margin. You can use the analogy from the movie swordfish. If you could end all disease in the world by killing one innocent child could you do it. A good character (thus good acts) would say no. A neutral character would look for a volunteer, and an evil character would pick the first kid and then kill a second just to make sure. This makes me wonder where my reaction to this scenario would place me on the Alignment chart. I would refuse to kill the innocent child. Then, I would take whatever made this choice possible (machine, data, ancient artifact, etc.) and destroy it so that no one else would kill an innocent child. Does that make me Evil? I would be condemning millions of people to suffer and die just to save one life.
Lord Stigius 11-27-04, 12:54 AM	The_Dark_One :bow: That's what I would do too. Or rather what I have done. My 17 level bard/fighter/liberator challenged the whole pantheon, and of course perished miserably. The DM, who expected me to ally with an evil deity, sacrificing 'some people', had to end the camapaign prematurely when she and the party pally were dead :weep:
Melpomene 11-27-04, 10:43 AM	You are entitled to your oppinions, of course, but, I feel a need to defend my possition. I only wish more people would agree with me here, at least on a theoretical level. My overall point, to sum up, is again that you can't be evil if you don't feel evil. Evil is a state of mind, a quality of charictor. You can be very, very misguided, to be sure. You can be clinically misguided. But, not evil, unless there is the spark of evil within you. Also, I have no problem with a Devil or Demon trying to walk a path other than evil. Angels can fall, please allow devils to ascend. Nuetrality is the first step towards ascention. Stop trying to bring evil back down. Don't be a hater.
Thorak 11-27-04, 11:26 AM	This makes me wonder where my reaction to this scenario would place me on the Alignment chart. I would refuse to kill the innocent child. Then, I would take whatever made this choice possible (machine, data, ancient artifact, etc.) and destroy it so that no one else would kill an innocent child. Does that make me Evil? I would be condemning millions of people to suffer and die just to save one life. This is exactly what I would do, personally, and this is exactly what a Good, or especially an Exalted, character should choose to do to remain perfectly in line with their alignment. An Exalted character choosing to kill the innocent loses Exalted status. It's not that you're showing disregard for the millions. You are not directly responsible for their deaths. Failing to save them from someone else's evil isn't evil itself. Are scientists evil because they fail to notice a building earthquake and thousands die? No, they just failed them. It's shameful and disappointing, but it is not evil. Also, the Exalted line would point out that, by stooping to an Evil act this once, you've taken the first step down that path. A path that gets easier and easier to tread with each further step. If you've already sacrificed one innocent to the flames of "betterment", why not 10? And is 50 that much worse? How about 1000? We're just talking numbers here, right? If you've determined that people should be killed for the betterment of others, that path leads to ethnic cleansing and genocidal warfare. Because you need to kill all the "bad" people to protect the "good" ones, that's how such things are always justified. It's Evil. You're not the one killing millions, you're just the one who's given everything they could to trying to save them and, at the end, failed in that quest. Doctors aren't evil because they're not curing cancer or AIDS and people are dying from it. They're trying, and that's what matters.
Melpomene 11-27-04, 11:44 AM	Is killing 30 to save 40 good or evil? Throwing the switch problem (a classic in ethics). I think any objective study of numbers smacks of nuetrality, though.
FriendoftheDork 11-27-04, 12:49 PM	I know the char's LE, but the DM seemed to think that I should slide into Chaotic Evil, even though there was a very planned, deliberate method to my actions. The town turned out split down the middle, half declaring me a saviour, half declaring me a devil (go figure.) Several other people in the party seemed to think it was Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Neutral. Even the most evil people sometimes do something beneficial to society. Look at the Biblical Satan. Everything evil he supposedly did, from tempting Eve, to Tempting Jesus in the desert, all of it worked towards a (supposedly) greater good. If the Devil is there just to prove God good, then isn't also the devil good by necessity. BTW, if there was a virulent plague with virtually no gestation time, a 100% kill rate, and a three day cycle running rampant in my town, you can be damn sure I'm gonna be holed up with the people and things I care about with a gun, gasoline, and a box of matches. Until I know it's over, I'm shooting on sight. So, yeah ChaoticGod, I'd stay away from me if such a plague should ever hit Zion, Illinois... The acts were not chaotic. What does your DM think wa chaotic about it?
Lord Stigius 11-27-04, 02:42 PM	Melpomene: you can't be evil if you don't feel evil You see, since this is a D&D board, I do not want to support my case with any particular real life examples, but virtually all mass crimes supported by the criminal systems of governments would fall into this category. Such type of discussion is reborn on these boards again and again, and this fact makes me doubt the evolution. At least 9os these doards. The questions get answrerd, the people convinced that at least sometimes the common sense and common morality overrides the literal reading of the PHb words - and then it pops up again. Uuughhh... A side note: a really good discussion about 'condemning one vs. condemningmany' sprung from my thread (shameless plug here) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=111480) . But, to be honest, I think the discussion there was of a much higher quality. Here we are talking about the basics again. I think any objective study of numbers smacks of nuetrality NO. Quite likely it smacks of Law (in the D&D terms), though. Well played devil, I say, and don't understand why the DM wants to make him go Chaotic. Evil, evil, evil. Melpomene, you seem to think that 'evil' is only doing evil for the sole perverse pleasure of watching someone suffer. Please be informed that this particular deviation is a much narrower concept, named sadism in the BoVD (i do not go into the slightly different meaning of the term in reality). So: All sadism (D&D meaning) = evil. But not all evil is sadistic. Evil may be just completly disregarding others, bringing disaster and despair to them just because it takes less effort then compromising own purposes with the needs of others. And I should know... that's what Stigius has been doing for about fourty years (in game - in reality he's only three yrs old). In short: you don't have to be mentally afflicted to do evil. Lord Stigius is a proof.
Melpomene 11-27-04, 03:01 PM	Again, I was quite finished with this topic until people started talking about me again. I think there's no real point in talking about it because no one is likely to change. It is the way of things.
Thorak 11-27-04, 07:46 PM	My overall point, to sum up, is again that you can't be evil if you don't feel evil. Evil is a state of mind, a quality of charictor. You can be very, very misguided, to be sure. You can be clinically misguided. But, not evil, unless there is the spark of evil within you. So, from this argument, I assume you think someone who was hunting down and killing people he thought were demons, and torturing them before death to make the demon flee the body, was a good guy? What if the demons are all in his head, and he's just an insane serial killer? Doesn't the fact that he's brutally killing innocents mean he's horribly, horribly Evil? Whatever the reason? And, of course, the point to end all points about good or evil; Hitler thought he was doing what was best for his country. He really did, as far as we can tell. And yet, he's widely regarded as perhaps the most evil individual the world has seen in modern times. Evil methods mean an evil heart, regardless of the possible good intent behind it. That's what I meant by my earlier comment that "the greater good" is only ever an excuse to justify evil. It is never used to defend Good acts.
The Stray 11-27-04, 10:56 PM	Originally Posted by 1BadazzBaatezu--I have a character, Memnoch, a pit fiend, which I have been running through various campaigns since 2000, and he is (Officially) Lawful Evil, yet he has repeatedly performed tasks to the greater good of whatever setting he's popped into this time. For Instance: Once upon a time in Krynn (I think), a good queen was to visit a town, there to decide whether or not to allow trade with her kingdom. Memnoch stood to profit much from the trade agreement, and did not want harm to befall the good queen. A messenger arrives, and notifies Memnoch that the town has recently been stricken with a particularly virulent plague. Memnoch, looking out for his business interests, proceeds to catch the queens caravan. Upon cowing the guards into submission (without harming them) Memnoch proceeds to warn the queen about the plague and urges her to turn back. The queen dismisses Memnoch out of hand, and proceeds on to the village. Memnoch, fearing for the queen's (and his business interests) safety, flies to the village ahead of the queen, and rounds up all those afflicted with the plague, places them in a pen, and burns them and their belongings, to halt the spread of the plague. The queen is saved, and the plague no longer a threat. The DM called this an act of unspeakable evil. His reasoning was that I was attacking and slaughtering a large portion of the village, most of which were young, elderly, and/or defenseless. I stated it was for the greater good, and that it eliminated the threat of plague, and saved the royal family. Who was right? Ah, a trip to the WoTC Boards just isn't complete without a raging discussion about whether or not a devil rounding up villagers and burning them alive is evil. :ahem: While there are some situations, in the real world and in D&D, where the ends might possibly justify the means, this is not one of them by any streatch of the imagination. It is a cold, calculated act of mass murder done in the name of expediency and profit. Why are you even bothering to try and argue that it's a good act? And you're playing a DEVIL. Why would Memnoch even care if his actions are seen as good or not? He IS a creature of unspeakable evil, for God's sake! All he cares about is his profit margin. At best, his enlightened self-interest merely coincides with something that could be considered good, stopping a plauge. But this act is akin to swatting a fly with a hammer. :rant: *deep breath* Ok. Rant over.
Lord Stigius 11-28-04, 12:19 AM	Ah, a trip to the WoTC Boards just isn't complete without a raging discussion about whether or not a devil rounding up villagers and burning them alive is evil I'm going to steal it for my sig! (runs away with the trophy to never return to this thread).
The Man from Uncle 11-28-04, 01:51 AM	My fellow ethicists......it’s good to hear such quickly formed and totally inconsistent moral theories. Thorak, as usual, you are among the few who are internally coherent, but sadly I disagree with your fundamental principle of right makes good (Though I have a lot of time for Kant these days). If even one extreme situation can sway your view then there must be some problem with refusing a sacrifice for a greater good. It is wrong to kill, but it is also wrong to break a promise, and wrong to steal, and wrong to lie. The difference between these 'wrongs' is their degree, not their alignment polarity. You can work through the rest of the point yourself if you bare in mind that some small wrongs, like breaking a promise to be on time to save a person from a burning building, do not seem to be beyond consideration. Melpomene, you do have the ability to stick to your guns and for that I will back you up a bit and give you a bit of help. I don't think that too many people can argue that intentions are totally separate from the morality of an action. Though the case of evil tyrants does present itself as a problem, and not one you can get round with your dogmatic approach. The next move is to realise that intent comes from a subjective disposition. So while it may be true that for a devil this is not an evil intent, never-the-less, the devils disposition is already evil. So the intent itself is also evil, just not by comparison to his other intentions. To be clear though, of course the subject in point is evil. A mitigating argument though (one that Kant would be more than happy with) is that an action that is carried out is not necessarily defined by the perpetrator in the same way as by the observer. So an action of benevolence may contain content that would be considered, if viewed as the action itself, as malice. So its ok to lie to your aunt and say 'I like your dress' when in reality it makes her look like a strawberry pudding, because the action may not be defined as a lie to the liar, but defined as an act of kindness and caring. This argument really can't be stretched to cover the case in point (or at least I could not do it (not enough legal training)), but I do hope that a few people might reconsider why they think the act is evil and not just resort to dogmatic rhetoric.
Thorak 11-28-04, 02:32 PM	My fellow ethicists......it’s good to hear such quickly formed and totally inconsistent moral theories. Thorak, as usual, you are among the few who are internally coherent, but sadly I disagree with your fundamental principle of right makes good (Though I have a lot of time for Kant these days). If even one extreme situation can sway your view then there must be some problem with refusing a sacrifice for a greater good. It is wrong to kill, but it is also wrong to break a promise, and wrong to steal, and wrong to lie. The difference between these 'wrongs' is their degree, not their alignment polarity. You can work through the rest of the point yourself if you bare in mind that some small wrongs, like breaking a promise to be on time to save a person from a burning building, do not seem to be beyond consideration. I'm perfectly aware of this. Another important aspect of my ethical worldview is "personal responsibility". In other words, if you break a promise for an appointment or a date to go save people from a burning building, take responsibility for the fact that you broke your promise. You have a very good reason, yes. And they should probably forgive you, yes. But that's their choice, and not yours. All you can do is apologize for breaching your promise. Because yes, I think it's nasty to expect the other person to be OK with it because of your excuse. Key word there being "expect". Hope, sure. Explain so they understand why you chose as you did? Certainly. But don't expect forgiveness; you broke a promise, so take responsibility for that. But if we put it back into serious circumstances, then no, it's not OK to kill one person for the many. That kind of attitude is the first step down the path that leads to things like the Holocaust; killing all those deformed and inferior people for the "greater good" of the Aryan race. And of course, the Jews, because they've been hurting the country financially and stuff. It's for the "greater good", so it's OK, right? Sure, Hitler's plans might have actually led to some benefit. By preventing imperfect people from breeding, his eventual goal, he would have genetically improved the race, by reducing physical imperfections. There would have been a good benefit, but that doesn't make the means in any way good, whatsoever. And no, I'm not suggesting Hitler was in any way good-hearted. I'm referring to the propaganda he was using to justify his actions. Edit: And I really wish I could avoid Hitler. But when discussing Good and Evil, especially centering on the "greater good", there hasn't been a better example in all of history.
The Man from Uncle 11-28-04, 11:05 PM	The debate of forgiveness is separate from the one of what one ought to do. If you accept that it is morally appropriate to (note that i am not saying for the greater good) act in a way inconsistant with your otherwise normative duty (like not killing or not breaking a promise), then you must accept that you are already on the path of pluralistic, non-structured, fundemental principles. What i mean is that you are admitting that there is no one fundemental principle upon which all other principles are based (such as the principle of Utility). As such, though they may often seem mismatched, the principle of promise keeping, and of fidelity, and of justice are of the same self-evident ontology as non-maleficence (not hurting or killing others). They must all, in certain circumstances outweigh each other as there is no overriding principle that states they are formally structured. Though i accept that some principles of duty will more often than not win out over others. As a very obscure aside note, your thoughts on forgiveness remind me of another Canadian i know who was/is writing a phd thesis on it. He seemed to have the same odd ideas as you about the idea of expecting forgiveness. Isn't it obvious that if you know someone and you explain your actions to them (for example why you broke your promise to be on time), then it is right to expect they will forgive you. Assuming that you think them not insane, if they did not forgive you they would not be acting consistantly with how they have up to that point. If they did not forgive you, you would have to say there is something wrong with them and not you. I accept though the moral residue of breaking a promise and you do have another duty or reparation to make up for not sticking to your word, but that is independant of your expectation of forgiveness. Facinating stuff though.
Thorak 11-29-04, 08:43 AM	The debate of forgiveness is separate from the one of what one ought to do. If you accept that it is morally appropriate to (note that i am not saying for the greater good) act in a way inconsistant with your otherwise normative duty (like not killing or not breaking a promise), then you must accept that you are already on the path of pluralistic, non-structured, fundemental principles. What i mean is that you are admitting that there is no one fundemental principle upon which all other principles are based (such as the principle of Utility). As such, though they may often seem mismatched, the principle of promise keeping, and of fidelity, and of justice are of the same self-evident ontology as non-maleficence (not hurting or killing others). They must all, in certain circumstances outweigh each other as there is no overriding principle that states they are formally structured. Though i accept that some principles of duty will more often than not win out over others. Clearly, some people will choose one principle over the other in certain circumstances. And choosing which principle is most important is fundamental to determining personal morality. I, for instance, would have no moral compunctions about killing someone who threatened to harm my wife and (future) kids. I'd have a few more about killing to defend myself, and large issues with killing for some other purpose besides pure self-defense, even if it's proactive defense. However, my point is that by choosing the one principle over the other, I must accept responsibility for that choice. If I have to act on that belief, I have killed a man, and almost certainly deprived a mother of her child, and possibly a wife and children of a husband and father. That's a big responsibility, and one I cannot ignore or claim is irrelevant because I was in the right. That won't matter to them. And it may have been possible (though incredibly dangerous and much more likely to get me killed in the process) to stop him without killing him. There's just as much responsibility for my actions there, as there would be in the case of a pure pacifist who places non-malefiesance highest, and who lets the guy kill their family without being able to morally stop him through argument or other nonviolent means. His responsibility is that he could have acted to save them, and did not. It's not made OK just because he's a pacifist, just like it's not made OK that it was self-defense, in my case. As a very obscure aside note, your thoughts on forgiveness remind me of another Canadian i know who was/is writing a phd thesis on it. He seemed to have the same odd ideas as you about the idea of expecting forgiveness. Isn't it obvious that if you know someone and you explain your actions to them (for example why you broke your promise to be on time), then it is right to expect they will forgive you. Assuming that you think them not insane, if they did not forgive you they would not be acting consistantly with how they have up to that point. If they did not forgive you, you would have to say there is something wrong with them and not you. I accept though the moral residue of breaking a promise and you do have another duty or reparation to make up for not sticking to your word, but that is independant of your expectation of forgiveness. Facinating stuff though. Again, I place emphasis on "expect". "Hope for" and "think they probably will" is one thing, but "expect" means you will think them in the wrong if they choose otherwise. And it's not anyone's place to be determining what another person should do, so long as it's not endangering anyone else. I guess my overall point is that all these things are indeed separate, and something being "right" on one axis doesn't make it automatically "right" on all axes. And it would be "best" if you could be aware of all those axes, and which ones you're breaching and why, and taking responsibility for the effects those breaches have. And yes, before we get into it, I'm an anarchist at heart. I'm also smart enough (I'm not claiming I'm smarter than most; IMHO this should be fairly self-evident to anyone who takes the time to think about it) to realize that society, as it currently stands, can't handle an anarchic structure. I hold it as an ideal, much like any other ideal which is unworkable in reality. The world hasn't seen pure democracy, capitalism, or communism, or anything, for that same reason. The main point about anarchy as a social structure is personal responsibility, accepting your faults and errors and not needing some structured system, which will inherently have flaws, to do so for you.
The Man from Uncle 11-29-04, 10:49 AM	Hmm....interesting. I've never heard an account of 'anarchy' that was anything other than utterly untennable and advocated by egoists more concerned with there own karma and/or image than by any genuinly moral belief, but i am prepared to listen to more about what society you would like to see in an ideal world. As for your first paragraph on responsibility, it is in no way contradictory (or even actually contrary, other than in emphasis) to the arguement i made. In fact it is part of what i said. We still have a duty of reparation no matter what or motives for doing wrong. Personal responsibility is covered with this. You are a little bit of a subjective non-cognitivist, and your strong belief run against that. (That roughly means that you seem to believe that people decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but you still hold a universal principle of responsibility (which obviously would just be your opinion and not a universal rule)). As for your further explanation of forgiveness i suspect we differ mostly in semantics. I would think it strange and unexpected if someone did not forgive me for something that was (as far as i could tell) morally just from a rational perspective, even if in doing so i hurt that other person. I accept that the choice is theirs......but it would still be unexpected if i, up until that point, believed they held similar moral principles to me (or at least shared an intersubjective ethical code). You push on personal responsibility is admirable, but its really not the right tool to discuss matter of what one ought to do. Bed time now. Its midnight over here in communist China. ;)
Xarian 11-29-04, 02:22 PM	I don't think this particular act had any component of Law or Chaos to it. He neither wantonly destroyed anything or upset the lawful authority (Chaos) nor supported it or otherwise showed that he was telling the truth, etc (Law). If he were to have burned these people for no reason whatsoever, it most definitely would have been chaotic. Under the circumstances, however, I would say that it mostly points to NE. Since he's LE in the first place, that's not much of a problem.
Thorak 11-29-04, 03:04 PM	Hmm....interesting. I've never heard an account of 'anarchy' that was anything other than utterly untennable and advocated by egoists more concerned with there own karma and/or image than by any genuinly moral belief, but i am prepared to listen to more about what society you would like to see in an ideal world. I could go on, but I've already derailed the thread far too much anyway, so I'm going to stop now. Especially since if I talk about anarchy any more, I'll bring out those nutjobs you referred to, and I dislike them as much as you do. More perhaps, because they give a bad name to the ideal I support. If you're interested, try searching for "rational anarchy". It's a term that, to my knowledge, was started by Robert A. Heinlein, a sci-fi writer, in I believe The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, though the attitude is visible in several other of his books. There's some anarchists out there who aren't morons who just hate 'the man', and we tend to use that term, rather than merely 'anarchy'. As for your first paragraph on responsibility, it is in no way contradictory (or even actually contrary, other than in emphasis) to the arguement i made. In fact it is part of what i said. We still have a duty of reparation no matter what or motives for doing wrong. Personal responsibility is covered with this. You are a little bit of a subjective non-cognitivist, and your strong belief run against that. (That roughly means that you seem to believe that people decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but you still hold a universal principle of responsibility (which obviously would just be your opinion and not a universal rule)). I didn't try to intimate it was contrary to what you said, I was just adding to the discourse. As for the second bit; I reconcile that dichotomy by saying "this is my opinion, and not a universal rule, and what I see as right and wrong may not be the same for you. As long as you don't screw with me and my family and friends, I don't care what your morality is." I don't claim that any moral code can ever be universal, unless it is so general as to be useless ("Don't kill, except when you should" garbage which inevitably falls apart because people can't agree on why you should, and never killing seems just as ridiculous, if you're confronted with a madman who's going to murder your wife and children with a chainsaw unless you jab that fire poker in the back of his head), just that you don't try and inflict your moral code on myself or anyone else. Unless they inflict theirs on you, in which case the gloves are off. Since that includes anyone who could think killing you is "right". This assumes, of course, that your moral code doesn't infringe on anyone, so you've done nothing to deserve killing. As for your further explanation of forgiveness i suspect we differ mostly in semantics. I would think it strange and unexpected if someone did not forgive me for something that was (as far as i could tell) morally just from a rational perspective, even if in doing so i hurt that other person. I accept that the choice is theirs......but it would still be unexpected if i, up until that point, believed they held similar moral principles to me (or at least shared an intersubjective ethical code). You push on personal responsibility is admirable, but its really not the right tool to discuss matter of what one ought to do. Bed time now. Its midnight over here in communist China. ;) I think our discrepancy is just over "expect". I'm using it in a "I think you should do XXX" kind of way, and I think you're using it in a "I think you will do XXX" kind of way. The former I don't think you should do, but the latter is IMHO morally fine. Since you're not judging them based on their decision, which the first requires. Okay, enough about moral issues that have nothing to do with the thread. I have yet to see anything where burning a lot of people for the "greater good" can ever be a good thing. On a related note, I heard recently that some 98,000 Iraqi civilians have supposedly died in the assault on Fallujah. This seems comparable, since it's a largish number of people, the reasons being put forward are "good" (we must save the Iraqis from themselves, yadda yadda), and yet, we still have to ask; why is it morally OK that almost (perhaps more, by now) 100,000 of the people the US is supposedly there to help have been killed by US attacks? It's like saying "we know there's an enemy garrison in that town, so let's seal the gates from the outside and torch it." And a note; I'm not anti-American. I used to be, but that was when I was young and impetuous. I'm old and supposedly wise enough now to realize there's a difference between Americans, and their military and government. And don't turn this into a Bush/Kerry thing, I'm not convinced Kerry would have been that much better. He'd have to finish the war or look like a pansy. Anyway, back to the point; I submit that the people thinking this devil's actions were "ok" are also fine with the 100,000 innocents killed in the recent attacks. Because the situations seem similar, morally; innocents killed to serve the "greater good", and by an entity that is claiming to be Good in a big way.
ck2001wendt 11-29-04, 03:37 PM	Hmmmm...why not weigh in? My feeling is that the action was Lawful or Neutral Evil. Now, I tend to be a cultural relativist; if your culture believes it's acceptable to act in a certain way, then you can't be blamed for your actions when another culture comes in and calls you evil. For example: A Kingdom with a long history of getting screwed by powerful plagues passes and edict in which all those who have the Plague (which I assume of course Remove Disease cannot cure) must be euthanized. This is fundamentally a Lawful Neutral act. A. It's not good, because you're ending innocent life prematurely (even if by only a few days). B. It's not evil, because you're possibly saving thousands or tens of thousands of lives before the Plague can spread (and it has in the past). Furthermore, the euthanasia is being meted out in the most merciful way possible (a powerful, painless poison, for ex.) C. It's Lawful, because you're putting the interests of the state above all things. Now, this can also be dealt with in a fundamentally Good way. Instead of putting everyone to the sword, you can give them the opportunity to take the poison (which saves them pain later) OR you quarantine the town, and wait for the Plague to subside. Note that there would be nothing Evil about killing those who try and violate the quarentine (though an Exalted character would probably try and subdue them and take them back). ON THE OTHER HAND: What happened in this case is Evil on multiple counts: 1. In some socities it might be appropriate, or even welcomed by the sick, to cremate Plague victims while they are still alive (the cultural relativist defense). That defense doesn't work here, because you've failed to take into account the needs and wishes in the culture with which you're interacting. My guess is human norms on Plague victims include Quarantine and possibly a HUMANE euthanasia, but not being cremated alive. Cremated dead, yes. But not alive. 2. I'll reemphasize the lack of mercy in your actions. You can kill someone and be merciful (that's what the death penalty generally strives for, even if it often fails). You can also care for Plague victims in a merciful fashion. Coup de Gracing the unconscious or giving them a strong poison would strongly be preferable to the way you chose to handle the situation (a slow, incrediby painful death...not that I've ever been burned alive). 3. Finally, your thought process wasn't based on mercy or concern for the humans. It was based on your profit margins. Above all, you knowingly ended the lives of others to make your life easier. Evillll.... It was a good piece of roleplaying, I'll give you that, but Evil to the core.
Melpomene 11-29-04, 03:58 PM	Er... I don't really want to be dragged into this again, but I have to get some ideas out or they'll fester and become infected. 1.) Please, stop saying it was good rollplaying. He didn't *want* it to be evil. He wasn't *trying* to be evil. You can't say he was roleplaying well if he didn't mean to. Sorry to the above poster, your saying it was just the last straw. 2.) Devils don't have to be evil. They can ascend, or try to rise above, or drop thier cause, or simply have days when they're "off." Players decide how to play these things, and, while a devil will almost always be LE, it isn't strictly so. 3.) Don't go, "Oh, look, the devil sneezed! What an unspeakable LE act!" Just because a devil does it, it doen't have to be evil. Even a LE devil does a few things each day that are boring, humdrum, and utterly un-LE. :rant: :blush: Um... sorry... just argue around me, that's all I have to say.
Melpomene 11-29-04, 03:59 PM	...and I'm on top of a new page, too.. :raincloud
ck2001wendt 11-29-04, 04:08 PM	Er... I don't really want to be dragged into this again, but I have to get some ideas out or they'll fester and become infected. 1.) Please, stop saying it was good rollplaying. He didn't *want* it to be evil. He wasn't *trying* to be evil. You can't say he was roleplaying well if he didn't mean to. Sorry to the above poster, your saying it was just the last straw. No problem...I thought for SURE the OP was being done tongue in cheek...but I could have been wrong. If not though, this player did exactly what an unreformed/semi-reformed Devil would have done in that situation...I guess they were RPing in spite of themselves, then.
Melpomene 11-29-04, 04:11 PM	:angelhide
The Man from Uncle 11-29-04, 07:43 PM	Thorak, you have still got a few universals lurking under that subjectivist position. The idea that people are entitled to their own moral opinion on the condition that it does not infringe on your own liberty for example. I am sure that in the right situation you'd extend that line of no interference to beyond your own family and friends, maybe to a neighbour, or the girl who sells newspapers in the shop on the corner, to a child you never met but saw across the road while on holiday..... You might never think it will extend to your own country, or someone elses, but you are already on the slope of where there is no fixed point of safe return. You seem more to be bound to the idea that you have a series of duties or responsibilities (much the same as anyone else does) and that what you give other people the option of believing is what the content of those duties are. Its not actually an untennable moral theory at all, but it does lead to exactly the same problem that stict moral objectivism does. And that is, at a certain point you think you have the right to enforce your theory on others (it may start with defence of your personal liberty, but circumstances can pull you further).....which undermines it as strictly subjective. A better way to define your moral position (or opinion) is with the content of what you believe and not in whether you think it universal or personal. If it is internally coherant (which even for a subjectivist it must be), perhaps you can encourage others to appreciate it and perhaps even expose inconsistancies in what they believe. That type of endevour is more useful to mankind than a simple 'you have your opinions and i have mine' attitude which in fact leads to conflict just as much as the 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude. I mean that in absolutely no way to be insulting, i just thought you'd benefit from a moral prod that didn't come from 'The Man'. I have to say i am skeptical about any society (if the word can still be used) that has anarchy as a describer. I am not much of a political philosopher, accept where it overlaps with Ethics, but i did do a few courses as part of my degree. I understood at the time that Anarcho-Capitalism was the only form of anarchy that could even truly exist and that if it did it would likely lead to a barbaric state for all mankind (effectively there are no rules but market forces). But i will look up Robert A. Heinlein and type Rational Anarchy into a search engine or two and see what i am missing. As for the Demon burning people.......evil because of a natural disposition towards evil. Not because of a particularly evil intent, nor because of the act having the natural property of evil. Evil is non-natural normative property that is observed of a situation, not one that exists apart from the observer.
Thorak 11-29-04, 10:04 PM	Just a comment; my remarks about the action being horribly horribly evil stand, regardless of whether he's a devil or a Celestial. I was commenting on the action, and his ethnicity wasn't a factor whatsoever.
1BadazzBaatezu 11-29-04, 10:20 PM	This will make some people smile, and make some people grind their teeth in anger, but here is where I unveil the REAL evil means to a good end. (Although Melpomene may just want to rend me limb from limb...) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that my actions in that scenario were, in fact, Lawful Evil. I was pursuing profit at the expense of many lives, and that is evil. Posting the scenario on the WotC boards and asking for everyone to debate it, that was also LE. My intended purpose was to play the fool, in an attempt to squeeze intelligent conversation out of a board I had found overpopulated with people who actually understand "1337" and that kind of crap. The expiriment worked beautifully, and I apologize to those who got heated in the debate. Thank you all, and I enjoyed the posts.
Melpomene 11-29-04, 10:31 PM	Heh. 1.) Well, obviously, there is a shadow of a doubt, silly. :P 2.) If you wanted to be cruel, then yeah, you'd be evil. 3.) 1'nn s00ry j00 f331 tIn@t w@y. 4.) Nah, I don't tear people apart. However, I'm not above selling out to Shemeska for vengance. (...as well as being unusually turned on at the though of her tormenting my soul for eternity)
PhaedrusXY 11-29-04, 10:57 PM	Again, it was without malace of intent. If you don't have evil intent, you can do anything you want and it's still not evil. Ask a formain.Not within the rule set of D&D. There are some things that are inherently evil. Just casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is most definitely 100% without a doubt an evil act, even if you cast it to save a village full of innocent children, or something. You may not agree with this intepretation of alignment, but it doesn't change the rules as written. I agree that the act was evil because it was done in a terribly painful and unmerciful manner. You could have killed them first and then burned their corpses, instead of burning them to death.
Melpomene 11-29-04, 11:01 PM	You could have killed them first and then burned their corpses, instead of burning them to death. *snip* ::giggles fiercely::
The Man from Uncle 11-30-04, 12:19 AM	Thorak, you have no arguement from me. Ethnicity is not a factor and the act, in any light of observation, was indeed horribly horribly evil. 1BadazzBaatezu, i have no idea what you are talking about. I (and i would imagine for the most part, Thorak too) relish the chance to have an informed discussion at this level on matters of morality (DnD related or not). You may perhaps suffer from an evil intent (i am honestly not sure), but you actions were to the satisfaction of the observers; ie they were goodly in consequence. Incidentally though, on my prima facie reading of your original post i was lead to believe that the well being of the goodly queen was desired for more than her bank balance. Which could be interprited as 'mislead, but with a good intent.' More the actions of a 'Retarded Good' character than of Lawful Evil.
The Man from Uncle 11-30-04, 12:28 AM	1BadazzBaatezu. On a more detailed reading of your original account i would say your second paragraph was ambiguous as to the full nature of your intent. (It could be read as interested in the queens safety 'only' because she is the key to good business, or interested in the queens safety along with your business interests.) You final paragraph, however, contxtualises your actions with a later explanation of why the act was something other than evil. Arguements were sighted that were aimed to mitigate both intent and action. As such I think Retarded Good is more appropriate than Lawful Evil.......which is a very uncanny coincidence......
Melpomene 11-30-04, 11:55 AM	Which, MfU, was something along the lines of what I was trying to say. Being hasty, misinformed, overbearing and overzealous doesn't make one evil. All it makes one is hasty, misinformed, overbearing and overzealous.
The Man from Uncle 12-01-04, 01:13 AM	That smacks to me of opportunism. I can't say i have any problem with that, but i recall your salient point being one of intent, not rashness.
The_Dark_One 12-01-04, 02:41 AM	Er... I don't really want to be dragged into this again, but I have to get some ideas out or they'll fester and become infected. 1.) Please, stop saying it was good rollplaying. He didn't *want* it to be evil. He wasn't *trying* to be evil. You can't say he was roleplaying well if he didn't mean to. Sorry to the above poster, your saying it was just the last straw. 2.) Devils don't have to be evil. They can ascend, or try to rise above, or drop thier cause, or simply have days when they're "off." Players decide how to play these things, and, while a devil will almost always be LE, it isn't strictly so. 3.) Don't go, "Oh, look, the devil sneezed! What an unspeakable LE act!" Just because a devil does it, it doen't have to be evil. Even a LE devil does a few things each day that are boring, humdrum, and utterly un-LE. :rant: :blush: Um... sorry... just argue around me, that's all I have to say. Yes, but this was an evil act commited by an evil being of evil alignment. The only thing that could have made the situation more saturated with evil was if the devil in question had been cheerfully singing "I've been workin on the railroad" while barbequeing the innocent villagers. This will make some people smile, and make some people grind their teeth in anger, but here is where I unveil the REAL evil means to a good end. (Although Melpomene may just want to rend me limb from limb...) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that my actions in that scenario were, in fact, Lawful Evil. I was pursuing profit at the expense of many lives, and that is evil. Posting the scenario on the WotC boards and asking for everyone to debate it, that was also LE. My intended purpose was to play the fool, in an attempt to squeeze intelligent conversation out of a board I had found overpopulated with people who actually understand "1337" and that kind of crap. The expiriment worked beautifully, and I apologize to those who got heated in the debate. Thank you all, and I enjoyed the posts. Spoilsport. :P We all realized that. We just wanted to continue the fight...er...debate for a few more pages. On a completely unrealted note: If you do something evil for a good reason, is your reason invalidated if you really enjoy committing the evil act?
MonkeyKing 12-01-04, 03:55 AM	in an attempt to squeeze intelligent conversation out of a board I had found overpopulated with people who actually understand "1337" and that kind of crap For anyone else who thought that 1337 was a particularly good year... 1337 (Leet = Elite) speak is the latest bastardisation of the English language by our 'friends' from across the Atlantic. It was developed by thousands of adolescent, spotty nerds with no life, poor literacy and non-existent personal hygiene in an attempt to make themselves appear clever, witty and socially acceptable amongst their peers who indulged in late night sessions of First-person Perspective Shooter (FPS) type video games such as the Quake series. It was intended as a method of encoding messages in such a way that they would become unreadable to the casual observer. This method of speaking has also been adopted by European gamers but in an ironical way, which, of course is lost on its inventors who, being American, are genetically blind to this form of humour. On a side note: MFU, it's good to see you've maintained an outlet for your self-important philosophical ramblings, I salute you sir. Say hi to your commie pals for me...
The Man from Uncle 12-01-04, 04:44 AM	They all say hi in return Monkey (they have no choice or freewill of their own, so they mostly just do what i tell them). Still not any clearer on what 1337 is about. Sounds like gibberish, but i have no idea how i am suppose to distinguish it from all the other gibberish being spoken. I would imagine though that its easier to master than philosophy texts. I found a sentance by Sidgwick in Methods in Ethics today with more than 400 words and at least 10 subclauses. Sigh......
FriendoftheDork 12-01-04, 05:34 AM	I'm going to steal it for my sig! (runs away with the trophy to never return to this thread). NOOO! I was going to do that! Now I'm never getting a sig.... sob*
Dispeyr 12-02-04, 04:17 AM	I'd have labeled the act as evil for a far more simple reason than any other one given. D&D RAW canon states that alignment is not subjective in the slightest bit. Even if the pit fiend clearly believed that by immolating those sick villagers, he paved the way for all sentient beings to enter their own personal paradises for all eternity, D&D as written states that killing innocents = Evil. Period. Were he a paladin, instafall, regardless of intent. You may now all proceed around me. :P
The Stray 12-02-04, 04:39 AM	NOOO! I was going to do that! Now I'm never getting a sig.... sob* Hey, go ahead and use it...I knew it was sig-worthy when I posted it. on a related note... Yes, but this was an evil act commited by an evil being of evil alignment. The only thing that could have made the situation more saturated with evil was if the devil in question had been cheerfully singing "I've been workin on the railroad" while barbequeing the innocent villagers. I am SO stealing this one for my (ever growing) quote list...
Callista 12-02-04, 08:51 PM	Yep. Evil. And very nice RP, by the way, for an Evil character. Some people I know would play Stupid Evil and just torch the entire village. But that wasn't very financially advantageous, so your character didn't do it. I applaud you. There *were* other ways, though. I mean--you could've simply quarantined the villagers, or had the village refuse to let travelers through, or used illusions to steer the queen's caravan around the village... But, honestly, why do you care if it's good or evil? Your character's a pit fiend--he won't care. And even if he does do a Good act, for his own purposes (say, maybe he starts up a charity in order to further his own reputation), he'll still be an Evil character.
Melpomene 12-02-04, 08:57 PM	::sigh:: I suppose I'm enamoured with the idea of a fiend becoming good... same as with angels falling... Still, I fully stand behind all I said, and will refer people to this thread when questions of what I feel on good and evil are braught up.
The Man from Uncle 12-02-04, 11:37 PM	Melpomene, i think you have made an interesting position. Well done for keeping the faith. I still think you should move your position on to an intents natural disposition, but there may be other ways to sure up your case too. As for the guy who said 'Refer to the rules' as a solution......you're an idiot on so many levels.
Kainy 12-03-04, 01:19 AM	The act of burning innocents is evil. D&D morals are absolutist, not relativist, check any official alignment ruling EVER. You're still lawful, still evil. Quite evil, in fact. I applaud this action. Reminds me when my human-hating ranger released a whole village into the forest and tracked them all down, one by one... good times.
The Man from Uncle 12-03-04, 02:40 AM	Kainy i bow to your mighty intellect. Official alignment rulings...of course....obviously the font of all knowledge! Man from Uncle wonders off sighing in disbelief muttering to the almighty about why he is relentlessly sent these people to test his faith......
Kainy 12-03-04, 07:28 PM	If you want to debate moral theory, go ahead. That's not spelled out in D&D. As far as a rules question, in relation to alignment, I'm goin by the RAW, and saying what is. If you want to change it by houserule, or whatever you wish, go ahead. I'm not here to debate Kant's Categorical Imperative vs. James's Utilitarianism, I'm here to talk about D&D. You know, the game? With rules and stuff? That we can follow to represent a fantasy reality in which we play characters? The question is what alignment do these actions fall in, and that's pretty damn clear by the RAW. As for whether the acts were good or evil, well, given my past two examples, Kant says they're evil, James says they're good, so long as the pit fiend believes it to be so and it affects his life in some way.
The Man from Uncle 12-04-04, 12:36 AM	...with slight pause to hear utterances shoulders drop further and shuffling away continues....on the wind can be heard.....'interesting reference to the father though'