@snobi what an odd comment. Nowhere did I say "is it evil for ME to ..." So I don't know where your comment came from. Also are you somehow under the impression that a spell casted by Someone isn't his power and thus don't qualify as their action? Are summons in your mind/world different from casting say, fireball? If that's the case then I could summon an army and have it attack a town and NOT go to jail since its not ME attacking the town... Or are you saying that ... Well I have no idea what you're getting at or your point, actually
|
@snobi what an odd comment. Nowhere did I say "is it evil for ME to ..." So I don't know where your comment came from.
My mistake. I assumed you were concerned with possible implications to your alignment, not with possible implications to the summoned creatures' alignments.
Are summons in your mind/world different from casting say, fireball?
Yes, those are two different things. You may end up killing someone with a fireball. You don't kill anyone when you summon.
If that's the case then I could summon an army and have it attack a town and NOT go to jail since its not ME attacking the town.?
You may or may not be guilty of summoning (if that's a crime, I guess you'd go to jail), but you're not guilty of killing anyone. (Unless the judge/jury gets it wrong and unjustly convicts you.)
so you are not responsible for the damage that your summons cause. That's like setting off a bomb and saying the explosion killed people not me., I'm going to see if my gm agrees because if so that amazing
Back on topic.
Say I researched a spell that could summon a devil that's on that this plain... Kind of like a forced teleportation into the circle. (kind of like "maker's call" summoner ability) would that still be evil? The devil is on your plain AND the proper target of the bounty.
Korthis:
For your specific example, I find it extremely iffy.
I'd declare it neutral at best, but probably evil.
The reason is that you're doing something that could be very dangerous to the local populous (if you make a mistake - which can happen - and it gets free), and the action is exploitive (you're taking advantage of the suffering of people and claiming their money for not solving their problems).
To your actual question, "Is it evil to kill evil for profit?", as someone else stated... not inherently, depending on what, exactly you mean.
Is your motive nothing but the profit (as your base sentence would indicate)? If so, you're evil. You are willing to kill for money, and, though you may be principled enough (lawful) to avoid any targets other than evil (that seems to be implied in the question, but it's not clearly stated), you are yourself still being evil, as your motivations are not pure.
(Your specific example, by the way, falls into this.)
Is your motive to end an evil and rid it from the world/omniverse? You're not necessarily evil. You can still be evil if you take evil methods (for example, you may seek to end evil - either in general or in specific - but if you sacrifice angels and/or innocent virgins*, for example, to do so, you're definitely still evil).
His motivations and methods.
Although he accepted contracts, that was really besides the point.
First, he accepted Contracts, but he wasn't bound by them.
He hunted, snooped, dug, spied, listened, tricked, and otherwise gathered as much information about the target as he possibly could. His contacts performed divinations, he got every piece of available information he could about someone before enacting the Contract. If, and only if, he determined the target was Worthy of death, did he enact the Contract.
(Interestingly, this, when combined with his excellent success rate, made his services seem more elite and exclusive, and thus more often sought-after. Also, if they needed to be stopped, but weren't Worthy of death, the authorities were often suddenly alerted to a great many points of irrefutable evidence - only if there was no other way would death occur.)
Twice, after delving deeply into his target's information (and discovering they were genuinely good people)... as well as those who made the Contract in the first place... he actually killed those who took out the Contract in the first place, claiming the money (he has to pay the bills somehow - being an herbal merchant doesn't really cover all the stuff he has to have or the palms he has to grease to be successful). The story the underworld took from it was that he'd been betrayed (and, in fact, he was) so he'd taken revenge... thus making him even more famous/infamous.
Second, he didn't always accept the highest Contract requested. He often accepted a worthier cause with a lower fee (or, in a rare few cases, no fee at all, when he became aware of the situation in the first place) instead. The money was never the goal, it was the byproduct and used for making him successful in what he did (poison, after all, is expensive).
Third, no one died except for the Contract (or, in the two cases, the ones that hired a Contract on a genuinely good person for evil and wicked motives). Liberal use of drow poison (or blue whinnis or oil of restfulness, depending) meant that there were a very large number of unconscious folk, while forced quiet (magic item) made it impossible to alert others. Minor illusions (magic items) made them seem to still be present and accounted for... and thus only the target ever actually died. (In this, he was actually fortunate - these were dangerous, difficult missions that he accomplished, and getting through without unnecessary killing was extremely harrowing.)
Fourth, and finally, he acted even when no one was paying him. If there were people in trouble, and he became aware of it, he acted with no prompting (or payment) whatsoever. He always attempted to get his payment value out of a mission (such as looting the non-Contract Target), but that wasn't always possible. His reputation led to Contracts, which led to the end of many problems, but he acted even without them.
Unlike your usual "kill and loot" type adventurer, his only source of income was otherwise being an herbalist... which didn't really cut it. Thus the acceptance of Contracts (something he couldn't afford to do without getting paid). And sometimes, even though he couldn't really afford it, he acted without compensation anyway. He always sought compensation - poison is expensive, and life costs money (especially for a traveling merchant). But if it wasn't available, he'd do what was good anyway, and act where the law (for whatever reason) couldn't or wouldn't - the law had failed, and the innocent suffered, so he acted on their behalf.
Many people on these forums decried him as evil for killing others, completely ignoring anything but the fact that he accepted money with intent of making someone stop breathing. And I understand that view.
But the money itself was never the motivating factor. His purpose was to help the innocent and down-trodden.
This, to me, is the core of what makes him not evil. Did he make a profit by killing evil? Yes. It was in a non-evil manner. Did he kill only to make a profit? No. That was the least of his reasons - to the point where it would be abandoned altogether, if necessary.
* This is not saying that all virgins are inherently "innocent", but rather using a specific example - one among many.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the amount of Team Jersey Morality in this thread disturbing.
I'm actually quite interested in this turn of phrase. Please explain, "Team Jersey"?
I'm actually quite interested in this turn of phrase. Please explain, "Team Jersey"?
As long as you're wearing the colors of Team Good, and doing the things you're doing to Team Evil, everything is OK. Including murder, torture, mind control, poison and, I kid you not, pox-infected blankets. That's Team Jersey Morality.
Team Jersey Morality is the first among many reasons why the Book of Exalted Deeds was such a monumental piece of shit. It finishes a chapter by explaining why poisoning and infecting people are evil acts, and then, in the very next chapter, you have poisons and diseases...that only affect Evil people, so using them is not just OK, it's an actual Good act.
As long as you're wearing the colors of Team Good, and doing the things you're doing to Team Evil, everything is OK. Including murder, torture, mind control, poison and, I kid you not, pox-infected blankets. That's Team Jersey Morality.
The thing is, that's not far off how the vast majority of people think. It's wrong to shoot people... unless it's Osama Bin Laden. It's wrong for me to lock people up in the basement... but when we do it to bad people it's called prison. It's wrong to punch people in the face... but when Batman punches The Joker it's fine.
Saying "we must not stoop to evil methods when fighting evil" is Lawful Good morality, not universal morality.
I'd like a definition for the term "evil method" because that seems to be subjective despite the alignment system being how it is.
I would say that killing evil for money is not evil. Not good either, but not evil.
so you are not responsible for the damage that your summons cause. That's like setting off a bomb and saying the explosion killed people not me., I'm going to see if my gm agrees because if so that amazing
Back on topic.
Say I researched a spell that could summon a devil that's on that this plain... Kind of like a forced teleportation into the circle. (kind of like "maker's call" summoner ability) would that still be evil? The devil is on your plain AND the proper target of the bounty.
If you are allowed to make a Spell like that. Your DM is likely in a coma and it wont matter. But i would say yes to the question.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
b) Evil, since you're summoning an evil creature to this plane for profit
That your plan involves killing the devil is sort of besides the point. Double-crossing your allies (planar or otherwise) is total bad-guy behavior.
Eh, summoning an evil creature may be technically an evil act (according to a designer's Word of God), but I don't believe it'd really push you over the edge. Evil spells are more complicated than "true" evil acts, like murder, and require that you talk to the GM to see how he interprets it.
Honestly, I've never seen a GM who would say summoning a fiendish riding dog turns you evil. After all, by that logic, True Neutral wizards would be forced to only summon celestials, and that seems a tad extreme. What's the point in being Neutral if you can't summon the odd demon, after all? ;D
Eh, I'm willing to be lenient on summoning spells, but calling spells? That kind of magic is always a big deal in fiction, especially when you're dealing with Demons/Devils/What-have-you.
I'm not saying it's insta-fall, and I wouldn't have much issue with a Neutral Wizard conjuring the occasional fiend, but in this case, where the motivation seems to be to make a quick buck? Nah, that's bad-guy behavior.
Quick buck by ridding the multiverse of a being literally made of evil?
Doesn't sound so evil a deed when you think about the big picture and such.
As long as you're wearing the colors of Team Good, and doing the things you're doing to Team Evil, everything is OK. Including murder, torture, mind control, poison and, I kid you not, pox-infected blankets. That's Team Jersey Morality.The thing is, that's not far off how the vast majority of people think. It's wrong to shoot people... unless it's Osama Bin Laden. It's wrong for me to lock people up in the basement... but when we do it to bad people it's called prison. It's wrong to punch people in the face... but when Batman punches The Joker it's fine.
Saying "we must not stoop to evil methods when fighting evil" is Lawful Good morality, not universal morality.
You're using a mighty slippery slope here. There's a lot of decision space between "initiating force against proven aggressor/transgressors" and genocide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're using a mighty slippery slope here. There's a lot of decision space between "initiating force against proven aggressor/transgressors" and genocide.As long as you're wearing the colors of Team Good, and doing the things you're doing to Team Evil, everything is OK. Including murder, torture, mind control, poison and, I kid you not, pox-infected blankets. That's Team Jersey Morality.The thing is, that's not far off how the vast majority of people think. It's wrong to shoot people... unless it's Osama Bin Laden. It's wrong for me to lock people up in the basement... but when we do it to bad people it's called prison. It's wrong to punch people in the face... but when Batman punches The Joker it's fine.
Saying "we must not stoop to evil methods when fighting evil" is Lawful Good morality, not universal morality.
Which runs afoul on the question of if genocide is actually evil. The idea of it being evil is actually a modern invention, and not even 80 years old yet. It wasn't uncommon in Medieval times or earlier for it to be the standard operating procedure for both sides.
Unfortunately, even in modern times, the answer still isn't that clear-cut; there's a number of books, movies, and thought experiments where genocide is shown to be the preferable option over what would happen if it isn't done. And that's before you get into the even more grey areas.
It gets even worse in games like this, where an entire species can actually be inherently evil by their very nature, pass on that evil to their children through genetics, and leave a scenario where genocide against them is the only way to stamp that evil out.
Ummm... underlying the metaphysics of the D&D/PF universes is some sort of assumption that souls matter. Demons, devils, angels and other outsiders are expressions of souls, and are created when mortals die. Or otherwise put: There is a certain amount of supernatural Evil-stuff, and but for redemption and good acts, it remains the same no matter what you do. Killing a devil merely sends a refined piece of Evil-stuff back to Hell. Given the sheer amount of devils in existence, it's insignificant and will not affect the power of Hell in the least. So why would it be a good act to summon a devil only to kill it? You bring a glob of aware, vicious taint into your world, linking it closer to Hell. You cause suffering and death for sport. You take risks that are very real, and the consequences could be horrendous. And not only do you freely and knowingly do this, your reason for doing so is MONEY. Yeah, sure. Brilliant. Sounds like a pretty textbook case of an Evil act to me.
There seems to still be some confusion regarding the spell used to bring the Devil.
It's a calling spell. Not a summoning spell.
The Devil is physically brought to the place of casting. And if it is killed then it is dead forever.
And if you use Planar Binding to bring up a devil, the spell has the [lawful] and [evil] descriptors. Thus casting it is a Lawful and an Evil act.
While I'm unsure if it's a good or evil act, I'd have to wonder if Hell would really take this lying down... the fallout from this would be a prime example of paving the road to hell with good intentions.
Color me interested...
@liam so what happens in your world at level 1? I summon an eagle, it swoops in and attacks an enemy, is obliterated the next roundwith its I think 6 hp. I cant summon eagles again until ritual... That rather sucks for summoners everywhere. Summons are used incombat all the time for crowd control/ tanking. If a summon an auroch and it gets battered does it come back with half health next time?
@calybos no. summoned creatures are (creations) not (calling). They are no more real than any other spell that disappears when the duration expires.
Also, it wasn't for amusement or entertainment, just money.
Just so we're all clear, when I started this post, this post was the last one that existed and had been made seven minutes ago. It's way too long, in other words.
(Also, I slept on it.)
As long as you're wearing the colors of Team Good, and doing the things you're doing to Team Evil, everything is OK. Including murder, torture, mind control, poison and, I kid you not, pox-infected blankets. That's Team Jersey Morality.
Team Jersey Morality is the first among many reasons why the Book of Exalted Deeds was such a monumental piece of s$&#. It finishes a chapter by explaining why poisoning and infecting people are evil acts, and then, in the very next chapter, you have poisons and diseases...that only affect Evil people, so using them is not just OK, it's an actual Good act.
Interesting, thanks! I'm very curious to know if you find my own response to be Jersey Morality.
I will note, however, that I don't fault Book of Exalted Deeds for creating "evil-only poison" and "evil-only disease"... rather, I fault it for decrying poison and disease as inherently evil in the first place. Usually evil, I'll agree with right off the bat. Always evil is just silly (otherwise Couatls would be incapable of being good, as just one example off the top of my head).
The fact that such things only affect those who've acquired an evil alignment is, in fact, very much so, a good thing in my book.
I think some (perhaps most) of the very significant (comprehensible) disconnect is the varying comprehension of, apparent nature of, and acquisition of "evil" from person to person; as well as where you sit on the Sliding Scale of Idealism versus Cynicism at any given moment or idea.
In other words, while we all agree that "Evil is bad", many of us don't agree on what it takes to be, in fact, evil. In fact, we don't agree on morality as applied in Pathfinder, even though we would likely often agree that a given instance of something is bad in real life.
Acquisition: "How does one become evil?"
There are three major concepts I've seen propounded about alignment: passive alignment, active alignment, and inherent alignment. All of these are valid understandings, though obviously some are stronger or weaker, more or less popular, and more or less strongly encoded into the game system than others.
While many would argue otherwise (and I understand this), I would argue that a person can be good or evil without making Great Deeds for either cause, because, ultimately, it simply means they haven't been tested yet - they lack the opportunity, but not the nature or will. They have (consciously or not) actively decided in their own mind or heart what is most important to themselves, and the ultimate answer is them: above all other concerns, they want to take care of themselves and their wants and their needs, to the point that the desires of others (heck, the lives of others) are nothing. This active nature means that "Passive" is something of a misnomer... but it's the only one I can really think of, because they haven't had the opportunity (to their way of thinking) to act upon it yet.
That said, in the real world, it is impossible to know what someone is inside of themselves before they act... and if there were a method of doing so, many would probably consider it some sort of privacy violation (personally, I wouldn't agree - were it detectable, I would consider it imperative that it be noted in general as, if someone is evil, I want to know it, and if I'm evil, I want you to know it, so that we have a clear basis of communication and standing).
In Pathfinder, however, if they are powerful enough in spirit, one can know their general nature, even if they've not been tested. The fact that they ultimately don't care about anyone or anything other than themselves is extremely detrimental to the propriety of trusting them with anything* (be it people or goods). Their innate skill, power, or whatever is not worthwhile because they aren't trustworthy - they're evil.
And yet, this is where the Objective measuring stick of Pathfinder morality (and ethicality) generally hits the most hiccups. Because judgement in lieu of any action is so genuinely terrible and so genuinely alien to us in our world, how can it be countenanced in another?
In any event, Passive Alignment isn't really the best method of passing active judgement... and obviously someone with a Passive Alignment hasn't earned any active response by their actions, thus ensuring that Passive Alignment isn't the thing to act against them on. It is informative (when known and noted), not prescriptive in response.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient (INT 3 or higher) beings.
. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Looking at the larger definitions in more detail, we find:
Although not a perfect definition, "altruism" can be summed up as "self-sacrifice for others" (or, at least, the willingness to do so in the appropriate contexts).
"Respect" is esteem for the sense of worth or excellence of a person.
"Concern" is a little more ambiguous, but probably definition number 2 or 5 fit the best - "interest or engage" or "a matter engaging attention, interest, or care, or that affects a person's welfare or happiness".
"Dignity" is next, and while we generally refer to it as definition 2 or 5 (probably what is meant: "nobility or elevation of character" or "a sign or token of respect"), I find number one very compelling as well, "bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation", and even "elevated rank, office, station, etc" is compelling here.
Concern is paired with Dignity, generating the idea of a strong interest or engagement with an elevated rank/respect for... sentient creatures.
"Sentient" creatures are those that are self-aware. In PF, this means with an INT of 3 or higher.
So, really, there's nothing there that's all that surprising or confusing. We generally agree.
Well, maybe evil will help clear up our differentiation?
"Hurting" means to injure, cause bodily harm, damage, decrease efficiency of function, adversely affect, cause mental pain or grief, yadda-yadda-yadda, we know what "hurt" means.
"Oppressing"! Now here is something we can talk about! "To burden with cruel and unjust impositions and restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of power; to lie heavily upon (the mind, a person, etc), to weigh down (as sleep or weariness does); to put down, subdue, or suppress; to press upon, or crush" - now those are some things we can talk about (though, granted, the last two are archaic).
And... "Killing"! We know what killing is. It's killing. Let's move on.
So, now we've got some strong stuff to work with! But... wait. Aren't good creatures meant to kill as well? But if evil implies killing... doesn't that negate any goodness done?
To a point... but not exactly. I look at it similarly to a math proof.
"All poodles are dogs. Not all dogs are poodles."
This is a classic example of a math proof - while all poodles are, by definition, dogs (a specific kind of dog, to be precise), not all dogs are poodles - there are many kinds of dogs, of which poodles are only one. Unfortunately for coming to an easy conclusion, despite being an objective alignment, there is not any form of simplistic absolute here. Instead, it becomes a little vague... do to a singular word.
In this case, the most important word here is "implies". As in evil implies <insert stuff here>, instead of evil is <insert stuff here>. That implies lets us know that it's possible to be evil without the stuff listed - but it's probably there nonetheless. Evil, by definition, then, implies hurting, oppression, and killing. But hurting, oppression, and/or killing don't automatically imply evil. Upon looking at them closely, in fact, only oppression is inherently evil, as it notes that it is "unjust" and "cruel". These are broadly agreed to be morally wrong, and thus evil. But what about harm and killing?
Well, obviously (at least I would hope), good does not seek harm and killing as a "first resort" (otherwise, it, too, would imply both). That said, it can, and, sometimes, must resort to harm and killing - the fact that it implies concern for the dignity of sentient creatures in a world where other creatures specifically oppress, harm, and kill those creatures means that either good must allow this to happen (thus negating its moral superiority) or engage in actions that will bring harm or even killing upon that evil.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
<snip>
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
The act of protection will sometimes require violence, which in turn, yields harm and killing.
Thus it is the manner of harm or killing that is debated... and if anything else can be done other than harm or killing, and if so, what.
Raping then murdering someone? Evil. We agree.
Torturing then murdering someone? Evil. We agree again. (Though some would begin to argue that the ends justify the means, depending on what is at stake.)
Killing someone? Eh... either you accept that this can be good, or you never play Pathfinder with a good alignment... or you do and die really, really often and lose all the adventure paths... or you have some other method of ending evil forever. This is a fundamental part of the BIG HEROES archetype - the catharsis of this kind of fantasy is that we never get to engage in violence in real life (and I strongly recommend against it, 'cause violence is almost never the answer), but in PF we get to take it to the villains themselves. We are allowed to express our rage and frustration at the evils of the world in a violent manner that we otherwise could not and, in fact, should not (and for most, it should be noted, probably would not, even if given the chance - people usually don't like to have violence perpetrated against them).
In any event, the interesting thing is that the only thing Good is slated to protect is the innocent. But... what does "innocent" mean?
"Innocent" means "free from moral wrong," "free from legal wrong," "not involving evil intent or motive," "not causing physical or moral injury", and "devoid (usually followed by 'of'),".
So, then, Good doesn't hurt those who have done nothing morally or legally wrong, does not involve evil intent or motive, or is not causing physical pain or moral injury or is not "devoid of".
And here's the question: do all of them have to apply for a person to be considered "innocent", or just one of them? If only one of them does apply, are all of them equal ()? If not, what happens when two of them clash - as in, what happens when someone does something leaving them legally innocent, but morally evil, as one example?
All of that said, I've absolutely no problem with the mass destruction of inherently evil creatures. Mikaze noted the concept of Originest (which I take as being similar to Racist, Sexist, or other "-ist"). The idea that you hate or otherwise display prejudice for a creature just because (in this case) their origin is from a certain locale. I can see why the concept could make people very uncomfortable.
To me, however, there is something exceedingly important to keep in mind: they are evil. The theoretical possibility to transform them by persuasion is there, but, unlike any other living creature, they are inherently evil. And, what's more, they got that way due to a lifetime of evil choices... with few exceptions. And while those few exceptions are terrible, I feel absolutely no concern destroying an evil zombie because it's going to cause harm (that's its nature) and, in a similar way, there is no getting around the fact that the inherently evil thing is going to cause harm.
Let me be clear. I believe in redemption. Heck, I'm running a game (Council of Thieves) for a redeemed succubus (her name is Angel, and she is a succubus with the Angel subtype - a gift of Arazni shortly before Tar-Baphon destroyed her; lots of awesome story, there). If, on the other hand, I had a method of instantly and permanently destroying eliminating every demon and qlippoth, devil, and/or daemon, I'd take it without hesitation. The reason is that these are evil creatures made of evil desires and evil substance - they are, in the end, going to do evil. Unless you just watched the daggum thing form for the first time and you have a guaranteed method of shedding its evil, it's going to do evil. This is its nature. Yes, if possible, use every method to convert every creature. But the risk/reward ratio in this case will not and cannot pay off: in the end, if you leave them alive, you are responsible for any evil they cause (that is, the cruel and unjust harming of innocents). That is your sin, since you had the opportunity to stop it and refused to take it.
This is a very uncomfortable space, however. It's uncomfortable because, in the real world, such arguments have been made about humans. Those who engage in such behavior are, themselves, thoroughly evil. The problem with applying our real-world view is - we have nothing like these fantasy creature.
Let's take a design space for a moment. In real life, humanity, as a whole, abhors cockroaches. We take whatever methods are available to us to eliminate them. This is an entirely reasonable response. Cockroaches are, by their nature, harmful to humans, as carriers of disease. If we had some method of ensuring that they (all of them) would never bite, are disease-free and never dirty? Sure, let's let them live. But we don't. Now, let's take this a step further. Let's take cockroaches, and give them a stinger-tail and more tightly controlled flight, like a wasp, and pincer-claws like a scorpion; also their bite is poisonous like a spider's and their stinger has scorpion-like venom. Now these are pretty terrible creatures. But let's go a step further. Let's make them suck blood like mosquitoes (or even better, like ticks), and devour stuff like locusts, and they have the aggression of, oh, I dunno, killer bees (I know there are probably more aggressive creatures - I'm just not thinking of them). Now lets make it so that they are the apex predator - as in, nothing else hunts them -, and that they have effectively limitless range (as in there are no "zones" that they are limited to inhabiting... like cockroaches). And, finally, they carry all the diseases that the all of the base creatures are so famous for. All told, what we have created is one of the most terrifying things imaginable. Humanity would be in extreme danger from these creatures in a way that they aren't from any of their constituent parts (I'm also pretty sure that the specific elements all coming together are completely impossible, but, you know, we're imagining, here.)
See, even if some of these creatures could be captured and tamed, the world, as a whole, would be better off without them. A few, exceedingly rare, specimens might be kept for study (though that would be recklessly dangerous, if sci-fi and fantasy has taught me anything), but if there was a method of ensuring the complete elimination of the above creatures, I'd be all over that. And these creatures, ultimately, wouldn't be evil - they'd not have the concept of good or evil. They couldn't morally decide. They are, simply, a living threat.
Evil outsiders, on the other hand, are every bit as awful as those critters we noted above, except worse: they have sentience. Whereas the monstrous creature we created just kind of mindlessly follows its own cycle of existence, evil outsiders actively seek to spread their particular brand of misfortune as far and wide as they can. They will do this for the same reason other creatures eat and breathe: it is a natural part of them and what they do.
Again, though, depending on where you sit on the sliding scale of idealism v. cynicism, you may entirely disagree. I understand that disagreement. To me, though, the fact that eliminating fiends means, on the whole, protection for innocents, outweighs any question of whether or not the actions should be engaged in. This is the nature of having not only an objective morality system, but a knowable objective morality system.
If, on the other hand, there was a safe, consistent, reliable method of redeeming the inherently evil creatures instead, I'd jump all over that.
Apparent Nature: "What, exactly, is evil like?"
I'd suggest that this is fairly solidly covered above. Evil is the elevation of the self** to the extent that one willingly engages is overly (and unjustly) harmful acts against a (relative) innocent. Fairly straight-forward answer. The question, though, is "is it evil to do evil to evil." I would definitely say that, as Ender Wiggins said, "How we win matters," ... the problem, though, is that he was not facing an inherently evil race.
Is any atrocity, then, viable because of this? No.
Is total extinction? ... yes, at least in my opinion; presupposing no innocents get hurt, it certainly is. However, due to the difference on our interpretations of "innocence" and where that bar is...
Personal Comprehension: "What, then, does this all mean?"
... everyone - everyone - will have a different answer, here. Thus all the disagreement.
Ultimately, we agree that evil is bad and that something needs to be done about it. What the limit of that is differs between all of us.
There are certain things that are clearly not applicable - those things which bring no appreciable benefit to anyone or anything other than yourself and serve no purpose other than that are clearly selfish, and thus evil. On the other hand those actions that are not taken for the sake of benefit to yourself (at least compared to everyone else) are not inherently evil. They can be, sure, but they're not inherently evil.
In other words, being evil to evil is a no-go. But due to the fact that evil is evil, there are behaviors that are acceptable to take against it that are not acceptable to take against non-evil creatures. The threshold of those acceptable actions vary with the depth and nature of the evil in question. In any event, those actions do not, in and of themselves, become good actions (though they can skew towards it, depending on what we're talking about) but, instead, cease being evil actions in that context.
In other words, stabbing a non-evil peasant is evil, but stabbing a murderer attempting to kill you or someone you care about*** isn't.
* This concept is also highly problematic in our world. There is, of course, the popular idea that if you trust someone with something they will, hopefully, become worthy of that trust. I would generally (though not always) suggest that such a person is probably neutral - or even good - to begin with, rather than evil. In this case, they've never had the opportunity to be something other than what their life has led them to be, but, upon being given the opportunity, they can allow their own nature to shine through. But, you know, we can't know how it would suss out here, because, obviously, we can't detect peoples' alignments. :)
** Note that "the self" can really be anything here - the self is a stand in for one's own thoughts, ideas, beliefs, hopes, dreams, philosophy, etc.
*** "Someone you care about" is actually a very broad term in this context. For most good people, that means, "people".
@calybos no. summoned creatures are (creations) not (calling). They are no more real than any other spell that disappears when the duration expires.
Okay, can someone link me to what we're talking about, here?
Because summons are conjuration (summoning) spells, as far as I can tell, not (creation) spells.
Except its not, its rare but even demon lords can be redeemed in cannon. Also not all adventurers are murder hobos I'll have you know I happen to have a very nice extra planar home I can access wherever I am.You're using a mighty slippery slope here. There's a lot of decision space between "initiating force against proven aggressor/transgressors" and genocide.As long as you're wearing the colors of Team Good, and doing the things you're doing to Team Evil, everything is OK. Including murder, torture, mind control, poison and, I kid you not, pox-infected blankets. That's Team Jersey Morality.The thing is, that's not far off how the vast majority of people think. It's wrong to shoot people... unless it's Osama Bin Laden. It's wrong for me to lock people up in the basement... but when we do it to bad people it's called prison. It's wrong to punch people in the face... but when Batman punches The Joker it's fine.
Saying "we must not stoop to evil methods when fighting evil" is Lawful Good morality, not universal morality.Which runs afoul on the question of if genocide is actually evil. The idea of it being evil is actually a modern invention, and not even 80 years old yet. It wasn't uncommon in Medieval times or earlier for it to be the standard operating procedure for both sides.
Unfortunately, even in modern times, the answer still isn't that clear-cut; there's a number of books, movies, and thought experiments where genocide is shown to be the preferable option over what would happen if it isn't done. And that's before you get into the even more grey areas.
It gets even worse in games like this, where an entire species can actually be inherently evil by their very nature, pass on that evil to their children through genetics, and leave a scenario where genocide against them is the only way to stamp that evil out.
That is true only of some games. Canon also states that, for the most part, outsiders are one of only two cases where alignment is hardcoded. So a good demon lord is an extreme exception, not the rule, and probably required a lot of effort to get to that point.
Wow, you're right. I guess I read creation's description under conjuring and got the two confused. That puts a whole new spin on things lol
Okay, cool. So long as we're on the same page. I was really getting confused!
So, long introduction and anecdotes aside; is it evil to set up say 6 to 10 dire lions, have them ready an action, and then summon a bearded devil (lesser planar binding) in the midst of them? Not from a "the bigger devils will eventually retaliate" point of view but from an alignment point of view?
If you are a good hero doing it against evil, it is good.
If you are an evil agent doing it against good, neutral or evil, it is evil.
If you are neutral the dm may change your alignment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mikaze noted the concept of Originest (which I take as being similar to Racist, Sexist, or other "-ist").
Nah, it's a very different animal. :)
I could never hack it as an originist, but the Origenist outlook has been something that's really clicked with me for a long time now.
cuz I'm so origenal[/hipster]
Mikaze noted the concept of Originest (which I take as being similar to Racist, Sexist, or other "-ist").Nah, it's a very different animal. :)
I could never hack it as an originist, but the Origenist outlook has been something that's really clicked with me for a long time now.
cuz I'm so origenal[/hipster]
Awesome! Also, I'd totally forgotten about Origen of Alexandria - not the concept, not even really him, but I wouldn't have been able to summon up his name (and obviously didn't recognize it in the context you used it). I should really re-read that stuff at some point. Alas, my classes were so long ago.
But, see, that's what being dyslexic, ADD, hasty, and kind of presuming that something similar happened with you gets me. I'd read it not as you actually being an originest, but rather your attempt to say something else. I was, at least, sort of right. (I was just wrong in presuming that you had made a mistake. I should know better by now.) In any event, that's why I worded it as I did - i.e. you "noted the concept of" instead of you actually being one. 'Cause I knew you would (and really could) never be. :)
(Also, I heart that pun.)