Take a step back then. Imagine yourself in a world where there is no pre-existing framework created by others to define what morality is or to give you an example (even a negative one) of who you 'should' be. Would you still choose to be a 'moral person' in a cultural and philosophical vacuum?I...don't know, actually...
Okay, follow me down the rabbit hole a little further then:
If no human being had ever felt guilt, all of our culture (which is essentially just morality transmitted through time via language) would be reduced to set of binary fair/unfair primate-style interactions. It wouldn't be a culture at all, it would just be group dynamics and dominance assertion.
We would be, in essence, amoral, as fairness isn't about right and wrong at all, it's about resource acquisition. No guilt, no morality, no culture.
This is why I say that guilt is the basis of sentience. It's possible to exist (as an individual, and as an exception to the norm) inside a pre-existing cultural framework without experiencing guilt yourself, but it's not possible to generate a culture (as a species) without morality. It's not only not possible, it's entirely unnecessary. Abstract thought will only get a species so far without a something beyond resource acquisition to apply it to.
All 2cp, of course. I've got Apsergers, so I'm on the outside looking in to a certain degree as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, follow me down the rabbit hole a little further then:
If no human being had ever felt guilt, all of our culture (which is essentially just morality transmitted through time via language) would be reduced to set of binary fair/unfair primate-style interactions. It wouldn't be a culture at all, it would just be group dynamics and dominance assertion.
We would be, in essence, amoral, as fairness isn't about right and wrong at all, it's about resource acquisition. No guilt, no morality, no culture.
This is why I say that guilt is the basis of sentience. It's possible to exist (as an individual, and as an exception to the norm) inside a pre-existing cultural framework without guilt, but it's not possible to generate a culture (as a species) without morality. It's not only not possible, it's entirely unnecessary. Abstract thought will only get you so far without a something beyond resource acquisition to apply it to.
I'm not clear on whether that's actually true. Even without guilt, having principles and a code of behavior is possible, as is caring about people, with those capacities I think a cultural framework can be orchestrated. It might be seriously different than our current culture, but it seems possible.
All 2cp, of course. I've got Apsergers, so I'm on the outside looking in to a certain degree as well.
Well, as you know, me too (and that diagnosis is for sure and official, unlike the 'no guilt' thing, which is just personal observation).
Fellow Aspie high five!
*joins in high-five*
So we're high fifteen now. Excellent.
I'm not clear on whether that's actually true. Even without guilt, having principles and a code of behavior is possible, as is caring about people, with those capacities I think a cultural framework can be orchestrated. It might be seriously different than our current culture, but it seems possible.
Except for the bit about principles (I do this thing because it is morally correctly), I agree.
But...a wolf pack demonstrably has a transmitted set of accepted behaviors, and its members are capable of displaying affection. I don't think that's equivalent to a culture.
But these are directly contrary to primate group dynamics. I'd say this is actually excellent evidence that without a shift towards morality you can't get to where we are from where we were:
1. Share with the group, things should be done for the betterment of the group if it doesn't hurt individual survival chance.
Alpha gets the most food, most opportunities to breed, regardless of the survival chances of group members with lower status.
2. Don't create infighting.
Regular infighting over resources and status.
3. Do not harm or stand aside and watch fellow beings in your group being harmed.
4. Do not kill or stand aside and watch fellow beings in your group being killed.
Regular infanticide by alphas to destroy progeny of anyone other than themselves.
Fitness for survival isn't about the group, it's about individual pairs and which one can produce the most non-congentially defective offspring.
The ability to feel guilt, and to have others transmit their judgement of our guilt, is the a factor that can begin to account for all of these behaviors being reduced. I'm honestly hard pressed to think of what other single factor could account for it. (and not just because finding another factor might be devastating to my carefully constructed argument. lol)
True enough, but this is a new force acting on the group. The chimps clearly haven't chosen the state of affairs, despite their apparent willingness to embrace it and propagate it.
"What happens to the group if we remove the bad actors?"
What does that most accurately emulate if not humanities moral judgements and our practice of segregating those who act in ways that the culture has deemed unacceptable?
|
|
Actually you'll find that most commonly in lower level primates. Things like chimpanzees and such.
I'll give you, survival of the fittest still takes effect.
However, studies have shown even in fiercely violent primates, such as said chimpanzees where social status is based off beating the crap out of each other, chimpanzees actually will actively shun those who fight unnecessarily. Recent Sociology shows that group members acting out, against the social norms of the group, would actually be denied access to the group, grooming, etc.
Terribly sorry to inform you, but in recent sociology studies, they removed all of the alphas from a group of chimpanzees. Without the previous higher ends on the male food chain, the group became quite peaceful. When new chimpanzees were introduced and tried to assert dominance through violence, the entire group ostracized them until they changed behavior, or were eventually removed.
Basically the violence was a learned behavior, that when those who practiced such were removed, was found to be removed from the system entirely.
For the record, I'd strongly argue that chimpanzees are a bad argument for anything being 'purely instinctual'. I'd personally bet that they're solidly above the sapience threshold and thus capable of morality and decision making in the same manner (if not with anywhere near the same complexity) as we do. In Pathfinder terms I'd say they have Int 3-4 (or maybe even a bit higher, though that's hard to prove) using the same scale as humans.
An example: DeathwebThis discussion assumes that you do not have any great cause--you simply want to live and will do whatever it takes to keep doing that, though you may feel really cruddy about it.
This is evil. The fact that the necessity of his continued existence requires him to do so does not change he fact it is evil. Evil "will do whatever it takes to keep doing that". Good and neutral, alignments that both hold life itself as valuable and important, if staying true to their alignments would rather end their own life then slaughter so many others.
The difference between sentient, logically thinking beings and animals is reasoned choice. Animals have no context of good and evil. They only do what they do to live and continue but they have no reasoned ability to choose not to.
Sentient creatures do. And that is why alignments exist. Not to allow you to rationalize any choice into the 'good alignment' but to represent that sentient moral being with free choice are defined by their thoughts and actions and those results have general labels in the game.
While the Deathweb is an odd example of a non evil Undead in pathfinder, it is just that, the odd creature out. There are exceptions to everything but if your campaign is nothing but exceptions, then the baseline ceases and the changes become the new base.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, first off, a Deathweb isn't Evil because it's effectively mindless. Or at least not smart enough to be a moral actor or understand that humans are different to prey on than deer, morally speaking.
This line is factually wrong, as the creature in question has Int 7. My bad, no idea how I missed that. That said...they aren't that bright, lack language, and lack any points of reference to understand that humans are beings as or more intelligent than they are. Which has much the same effect in practice. If PCs tried talking to one via some spell, I might actually be inclined to have it be a bit appalled that some of the things it ate were people when it realized that. Since it really didn't have a good way to realize it before that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is too situational to truly answer in one way only.
If a robber invaded my house, would it be okay to kill him immediately? No, it would not be okay, he hasn't done anything yet but invade my privacy and assuming he runs away at the sight of a weapon he has yet to do anything that is worth killing him for.
Is he in the process of removing valuables and loading them in his truck? Killing him at this point would surely be legal and neutral. He's breaking a more serious law, and doing me a serious and malicious harm, if I attack him and wind up killing him I am still just defending my rights at this point and idd feel terrible afterwards.
Is he in the process of dealing me, my family or anyone else physical harm? At this point stopping him is a good act, even if it kills him.
On the note of someone who has to kill to survive the only determining factor of his morality is, how does the perpetrator feel about it. Does the vampire utter "forgive me" to each of its victims before drinking of its blood? If the victim dies does the vampire do the family of the deceased any favors? If the vampire is found out and confronted will it collapse and beg forgiveness or run away pleading "I am so sorry!" Repeatedly? In my opinion the aforementioned vampire is most certainly not evil, perhaps even good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you accept the primise that harming intelligent (int >2 ) life is inherently evil except where morally justifiable, then you must question what does or doesn't make something morally justifiable.
In my opinion harming intelligent beings to sustain yourself is not justifiable on moral grounds, and is therefore evil. Tragic, relatable. A great villan, but evil.
Was Galactus evil? Is a being that sustains itself through the destruction of others evil?
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
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.
I can't think of a diplomatic way to point this out, but . . . You realize that your response was, in kinder terms, "sapience matters because sapience matters, and if you don't agree then you're wrong"? Surely you can do better.The idea that sapience matters. The idea that the ability to think and reason is what makes something a person, morally speaking. If it's not a person...well, killing it for no reason or being unnecessarily cruel to it is still Evil, but killing it for a reason like survival is acceptable. If it is a person (or is only not a person temporarily, like with Feeblemind) then the moral strictures governing killing them are a lot more strict simply because they are sapient beings capable of, say, having a discussion like this.
I consider this a basic moral and ethical principle in real life, and thus think it's true in-game as well. Others moral codes may differ, but, frankly, I think they are incorrect if they differ on this particular issue.
It was late. And I went into more detail about why I feel things work that way in a later post. Feel free to respond to it.
And I did phrase it as "I think you're wrong."
Fair enough! I'll scroll back up. Fun thread. : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(I'm pretty sure the only reason I instinctively value human life more than that of a random bovine is because I'mFixed that for you. ;)humannot a cannibal)I don't think so. Even if I had been raised in a culture where eating other human beings was socially acceptable (or even encouraged), chances are I'd still value a human life over that of an animal or plant.
I don't eat dog meat, and I had a few of them as pets. But still, I (instinctively?) value a human life more than a dog life.
The only reason a human ever values the life of a human over another animal is because instinctively we are basically a pack culture, tribal, much like primates. Our ancestors stood a better chance of surviving if we watched out for each other and got rid of the ones that posed a threat to the group.
So whats left is us, those with pre existing natures that say, "They are like us. They are part of our group. We should not want them to hurt or die, because we're all safer if we each do something if another hurts or dies."
There is literally zero morality to any of it, it is a survival instinct, albeit a more complex one than the lizard "eat sleep have sex fight"
That's pretty much my point. Thanks for putting it far more eloquently than I could.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... (OP post)
In this case, I dont really see this as any different than a predator/prey relationship. You kill because you have to kill to live (IE eat). We kill plants & animals, the deathweb kills anything that will feed it (nothing specifies it eats only sentients, merely whatever is at hand). Cue lion king music. The circle of life...
Also, despite the creature's 7 int, it's behavior is probably much closer to animal than anything else. So it may lack the capacity to reflect on morality.
Though a lot of stuff in pathfinder/d&d (namely the classification of most abberations as evil) depends on "human" morality. The humans/dwarves/elves are to illithid as cows are to humans. So perhaps by the usual paizo standard this creature SHOULD be classified as evil.
I'm also surprised that as an undead, it's non-evil. Very unusual by paizo standards. Might use it as an interesting foe (kinda like many-as-one in planescape torment). Thanks for showing me the deathweb!
I'll stop here before I say something inflammatory...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am convinced that the Deathweb allignment is an error. He should be Good. After all he is not killing for himself, but to feed the spiders who are inside him. It's like a mother taking the blame for his children misbehavior. He is sacrificing his soul for his little friends. He's the true definition of holy and pure.
@ Deadmanwalking
Is it? if it was mindless, it'd have an intelligence score of 0, or -. It doesn't. It's not immune to mind-affecting effects or anything like that.
There is no intelligence requirement to do what you describe the Deathweb unable to do. Good job, now you're calling a sentient creature different than you stupid.
Because the creature has to cater to the things that it can eat, just because they have a sentience the same as them? No, it doesn't. It makes it somewhat Chaotic, tops, but at the same time it has no reason to abide by the Laws of the land. It has little spiders it needs to feed, it could care less about the 10 Commandments or the Bible or whatever the town uses for laws.
You might as well should've said that since it's a carnivore which eats both animals and Humans (which are, biologically speaking, also animals, but with a sentience), it's Evil, in which case guess what? Humans do that too. It's rare that they eat other Humans, true, but it happens. Half the time it's for survival, in which case it's a shame, but if that's what it takes to live, people are going to do it. Other times, it's because they have gone mentally insane from drugs or other such paraphernalia, and while the Law would hold that person accountable for such acts, it also takes into consideration that he had zero control over his mental faculties, and condemning it for that alone is hardly any more justifiable.
Back on topic...
Abstracting the animal portion between say, a cow, and a Human, your argument between the two in terms of differences is "Going against Sentience is an Evil act," which is hardly the concept of what Evil truly represents. In fact, fighting smart Evil, which is going against Sentience, makes the same "do-gooders" Evil in turn, according to your barely thought-out argument.
I can guarantee you that subjects fear Death itself much more than the Laws of a Land, or of a People (and I never guarantee anything), and when pushed, one is more likely to break the law than they are to simply give their lives. Simply starving oneself to abide by some artificial laws, or creatures who are inferior, makes no difference to a not-so-smart-but-still-sentient creature who has a completely different agenda, and now you're going to call them Evil, simply because they are in a world which is, fundamentally, completely different from the one that judges it as being a monster, or Evil?
I think if you are a natural creature that for its existence has to kill to live then you are neutral.
However, if you have to kill sentient creatures to live because you are the result of some: evil spell; unholy ritual; curse, etc. then you are evil. You are in effect tainted by your creation.
The problem with most undead is that they don't have to kill sentient creature but they choose to do so. That makes them evil. If you could kill a cow to sustain yourself but instead kill your neighbor because he is tastier and you have the ability to discern the difference between the two, you are evil, even if you are doing it to feed yourself.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it boils down to these particulars;
Is the creature capable of choice? Can the vampire or shadow subsist off of cows or chickens, but deliberately chooses to kill sentient prey? If yes, then evil. If it has no choice, no volition, no malicious intent, then it's flat out incapable of being evil or good, it's just like a rock that can be used to build a house or bash someone's brains in, or fire, which can light your way and warm your bones, or sear your flesh. If it has free will and choice, and chooses to go for the long pig over the chickens and cows, then, most likely (barring some strange specifics!), evil.
In the case of a creature that must kill sentient prey to survive, does it's existence serve some greater good that outweighs those people's lives. When Pharasma grabs souls out of the line and tosses them to Groetus to devour and annihilate, she's certainly not doing a *good* thing, but *if* she's doing so to stave off oblivion, to keep Groetus from moving in and triggering the end of the world, then yeah, it's a *necessary* thing, and not a malicious act of evil. So, not good, but not evil, either, just kind of bleak and grimdark and morally icky. (If she was tossing souls to Groetus not to stave off some universal annihilation, but just to keep him from messing up her Boneyard, then, back to evil, since she's annihilating souls for her own convenience.)
If a creature is destroying other sentients to sustain it's own life, and it's own life *isn't* benefitting vast numbers of others, but just living because it prefers being alive to being dead, then it's selfish and evil, in my opinion, putting it's own survival above the survival of many others.
In the case of creatures which don't strictly *need* to feed (like most undead, who don't in the core rules suffer any sort of starvation effects if they go a century without killing someone) but just *like* to feed, or choose to kill when they can subsist on blood (like vampires) or dead flesh / meat (like ghouls) without actually killing anyone or anything, it's even more evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Deadmanwalking
Is it? if it was mindless, it'd have an intelligence score of 0, or -. It doesn't. It's not immune to mind-affecting effects or anything like that.
There is no intelligence requirement to do what you describe the Deathweb unable to do. Good job, now you're calling a sentient creature different than you stupid.
Yeah...I somehow missed the Int score. I corrected myself, oh, 14 hours before your post. Read my most recent post before this one somewhat up the thread...
Because the creature has to cater to the things that it can eat, just because they have a sentience the same as them? No, it doesn't. It makes it somewhat Chaotic, tops, but at the same time it has no reason to abide by the Laws of the land. It has little spiders it needs to feed, it could care less about the 10 Commandments or the Bible or whatever the town uses for laws.
No, but in order to not, y'know, be a serial murderer and thus Evil, it needs to not eat beings it knows to be sapient and as much people as it is. Especially since it can just as easily feed on deer or sheep. Killing people for food is an Evil act.
You might as well should've said that since it's a carnivore which eats both animals and Humans (which are, biologically speaking, also animals, but with a sentience), it's Evil, in which case guess what? Humans do that too. It's rare that they eat other Humans, true, but it happens.
Uh...humans who do that as a standard part of their diet are, in fact, Evil. At least if they hunt humans for food they are.
Half the time it's for survival, in which case it's a shame, but if that's what it takes to live, people are going to do it. Other times, it's because they have gone mentally insane from drugs or other such paraphernalia, and while the Law would hold that person accountable for such acts, it also takes into consideration that he had zero control over his mental faculties, and condemning it for that alone is hardly any more justifiable.
And then there are serial killers, who, while debatably insane, are certainly capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and proceed to kill (and in some cases eat) people anyway, which is why they are Evil. And the Deathweb as you describe it comes much closer to that than to any of your examples.
Back on topic...
We were off topic?
Abstracting the animal portion between say, a cow, and a Human, your argument between the two in terms of differences is "Going against Sentience is an Evil act," which is hardly the concept of what Evil truly represents. In fact, fighting smart Evil, which is going against Sentience, makes the same "do-gooders" Evil in turn, according to your barely thought-out argument.
The point you seem to be willfully and obtusely ignoring is as follows: There are absolutely justifiable reasons for killing a sapient being, such as "He's murdering people and needs to be stopped." However "I'm hungry." is not such a reason. It's that simple. You need some sort of valid moral reason in order to make killing a sapient being non-Evil. Convenience is not such a reason. And that's what killing people when you can subsist on animals amounts to, baring some really specific situations. Heck, even if you can't subsist on animals, killing innocents (ie: people who've done nothing to you, nor anything to remotely deserve death) to preserve your own life is once more, y'know, an Evil act.
I can guarantee you that subjects fear Death itself much more than the Laws of a Land, or of a People (and I never guarantee anything), and when pushed, one is more likely to break the law than they are to simply give their lives. Simply starving oneself to abide by some artificial laws, or creatures who are inferior, makes no difference to a not-so-smart-but-still-sentient creature who has a completely different agenda, and now you're going to call them Evil, simply because they are in a world which is, fundamentally, completely different from the one that judges it as being a monster, or Evil?
I'm going to call any creature that kills people because it's convenient Evil, because that's the only way a rational basis for calling something Evil can be maintained. If you can kill people because it's inconvenient for you that they're alive without it being wrong or evil, then wrong and evil stop being a meaningful terms of any sort.
Based on the OP and not the rest of the thread....
The concept of good and evil is, for the most part, completely subjective.
With that in mind from a human perspective a creature that preys on human beings is evil.
From the creatures perspective it is completely neutral.
If that creature is human and preying on humans they would probably still be considered evil on both sides. If for example someone discovered that she was dieing and could indefinately extend her life by transplanting a new heart into her body every month and thus began kidnaping and harvesting peoples hearts.... Would she be evil? I think she would think she is. Humanity would definately judge her so.
eDIT: sorry about the touch of reality there.
Sorry guys, got home from work and need to bow out from this fight, my friend just got breast cancer :( We can debate the ultimate morality of the universe later.I'm so sorry. Good luck to your friend.
Seconded. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry guys, got home from work and need to bow out from this fight, my friend just got breast cancer :( We can debate the ultimate morality of the universe later.I'm so sorry. Good luck to your friend.
This is a terrible and difficult thing. My prayers are with you and your friend. Please keep us updated, if you can bear to do so.
An example: Deathweb
I am aware that this thread will probably veer wildly off-topic as some wiseass brings in an extreme example, possibly involving orphanages, to prove his point. But before that happens, we just might have some meaningful discussion about this. So, to put the question simply: Is it evil to kill indiscriminately if it's the only way to keep yourself alive?
This discussion assumes that you do not have any great cause--you simply want to live and will do whatever it takes to keep doing that, though you may feel really cruddy about it. The discussion will also assume you do not kill children, just to avoid that easy "extreme example" fodder.
In fact, here's a list of who you kill in two months: Three innocent farmers, two goblins, a serial rapist, five hobgoblins, two guards and an internet troll from Earth.
Keep in mind I'm asking for opinions. This is not a Rules Question. Does your opinion on this matter change if he only kills a single farmer to save his own hide? What if all the death is the consequence of a single action, rather than a prolonged practice?
Okay, first off, a Deathweb isn't Evil because it's effectively mindless. Or at least not smart enough to be a moral actor or understand that humans are different to prey on than deer, morally speaking.This line is factually wrong, as the creature in question has Int 7. My bad, no idea how I missed that. That said...they aren't that bright, lack language, and lack any points of reference to understand that humans are beings as or more intelligent than they are. Which has much the same effect in practice. If PCs tried talking to one via some spell, I might actually be inclined to have it be a bit appalled that some of the things it ate were people when it realized that. Since it really didn't have a good way to realize it before that.
This is a really important point being glossed over in the hurry to debate people on a general principal (which is good, but let's get back to that in a moment).
In this specific example, the creature has an intelligence of 7 (well below average), it has a wisdom of 13 (slightly above average), and a charisma of 15 (because an empty large exoskeleton swarming with spiders is pretty*!).
This means that it really doesn't know much about anything (-2 to all intelligence-based checks), but is kind of insightful in what it does know (+1 to wisdom-based checks), and is persuasive (or at least, scary).
Let's determine what can be determined with a -2 intelligence. Intelligence controls: appraise (how valuable something is), craft (how well something is constructed), knowledge (how much you know about something), linguistics (how well you can talk), and spellcraft (how much you "get" magic). Thus, we can conclude that it has a distinct problem knowing the worth of objects, knowing information about anything (notably and importantly in this case, anything about other creatures), communicating (linguistics - it has no languages), or comprehending magic.
So what can it determine about its prey with a -2 intelligence is: not much.
Instead, let's look at what that +1 wisdom bonus will apply to: heal (worthless for an undead), perception (to see creatures and prey), profession (to... make money... that it can't ascertain the value of... huh...), sense motive (potentially morally problematic! huzzah!), survival (finding food!).
Of all of these, profession is effectively worthless (though it kind of works in tandem with its lack of appraise to explain the piles of random loot of varying values that it collects), and the only problematic one, from a moral standpoint, is the wisdom.
Let's look at what Sense Motive actually does:
Sense Motive
(Wis)
You are skilled at detecting falsehoods and true intentions.Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.
Task Sense Motive DC
Hunch 20
Sense enchantment 25 or 15
Discern secret message Varies
Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
Discern Secret Message: You may use Sense Motive to detect that a hidden message is being transmitted via the Bluff skill. In this case, your Sense Motive check is opposed by the Bluff check of the character transmitting the message. For each piece of information relating to the message that you are missing, you take a –2 penalty on your Sense Motive check. If you succeed by 4 or less, you know that something hidden is being communicated, but you can't learn anything specific about its content. If you beat the DC by 5 or more, you intercept and understand the message. If you fail by 4 or less, you don't detect any hidden communication. If you fail by 5 or more, you might infer false information.
Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.
Try Again: No, though you may make a Sense Motive check for each Bluff check made against you.
Special: A ranger gains a bonus on Sense Motive checks when using this skill against a favored enemy.
If you have the Alertness feat, you get a bonus on Sense Motive checks (see Feats).
... aaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's at this point, realizing that it's 12 AM, and having my wife mention this to me specifically plus a request to get sleep due to early morning tomorrow means I'm out for now. Sorry. There are some interesting nuggets there, but, in lieu of constructing my argument, the short version is: it doesn't realize that other creatures are sentient. Some might. Those few that do will likely either cease eating innocents, occasionally succumb and feel guilty about it, while normally avoiding it (if they can find a way to do so), or relish in it. This means it's alignment is an average descriptor rather than a universal one.
Also... stuff, stuff, stuff... blarg, ADD kicking me right now, I forgot what I was going to say. So instead I'll note that I'll try to do a more reasoned look into it later.
* Please, please, please let's not have that discussion here in this thread. This is just a one-off joke. That is all. Please. Leave it at that.
Killing the internet troll redeem you from the other murders.
Hahah.
|
An example: Deathweb
I am aware that this thread will probably veer wildly off-topic as some wiseass brings in an extreme example, possibly involving orphanages, to prove his point. But before that happens, we just might have some meaningful discussion about this. So, to put the question simply: Is it evil to kill indiscriminately if it's the only way to keep yourself alive?
This discussion assumes that you do not have any great cause--you simply want to live and will do whatever it takes to keep doing that, though you may feel really cruddy about it. The discussion will also assume you do not kill children, just to avoid that easy "extreme example" fodder.
In fact, here's a list of who you kill in two months: Three innocent farmers, two goblins, a serial rapist, five hobgoblins, two guards and an internet troll from Earth.
Keep in mind I'm asking for opinions. This is not a Rules Question. Does your opinion on this matter change if he only kills a single farmer to save his own hide? What if all the death is the consequence of a single action, rather than a prolonged practice?
Survival of the Fittest or even Self-Defense is never considered Evil. It's merely surviving. It's part of nature. If it is Evil, then everyone is Evil, ever.
Per your example, in my opinion:
Well, we all have that instinct to live, and some of us have a stronger will and want to survive or are just plain stronger than our competition. There's nothing wrong with that, it's natural. Survival of the Fittest. If you're killing because that's your last resort from potentially dying, yourself; then you're doing it right. If you're cutting out tongues to prevent others from talking - Well that's a little harsh and on the evil side. Put that Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive to better use. Beating up and tying up is always a great option.
In regards to what you've killed in your example:
Well, did you kill them merely to prevent yourself from getting in trouble? If you're Shane from The Walking Dead, that would be considered Evil(chaotic really), as he tends to kill out of fear of others finding out he is truly psycho or if he is just having a bad day. You should explore other options, or rather exhaust all other options first. You could knock them out and tie them up to prevent them from tattling on you. If it's an immediate threat, you can still do the same. I can't really go much farther since I don't know the scenario or extent of events... but you get that idea. If you kill first thing, because that's what you're used to doing; though it may have been a hasty decision, you are not Evil but I'd say floating towards Evil as that bypasses the natural urge to survive, and enhances the unnatural urge to kill.
There ya go! I hope my opinion helps you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some interesting nuggets there, but, in lieu of constructing my argument, the short version is: it doesn't realize that other creatures are sentient. Some might. Those few that do will likely either cease eating innocents, occasionally succumb and feel guilty about it, while normally avoiding it (if they can find a way to do so), or relish in it. This means it's alignment is an average descriptor rather than a universal one.
Let's build this argument a little.
First, let's look at knowledge (which it has a penalty in). What would knowledge tell it?
Let's go ahead and ignore anything about magic - it suffers a double penalty on understanding magic between having no spellcraft or knowledge arcana; it can't make higher than a 10 on a knoweldge check, as it has no ranks (and anyway, it would automatically fail anything involving a spell of 4th level or higher, and it could only make a maximum "guess" DC of 18 [20-2] anyway, whereas that DC would be 19 or higher).
So let's look at the DC 10 and lower stuff.
Note that most of those require language to have any meaningful impact on the creature... something that the creature doesn't have, and has a penalty on anyway.
The only one that could be problematic is the last. "Abilities" could be read to mean "ability scores" or, rather, "tendency towards sentience".
So what does that mean? How often would it be able to do that?
Not often. While it would be able to succeed on a DC 10 (it could succeed up to a DC 18!) that's not going to give it a whole lot of information, and it it needs a 12 or higher to do so.
In fact, looking more closely at the knowledge skill,
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
... it looks even more dubious. As it has no "field of study" (it has no ranks) we'll ignore that.
Let's presume, however, that it looks at the PC races as "monsters" - fair enough, considering the PC races consider other sentient creatures "monsters" for this skill.
Further, if they're common in the area, that's even easier! DC 5+CR! Wow! Okay, so now it really has a strong chance! In fact, taking ten, netting 8, means it succeeds! What does it get?!
A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
... not much. "a bit of useful information" isn't going to be much at all. As information goes, "They tend to have sharp things that stab me; and are vulnerable to sudden strikes and stealth." are going to be far more useful than, "They have sentience and thus can reason and have morality, i.e. they aren't food." The former lets you stay alive and get food; the latter does not. Thus, the former is more useful, especially for a creature that, on average, doesn't really care about morality (or have the language to understand it). In fact, there are a ton of "bits" of information that would be "more useful" to a morally ambiguous being who's out to eat, and getting anything beyond "one" bit of information isn't guaranteed anyway (taking 10, generating a DC 8, doesn't exceed the DC 5 by any increment of five).
But, you know, language brings up a good point: perhaps it could get lucky and realize that some of the strange patterns it notes occasionally is "writing" - i.e. the attempt to communicate between sentient species?
Linguistics tells us, "no",
The base DC is 20 for the simplest messages, 25 for standard texts, and 30 or higher for intricate, exotic, or very old writing.
Welp. No chance of understanding it (with his maximum check of 18). However,
If the check fails, make a DC 5 Wisdom check to see if you avoid drawing a false conclusion about the text. (Success means that you do not draw a false conclusion; failure means that you do.)
... hm. Well that could make my previous conclusion dubious. So if it just saw some writing, it has a really low chance (3 or lower on a d20) to fail to realize that it's a creation of sentience?
Well... no.
Deciphering a page of ordinary text takes 1 minute (10 consecutive rounds).
So it has to spend 1 minute attempting to "decipher" a page of writing... but, thanks to its abysmal appraise check (and inability to succeed at DCs of higher than 10, and lack of DCs of 10 or lower) means that it'll never recognize the thing as valuable.
And, although the DC 5 wisdom check will prevent it from "coming to the wrong conclusion", it's pretty clear that "wrong conclusion" is to the gist of the writing - in other words, if there's a document saying, "gold is valuable", it's not going to falsely suspect that the document actually says "purple is the scent of nine" - it just won't understand what it says.
So its lack of intelligence and language really doesn't do anything for it except setting it more firmly toward "not knowing they're intelligent".
But what about sense motive?
Well, recall up above that the CR-factor means that it's unlikely to know about anything with CR of 1 or higher. If it's "particularly common" in the area, though, it might be able to get up to CR 3! Wow!
... but it has a +16 stealth check, and deals 2d8+12 damage, plus poison damage (weakening STR, so, not that big a deal), and nausea plus 1d6 damage.
Effectively, that's 2d8+12+1d6 damage per round (while any other creatures beyond the initial target - and it's not likely to attack a dangerous-looking pack, due to its wisdom - will take 1d6 damage per round in most cases.
That's... really deadly. 23 damage per round. For a common fighter or barbarian, at the CRs it could recognize creatures, that's pretty much two rounds (well, three, if the barbarian is raging). Just about everything else is less than that.
So... one or two rounds of violence don't permit the creature a full minute to ascertain if sentient motives are at work.
And even if it spends a minute studying its potential prey - even if that prey is busy making traps, or using other "intelligent" tactics - that proves nothing, as spiders (INT -) are clever trap-layers, while wolves (as have been mentioned) make for clever pack-hunters with tactics and strategy. And it's not going to spend the whole evening trying to discern anything.
Effectively, it's innocence by ignorance. Once ignorance is removed (which is possible through a number of means in PF), the response of the creature to that new information will form its alignment.
The few creatures that do figure out that there are sentient creatures other than themselves will then diverge into good, evil, or remain neutral as I outlined above, making the alignment an average.
So... I'll get to talking about the more general element later. Time with my toddler, now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, you guys write far too much keep up. I'm sure it's a necessity to maintain some sort of universal correctness, but I'll try to keep my thoughts on this as simple as possible:
Killing has no strict alignment ruling, it's the individual motivations behind it. This includes killing to live, instigating fights, or other such things which result in some potentially good-aligned character dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, you guys write far too much keep up. I'm sure it's a necessity to maintain some sort of universal correctness, but I'll try to keep my thoughts on this as simple as possible:
Killing has no strict alignment ruling, it's the individual motivations behind it. This includes killing to live, instigating fights, or other such things which result in some potentially good-aligned character dying.
Sorry. I yap a lot!
... it's a recurring problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing has no strict alignment ruling, it's the individual motivations behind it. This includes killing to live, instigating fights, or other such things which result in some potentially good-aligned character dying.
I agree with this.
However, if you need to kill to live and know you will continue to do so...your motivation rapidly stops being "I'll survive if I kill this guy." and becomes "I'll survive three more days if I kill this guy, then I'll have to kill again."
That second one...if you don't at least try to limit your kills to deserving targets, or do enough good to make up for killing those people, you're stepping well into the level of selfishness that leads to Evil pretty quick. When you decide that a year of your life is worth over one hundred other lives...you're pretty much full-on Evil.
Now, even if you try to only kill bad people (maybe you have Detect Evil), or try to do enough good to make up for the evil involved in all that murder, you're still not gonna be Good (because it's still at heart a selfish and murderous choice)...but at least you're trying to legitimately justify it, to not make it just a year of your life that those hundred deaths buy, so you can probably manage Neutral.
As for the Deathweb itself, I entirely agree with Tacticslion's post.
Also, in an unrelated note, I now want to play a Deathweb Paladin in a high level game. Because that sounds hilarious "Oh, here's our Paladin. He's an Undead hive of sentient spiders, but don't worry, he's a great guy. You'll like him." And with enough Diplomacy...they will. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing has no strict alignment ruling, it's the individual motivations behind it. This includes killing to live, instigating fights, or other such things which result in some potentially good-aligned character dying.I agree with this.
However, if you need to kill to live and know you will continue to do so...your motivation rapidly stops being "I'll survive if I kill this guy." and becomes "I'll survive three more days if I kill this guy, then I'll have to kill again."
That second one...if you don't at least try to limit your kills to deserving targets, or do enough good to make up for killing those people, you're stepping well into the level of selfishness that leads to Evil pretty quick. When you decide that a year of your life is worth over one hundred other lives...you're pretty much full-on Evil.
Now, even if you try to only kill bad people (maybe you have Detect Evil), or try to do enough good to make up for the evil involved in all that murder, you're still not gonna be Good (because it's still at heart a selfish and murderous choice)...but at least you're trying to legitimately justify it, to not make it just a year of your life that those hundred deaths buy, so you can probably manage Neutral.
At the risk of echo-chambering... exactly.
As for the Deathweb itself, I entirely agree with Tacticslion's post.
Thanks!
Personally, my favorite line was, "Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy ("we thank you for this specially-packaged food, letting us know it comes directly from you in your bounty...")"
:D
Also, in an unrelated note, I now want to play a Deathweb Paladin in a high level game. Because that sounds hilarious "Oh, here's our Paladin. He's an Undead hive of sentient spiders, but don't worry, he's a great guy. You'll like him." And with enough Diplomacy...they will. :)
I know, right?!
I'm sure it's a necessity to maintain some sort of universal correctness, but I'll try to keep my thoughts on this as simple as possible:
Killing has no strict alignment ruling, it's the individual motivations behind it. This includes killing to live, instigating fights, or other such things which result in some potentially good-aligned character dying.
This is the best short version of what I was going to say about the general idea of killing relevant to morality.
Alignment lets us know the general tendencies of good and evil towards killing.
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
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.
As it turns out, the alignment rules have a lot to say about killing!
In general, it seems, the ones doing the most killing is clearly evil.
However, it also notes that animals - even those that eat people - are neutral because they lack the cognizance to understand that what they do is wrong. Thus, killing people isn't always "evil", but, as soon as a creature holds sentience, it tends to be (and killing people is going to mean that you're going to be killed in turn to protect the majority and/or self-defense).
Now, killing is never the best outcome. But sometimes it's the only outcome, one way or the other - in those situations, either you and/or someone you care for is going to be killed, and, in those situations, if good, you hold sentient life above non-sentient life, and you hold innocence over non-innocence.
So... what does that mean about killing to survive?
Well, first, if you've got to kill to survive, and you're sentient, and you want to be non-evil, your first priority is non-sentient creatures, according to the best of your understanding.
This is straight-forward, and most people would agree with this.
Presuming no non-sentient creatures will do for some reason, you're going to prioritize some combination of free will and/or life v. the elimination of evil or other threats to innocent life (this is actually where the majority of adventurers usually come in the majority of the time, and where they spend the majority of their adventuring career). Fortunately for paladins, this is entirely allowable to remain both lawful good and within the limits of their code. Pretty much this is available in all alignments. However, it must be noted that people need to remember that death, in general, and death of sentient life in specific, is not a first-resort.
So, what happens when you're forced to consume innocent sentience to survive? You're either evil or you die. "Personal sacrifices to help others" is pretty much this exemplified.
Now, once again, this all presumes cognizance. If you really don't understand what you're doing, you're not guilty by way of ignorance. You can't be guilty of purposefully disregarding something if you don't know that it's there.
Also, in the case of vampires, what's to stop them from living without killing? There are certainly methods of bloodletting that don't end in death. Also, feeding on non-sentient creatures is always an option. And there may be something for ghouls or other undead as well. Of course, I may not have some sort of in-canon information, or may be forgetting something.
But anyway. That's the more general, and a little bit of related examination.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd view that as evil. If you have to subsist off of murder to live, I'd say its evil. Evil is always the easiest path, the most obvious path, the one that takes from others so that you don't have to find alternatives, so that you don't have to suffer. You make other people suffer instead. Neutral would be if you let those people die because you might live. Evil is outright killing them yourself so that you might live. That's just my opinion though, so don't take it particularly to heart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So much for non-vegetarians.I'd answer in that it is an evil act to kill innocents to keep yourself alive.
Whether or not someone who would do this would have an evil alignment is another question altogether.
I have an all-vegetarian diet. I keep in great shape chasing them down.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example: Deathweb
I am aware that this thread will probably veer wildly off-topic as some wiseass brings in an extreme example, possibly involving orphanages, to prove his point. But before that happens, we just might have some meaningful discussion about this. So, to put the question simply: Is it evil to kill indiscriminately if it's the only way to keep yourself alive?
This discussion assumes that you do not have any great cause--you simply want to live and will do whatever it takes to keep doing that, though you may feel really cruddy about it. The discussion will also assume you do not kill children, just to avoid that easy "extreme example" fodder.
In fact, here's a list of who you kill in two months: Three innocent farmers, two goblins, a serial rapist, five hobgoblins, two guards and an internet troll from Earth.
Keep in mind I'm asking for opinions. This is not a Rules Question. Does your opinion on this matter change if he only kills a single farmer to save his own hide? What if all the death is the consequence of a single action, rather than a prolonged practice?
My opinion ? Killing people just to ensure you live one more day is evil. Killing indiscriminately is even worse.
The alternative is accepting to die so that you do not have to kill. Sounds right to me.
I do not see why the deathweb example though ? It is Neutral by virtue of having a vermin-like mind (rather than an undead one).
Actually, while reading your post, I felt that you had a specific idea in mind that our answers should help you decide on.
If such is the case, you will get more relevant answers by asking your true question directly ;-)