@ Shadowlord.
You seem like a good person,
That's an interesting statement for this thread. Depends on the standard of measurement I suppose.
but with all due respect discussing any of these morale issues with you is a waste of my time. Sorry.That's a little disappointing. I enjoy the debate, it helps me to refine/evolve my PoV.
Also, I was legitimately interested in hearing how you rectify the belief that torture isn't so bad while ambush tactics are. That just seems inconsistent to me. Perhaps we have differing views on what torture is.
I may have been too quick to judge, in which case I apologise.
I don't have time to give you a proper reply right now, I will come back to you tonight my time (Australian time) and give you my views on torture.
Interestingly enough, the BotED quote posted up thread states that violence against Evil for the purpose of preventing Evil acts from being done. But killing babies is definitely going too far.
I really jacked that sentence up. What I meant was: Interestingly enough, the BotED quote posted up thread states that violence against Evil for the purpose of preventing Evil acts from being done is acceptable. But killing babies is definitely going too far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And let's not forget "Thou shalt not kill." Except, of course under any of the many, many circumstances where killing was perfectly acceptable and legal under the holy law.It's only "Thou shalt not kill" in bad translations. It's really "Thou shalt not murder" in the Hebrew.
Perhaps so, but the definition of murder is highly subjective. Especially when comparing the laws of modern society to of the Old Testament. One small for instance: Adultery was punishable by death, for both parties of the engagement. Yet, in modern society, if you caught your spouse cheating and drug her and her lover out and killed them both in the street... that would be a double murder.
And the prescribed method of capital punishment, for many transgressions, was stoning. Execution during which a group of people, usually peers of the guilty party, throws stones at the condemned person until he or she dies.
Also they had the eye for an eye stuff. I don't remember the details exactly, but essentially if a man was responsible for the death of your family member, it was legal for you and your family to chase him down and kill him. Which again, would be considered murder in modern society.
So, just saying that it translates to don't murder, IMO, is a bit misleading. Middle Eastern religions tend to believe in objective Evil, and that it must be destroyed from among their people. In their perspective it is both lawful and righteous to destroy Evil, even in ways others would call extremely brutal and overly violent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also they had the eye for an eye stuff. I don't remember the details exactly, but essentially if a man was responsible for the death of your family member, it was legal for you and your family to chase him down and kill him. Which again, would be considered murder in modern society.
Eye for an eye didn't really go that far. That was only in the case of murder & intentional assaults - they had fines for accidental deaths. (The bit you may be thinking of is - "If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death." Exodus 21:28-29 - harsh - but not unreasonable - modern dog owners have sometimes been held criminally liable if their dog is known to be especially vicious before it attacks someone)
Also of note from a cultural/historical perspective - 'eye for an eye' - while considered harsh nowadays - was actually toning down the violence from what it was before that. It was to prevent the whole tribal blood-feuds sort of escalation - instead going to a court to declare a one time 'eye for an eye' style punishment. (pretty much preventing the sort of thing you're talking about actually) Plus - it mostly was the same between different classes of citizens. (Somewhat different for slaves - though slaves in that part of the world historically aren't what we generally think of.)
I think there have been cultures where clan members are expected to hunt down killers of other members of their clan - but old testament law isn't part of it. (I actually just read an article about how town elders somewhere in Libya got together and agreed to suspend similar customs when it came to a communal police force - so that they could actually arrest smugglers etc who came from many different clans.)
In tonight's game we set the temple garden on fire (disturbing the hidden gargoyles within), lured several dark dwarves away from their cultist mistress (whom we ganged up on and killed in her private chambers--though she nearly killed our ranger in the process), and then we lined a hallway with caltrops and oil, lured several dark dwarves into our makeshift killing field, and then burned them alive while we hacked them apart from adjoining alcoves.
Evil?
Yay, biblical law, alignment debates, and paladins. Can you pass the popcorn?
It is a shame that other threads are not as entertaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eye for an eye didn't really go that far. That was only in the case of murder & intentional assaults - they had fines for accidental deaths. (The bit you may be thinking of is - "If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death." Exodus 21:28-29 - harsh - but not unreasonable - modern dog owners have sometimes been held criminally liable if their dog is known to be especially vicious before it attacks someone)
Also they had the eye for an eye stuff. I don't remember the details exactly, but essentially if a man was responsible for the death of your family member, it was legal for you and your family to chase him down and kill him. Which again, would be considered murder in modern society.
No, I was talking about people being stoned. Or people being chased for vengeance. I found something referring to what I was trying to find:
The Mosaic Law stated that anyone who committed a murder was to be put to death (Exodus 21:14). But for unintentional deaths, God set aside these cities to which the murderer could flee for refuge (Exodus 21:13). He would be safe from the avenger—the family member charged with avenging the victim’s death (Numbers 35:19)—until the case could go to trial. The congregation would judge to find if the attacker acted unintentionally. If he did, he would return to the city of refuge and live there safely until the death of the high priest who was in office at the time of the trial, at which point he could return to his property. If the attacker left the city of refuge before the death of the high priest, however, the avenger would have the right to kill him (Numbers 35:24-28).
Also of note from a cultural/historical perspective - 'eye for an eye' - while considered harsh nowadays - was actually toning down the violence from what it was before that. It was to prevent the whole tribal blood-feuds sort of escalation - instead going to a court to declare a one time 'eye for an eye' style punishment. (pretty much preventing the sort of thing you're talking about actually) Plus - it mostly was the same between different classes of citizens. (Somewhat different for slaves - though slaves in that part of the world historically aren't what we generally think of.)
I can see that. A lot of the Middle East is still like that. It's harsh for sure. On the other hand, a thief will only steal twice if you take a hand for each offence...
Regardless, the modern definition of what constitutes murder and the OT definition of what constitutes murder are not remotely similar. Nor are the definitions of lawful, acceptable forms of killing.
I think there have been cultures where clan members are expected to hunt down killers of other members of their clan - but old testament law isn't part of it. (I actually just read an article about how town elders somewhere in Libya got together and agreed to suspend similar customs when it came to a communal police force - so that they could actually arrest smugglers etc who came from many different clans.)
What I was thinking of was definitely from OT. There are a few stories of vengeance related actions, but that's the one I was thinking of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In response to Shadowlands request these are my thoughts on torture versus killing.
In the majority of cases torturing someone is a horrible, degrading, inhumane and thoroughly evil act. In the majority of cases killing someone is also a horrible, degrading, inhumane and thoroughly evil act, but in terms of morality how do you compare the two in an objective and balanced way?
In my opinion killing someone is usually worse (more evil) than torturing them, but there are a number of issues which make it difficult to make an objective comparison. One is that the definition of torture is very broad, it ranges from relatively minor, for example: sleep deprivation to utterly horrific (where you can use your own imagination). Another issue is that generally speaking people have empathy for other people and therefore have a natural aversion to witnessing someone in pain or distress. As a consequence of this, any discussion on the topic of torture is likely to provoke an immediate and near overwhelming emotional response which will cloud the discussion. Another issue is that everyone dies at some point, death is an inevitable and natural consequence of life, which means everyone has had to come to terms with death in some way at some point in their life and the emotional response to discussing the issue is less dramatic. It is relatively easy for people to come up with hypothetical examples of where killing is justifiable: mercy killings are regarded by many as an exception to the principle of the sanctity of life. Likewise in some situations, killing in self-defence is also acceptable. It is much harder to come up with scenarios where torture is justifiable because of the inherent emotionally charged objection that inevitably arises.
So where does this leave us on the question of torture versus killing? In my view when objectively comparing the morality of two actions it comes down to two things: 1) intent and 2) the consequences. In my view in an objective assessment, consequences usually outweigh intent. I know many people will disagree with me on this point but my view is that intent is vague and subjective and we often don’t know the real reason someone does something. In fact some neurological experiments have shown that we are not even aware of the thought process of our own minds. Consequences on the other hand are quantifiable and very real. Consequences matter, intent not as much. If I apply that logic to the comparison between torture and killing the evaluation of how evil the deed is depends on the consequences to the victim(s) not on the intent from the perpetrator. Imagine there are two scenarios that are identical in every aspect except one. The difference is: in scenario #1 the victim will be tortured for a period of time and then released. In scenario #2 the victim will be killed. In scenario 1 the victim will suffer severe injury and psychological trauma, which will take years to recover from, but they will eventually live a normal life again. In scenario #2 the victim is well, dead, which is as final as it gets. When comparing the consequences of the two scenarios, both of them are horribly evil but scenario #2 is worse than scenario #1 because it is permanent and irrevocable, whereas scenario #1 is temporary and for the victim there is hope of recovery.
I am not downplaying the evilness of torture. Everyone agrees that torture is unthinkable, the situation would have to be pretty dire for torture to be the best option. Well the problem is that death is worse than any other punishment in terms of the impact to the victim so my argument is that our aversion to killing should be even stronger. Killing should truly be the last resort.
As an interesting side note: there was a lecture by a famous American psychologist named: Martin Seligman where he stated that the survivors of severe trauma like torture and rape, once rehabilitated, were happier and healthier than people who had never experienced any severe trauma in their lives. Martin Seligman’s comments were the findings of a recent and very comprehensive study on happiness and general well-being. I am not saying this as an endorsement for rape and torture, I don’t condone either activity in any way, this is a comment on the unexpected resilience of people.
I can see that. A lot of the Middle East is still like that. It's harsh for sure. On the other hand, a thief will only steal twice if you take a hand for each offence...
Regardless, the modern definition of what constitutes murder and the OT definition of what constitutes murder are not remotely similar. Nor are the definitions of lawful, acceptable forms of killing.
Actually, a Thief could steal three times. Left, Right, head.
In fact, you could also train yourself to use your feet to be posable like a hand.
After all, the points presented in this thread for the paladin not falling would also apply to LG societies as a whole I think.
1. A PF Paladin would definitely fall for this scenario. What was done, to multiple individuals, was IMO, Chaotic Neutral and did not follow the Code of Conduct for a PF Paladin. A PF Paladin who ceases to be Lawful Good and/or breaks the code immediately falls. So, the PF Paladin in question would fall just for breaking the code, in addition he might fall due to a change of Alignment toward CN. What was done might not be enough to force a full shift all the way from LG to CN, but it would probably shift him at least one step on at least one axis. That said, we are not talking about a PF Paladin. This whole scenario was done under D&D 5th Edition rules, and their rules are different. I'm not familiar with D&D5, from what's been posted, it doesn't sound like their Paladins are held to the same standards.
2. Like I have said, and I think everyone saying it's not Evil has said, what was done was not a reflection of Law or Good. Just because I don't think it's inherently Evil doesn't mean I think it's Lawful or Good. As I've said before, I think it's highly Chaotic and on the darker side of Neutral. That being the case, a LG society that begins routinely executing Evil citizens is not going to stay LG because their actions dictate a shift in alignment.
3. If we are talking about a LG country that made it legal to execute Evil citizens, and remained very disciplined. The process would likely be Lawful for them (because they are still acting with discipline and legal authority), however it would remain on the darker side of Neutral. So, the LG society would rapidly become LN and it would not take much to shift into LE from there, depending on methods and how far they take it.
Not being LG is not synonymous with being exclusively Evil.
4. The LG thing to do would be to make every effort to reform a person who is Evil, if/when they are identified as such.
5. That is of course from my Alignment Rules perspective. The in game answer would be because Good people largely don't feel the compulsion to hunt and kill their fellow man, regardless of how Evil they are.
Shadowlord, if Evil creatures are automatically guilty of Evil acts, why would LG societies ever let them live ?
This isn't just my crazy opinion, BTW. It's been stated, at least by JJ, that actions (cause) dictate Alignment (effect) unless you are something like an Outsider. In the case of Outsiders they are inherently Good or Evil or whatever, and that dictates their actions. Hence, Goblin babies aren't inherently Evil. They are born into an Evil society, develop a predisposition toward Evil as they mature, and eventually become Evil themselves through their actions.
In answer to your question: Because Lawful and Good people don't go around executing people just because they deserve it, or have done things to deserve it in the past.
@ Shadowlord
You are correct that in 5th edition Paladins are given more flexibility. Paladins take an oath at 3rd level, which defines the rules that the Paladin is expected to follow. The oath of vengeance would be suitable for a lawful evil character as it's focus is on punishing the wicked rather than traditionally good traits like: honesty, compassion etc.
5th edition does not have rules for Paladins falling from grace, it looks to me like the design philosophy of 5th edition is to leave more to the GM's discretion rather than define them within the rules (which I prefer). So it is up to the GM to determine the consequences when a Paladin fails to live up to their code.
In tonight's game we set the temple garden on fire (disturbing the hidden gargoyles within), lured several dark dwarves away from their cultist mistress (whom we ganged up on and killed in her private chambers--though she nearly killed our ranger in the process), and then we lined a hallway with caltrops and oil, lured several dark dwarves into our makeshift killing field, and then burned them alive while we hacked them apart from adjoining alcoves.
Evil?
I'd say Neutral. These guys are enemies capable of fighting back (and did).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...then we lined a hallway with caltrops and oil, lured several dark dwarves into our makeshift killing field, and then burned them alive while we hacked them apart from adjoining alcoves.
Evil?
I'm fairly certain I would prefer dying in my sleep due to a sword I never saw coming, or had an opportunity to fear, vs being burned alive and hacked. Setting people on fire is terrible, but it might be a hard sell to call it Evil in a game with things like Burning Hands, Fireball, and Flaming weapons of all variety. I've posted things of that nature before; how it's incredibly difficult to fairly apply morality to these types of games.
I'd say Neutral. These guys are enemies capable of fighting back (and did).In tonight's game we set the temple garden on fire (disturbing the hidden gargoyles within), lured several dark dwarves away from their cultist mistress (whom we ganged up on and killed in her private chambers--though she nearly killed our ranger in the process), and then we lined a hallway with caltrops and oil, lured several dark dwarves into our makeshift killing field, and then burned them alive while we hacked them apart from adjoining alcoves.
Evil?
I disagree, once the leader is dead the mission is complete, continuing to bait and kill the dwarves is unnecessary and evil.
In response to Shadowlands request these are my thoughts on torture versus killing.
Good points to think about, especially concerning real life morality. I'm not ignoring your post, just thinking.
What about the comments on ambush tactics?
I disagree, once the leader is dead the mission is complete, continuing to bait and kill the dwarves is unnecessary and evil.I'd say Neutral. These guys are enemies capable of fighting back (and did).In tonight's game we set the temple garden on fire (disturbing the hidden gargoyles within), lured several dark dwarves away from their cultist mistress (whom we ganged up on and killed in her private chambers--though she nearly killed our ranger in the process), and then we lined a hallway with caltrops and oil, lured several dark dwarves into our makeshift killing field, and then burned them alive while we hacked them apart from adjoining alcoves.
Evil?
Much to my surprise, it was revealed to me during this latest game that the characters don't really know WHO the leader is. It was clear she was an authority figure in the organization (she was bossing people around), but we don't really know who she was or what her role might have been. She may or may not have been our target.
By the time I joined this group, the party had already infiltrated the temple and the GM basically magic'd me in there, claiming my wizard was there with the party all along. Admittedly, most of the carnage operations are my idea. Had I been there from the beginning, I might have had the mind to ask for a name and description of our target. As it is though, my fellow players (and the GM) are rather inexperienced it would seem.
In response to Shadowlands request these are my thoughts on torture versus killing.Good points to think about, especially concerning real life morality. I'm not ignoring your post, just thinking.
What about the comments on ambush tactics?
I assume you mean ambushing to kill.
I am not thrilled with the idea. When I was in the army the instructors would say things like: 'Don't delude yourself, a properly set ambush is pure bloody murder, it is not a fight it is a massacre, if you don't have the stomach for that then you don't belong here'.
On reflection that is a pretty good assessment. In war time often it is all about survival and sometimes there are no good options.
By the way, sorry to mispell your name. I am not sure if that was me or the auto-correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, once the leader is dead the mission is complete, continuing to bait and kill the dwarves is unnecessary and evil.I'd say Neutral. These guys are enemies capable of fighting back (and did).In tonight's game we set the temple garden on fire (disturbing the hidden gargoyles within), lured several dark dwarves away from their cultist mistress (whom we ganged up on and killed in her private chambers--though she nearly killed our ranger in the process), and then we lined a hallway with caltrops and oil, lured several dark dwarves into our makeshift killing field, and then burned them alive while we hacked them apart from adjoining alcoves.
Evil?
Much to my surprise, it was revealed to me during this latest game that the characters don't really know WHO the leader is. It was clear she was an authority figure in the organization (she was bossing people around), but we don't really know who she was or what her role might have been. She may or may not have been our target.
By the time I joined this group, the party had already infiltrated the temple and the GM basically magic'd me in there, claiming my wizard was there with the party all along. Admittedly, most of the carnage operations are my idea. Had I been there from the beginning, I might have had the mind to ask for a name and description of our target. As it is though, my fellow players (and the GM) are rather inexperienced it would seem.
The more you explain, the more it sounds like you were given a pretty dodgy mission for good characters.
The more you explain, the more it sounds like you were given a pretty dodgy mission for good characters.
Well, it's an official module for 5E's organized game, so I imagine it's a perfectly fine mission. It's likely just the combination of revolving door characters, players who don't know what questions to ask, and a GM who doesn't explain the story clearly, makes it seem much worse than it probably is. I also missed the introductory game session and have a hearing impediment, so it might just be me and my own lack of understanding.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being sent in to kill someone but not knowing who so just kill everyone just in case is called genocide.
No it's not. Please use words properly. Genocide only has one definition and that's not it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being sent in to kill someone but not knowing who so just kill everyone just in case is called genocide.No it's not. Please use words properly. Genocide only has one definition and that's not it.
Indeed - 'genocide' would be if the party were surface dwarves who were offended by the very idea of duergar and go there purely to wipe out as many as they can to cleanse the gene-pool. That is nothing like what's going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being sent in to kill someone but not knowing who so just kill everyone just in case is called genocide.No it's not. Please use words properly. Genocide only has one definition and that's not it.
I was curious, so I looked it up:
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being sent in to kill someone but not knowing who so just kill everyone just in case is called genocide.No it's not. Please use words properly. Genocide only has one definition and that's not it.I was curious, so I looked it up:
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
So technically your group is committing genocide.
And we're debating whether this is evil or not? LOLOLOL| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah! Not like you're killing them off hand in their sleep based solely on their racial outlook and cultural upbringing!
Uh they aren't. They are killing them because of their affiliation with the Order of the Stone Hand. Which is not a race or culture. Unless you want to argue that eliminating a group you are in armed conflict with like ISIS would be a genocide of a political nature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to the murderhobo handbook, genocide is a neutral act, unless the enemy is EVIL in which case it becomes a good act.
Yeah! Not like you're killing them off hand in their sleep based solely on their racial outlook and cultural upbringing!Uh they aren't. They are killing them because of their affiliation with the Order of the Stone Hand. Which is not a race or culture. Unless you want to argue that eliminating a group you are in armed conflict with like ISIS would be a genocide of a political nature.
The war against ISIS is genocide, they will not stop until ISIS does not exist, you would be naive to think otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.
That's a nice straw man you've got there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The war against ISIS is genocide, they will not stop until ISIS does not exist, you would be naive to think otherwise.Yeah! Not like you're killing them off hand in their sleep based solely on their racial outlook and cultural upbringing!Uh they aren't. They are killing them because of their affiliation with the Order of the Stone Hand. Which is not a race or culture. Unless you want to argue that eliminating a group you are in armed conflict with like ISIS would be a genocide of a political nature.
That's still not genocide. Battles are being fought against ISIS because of what they do, not because of who they are.
Motivation does not come into the definition of genocide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure you need that definition again.
But doesn't matter because it's a post or so away from being delete by mods as are all related posts with it.
I don't see why the mods would delete any posts. The issue of genocide is applicable to the question posed in the opening post as to whether the PCs have committed an evil act.
Also the discussion has been civil.
Motivation does not come into the definition of genocide.It kinda does.
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."If it said "deliberate and/or coincidental" - then I'd be on board with you.
I am not sure where you are coming from on this one.
In the case of the PCs, I agree, what they are doing is killing indiscriminately.
In the case of ISIS I don't understand your logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.That's a nice straw man you've got there.
I think you need to look up the definition of Strawman, because that's not it.
Argumentum ad absurdum, perhaps, but not Strawman.
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.
The definition listed "national, racial, political, or cultural." "Knitting" wasn't listed among the acceptable groups for defining genocide. ;)
That's still not genocide. Battles are being fought against ISIS because of what they do, not because of who they are.
Are we not defined by our actions? (HINT: If we weren't this thread would not exist.)
;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.The definition listed "national, racial, political, or cultural." "Knitting" wasn't listed among the acceptable groups for defining genocide. ;)
Isn't knitting a cultural thing?
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.The definition listed "national, racial, political, or cultural." "Knitting" wasn't listed among the acceptable groups for defining genocide. ;)
Cultural. Or potentially political - you can't tell me that all them knitting circles don't have a secret political agenda to take over the world...
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.That's a nice straw man you've got there.I think you need to look up the definition of Strawman, because that's not it.
Argumentum ad absurdum, perhaps, but not Strawman.
I used the term: straw man correctly. Argumentum ad absurdum is the most common type of straw man argument.