|
Sam,
Either you're stupid, which I know you're not, or you're being deliberately obtuse. However, one more time.The culture in question is not evil. Is that clear? Or are you going to bring in fiends, their mortal worshippers, goblins, orcs and other evil races again because you can't make your point on a chaotic neutral culture? NOT EVIL!! If you're going to keep changing parameters, there's no point continuing this.
Obviously you are being aggressively obtuse Paul.
It does not matter.
The culture is not Lawful AND Good.
That makes it "wrong".
Period.Focusing on the Good-Evil axis is a red herring. The Law-Chaos axis is just as critical to consider.
The only reason I mentioned fiends was to demonstrate just how easy it is to explode the statement that genocide was "never" possible.I made the point quite simply and directly in regards to Chaotic cultures. "Order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good". I repeat, "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good". Without Law, no matter how you parse it, to a Lawful Good planar being you do not, by definition, have Good. You do not have Evil, that is true; and it is not Neutrality of course; but it is also not "really" Good.
That is reversed for a Chaotic Good planar being who will categorically reject the assertion that without freedom and chaos anything is "truly" Good. It is not. You may have some generally decent ideas, but you are constantly denying the true respect for life that defines Good within the parameters of Chaos, and so you really just do not qualify when push comes to shove.
And both are pale imitations to the Neutral Good planar being!Again as well, alignment in D&D has physical manifestations, both of physical structure and various beings. A golden ball of Lawful Good is not a silver ball of Chaotic Good, no matter how much both are balls of precious metal.
In B5 terms:
"Green!"
"Purple!"
And the only solution therefore is to wipe out everything that disagrees with you? That is a very strange definition of Good of any description.
You seem to view Lawful Good as a side and that's it. The people arguing against you, including me, see Lawful Good as ideals. If you do not uphold the ideals, which include justice (something genocide being indiscriminate is not), protecting the innocent (which genocide, killing children, does not), etc, etc. , you're not Lawful Good. If you don't walk the walk, you don't get the shiny halo. You disagree and think that just putting LG on the character sheet is all that counts.
And, consequently, arguing with you about this is pointless. So I'll stop wasting both our times.
|
|
Which is the point I was trying to explain above. Sam's assertion is that alignment is a series of teams, all of whom are out to "beat" every other team in any way they can, because they're unable to live and let live for anything other than their team.
Once you understand that that's the direction he's coming from, it makes a lot more sense.
FINALLY!
Of course there are the fine details, but you have the core concept.Though I decidedly don't agree with it, and don't agree that that's what D&D's alignment system represents, either.
Then you do not, and that is your choice.
I have enough evidence, including discussions with the author of the alignment system, to convince me that is absolutely what it represents, and I am happy with that, as are my players.|
|
And the only solution therefore is to wipe out everything that disagrees with you? That is a very strange definition of Good of any description.
So instead you achieve Good by letting Evil thrive as long as it is "over there"? That is a totally bizarre definition of Good of any description.
You seem to view Lawful Good as a side and that's it. The people arguing against you, including me, see Lawful Good as ideals. If you do not uphold the ideals, which include justice (something genocide being indiscriminate is not), protecting the innocent (which genocide, killing children, does not), etc, etc. , you're not Lawful Good. If you don't walk the walk, you don't get the shiny halo. You disagree and think that just putting LG on the character sheet is all that counts.
Lawful Good is ideals that are to be upheld. That you are unwilling to recognize that talking the talk is not walking the walk , then indeed all you are left with is some letters on a character sheet. You cannot represent the alignment with nothing but rhetoric. When your rhetoric also fails to account for every relevant element even that falls short, leaving the letters utterly meaningless.
And, consequently, arguing with you about this is pointless. So I'll stop wasting both our times.
If all you want to do is argue then indeed it is pointless. I have been trying to explain and clarify my views. Obviously you have issues with that.
Though I decidedly don't agree with it, and don't agree that that's what D&D's alignment system represents, either.
I think we should really let go of the idea that there are aligned actions. I think the PHB says there are, but I think the PHB description of alignment is very bad.
It's very difficult to pick any action and put your finger on it and say "This is chaotic". Even if you know the whole context it's not much better.But when you say "this person is generally acting with a very dominant chaotic tendency", I think it's really save to say it's a chaotic character.
And I think all cases where alignment does really matter is "when a character touches" or "a character tries to enter". And both times it's the characters general outlook, so it's completely unneccesary to determine how whatever action regards to alignment.
|
|
And the only solution therefore is to wipe out everything that disagrees with you? That is a very strange definition of Good of any description.So instead you achieve Good by letting Evil thrive as long as it is "over there"? That is a totally bizarre definition of Good of any description.
You seem to view Lawful Good as a side and that's it. The people arguing against you, including me, see Lawful Good as ideals. If you do not uphold the ideals, which include justice (something genocide being indiscriminate is not), protecting the innocent (which genocide, killing children, does not), etc, etc. , you're not Lawful Good. If you don't walk the walk, you don't get the shiny halo. You disagree and think that just putting LG on the character sheet is all that counts.Lawful Good is ideals that are to be upheld. That you are unwilling to recognize that talking the talk is not walking the walk , then indeed all you are left with is some letters on a character sheet. You cannot represent the alignment with nothing but rhetoric. When your rhetoric also fails to account for every relevant element even that falls short, leaving the letters utterly meaningless.
And, consequently, arguing with you about this is pointless. So I'll stop wasting both our times.If all you want to do is argue then indeed it is pointless. I have been trying to explain and clarify my views. Obviously you have issues with that.
Sam,
You've been telling people who disagree with you that they don't understand alignment or are using Good-aligned Outsiders wrong. That is not clarifying your view, that is arguing.
What? This cannot be right!
How could something that wanted to destroy my people be a servant of Heaven? My people are no worse or better than the city folk! We're the ones who were forced from our homelands! The Shoanti were not the ones who fell to devil worship! And this "angel" would want to kill us?
That cannot be true. I've spoken to your city priests, and none of them have shown me this kind of hate. How could anyone that would do such a thing be called good?
In what way is a Chaotic culture (the original premise) reducing the ability of others to be Good? Even when talking about those who are Evil, where do you draw the line? At what point is a free-willed individual considered beyond redemption? What about those who are neither Good nor Evil? Are they deserving of death as well?You draw the line at active behavior. If they are not being Lawful and Good they are doing it "wrong".
...
The key qualifier is not being Lawful and Good. Any other option is an active choice against the "right" way, and thus deserving of death.
So, in the Gord the Rogue book you mentioned, the summoned solar should have killed Gord and made sure that everyone else on the Neutral "team" was dead... which didn't happen. While the solar was unwilling to help Neutrality in more than killing the ape-demons, Gord was able to convince him to heal/raise Gellor. Hardly an example of "kill everyone not Lawful and Good."
BTW, the description you give of "Awful Good" is exactly the misrepresentation that causes bans of paladins in a lot of groups.
BTW, the description you give of "Awful Good" is exactly the misrepresentation that causes bans of paladins in a lot of groups.
And leads to paladins devouring live kobold babies in others...
|
|
So, in the Gord the Rogue book you mentioned, the summoned solar should have killed Gord and made sure that everyone else on the Neutral "team" was dead... which didn't happen. While the solar was unwilling to help Neutrality in more than killing the ape-demons, Gord was able to convince him to heal/raise Gellor. Hardly an example of "kill everyone not Lawful and Good."
The solar likely would have, if Gord had attacked him. As it was, it placed its alignment over any consideration of ensuring a very significant Evil was destroyed.
BTW, the description you give of "Awful Good" is exactly the misrepresentation that causes bans of paladins in a lot of groups.
No misrepresentation of all. If DMs and players are unable to handle a particular character it says more about their failure than one of actually understanding the alignment system.
So, in the Gord the Rogue book you mentioned, the summoned solar should have killed Gord and made sure that everyone else on the Neutral "team" was dead... which didn't happen. While the solar was unwilling to help Neutrality in more than killing the ape-demons, Gord was able to convince him to heal/raise Gellor. Hardly an example of "kill everyone not Lawful and Good."The solar likely would have, if Gord had attacked him. As it was, it placed its alignment over any consideration of ensuring a very significant Evil was destroyed.
"If attacked" is a large step from "might attack," which is the point. By your definition, the solar should have killed him for not being LG (and not being willing to convert). Your statement that your viewpoint on alignment is the same as Gary Gygax's is not the case.
|
|
"If attacked" is a large step from "might attack," which is the point. By your definition, the solar should have killed him for not being LG (and not being willing to convert). Your statement that your viewpoint on alignment is the same as Gary Gygax's is not the case.
Except of course there is a distinct difference between responding to violence with violence and an impulsive decision to default to violence with no other considerations, and both are different from , which is what you are trying to pose, and both of those are different from making a considered decision to deal with a specific situation, which is the core concept.
So yes, you are a large step from what I described, and my view remains quite close to the one Gary Gygax expressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If attacked" is a large step from "might attack," which is the point. By your definition, the solar should have killed him for not being LG (and not being willing to convert). Your statement that your viewpoint on alignment is the same as Gary Gygax's is not the case.Except of course there is a distinct difference between responding to violence with violence and an impulsive decision to default to violence with no other considerations, and both are different from , which is what you are trying to pose, and both of those are different from making a considered decision to deal with a specific situation, which is the core concept.
So yes, you are a large step from what I described, and my view remains quite close to the one Gary Gygax expressed.
Again, by your definition of why a Lawful Good outsider would kill an entire society of mortals just for being Chaotic, what is the difference? The Chaotic society in the original question is not attacking the outsider or even any Lawful Good societies, yet you say it's OK for the outsider to wipe them out: "The key qualifier is not being Lawful and Good. Any other option is an active choice against the "right" way, and thus deserving of death."
This isn't an "impulsive decision to default to violence," but an implementation of the principles of your definition. A principle is a principle for a Lawful Good being, especially using your definition. You can't argue that an outsider would be more willing to perform an extreme action (killing an entire society) than a minor, less risky action (killing one mortal/small group).
You cannot claim that your view is "close" to Gary Gygax if the actions you claim a LG outsider would take are so far from what the solar actually did in the book.
|
|
Again, by your definition of why a Lawful Good outsider would kill an entire society of mortals just for being Chaotic, what is the difference? The Chaotic society in the original question is not attacking the outsider or even any Lawful Good societies, yet you say it's OK for the outsider to wipe them out: "The key qualifier is not being Lawful and Good. Any other option is an active choice against the "right" way, and thus deserving of death."
If you cannot recognize the difference between considered action and whim or automatic function there is nothing much more I need to say to refute anything you assert. You are simply unwilling to consider the entire structure of the system.
This isn't an "impulsive decision to default to violence," but an implementation of the principles of your definition. A principle is a principle for a Lawful Good being, especially using your definition. You can't argue that an outsider would be more willing to perform an extreme action (killing an entire society) than a minor, less risky action (killing one mortal/small group).
Yes it is. Again, you are ignoring the circumstances. Just because the alignment system is absolute does not mean it is not also circumstantial. The two are not incompatible. Just because something deserves death does not mandate it must be put to death immediately, or immediately upon encountering. It only means there is nothing contradictory between the alignment and the putting to death on a basic theoretical level. A principle is a principle; that does not mean it must always be a one-line sound bite.
The question was, among the many variations, can a LG outsider such as a solar commit genocide?
The answer to that is yes, under certain conditions.
By simple English that means there are other conditions under which it could not. To ignore that is to be unable to employ the system at all.
You cannot claim that your view is "close" to Gary Gygax if the actions you claim a LG outsider would take are so far from what the solar actually did in the book.
Except they are not. You are simply coming to an incorrect conclusion derived from a complete misunderstanding of my statements.
|
|
OK, I'm confused. How does the difference between a considered action, whim, or automatic function matter to the discussion? It doesn't matter if the Lawful Good outsider committed genocide on a Chaotic Good tribe via careful planning, sudden impulse, or internal compulsion. The actual action and reason for the action are the same.
How does it not matter?
The effects are going to be significantly different, and that is a key factor.In effect you are saying that there is no difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil; both are required to eliminate those of different alignments with equal prejudice.
Actually, it could even be stretched to say that there is no difference between any alignment at all. A Chaotic Good outsider is required to kill a Lawful Good town if given the chance, or a Chaotic Neutral asylum for that matter.
Just because there is no difference in how they will ultimately treat those who oppose them does not mean there are no other differences between them.
Heck, if a Neutral Good Cleric who worships a LG God summons the LG outsider, he should off her too. Whether he plans to do it from the start, does it at the end for the lulz, or does it because of instinct doesn't change the logic behind the action; this person does not wear the right hat, therefore they must die.
The cleric should certainly consider the consequences of not fully embracing the ethos of his deity.
Again though, the error is yours in perceiving that doing something on impulse is the same as doing something by conscious choice.This doesn't make sense. What circumstances? Nothing bad is going to happen if the LG outsider kills the one mortal in your example. Unless you can describe why circumstances demanded he spare the bad mortal, my conclusion is that Gygax did not in fact agree with the alignments == hats idea. Being kind of a dick is a far cry from being genocidal.
The circumstances of considering all of the consequences.
That you do not perceive that something bad might happen demonstrates the limits of your thinking on the matter, not mine, Gygax's, or the characters involved.True, but you are arguing that committing genocide is the norm. Unless circumstances demand sparing the CG tribe, he should put all adults to the flaming sword and drag the children to the equivalent of Canadian Residential Schools in the 1800s [link]. Again, this seems like a pretty shaky extrapolation from one instance of a LG outsider being an ass.
No, you are arguing that because genocide is possible it must be the default reaction in every circumstance. That is an error on your part.
I don't want to be too mean, but as far as I can tell the reason your statements aren't being understood is because they don't make sense.
Not to be mean, but perhaps it is because you are unable to comprehend very simple distinctions, and are making willful misinterpretations to try and justify your lack of comprehension.
Just because you reject that kind of conservative Judeo-Christian morality does not mean it does not make sense to millions of other people.
Not to be mean, but perhaps it is because you are unable to comprehend very simple distinctions, and are making willful misinterpretations to try and justify your lack of comprehension.
Just because you reject that kind of conservative Judeo-Christian morality does not mean it does not make sense to millions of other people.
Insult others, check.
Ignore the flaws in your own arguments when pointed out to you, check.
Claim that they don't understand something "simple" and fail to elaborate, check.
Blame their lack of understanding on "misinterpretations" and "lack of comprehension," check.
Attempt to shift the focus of the argument, check.
Attempt to cloak your arguments in religious dogma, check.
I'm through with this discussion, as you are obviously not going to admit the possibility that those who disagree with you may have a point or even justify your position in any meaningful way.
|
Here's how my group plays. Though violence is inherent in DnD, the act of a Good person killing another Good person is an evil act. Period.
As far as playing according to alignment: We don't play by how we think it's played, we read the section in the 3.5 book about alignments. We don't care who invented the system, the motivations behind its origin, and how they intended it. The current system, 3.5 and PfRPG, states the alignments, and what to expect of those characters.
I'm not here to argue anything. This is how my group plays.
|
|
I'm through with this discussion, as you are obviously not going to admit the possibility that those who disagree with you may have a point or even justify your position in any meaningful way.
After insulting me, ignoring the flaws in your arguments when they are pointed out, claiming that I do not understand simple things, blaming my continued advocacy of my position on my lack of understanding, attempting to shift the focus, and cloaking your argument in political dogma.
ROFL
Okay, I've just finished going back and rereading this entire thread ...
My conclusion is that no angel can kill an entire group of chaotic humans simply for the "crime" of being chaotic and still be considered Lawful and Good (note this doesn't preclude the behavior entirely, as long as the angel in question is willing to admit that it is no longer Good).
Sam Weiss seems to be the post vocal opponent to this conclusion, so I will mostly address his points as I defend my position.
(Let me start by pointing out that the author of D&D, as far as I'm concerned, is Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, et al., and before that it was David "Zeb" Cook. I haven't read or played anything written by Gary Gygax for more than two decades. Although I really appreciate all his work back in the day, I don't really care about his thoughts on the current alignment system, which, I think you would agree, is quite distinct from his original conception.)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I grant your "hats" description of alignment, in which all LG outsiders are directly and adamantly opposed to all those of different alignment, even if only one "step" away on a single axis (i.e., NG or LN), never mind those Chaotic barbarian types. This opposition does not (and cannot) allow for the slaughter of entire society, simply because of its inherent alignment, because such an act would not be Good, making it an act that a LG outsider cannot commit.
Now, in order to convince anyone of this fact, I have to show that killing an entire civilization is not a Good (i.e., not Evil or even Neutral) act. Thus: It goes without saying (although I'm saying it) that the destruction of an entire society includes the deaths of children. Some of them, likely, infants, who are incapable of true rationality or the distinctions between Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos. I think it's fair to say that none of those infants are Chaotic at that moment and that some will not be Chaotic as adults (since humans are quite capable of choosing any alignment, when able to do so). It seems that the murder of these innocents can't possibly be described as Good acts, even if we might possibly argue that they are not Evil, and therefore disallowed for the "embodiments of their alignment." Further, since the murder of innocents is likely opposed to the concept of order and Law, the outsider in question is unlikely to go ahead and commit the atrocity with an eye to the "greater good," which is an act one might see from a NG or CG outsider.
Thus, although the LG outsiders, like all other "camps" of alignment, are opposed to those that are not of the same alignment, they are further restricted in their actions by the very fact that they are Lawful and Good. They are compelled to start with diplomacy, reason, attempted conversion, etc. Unlike a LE or CN outsider, it is not allowed to go around simply killing those who are of differing alignments.
There has been some discussion about the nature of D&D and the fact that simply murdering sentient beings is the fundamental task at hand for adventurers. Perhaps this is true of very simple and sophomoric D&D campaigns, but I, for one, would never allow a party member to simply kill a sentient creature (regardless of its alignment) for the sake of "running its pockets" and still be considered Lawful and Good. The PCs should be acting in the name of justice for ACTUAL DEEDS performed by the soon-to-be-slain bad guys or as a preemptive strike in regard to what I believe is called a "clear and present danger." To use the Burnt Offerings example, the strike on the goblin outpost is intended to respond to the initial attack by the goblins and as a reasonable step to prevent further attacks on Sandpoint. Note that all the goblins involved are combatants and are threats to the party, thus their deaths can be justified. When I ran this adventure, I went ahead and added baby goblins to the nursery, just for the moral squirming it caused in my players. They ended up leaving the babies in their cages, where they ultimately starved to death. I do not believe the killing of these non-Evil children was a Good act, and there were repercussions for the LG cleric.
Anyway, it seems that angels can, and do, kill in D&D, but those deaths are justified by the actions of those killed, not by their "alignment."
Except of course there is a distinct difference between responding to violence with violence and an impulsive decision to default to violence with no other considerations, and both are different from , which is what you are trying to pose, and both of those are different from making a considered decision to deal with a specific situation, which is the core concept.
This quote is in reference to the LG outsider that chose not to kill the Neutral character in some book or other. Clearly, when the LG outsider is given the option not to kill someone wearing another "hat," it doesn't, because it isn't forced to respond "to violence with violence ... with no other considerations." I argue that, in the circumstances under discussion in this thread, it is exactly these "considerations" that a LG outsider would refer to when dealing with a non-violent Chaotic society (this phrase seems a bit paradoxical, btw).
Hope that helps.
O
|
|
Okay, I've just finished going back and rereading this entire thread ...
My conclusion is that no angel can kill an entire group of chaotic humans simply for the "crime" of being chaotic and still be considered Lawful and Good (note this doesn't preclude the behavior entirely, as long as the angel in question is willing to admit that it is no longer Good).
Sam Weiss seems to be the post vocal opponent to this conclusion, so I will mostly address his points as I defend my position.
(Let me start by pointing out that the author of D&D, as far as I'm concerned, is Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, et al., and before that it was David "Zeb" Cook. I haven't read or played anything written by Gary Gygax for more than two decades. Although I really appreciate all his work back in the day, I don't really care about his thoughts on the current alignment system, which, I think you would agree, is quite distinct from his original conception.)
As far as I am concerned, the author of the alignment system of D&D is Gary Gygax. While those others have contributed rewrites, they did not create the system itself.
So that out of the way.Let's say, for the sake of argument,
OK, though I prefer "for the sake of debate".
Now, in order to convince anyone of this fact, I have to show that killing an entire civilization is not a Good (i.e., not Evil or even Neutral) act. Thus: It goes without saying (although I'm saying it)
Heh.
At this point, I think the first is something that must go without saying, but so far none have actively said it or proceeded with a proof of it, so a proper continuation.that the destruction of an entire society includes . . .
Right.
It seems that the murder of these innocents can't possibly be described as Good acts, even if we might possibly argue that they are not Evil, and therefore disallowed for the "embodiments of their alignment." Further, since the murder of innocents is likely opposed to the concept of order and Law, the outsider in question is unlikely to go ahead and commit the atrocity with an eye to the "greater good," which is an act one might see from a NG or CG outsider.
And that is where we hit contention of the concept.
The counter breaks down to two issues:1. It is not necessarily murder
2. Euthanasia is merciful, and thus Good, compared to the option
For the first, you do not establish that their deaths must be directly caused as the result of this destruction. They can all be simply gathered and raised as members of the Lawful Good society, with their pasts completely hidden from them.
For the second, should we assume that such a mass gathering of newly created orphans is not performed, we must consider the fate of those children. Without parents, they cannot care for themselves, and will die from thirst, hunger, and exposure in due course. Older ones may linger longer in this state, but they will almost certainly inevitably perish. Obviously it cannot be argued that such is in any way Good. What then to do? Putting them to death mercifully is the only rational option left (remember, that assumes we have ruled out fostering them), and thus is left as in fact qualifying as Good. (It simply is "the least suffering.")
I will also note that you acknowledge that even at the most extreme of active murder, is only likely to be opposed to law and order.
Two side issues:
1. At this point we are technically talking about cultural eradication and not "true" genocide, although the distinction is truly just technical.
2. We are forced to exclude various fringe considerations, such as the children going spontaneously feral or somesuch, which while legitimate fantasy tropes are reasonably beyond basic considerations.
However, the presentation is still in order, and does demonstrate the considerable barriers to it being possible.
Thus, although the LG outsiders, like all other "camps" of alignment, are opposed to those that are not of the same alignment, they are further restricted in their actions by the very fact that they are Lawful and Good. They are compelled to start with diplomacy, reason, attempted conversion, etc. Unlike a LE or CN outsider, it is not allowed to go around simply killing those who are of differing alignments.
The first is mostly correct. There are going to be some situations where they are not compelled to start with "reasoned" responses. That is a key element of my basic argument. There is in fact an extreme, the simplest example being some race of demons, where genocide is in fact the default response. The key is working from both directions (they crack their egg on the pointy side instead of the blunt side vs they eat souls for casual amusement), and try and figure out the line between the two.
There has been some discussion about the nature of D&D and the fact that simply murdering sentient beings is the fundamental task at hand for adventurers. Perhaps this is true of very simple and sophomoric D&D campaigns, but I, for one, would never allow a party member to simply kill a sentient creature (regardless of its alignment) for the sake of "running its pockets" and still be considered Lawful and Good. The PCs should be acting in the name of justice for ACTUAL DEEDS performed by the soon-to-be-slain bad guys or as a preemptive strike in regard to what I believe is called a "clear and present danger." To use the Burnt Offerings example, the strike on the goblin outpost is intended to respond to the initial attack by the goblins and as a reasonable step to prevent further attacks on Sandpoint. Note that all the goblins involved are combatants and are threats to the party, thus their deaths can be justified. When I ran this adventure, I went ahead and added baby goblins to the nursery, just for the moral squirming it caused in my players. They ended up leaving the babies in their cages, where they ultimately starved to death. I do not believe the killing of these non-Evil children was a Good act, and there were repercussions for the LG cleric.
I might say this goes beyond the basic position I was presenting, however this in fact addresses the entire structure, which must be the ultimate end result. Indeed, I agree. This is an excellent summary of taking the theory and converting it to application.
I will simply note two things:
1. Having asked Gygax his ruling on the situation, his reply was an unequivocal "They are always Evil, the Good aligned character is supposed to kill them." I do not believe in telling Vonnegut he does not know Vonnegut. I personally feel that degree of absolutism horrifying, but I did not write the system.
2. I also feel the use of such situations inevitably devolve into player traps, and have advocated the removal of non-combatants of that sort for several years.
Anyway, it seems that angels can, and do, kill in D&D, but those deaths are justified by the actions of those killed, not by their "alignment."
There is the thing though - while alignment is not supposed to be a straightjacket on player action, it is supposed to be a general descriptor of actions. That is a key distinction to make.
Your alignment, as a PC, does not require you to do things. What you do, as a PC, determines your alignment. Alignment can change, with consequences.Conversely, when we introduce races with alignments, particularly planar races that are functionally physical manifestations of alignment, then there is little to no distinction between alignment and action.
This quote is in reference to the LG outsider that chose not to kill the Neutral character in some book or other. Clearly, when the LG outsider is given the option not to kill someone wearing another "hat," it doesn't, because it isn't forced to respond "to violence with violence ... with no other considerations." I argue that, in the circumstances under discussion in this thread, it is exactly these "considerations" that a LG outsider would refer to when dealing with a non-violent Chaotic society (this phrase seems a bit paradoxical, btw).
Exactly.
And again, I will point out your final note here. If it is indeed that paradoxical, it stands as the direct justification for intervention you were asking for just previously.Hope that helps.
O
While I continue to disagree about certain points as noted above, you have certainly presented a reasonable and rational case that clearly establishes just how and why such extreme actions are going to be exceptionally rare, and how and why an ordinary mortal, particularly a PC, should never expect to casually get away with such actions.
One might even suggest that you have gone so far as to actively and successfully proven that there is in fact more than one equally valid, equally absolute, version of Lawful Good possible (said proof extendable to every other alignment by inference of course), which is implicit in the alignment system (and manifested with the multiple deities of any specific alignment).
I think this really isn't going anywhere.
Can't we just agree to disagree? Everything in D&D is open to interpretation and what matters is that the groups play the game in a way that's fun to them.
If anyone would be changed in his oppinions, he would have been like a week ago. But as it is now, this is all the same points every day again and wastes my time checking if this threat might have turned to another direction.
I think the starting post is still interesting, but this is getting nowhere.
I agree, I'm much more interested in discussing the outsiders, their goals, purposes and cultures, than whether one very specific mindset is part of a large gradient of morality.
Think of alignments more as atomic spectra, some alignments will have more variants, like the chaotic ones, but all include many differnet viewpoints and beleifs, so inherently even the theoretically genocidal LG godling will be opposed by as many paladins and LG heroes of the mortal realm as any CE demon prince.
Agree to disagree, lets get planar.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this really isn't going anywhere.
If anyone would be changed in his oppinions, he would have been like a week ago.
Not at all.
The amount of backtracking carried out by Sam on this page is most encouraging.He's gone from 'LG outsiders will always kill everyone they see, of differing alignment, with no provocation, or hesitation', and moved to 'LG outsiders will try reason and example first, consider the consequences of any potential violence, and use it only as a last resort'.
He has provided a literary example, by the father of D&D, no less, which shows a LG outsider cooperating with those they see as 'impure', and even raising them from the dead, which has to be one of the most glowing endorsements such a creature could give a mere mortal.
He has admitted that he finds adventures containing non-combative infants troubling, and has pushed for future adventures to contain only clear-cut, iredeemable foes.
Such a change of heart is in fact, a true breakthrough. The fact that it took him so long, is regrettable, as is the fact that he still refuses to acknowledge his change of position (maybe even to himself?). This is understandable, as it can be a painful, and sobering process to admit that one has been led astray by dark forces, to promote a bitter travesty of the Truth.
However, the main thing is that he has started to see the error of his previous, misguided, Lawful Evil heritage, and taken a step toward the light of Lawful Good, thanks to the patience and understanding shown to him by his fellow posters. And we should take solace in every small victory, to regain hearts and minds by peaceful means whenever possible. Thanks must go out to all posters in this thread, for helping this sheep return to the fold.
As far as I am concerned, the author of the alignment system of D&D is Gary Gygax. While those others have contributed rewrites, they did not create the system itself.
So that out of the way.
Although this really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I think it's fair to say that GG wrote AN alignment system, but I would certainly argue that he has not had much to do with the current system that most players use, given its many changes and authors since Mr. Gygax had any say in it. I could argue that the inventor of playing cards intended the ace card to always count as a 'one,' but that doesn't invalidate Blackjack's sometimes valuation of an ace as 'eleven.' Yes, it's the same card as it always was, but it's being used in new and exciting ways that have nothing to do with that original inventor.
And that is where we hit contention of the concept.
The counter breaks down to two issues:
1. It is not necessarily murder
2. Euthanasia is merciful, and thus Good, compared to the option
1. Oh, yes it is.
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Assuming we can substitute rational entity for human being, then the definition fits, given that I assume it is against the "law" in both societies here (the outsider's and the barbarians'*) to intentionally kill children.
As an alternative, you provide:
For the first, you do not establish that their deaths must be directly caused as the result of this destruction. They can all be simply gathered and raised as members of the Lawful Good society, with their pasts completely hidden from them.
But that's not what we're discussing here. The topic at hand is the wholesale slaughter of an entire society based on the alignment of the majority of its people. Your proposal of murdering all the adults (including, presumably, women, the elderly, and any child old enough to remember his/her parents or society) and kidnapping all the children to be raised as LG is a) off-topic and b) another example of an atrociously evil act, for the same reasons mentioned in my earlier post. There are other ways to violate the rights of the innocent besides murdering them, and this is one of those ways.
For the second, should we assume that such a mass gathering of newly created orphans is not performed, we must consider the fate of those children. Without parents, they cannot care for themselves, and will die from thirst, hunger, and exposure in due course. Older ones may linger longer in this state, but they will almost certainly inevitably perish. Obviously it cannot be argued that such is in any way Good. What then to do? Putting them to death mercifully is the only rational option left (remember, that assumes we have ruled out fostering them), and thus is left as in fact qualifying as Good. (It simply is "the least suffering.")
2. Your statement here is certainly arguable, hence the debate regarding euthanasia in society today, but even if I concede that it is merciful, that is only in comparison to an assumed alternative that includes a lingering, painful death. I certainly don't see where that is the only other option for these children. In fact, one needs to assume the very fact that we are trying to prove here**, namely that a LG outsider should murder all the Chaotic members of a society, in order for any discussion of euthanasia to apply. In fact, "the least suffering" would be leaving this society in peace and letting it go on its merry way.
I will also note that you acknowledge that even at the most extreme of active murder, is only likely to be opposed to law and order.
No, I brought that up in order to show that murdering an entire society is neither Lawful NOR Good.
There are going to be some situations where [LG outsiders] are not compelled to start with "reasoned" responses. That is a key element of my basic argument.
Granted. But those situations, I argue, are in response to actions that are such an immediate threat to an individual, that no other, more reasoned, response is possible. Anyone who immediately leaps to the attack, when other options are available is Neutral at best, Chaotic or even Evil at worst.
1. Having asked Gygax his ruling on the situation, his reply was an unequivocal "They are always Evil, the Good aligned character is supposed to kill them." I do not believe in telling Vonnegut he does not know Vonnegut. I personally feel that degree of absolutism horrifying, but I did not write the system.
Interestingly, neither did Gygax, at least not the system that most players today are using.
2. I also feel the use of such situations inevitably devolve into player traps, and have advocated the removal of non-combatants of that sort for several years.
But wait ... how can this sort of thing be a trap? According to your "hat" system, there is only one correct response to such a situation and, therefore, there should be no moral equivocation or qualms. Each alignment wipes out the other***, given the opportunity, and goes on his way, knowing that he has done what was right, by his personal code.
There is the thing though - while alignment is not supposed to be a straightjacket on player action, it is supposed to be a general descriptor of actions. That is a key distinction to make.
Your alignment, as a PC, does not require you to do things. What you do, as a PC, determines your alignment. Alignment can change, with consequences.
Conversely, when we introduce races with alignments, particularly planar races that are functionally physical manifestations of alignment, then there is little to no distinction between alignment and action.
While I agree 100% with the initial point here, I don't understand what you are trying to say starting with "Conversely ..." It seems you are saying that a LG outsider would be MORE restricted by his alignment to Good actions than native humanoids of the same alignment. Again, I agree 100%. Combined with:
and how and why an ordinary mortal, particularly a PC, should never expect to casually get away with such actions.
We get the conclusion that, while a human can go chopping down civilizations willy-nilly, and we then describe that human as Evil, a LG outsider simply CAN'T kill innocents, Chaotic or otherwise. And, until someone has committed an ACTION to which death is the only just response, he is an innocent, insofar as we are concerned in this discussion.
To those who have grown weary of this conversation, I bid you a fond farewell, but I appreciate your allowing those of us who are still interested to continue. I feel that I am still very much addressing the original post.
Finally,
Such a change of heart is in fact, a true breakthrough. The fact that it took him so long, is regrettable, as is the fact that he still refuses to acknowledge his change of position (maybe even to himself?). This is understandable, as it can be a painful, and sobering process to admit that one has been led astray by dark forces, to promote a bitter travesty of the Truth.
However, the main thing is that he has started to see the error of his previous, misguided, Lawful Evil heritage, and taken a step toward the light of Lawful Good, thanks to the patience and understanding shown to him by his fellow posters. And we should take solace in every small victory, to regain hearts and minds by peaceful means whenever possible. Thanks must go out to all posters in this thread, for helping this sheep return to the fold.
This sort of thing doesn't really accomplish much beyond making you appear childish and petty and certainly doesn't help in working through what is obviously a thorny and complicated issue.
Hope this helps,
O
* Yes, I know that it is generally held that a "Chaotic" society is one that doesn't hold much truck with laws, but I defy you to imagine a society without some sort of interpersonal mores, and I imagine that killing children doesn't mesh with it.
** For all you kids out there, this is a classic example of 'begging the question,' regardless of how talking TV heads use the phrase.
*** This theory by the way, makes it hard to imagine the sort of cooperation seen by differently aligned outsiders (as mentioned earlier by others) or of any PC party.
What about Good aligned outsiders? What roles do they play? What are their origins?
I have always found Angels to be great antagonists to PCs in the past. Let's face it, PCs don't always act very "Good." In fact PCs, in my games anyway, usually straddle the line of good and evil and come in conflict with both sides.
And imagine the moral implications for PCs when they find out that the BBEG is in fact a LAWFUL Good Angel, attempting to destroy the chaos in the world and replace our chaotic tendencies with organized lawful ways.
I mean, now what do they do? Say the plot revolves around a barbarian culture being eradicated by a Lawful Good Angel. Do they kill the Angel? Do they let it go free to wreck havoc again later on the forces of chaos?
What I think is an interesting thing is, how PCs would actually come to have a good outsider as an enemy.
|
|
Not at all.
The amount of backtracking carried out by Sam on this page is most encouraging.He's gone from 'LG outsiders will always kill everyone they see, of differing alignment, with no provocation, or hesitation', and moved to 'LG outsiders will try reason and example first, consider the consequences of any potential violence, and use it only as a last resort'.
I never said that.
Someone else chose to improperly assume that from other statements I have made.He has provided a literary example, by the father of D&D, no less, which shows a LG outsider cooperating with those they see as 'impure', and even raising them from the dead, which has to be one of the most glowing endorsements such a creature could give a mere mortal.
Context please.
There was no cooperation.There was a summoning, which is force, action against planar enemies, which is natural, a request for additional assistance against a common enemy, which was refused, and finally pleading, which led to grudging aid with a moral lecture.
He has admitted that he finds adventures containing non-combative infants troubling, and has pushed for future adventures to contain only clear-cut, iredeemable foes.
Context again.
I noted that I have objected to such for some time. I would also add that I have been treated as rudely as I have been in this thread for making the suggestion.There has been a change.
Someone has chosen to debate rationally.
Others continue to deliberately misinterpret what I write in an attempt to promote themselves.
|
|
Although this really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I think it's fair to say that GG wrote AN alignment system, but I would certainly argue that he has not had much to do with the current system that most players use, given its many changes and authors since Mr. Gygax had any say in it. I could argue that the inventor of playing cards intended the ace card to always count as a 'one,' but that doesn't invalidate Blackjack's sometimes valuation of an ace as 'eleven.' Yes, it's the same card as it always was, but it's being used in new and exciting ways that have nothing to do with that original inventor.
It has quite a bit to do with it. That people have chosen to misinterpret it then complain that it is somehow dysfunctional because of how they choose to alter it means it is important to consider the original version, which is quite functional as written.
1. Oh, yes it is.
OED wrote:
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Exactly.
Killing mommy and daddy barbarian and leaving baby barbarian to starve to death is not murder.It is hardly pleasant, and almost certainly not Good, but it is not murder.
However, and this is critical, under no circumstances is killing during war considered murder by default. This has been redefined over time to refer only to specified combatants, but it provides a clear exception to the general definition that must be accounted for.
Assuming we can substitute rational entity for human being, then the definition fits, given that I assume it is against the "law" in both societies here (the outsider's and the barbarians'*) to intentionally kill children.
* Yes, I know that it is generally held that a "Chaotic" society is one that doesn't hold much truck with laws, but I defy you to imagine a society without some sort of interpersonal mores, and I imagine that killing children doesn't mesh with it.
As I mentioned elsewhere, in an system with an absolute morality, being against the law in a specific culture is irrelevant.
I do not dispute this at all, and indeed I hold this out as a prime example of culturally transcendent morality/ethics.But that's not what we're discussing here. The topic at hand is the wholesale slaughter of an entire society based on the alignment of the majority of its people. Your proposal of murdering all the adults (including, presumably, women, the elderly, and any child old enough to remember his/her parents or society) and kidnapping all the children to be raised as LG is a) off-topic and b) another example of an atrociously evil act, for the same reasons mentioned in my earlier post. There are other ways to violate the rights of the innocent besides murdering them, and this is one of those ways.
That is why I noted the difference in your phrasing. It switched from directly using the term genocide to destroying the culture.
However, you are missing an element of the alignment in your second posit. Violating the rights of the innocent is not against the Lawful Good alignment, and is in fact mandated if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.2. Your statement here is certainly arguable, hence the debate regarding euthanasia in society today, but even if I concede that it is merciful, that is only in comparison to an assumed alternative that includes a lingering, painful death. I certainly don't see where that is the only other option for these children. In fact, one needs to assume the very fact that we are trying to prove here**, namely that a LG outsider should murder all the Chaotic members of a society, in order for any discussion of euthanasia to apply. In fact, "the least suffering" would be leaving this society in peace and letting it go on its merry way.
** For all you kids out there, this is a classic example of 'begging the question,' regardless of how talking TV heads use the phrase.
This is correct.
This is why Lawful Good is not as all awesome as many would assert just because paladins have to be it. It makes specific choices that are in fact unpleasant.The converse is that a Chaotic Good society will reject any sort of social control no matter the consequences. They will not agree to surrender any right, no matter if it will provide for safety and security in the future. Give up land so a dam can be built to protect others? Nonsense! No one else has any right to it, and it is destructive to individual good to suggest someone be disenfranchised for the presumed benefit of others.
And yes, it does wind up a tad circular and begging of the question. The only around that would be start from the beginning again and attempt to specify every area of consideration first, and then attempt to define the applicable "rules" and definitions for each. I doubt we are up for that.
No, I brought that up in order to show that murdering an entire society is neither Lawful NOR Good.
Right. And that acknowledges that it can in fact be Lawful, so you disprove half of your own position.
Granted. But those situations, I argue, are in response to actions that are such an immediate threat to an individual, that no other, more reasoned, response is possible. Anyone who immediately leaps to the attack, when other options are available is Neutral at best, Chaotic or even Evil at worst.
Of course. I never disputed that.
Again, others assigned that position to me, based on a misinterpretation of my statements. I did not assert that, will not defend it, and will not accept responsibility for supporting it.Interestingly, neither did Gygax, at least not the system that most players today are using.
As above, he wrote the original one, the one that functioned.
But wait ... how can this sort of thing be a trap? According to your "hat" system, there is only one correct response to such a situation and, therefore, there should be no moral equivocation or qualms. Each alignment wipes out the other***, given the opportunity, and goes on his way, knowing that he has done what was right, by his personal code.
Because people love using it as an excuse to set up no win situations. For every "Awful Good" player of a paladin out there, there is a paladin hating DM who wants nothing more than to turn one into a fighter with no bonus feats just so his buddy can play an assassin, or even for his own petty amusement.
I have yet to see a "no-win" moral situation that was not atrociously contrived, served no relevant purpose in the story, was destructive to the story, was absurdly subjective, or some combination of those.While I agree 100% with the initial point here, I don't understand what you are trying to say starting with "Conversely ..." It seems you are saying that a LG outsider would be MORE restricted by his alignment to Good actions than native humanoids of the same alignment. Again, I agree 100%. Combined with:
MORE restricted by his physical existence to Lawful Good actions.
It is made of Lawful Good, it does not choose to be Lawful Good.We get the conclusion that, while a human can go chopping down civilizations willy-nilly, and we then describe that human as Evil, a LG outsider simply CAN'T kill innocents, Chaotic or otherwise. And, until someone has committed an ACTION to which death is the only just response, he is an innocent, insofar as we are concerned in this discussion.
You are correct, except; alignments are also determined by considerations beyond the individual
Again, Lawful Good is determined by the greatest good for the greatest number, with individual rights subject to being overruled if it is for the greater good.*** This theory by the way, makes it hard to imagine the sort of cooperation seen by differently aligned outsiders (as mentioned earlier by others) or of any PC party.
PCs are easy, they are always flawed.
For outsiders, the critical issue is the long term view, which allows them to subvert physical constraints for the short term in order to achieve long term goals. Thus, all Lawful outsiders can agree to fight all Chaotic outsiders, while all Good outsiders can agree to fight all Evil outsiders, and so forth. Ultimately though, their very natures make such cooperation only temporary.|
|
What I think is an interesting thing is, how PCs would actually come to have a good outsider as an enemy.What about Good aligned outsiders? What roles do they play? What are their origins?
I have always found Angels to be great antagonists to PCs in the past. Let's face it, PCs don't always act very "Good." In fact PCs, in my games anyway, usually straddle the line of good and evil and come in conflict with both sides.
And imagine the moral implications for PCs when they find out that the BBEG is in fact a LAWFUL Good Angel, attempting to destroy the chaos in the world and replace our chaotic tendencies with organized lawful ways.
I mean, now what do they do? Say the plot revolves around a barbarian culture being eradicated by a Lawful Good Angel. Do they kill the Angel? Do they let it go free to wreck havoc again later on the forces of chaos?
The major reasons would be:
1) Duty: The Celestial is guarding something and the PCs need it. If they aren't pure enough, which could be a very high level, or can't convince the celestial, they'll need to fight him.
2) Misunderstanding/manipulation: The celestial may be duped. He can be called to Earth by a corrupt priest and set after the PCs having had them framed. The PCs could resemble his true targets.
3) Prejudice: Although they won't take it to genocidal levels, some angels will still be dogmatic and in general a!+*#&~+s. Players tend to react against this and a long-standing conflict, which will rarely be outright violent, can grow.
4) They just don't like the PCs. This is the Harry Dresden scenario. No matter how good Dresden is, the Warden Morgan will not accept that he is anything other than an evil sunovab$#+$ who deserves to die. And as soon as he gets one shred of proof to back him up, Dresden's gone. Coupled with one of the earlier scenarios, you can have the angel as an enemy, a threatening presence, always waiting and watching for the PCs to step over the line.
Now, in most of these cases, violence won't be immediate, but not all enemies need to oppose you with violence. Having an angel testify against you in public is hardly likely to help the characters' reputations.
There was also an article in Dragon, but I can't find the issue number off the top of my head.
Killing mommy and daddy barbarian and leaving baby barbarian to starve to death is not murder.
It is hardly pleasant, and almost certainly not Good, but it is not murder.
While I believe you are splitting hairs here, it's nice to see that you agree with me that this is not a Good act. Thus, we are done. As we have agreed, no LG outsider, being a real manifestation of its alignment, is physically capable, regardless of desire, consequences, alternatives, etc., of committing this act.
However, and this is critical, under no circumstances is killing during war considered murder by default. This has been redefined over time to refer only to specified combatants, but it provides a clear exception to the general definition that must be accounted for.
Umm. Wait. Where did 'war' come from? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. We can have an entirely different conversation about the ethics of war and killing while at war, but that is well outside the constraints of this conversation. The point of discussion is whether or not a LG outsider is able or justified in destroying a civilization of Chaotic humans, just for being Chaotic (i.e., one that is not committing Evil acts, does not threaten Good individuals, and is not at war with the LG outsider). If you want to argue that every LG outsider is fundamentally 'at war' with every non-LG entity in the universe, I'm not buying it. Perhaps they all feel that way, but there is no way we can let them get away with killing innocent individuals because they are fighting a 'war' that their 'enemies' don't even know exists. By the same logic, Jack the Ripper might have been fighting a war against London prostitutes, and, therefore, he was justified in killing them.
As I mentioned elsewhere, in an system with an absolute morality, being against the law in a specific culture is irrelevant.
I do not dispute this at all, and indeed I hold this out as a prime example of culturally transcendent morality/ethics.
But you fail to note that it is against the law of both societies. In this case, it doesn't matter if morality is relative or absolute, as this action is unlawful according to everyone involved.
However, you are missing an element of the alignment in your second posit. Violating the rights of the innocent is not against the Lawful Good alignment, and is in fact mandated if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number ... Lawful Good is determined by the greatest good for the greatest number, with individual rights subject to being overruled if it is for the greater good.
Again, I'm not buying this statement. You are assuming as fact one of the most heatedly debated topics in the study of ethics. You quote a teleological ethical system that focuses on the results of actions and calls "good" that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. This is a notoriously difficult thing to assess, however. Given the unknowable and infinite list of possible ramifications of ANY action (particularly something as significant as the destruction of an entire city/state/society) over a long enough period of time, how do we really determine the action that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number? We could quite easily go back and forth with hypothetical situations in which the killing the Chaotic barbarians and not killing them become alternately "good" by that definition.
Alternatively, one could use a deontological system of ethics, as Kant famously did, which focuses on the actions themselves. Certain actions are "good," certain ones are "evil," regardless of the outcome. The samaritan who saves a young Hitler from a stampede is acting as a good person; the thief who gives his loot to the poor is bad. This seems to me to be much more likely a system for a Lawful Good entity to adopt, than the teleology of Utilitarianism (which you quote above). It seems clear that violating the rights of the innocent is NEVER Lawful OR Good, and, therefore, disallowed for our angel, regardless of some hazy notion of the "greatest good."
No, I brought that up in order to show that murdering an entire society is neither Lawful NOR Good.
Right. And that acknowledges that it can in fact be Lawful, so you disprove half of your own position.
No, no. I am saying that it is NEITHER Lawful NOR Good. Murdering a society of people is in fact a double-whammy that prevents our LG outsider from performing this action for two reasons: 1) it is not Lawful, and 2) it is not Good.
Because people love using it as an excuse to set up no win situations. For every "Awful Good" player of a paladin out there, there is a paladin hating DM who wants nothing more than to turn one into a fighter with no bonus feats just so his buddy can play an assassin, or even for his own petty amusement.
I have yet to see a "no-win" moral situation that was not atrociously contrived, served no relevant purpose in the story, was destructive to the story, was absurdly subjective, or some combination of those.
The purpose, for me, behind putting moral dilemmas in adventures is not to present "no-win" situations or because I hate paladins. In fact, the only truly interesting moral dilemmas are the ones in which both paths are "right." The pauper who steals bread for his starving family is a good example. It is right to obey the laws and, therefore, not steal, but it is also right to feed one's starving family and prevent their deaths. If I presented this situation to my paladin character, it is simply to see which "right" path he treads. This is an "auto-win" situation, because neither option is wrong.
Hope this helps,
O
|
|
While I believe you are splitting hairs here, it's nice to see that you agree with me that this is not a Good act. Thus, we are done. As we have agreed, no LG outsider, being a real manifestation of its alignment, is physically capable, regardless of desire, consequences, alternatives, etc., of committing this act.
Right, that act.
Umm. Wait. Where did 'war' come from? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. We can have an entirely different conversation about the ethics of war and killing while at war, but that is well outside the constraints of this conversation. The point of discussion is whether or not a LG outsider is able or justified in destroying a civilization of Chaotic humans, just for being Chaotic (i.e., one that is not committing Evil acts, does not threaten Good individuals, and is not at war with the LG outsider). If you want to argue that every LG outsider is fundamentally 'at war' with every non-LG entity in the universe, I'm not buying it. Perhaps they all feel that way, but there is no way we can let them get away with killing innocent individuals because they are fighting a 'war' that their 'enemies' don't even know exists. By the same logic, Jack the Ripper might have been fighting a war against London prostitutes, and, therefore, he was justified in killing them.
I could argue it as self defense if you like.
The base remains there is a conflict between the two that cannot be resolved without one side funamentally ceasing to be whatever they were. Call this sort of conflict "war", "survival", or whatever, it remains the same, and the exception of killing within it not being murder stands.As for both sides being aware, my base assumption is that all sides are operating under the same standards, so they would indeed be aware of a state of "conflict" with others, and be aware of the possibility of such action.
But you fail to note that it is against the law of both societies. In this case, it doesn't matter if morality is relative or absolute, as this action is unlawful according to everyone involved.
I thought it went without saying.
However, note that it applies to these societies and not all societies everywhere. I expect the Neutral Evil types one more step over do not consider it relevant in the least.Again, I'm not buying this statement. You are assuming as fact one of the most heatedly debated topics in the study of ethics.
I am assuming it as fact because I have a written example of it in the rules. How could it not be assumed as fact?
Mind you, on a personal moral basis I completely agree with you. Reiterating, this is not my personal alignment system but that of the game. I would submit Smith's view of moral sentiments as a core, modified by Nietzsche's assertion of revaluing morals to make sure they remain relevant and understood.
(And begging the issue that nobody in the real world comes with an actual alignment, and that the game is supposed to be an artificial construct reflecting a certain type of literary characterization as well.)
No, no. I am saying that it is NEITHER Lawful NOR Good. Murdering a society of people is in fact a double-whammy that prevents our LG outsider from performing this action for two reasons: 1) it is not Lawful, and 2) it is not Good.
Your exception seemed to suggest a possible circumstance wherein it could theoretically be Lawful.
If not, then so be it.The purpose, for me, behind putting moral dilemmas in adventures is not to present "no-win" situations or because I hate paladins. In fact, the only truly interesting moral dilemmas are the ones in which both paths are "right." The pauper who steals bread for his starving family is a good example. It is right to obey the laws and, therefore, not steal, but it is also right to feed one's starving family and prevent their deaths. If I presented this situation to my paladin character, it is simply to see which "right" path he treads. This is an "auto-win" situation, because neither option is wrong.
Now to get you to write adventures with such elements.
I agree, that is how it should be done.
I could argue it as self defense if you like.
The base remains there is a conflict between the two that cannot be resolved without one side funamentally ceasing to be whatever they were. Call this sort of conflict "war", "survival", or whatever, it remains the same, and the exception of killing within it not being murder stands.
As for both sides being aware, my base assumption is that all sides are operating under the same standards, so they would indeed be aware of a state of "conflict" with others, and be aware of the possibility of such action.
I am not willing to accept that any angel is going to honestly claim self-defense in the killing of a society consisting of (mostly) commoners and experts that are no threat to it, particularly one that probably had no idea of the existence of said angel, and, further, one that the angel likely had to seek out in order to exterminate it.
Also, I am not inclined to equate "war," "self-defense," and/or "survival." The angel, and indeed, the existences of Law and Good, are in no way at risk of destruction due to the continued existence of any number of Chaotic societies. Now, if we are willing to add to the discussion (and I'm not) that these societies are actively at war with all Lawful societies, rather than simply existing, I might buy this line of thought, but the simple existence of Chaos does not prevent the continued existence of Law.
It seems to me that you are confusing the conflict that we are postulating (i.e., between a LG outsider and a C_ tribe of human barbarians) with the otherworldly conflict (perhaps this could be called a war) between outsiders of differing alignments. It may be that when a LG outsider and a LE outsider meet they will immediately fly into mortal combat, with the winner feeling justified when he kills the loser. I agree that this is well within the understanding of the game's alignment and mythology. (I might even be persuaded that this is true of less obviously opposed individuals, for instance a LG outsider v. a LN outsider, but my initial inclination is not so.) I do not agree, however, that a tribe of humans has any sort of awareness that it is engaged in some sort of ongoing primordial conflict, the result of which is that it must constantly be on the lookout for some powerful entity, good or evil, in case it happens to notice the tribe and feels beholden to wipe it out, man, woman, and child.
But you fail to note that it is against the law of both societies. In this case, it doesn't matter if morality is relative or absolute, as this action is unlawful according to everyone involved.
I thought it went without saying.
However, note that it applies to these societies and not all societies everywhere. I expect the Neutral Evil types one more step over do not consider it relevant in the least.
It doesn't really matter to me what NE folk (or, really, what the Chaotic barbarians) think about the lawfulness of this behavior. I only brought this point up to show that the LG outsider is unlikely to find this sort of behavior in accordance with its Lawful nature.
You are assuming as fact one of the most heatedly debated topics in the study of ethics.
I am assuming it as fact because I have a written example of it in the rules. How could it not be assumed as fact?
I think you'll find that most of the folks posting here are playing D&D, 3.5 ed. In looking at the alignment descriptions written on pp. 103-6 of the PHB, I find no definition of Lawful, Good, or Lawful Good as "the greatest good for the greatest number." If you are referring to an alternate edition of D&D, I fail to see that definition as applicable here.
In short, I think that our conflict comes from your inclusion of all folks who are a particular alignment as members of a "team" that is opposed to all other teams. If an individual is on one of those "teams," you seem to argue, s/he is justified to act in whatever way is necessary to ensure the victory of that team, even if that action is specifically antithetical to the very feature that put the individual on the team in question, because victory (in this case, survival) is the only important factor. I am arguing with two elements of this thesis:
1) I feel that the defining characteristics of the team limit the actions of members of the team, meaning that the LG team, no matter how bad it wants to win, must still act within the parameters of Law and Good, which clearly obviate certain behaviors. These actions are unacceptable, and, for a LG society, no amount of sophistry like calling the contest a "war" or the actions "self-defense" will mitigate them. Remember that, even in war, Lawful societies have historically declared certain actions to be unacceptable, and I feel it's safe to say that the killing of the noncombatant members of a society would fall under the heading "war crime."
2) I do not believe that every Chaotic entity is on the Chaotic "team" (or perhaps, more accurately, in the Chaotic Division and on one of the three Chaotic teams). As you have noted, people don't choose an action because of their alignments; they are identified as certain alignments because of their actions. Thus, we can imagine a tribe of barbarians who, due to upbringing or environment, fail to see the value of strict law, act according to their gut feelings, and, therefore, are considered (by those who care to label them) as "Chaotic." This is hardly the same thing as choosing to be on the Chaotic "team." In fact, it seems likely that the barbarians don't even realize that someone might consider them Chaotic and that they now must be on the lookout for rampaging outsiders of Law that might show up at any moment and kick their houses down and murder their children. Perhaps the entities that are tied to the very concepts of Chaos and Law (outsider, in other words) could be said to conform to your "team" model, but the average native humanoid has way more important things to worry about than whether his neighbor is Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral. These humanoids are not part of the great alignment conflict, per se, even though their actions might put them in conflict with entities of differing alignments, at times.
I'm afraid I'm headed out of town for the holidays, so I am unlikely to be able to respond to any further debate, but ...
I hope that helps,
O
|
|
I am not willing to accept that any angel is going to honestly claim self-defense in the killing of a society consisting of (mostly) commoners and experts that are no threat to it, particularly one that probably had no idea of the existence of said angel, and, further, one that the angel likely had to seek out in order to exterminate it.
Not a threat to the angel, a threat to others. One of those Chaotic commoners or experts could wander out and threaten the life of some helpless person on a sudden whim. They are Chaotic, and prone to violence, after all. A LG outsider has some obligation to all of those innocent people.
Also, I am not inclined to equate "war," "self-defense," and/or "survival." The angel, and indeed, the existences of Law and Good, are in no way at risk of destruction due to the continued existence of any number of Chaotic societies. Now, if we are willing to add to the discussion (and I'm not) that these societies are actively at war with all Lawful societies, rather than simply existing, I might buy this line of thought, but the simple existence of Chaos does not prevent the continued existence of Law.
Of course they are at risk of destruction. Those Chaotic people are out there tempting innocent Lawful people, subverting them with talk of how they can live wonderful lives without all those laws, and the like. That is a very real and present danger.
It seems to me that you are confusing the conflict that we are postulating (i.e., between a LG outsider and a C_ tribe of human barbarians) with the otherworldly conflict (perhaps this could be called a war) between outsiders of differing alignments. . . .
Ultimately they are one and the same.
However, you are correct that it is critical to note the difference between the two. This was a point I was trying to make. When you move between those paradigms you get divergent and disproportionate results. It is very much swatting a house fly with a nuke. That is why it should always be a scary encounter for mortals, no matter how well they stick to their alignment.It doesn't really matter to me what NE folk (or, really, what the Chaotic barbarians) think about the lawfulness of this behavior. I only brought this point up to show that the LG outsider is unlikely to find this sort of behavior in accordance with its Lawful nature.
It must. If the sample does not function for all interactions between all nine of the alignments, then ultimately it fails to properly account for the entire system.
I think you'll find that most of the folks posting here are playing D&D, 3.5 ed. In looking at the alignment descriptions written on pp. 103-6 of the PHB, I find no definition of Lawful, Good, or Lawful Good as "the greatest good for the greatest number." If you are referring to an alternate edition of D&D, I fail to see that definition as applicable here.
The game is the sum total of its editions. While that specific phrase is not used, the sentiment remains:
"“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness,
reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness,
and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness
say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people
can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full
confidence that others will act as they should."
One cannot be Lawful Good without including the Lawful factor. Otherwise it is just Neutral Good with a few extra rules.
Beyond that, the 3E descriptions are phrased so weakly as to make it difficult to determine what the alignments really are to begin with. I could justify virtually anything using those as the base combining "It does not say I cannot" with:
"Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."
In short, I think that our conflict comes from your inclusion of all folks who are a particular alignment as members of a "team" that is opposed to all other teams. If an individual is on one of those "teams," you seem to argue, s/he is justified to act in whatever way is necessary to ensure the victory of that team, even if that action is specifically antithetical to the very feature that put the individual on the team in question, because victory (in this case, survival) is the only important factor. I am arguing with two elements of this thesis:
Yes and no.
Each alignment has an actual physical existence under the Great Wheel cosmology. As such, it is very much a "team" opposed to all the other "teams".However, there is variation within each alignment. So it is more that each alignment is a separate "league" with a bunch of "teams" competing against the other "leagues" with their "teams".
And sometimes they manage inter-league cooperation.
1) I feel that the defining characteristics of the team limit the actions of members of the team, meaning that the LG team, no matter how bad it wants to win, must still act within the parameters of Law and Good, which clearly obviate certain behaviors. These actions are unacceptable, and, for a LG society, no amount of sophistry like calling the contest a "war" or the actions "self-defense" will mitigate them. Remember that, even in war, Lawful societies have historically declared certain actions to be unacceptable, and I feel it's safe to say that the killing of the noncombatant members of a society would fall under the heading "war crime."
I agree, though not to the same degree and definition of specific actions.
2) I do not believe that every Chaotic entity is on the Chaotic "team" (or perhaps, more accurately, in the Chaotic Division and on one of the three Chaotic teams). As you have noted, people don't choose an action because of their alignments; they are identified as certain alignments because of their actions. Thus, we can imagine a tribe of barbarians who, due to upbringing or environment, fail to see the value of strict law, act according to their gut feelings, and, therefore, are considered (by those who care to label them) as "Chaotic." This is hardly the same thing as choosing to be on the Chaotic "team." In fact, it seems likely that the barbarians don't even realize that someone might consider them Chaotic and that they now must be on the lookout for rampaging outsiders of Law that might show up at any moment and kick their houses down and murder their children. Perhaps the entities that are tied to the very concepts of Chaos and Law (outsider, in other words) could be said to conform to your "team" model, but the average native humanoid has way more important things to worry about than whether his neighbor is Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral. These humanoids are not part of the great alignment conflict, per se, even though their actions might put them in conflict with entities of differing alignments, at times.
Heh. Well then, now are you are projecting the example even further from the abstract ideals we started with.
Yes, that is correct, it is vanishingly unlikely that any mortal society is going to be that utterly monolithic.And yes, again, I have noted before, there is a very significant difference between planar races that are made of their alignment and mortals who act and are classified as to those alignments. This must be kept in mind when considering the different levels of action between the two.
I'm afraid I'm headed out of town for the holidays, so I am unlikely to be able to respond to any further debate, but ...
I hope that helps,
I will be waiting. ;)
3) Prejudice: Although they won't take it to genocidal levels, some angels will still be dogmatic and in general a%&!@~@&s. Players tend to react against this and a long-standing conflict, which will rarely be outright violent, can grow.4) They just don't like the PCs. This is the Harry Dresden scenario. No matter how good Dresden is, the Warden Morgan will not accept that he is anything other than an evil sunovab%*@% who deserves to die. And as soon as he gets one shred of proof to back him up, Dresden's gone. Coupled with one of the earlier scenarios, you can have the angel as an enemy, a threatening presence, always waiting and watching for the PCs to step over the line.
By my experience, players tend to react REALLY badly when others treat them like arrogant jerks. Divine emmisaries or not, if someone doubts their honor (whatever that might be) or their capabilities, they are really going to hate him very soon. And when they are not all completely lawful and feel obliged to help the celestial, they will readily accept to help with almost anything to oppose him.
Even simple paladins can cause such a reaction and high CR outsider that is quite disconnected from the afairs of simple mortals, should be able to perform great in this role. ^^
Not a threat to the angel, a threat to others. One of those Chaotic commoners or experts could wander out and threaten the life of some helpless person on a sudden whim. They are Chaotic, and prone to violence, after all. A LG outsider has some obligation to all of those innocent people.
Samuel Weiss, I have to ask, why is being chaotic mean being prone to violence?
|
OK, been doing some considering about the original idea that LG celestials cannot kill non evil people... :) Yeah I am back, sorry :)
This concept then means that a LG celestial cannot kill nonchaotic-evil outsiders either. If having a single diametrically opposed portion of their alignment is not enough to cause a LG celestial to kill, then just because the opponent is LE does not allow them to kill either.
The only way I can see this argument work is if LG celestials can ONLY kill CE beings. Celestials can ONLY kill if all axis of the alignments are opposed.
If a celestial is composed of all that it means to be Law, and the concept of Chaos is anathema to them- but they cannot act ultimately against what their alignment stands for, then I just do not see how celestials can kill at all. Unless it opposes all axis of alignment. And even then it is pushing it.
Someone once asked why a LE celestial would feel threatened by a freedom loving barbarian. How is this freedom loving barbarian a threat? Well, one only has to look a Communist China for an answer. Their concept has long been a lawful organized society is best for the greater good. When students stand up for individual freedoms in Tienanmen Square this is the force of chaos rising up to overthrow the common good, to plunge society into chaos for their own selfish advancement.
So, yes a LG celestial would see chaos just as badly as it perceives evil. Both are attempts to overthrow the common good for the advancement of one's own selfish base needs. So, both chaos and evil must be combated with every effort and with every sacrifice.
Ok, I am done ranting now. Please carry on.
|
|
Samuel Weiss, I have to ask, why is being chaotic mean being prone to violence?
It was a comment made several posts back about the concept of a stable, non-violent, Chaotic society being a bit of an oxymoron.
By definition their social controls are lighter, and thus more prone to extremes of behavior, including violence.That does not make them Evil by default. Even the aphorisms of Cuthbert in T1 acknowledge that "Some good folk only understand one thing."
It just means a greater likelihood of physical confrontation, and thus behavior that is considered destructive to what is Good by a Lawful society.
OK, been doing some considering about the original idea that LG celestials cannot kill non evil people...
Oh they can. But if they are acting good, there has to be a good reason why lethal force is deemed neccessary.
Being chaotic might not be too much to a LG celestials liking, but none of the chaotic people is posing an immediate threat to the lives and safty of innocent people by being chaotic. As a matter of fact, neither are evil people if they are just evil in mind, but not doing anything bad to other people.In such a situation, a LG celestial might want to innitiate a change, so the ideals of Order become more widespread and respected. But as a good being, he will do so by peaceful means. Simply resolving to violence is the way of Lawful Evil.
When a LG celestial draws his weapons on CG or CN people, he has to have a really good reason. For example a group of CG rebels actively fights a LN or LE organization, but the LG government wont tollerate vigilantes to handle the issue themselves, but will require an investigation as the law requires. And when the CG rebels don't stop their illegal actions, the LG government feels obliged to put an and to their group. A LG celestial might actively support the governmenr and will help with puting the offenders to prison and may even use leathal force to prevent attacks on members of the LN organization.
|
|
OK, been doing some considering about the original idea that LG celestials cannot kill non evil people...Oh they can. But if they are acting good, there has to be a good reason why lethal force is deemed neccessary.
Being chaotic might not be too much to a LG celestials liking, but none of the chaotic people is posing an immediate threat to the lives and safty of innocent people by being chaotic. As a matter of fact, neither are evil people if they are just evil in mind, but not doing anything bad to other people.
In such a situation, a LG celestial might want to innitiate a change, so the ideals of Order become more widespread and respected. But as a good being, he will do so by peaceful means. Simply resolving to violence is the way of Lawful Evil.When a LG celestial draws his weapons on CG or CN people, he has to have a really good reason. For example a group of CG rebels actively fights a LN or LE organization, but the LG government wont tollerate vigilantes to handle the issue themselves, but will require an investigation as the law requires. And when the CG rebels don't stop their illegal actions, the LG government feels obliged to put an and to their group. A LG celestial might actively support the governmenr and will help with puting the offenders to prison and may even use leathal force to prevent attacks on members of the LN organization.
I agree whole heartedly. The reason for my renewed post was early on we debated whether LG can kill non evil at all. Many argued that LG can kill evil with no problem, but under no circumstances can they kill Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good. Even though Chaotic is diametrically opposite in their alignment. My point is that IF LG can find justification to kill evil, they can certainly find justification to kill chaotic as well.
I do believe that depending upon the circumstances LG celestials can resort to killing non-evil beings. The circumstances must be such to warrant such a major action, but it can be done.
As such, it is perfectly feasible to create an adventure where the BBEG turns out to be a celestial, putting the party in a moral and ethical quandary.
|
|
lots of stuff
essentially what this says that it is impossible to take any action at all as any action will cause an adverse action as a result, therefore non action is the preferable action... yeah ok. Sounds more like true neutral to me.
By the way, one writer described the ultimate force of Law as desiring a frozen monolithic existence where time itself is frozen. Nothing is capable of any change. Any action is chaotic and a change of the status quo.
|
|
OK, been doing some considering about the original idea that LG celestials cannot kill non evil people...Oh they can. But if they are acting good, there has to be a good reason why lethal force is deemed neccessary.
Being chaotic might not be too much to a LG celestials liking, but none of the chaotic people is posing an immediate threat to the lives and safty of innocent people by being chaotic. As a matter of fact, neither are evil people if they are just evil in mind, but not doing anything bad to other people.
In such a situation, a LG celestial might want to innitiate a change, so the ideals of Order become more widespread and respected. But as a good being, he will do so by peaceful means. Simply resolving to violence is the way of Lawful Evil.When a LG celestial draws his weapons on CG or CN people, he has to have a really good reason. For example a group of CG rebels actively fights a LN or LE organization, but the LG government wont tollerate vigilantes to handle the issue themselves, but will require an investigation as the law requires. And when the CG rebels don't stop their illegal actions, the LG government feels obliged to put an and to their group. A LG celestial might actively support the governmenr and will help with puting the offenders to prison and may even use leathal force to prevent attacks on members of the LN organization.
I agree whole heartedly. The reason for my renewed post was early on we debated whether LG can kill non evil at all. Many argued that LG can kill evil with no problem, but under no circumstances can they kill Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good. Even though Chaotic is diametrically opposite in their alignment. My point is that IF LG can find justification to kill evil, they can certainly find justification to kill chaotic as well.
I do believe that depending upon the circumstances LG celestials can resort to killing non-evil beings. The circumstances must be such to warrant such a major action, but it...
It's certainly possible, but you'd better have a good reason for the celestial doing things that most players will consider not in their nature. What people were arguing with is that you, and later Sam, seemed to be saying this would be the default assumption or it would be possible "just because they were Chaotic". Good Outsiders would have no problem exterminating Outsiders of differing alignments because they cannot be 'rehabilitated' but mortals can change. Better to convert where possible than kill. Sometimes you have to kill, but it's very wasteful.
Also, in most campaigns the Good/Evil axis is the primary source of conflict. If your campaign is more aligned along the Lawful/Chaotic axis, such as Rogukun, then this will change and you'll have Dwarves and Devils lining up to defend civilisation from the Demons, Eladrin and pesky elves. It's theoretically possible to have both axes equally important, but it's much harder as there will be more itnerparty conflict.
I've got a moment here, sitting in front of my dad's Xmas tree ...
One of those Chaotic commoners or experts could wander out and threaten the life of some helpless person on a sudden whim. They are Chaotic, and prone to violence, after all. A LG outsider has some obligation to all of those innocent people ... Those Chaotic people are out there tempting innocent Lawful people, subverting them with talk of how they can live wonderful lives without all those laws, and the like. That is a very real and present danger.
Once again, we are straying from the original conversation. The questioned posited by the original post was whether a LG angel would feel compelled to destroy a barbarian civilization simply for being Chaotic. When we start adding actions to that civilization like proselytizing, threatening, or trying to convert others, we are adding complicating factors to the topic at hand. Assuming the barbarian civilization lives in an isolated demi-plane, in which there is no chance of encountering other, non-Chaotic individuals that they might endanger or convert, would the LG outsider still feel justified in destroying the barbarians for the SOLE reason that they are Chaotic? If so, how can it justify this behavior, given that many of the members of that society are helpless and not (yet) Chaotic?
It seems to me that you are confusing the conflict that we are postulating (i.e., between a LG outsider and a C_ tribe of human barbarians) with the otherworldly conflict (perhaps this could be called a war) between outsiders of differing alignments. . . .
Ultimately they are one and the same.
However, you are correct that it is critical to note the difference between the two. This was a point I was trying to make. When you move between those paradigms you get divergent and disproportionate results. It is very much swatting a house fly with a nuke. That is why it should always be a scary encounter for mortals, no matter how well they stick to their alignment.
Yes. The LG outsider is going to recognize any sort of resort to violence as an extreme response that it cannot justify as Good, because humanoids do not interact with the alignment system in the same way that outsiders do.
"“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness,
reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness,
and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness
say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people
can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full
confidence that others will act as they should."One cannot be Lawful Good without including the Lawful factor. Otherwise it is just Neutral Good with a few extra rules.
I don't see anything in this description that suggests that a LG outsider is trying to achieve the "greatest good for the greatest number." In fact, as AshVelveteen suggested, Utilitarian ethics seem to be a much more NG/CG method of examining the world. I agree that the Kantian theory of established rules and the assumption that others will adhere to them is much more Lawful Good.
Beyond that, the 3E descriptions are phrased so weakly as to make it difficult to determine what the alignments really are to begin with. I could justify virtually anything using those as the base combining "It does not say I cannot" with:
"Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."
Keep in mind that these guidelines are for PCs, not outsiders that are physical manifestations of their respective alignments. The true LG outsider CANNOT commit unLawful or unGood actions, including the murder of innocent children (an extremely unGood action), without an extremely powerful justification, something that has not yet been given.
1) I feel that the defining characteristics of the team limit the actions of members of the team, meaning that the LG team, no matter how bad it wants to win, must still act within the parameters of Law and Good, which clearly obviate certain behaviors. These actions are unacceptable, and, for a LG society, no amount of sophistry like calling the contest a "war" or the actions "self-defense" will mitigate them. Remember that, even in war, Lawful societies have historically declared certain actions to be unacceptable, and I feel it's safe to say that the killing of the noncombatant members of a society would fall under the heading "war crime."
I agree, though not to the same degree and definition of specific actions.
Then it sounds like you and I are on the same page at the end of the day. This is the crux of my argument: Good outsiders cannot commit nonGood actions and, even in war, killing everyone in the Chaotic society is not Good.
O
|
|
Once again, we are straying from the original conversation. The questioned posited by the original post was whether a LG angel would feel compelled to destroy a barbarian civilization simply for being Chaotic. When we start adding actions to that civilization like proselytizing, threatening, or trying to convert others, we are adding complicating factors to the topic at hand. Assuming the barbarian civilization lives in an isolated demi-plane, in which there is no chance of encountering other, non-Chaotic individuals that they might endanger or convert, would the LG outsider still feel justified in destroying the barbarians for the SOLE reason that they are Chaotic? If so, how can it justify this behavior, given that many of the members of that society are helpless and not (yet) Chaotic?
Actually, the original post was that a LG angel was killing a Chaotic civilization, and how do the PCs interact with that.
That was turned to an assertion that such a scenario was impossible to begin with, at which point I began noting how it was, and the general discussion turned to examing the various base assumptions and possibilities surrounding it.As for adding actions, as a "civilization" (or functioning society or whatever other term you want to use for it), it comes with a basic assumption that they are raising their children as themselves, which is de facto expansion of their culture and the "conversion" of others.
As for positing an isolated culture in a demiplane, I would first note that even considering such is a consequence of the entire process. We have to consider various obscure cases like this to determine what the boundaries of general actions are.
That noted, we circle back to what I noted earlier, that "destruction" of the culture can take many forms, including killing the adults and taking the children to raise "properly" (that is, from the alignment perspective of said LG creature).
Can it be justified? Again, that depends on the scope of the examination. The culture may be isolated in a demiplane now, but does that establish they always will be? What if they are suddenly contacted in some Star Trek Prime Directive worst case scenario and explode on the multiverse, slaughtering and pillaging?
Yes. The LG outsider is going to recognize any sort of resort to violence as an extreme response that it cannot justify as Good, because humanoids do not interact with the alignment system in the same way that outsiders do.
Not necessarily. It will recognize violence as a response that must be used, "without mercy" (from the 3.5 PHB description of paladin in the alignment section) against those that are a danger, immediate or potential. As I noted, "potential" for an immortal is significantly more than "potential" for a mortal, and thus the greater danger.
I don't see anything in this description that suggests that a LG outsider is trying to achieve the "greatest good for the greatest number." In fact, as AshVelveteen suggested, Utilitarian ethics seem to be a much more NG/CG method of examining the world. I agree that the Kantian theory of established rules and the assumption that others will adhere to them is much more Lawful Good.
It is part of combining "Law" with "Good".
Other ethical models would lead to the absurd suggestion in the Book of Exalted Deeds where a LG paladin feels compelled not to overthrow a LE society because it has laws, however unjust they might be. Obviously that is going way too far the other way.Keep in mind that these guidelines are for PCs, not outsiders that are physical manifestations of their respective alignments. The true LG outsider CANNOT commit unLawful or unGood actions, including the murder of innocent children (an extremely unGood action), without an extremely powerful justification, something that has not yet been given.
Indeed, for PCs.
Outsiders can easily pass to the scope I noted previously.Then it sounds like you and I are on the same page at the end of the day. This is the crux of my argument: Good outsiders cannot commit nonGood actions and, even in war, killing everyone in the Chaotic society is not Good.
They cannot comming nonGood actions.
What the definition of Good is remains to be established.