Am I evil?

[TriOmegaZero]

Xum wrote:

I gotta say I thought the same thing. :) But I do like Mr. Fishy, fun Fish.

We don't agree on much, but he certainly is a character. :)

[ProfessorCirno]

You know, lawful doesn't equate to good.

You could have an evil society that legalizes torture. It would still be an evil act.

[calvinNhobbes]

Xum wrote:

But if we follow the SRD statement to the letter there is no way of ever playing a Good character, except if he is a pacifist and a vegetarian.

So why do you have to play a good character? That's why neutral exists. If you don't want to act good, why put GOOD on your character sheet.

Quote:

The thing is, I don't see Killing as inherently evil.

That's because it is not. The intent behind it determines whether it is evil or not.

Quote:

Destroying Evil is the duty of good people.

Disagree. The duty of good people is to do GOOD. Big difference.

Quote:

If someone is redemable, even at great personal cost that's the best course of action, if not, destroying him or it, is the best course of action.

That's how a neutral or evil person would think, not a good person.

[calvinNhobbes]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

What we have here is a deontological ethicist. Things are good and evil by virtue of what they are.

Actually, I would consider myself a virtue ethicist. It is not exclusively the act or the outcome, but the motivation.

[meatrace]

Xum wrote:

That's hilarious, to calvin the only way to be good is being a vegetarian also aparently... his games must be very funny to watch.

"So I walk into the Inn and order a round of ale and a slab of roast beef for my comrades in celebration of defeating the evil demonic hordes!"

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

[Xum]

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Disagree. The duty of good people is to do GOOD. Big difference.

AND destroy evil.

Quote:

If someone is redemable, even at great personal cost that's the best course of action, if not, destroying him or it, is the best course of action.

That's how a neutral or evil person would think, not a good person.

Not really, a good person thinks about eliminating evil, if not he is really not that good.

[Xum]

meatrace wrote:

Xum wrote:

That's hilarious, to calvin the only way to be good is being a vegetarian also aparently... his games must be very funny to watch.

"So I walk into the Inn and order a round of ale and a slab of roast beef for my comrades in celebration of defeating the evil demonic hordes!"

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Haha, that's about it.

[Mrs. Fishy]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

OK!!! Mr. Fishy is here...

If you kill 60(?) innocent bystanders and then justify the carnage,
You might be Evil.

If you watch puppies burn, you might be evil.

If you enjoy the suffering of others, you might be evil. Or Mr. Fishy's Wife.

If you listen the the villians rant and SEE his point, you might be evil.

Mr. Fishy's casual disregard for Mrs. Fishy's feelings is unacceptable.

Mr. Fishy might be evil.

Mrs. Fishy is considering letting another fishy put a bun in HER oven.

[Xpltvdeleted]

meatrace wrote:

Xum wrote:

That's hilarious, to calvin the only way to be good is being a vegetarian also aparently... his games must be very funny to watch.

"So I walk into the Inn and order a round of ale and a slab of roast beef for my comrades in celebration of defeating the evil demonic hordes!"

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

ROFL

[meatrace]

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Frostflame wrote:

Look can we leave religion and politics out of this. There are plenty of off topic threads for that kind of discussion. The opener asked for an opinion on his PC not the analysis of World politics and Religions.

Don't all alignment discussions break down into discussions of religion and politics?

+127,518

You win the internet my friend.
Furthermore Religion and Politics are just manifestations of one's personal philosophy and superstitions respectively and therefore SUBJECTIVE as is the idea of good vs. evil. If you feel differently, you are wrong (and quite possibly insane).

[calvinNhobbes]

Xum wrote:

Not really, a good person thinks about eliminating evil, if not he is really not that good.

I personally think there is a huge difference between wating to convert people to your beliefs, and wanting to eliminate people that don't share your beliefs. But to each their own.

[calvinNhobbes]

meatrace wrote:

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Eating meat is neutral, so he would be N not NE. Duh!

[Mirror, Mirror]

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Actually, I would consider myself a virtue ethicist. It is not exclusively the act or the outcome, but the motivation.

But that is not the position you have been expounding. You have entirely focused on the ACT itself, not the character of the actor. In fact, a virtue ethicist would be likened towards a moral relativist in a standard D&D type game.

If the motivation was to preserve life, they would not kill. Unless, of course, killing would preserve life. The act itself tells nothing of the motivation, the reasons behind that motivation, or the thought process that gives rise to the conclusion.

Thus, cultural and environmental differences change the moral outcome of an act. In one situation, it is evil, and in another, it is permissable. This is the reason philisophers in the analytic tradition rejected virtue ethics in favor of the more static consequential/deontological model. Virtue is closer to casuistry or feminist ethics. Interesting, but not terrible applicable to gaming.

In any case, the focus of your arguments is not on the motivation, but on the act itself. That's Kant to a tee.

[Xum]

calvinNhobbes wrote:

meatrace wrote:

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Eating meat is neutral, so he would be N not NE. Duh!

But what about those poor animals? :)

No good guy could use leather armor either, carefull there, it's a slipery slope.

[calvinNhobbes]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

But that is not the position you have been expounding.

The position I've been taking is what is stated under the RAW. ;)

Quote:

You have entirely focused on the ACT itself, not the character of the actor.

Actually I've been considering both.

Quote:

In any case, the focus of your arguments is not on the motivation, but on the act itself. That's Kant to a tee.

Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again.

At no point do I say the act of killing (indiscriminant of motivation) is evil.

[Xpltvdeleted]

Xum wrote:

calvinNhobbes wrote:

meatrace wrote:

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Eating meat is neutral, so he would be N not NE. Duh!

But what about those poor animals? :)

No good guy could use leather armor either, carefull there, it's a slipery slope.

Off topic (but what about this thread isn't), but why can druids use leather armor if they love the animals so much? Are we to assume that they stripped it off of the rotting corpses of fallen animals? And if so wouldn't they get a scent-based penalty on any stealth checks?

[Xum]

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Xum wrote:

calvinNhobbes wrote:

meatrace wrote:

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Eating meat is neutral, so he would be N not NE. Duh!

But what about those poor animals? :)

No good guy could use leather armor either, carefull there, it's a slipery slope.

Off topic (but what about this thread isn't), but why can druids use leather armor if they love the animals so much? Are we to assume that they stripped it off of the rotting corpses of fallen animals? And if so wouldn't they get a scent-based penalty on any stealth checks?

It's about nature. Druids are in tone with nature, so they get what they can from it, meat, food, clothing, friendship and all. It's a way of them integrating nature. Remember those Avatar blue dudes? That's about it.

BTW they Kill animals, HOLY $%!T THEY ARE EVIL!

[Xpltvdeleted]

meatrace wrote:

James Thomas wrote:

Ascribing wickedness and injustice to God is a terrible blasphamous thing to say and is deeply offensive to Him and to those who know and love Him. I am telling you this so you will be careful what you say. Everything we say and do will be held to account. Not just by the message board administrators, but by He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say.

But your god is wicked and injust. Have you not read your own book? God himself has commited genocide, it is written. This being TRUE then there are only a few possibilities. 1)Since all god does is good, genocide is good. 2)It's okay to commit genocide if you're god, which means he is good regardless of what he does that is defined as evil to humans. Which means god is a hypocrite. 3)God has performed evil acts and is therefore evil. 4)God's actions were morally justifiable because of something that is unmentioned in the bible, making the bible incomplete or at best obfuscating.

Personally my favorite is option is 5)It's all a bunch of hogwash, there is no god, the bible is a bunch of fairy stories, and anyone who believes otherwise is living a horrible lie. I'd bank on #5.

I know I'm flaming, but he brought it up. If you want to bring up religion on any thread then it has to be a rational discussion, which means no religious people can participate since faith hence religion is antithetical to reason.

+1,327,896

No, sir, you win the interwebz.

[Xpltvdeleted]

Xum wrote:

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Xum wrote:

calvinNhobbes wrote:

meatrace wrote:

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Eating meat is neutral, so he would be N not NE. Duh!

But what about those poor animals? :)

No good guy could use leather armor either, carefull there, it's a slipery slope.

Off topic (but what about this thread isn't), but why can druids use leather armor if they love the animals so much? Are we to assume that they stripped it off of the rotting corpses of fallen animals? And if so wouldn't they get a scent-based penalty on any stealth checks?

It's about nature. Druids are in tone with nature, so they get what they can from it, meat, food, clothing, friendship and all. It's a way of them integrating nature. Remember those Avatar blue dudes? That's about it.

BTW they Kill animals, HOLY $%!T THEY ARE EVIL!

So all them drood doodz is NE? who'da thunk it?

[calvinNhobbes]

Xum wrote:

But what about those poor animals? :)

what about them?

Quote:

No good guy could use leather armor either, carefull there, it's a slipery slope.

Agreed, good characters would not use leather, unless it was stripped from an animal that died of natural causes.

Quote:

Off topic (but what about this thread isn't), but why can druids use leather armor if they love the animals so much? Are we to assume that they stripped it off of the rotting corpses of fallen animals? And if so wouldn't they get a scent-based penalty on any stealth checks?

I would assume any NG druid obtained said leather items from creatures that died a natural death. A druid that was LN, N, CN, or NE would not care. Also, leather is processed (duh!) not just ripped off and animal and wrapped around your shoulders.

[LilithsThrall]

Xum wrote:

Druids are in tone with nature, so they get what they can from it, meat, food, clothing, friendship and all.

Please don't add "and all" to that. There are children who read these boards.

[Mirror, Mirror]

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again.

Well, if you insist:

calvinNhobbes examples of deontological thinking:

"According to my moral code, to have a standing order to kill innocent people is absolutely evil, even if it would save other innocent people."

"Killing people is NEVER for the greater good. History has been extrememly cosistent on this. Killing ONLY leads to more killing."

"Murder is murder. You have a good cause yes, but that does not make it the good choice even at the time if it is your only one." - you +1'd this one.

"There is a difference between destroying an entire country and a few civilians dying in a handful of isolated incidents.
In your opinion there is a difference. Evil people like to make justifications that their evil is not "really evil" because it has limits."

"The use of the bomb in WWII was evil..."

"Taking the wrong action is always worse than no action."

"Why can evil never be defeated?
Because to destroy evil you must become evil yourself."

"Yes, a child who does not understand the consequence of the actions and is being used is considered an innocent and therefore killing them is evil."

"If the adult is a hostage being forced to do it, then yes. A suicide bomber? No, then it is an act of war and Neutral."

"2) Temples/mosques/churches are assumed "no war" zones. If your enemy violates this, they are the ones placing that location and its inhabitants at risk.
And if you then violate it, then you are also putting the inhabitants at risk. Hence you are as evil as you enemy."

"I never said I had a problem killing innocent people in the arena of war. I simply acknowledge the fact that doing so is an evil thing."

"I believe war in general is neutral with many evil acts required on both sides. But in general it is the aggressor who has the most burden of evil."

"BUT, if the rapist/murderer breaks into my house and is raping/murdering my mom and the only way to stop it is to shoot him and he has a neighbor whom he's using as a body shield, well, life sucks for that neighbor.
Sure does, but it is still evil. Necessary sure, but still evil."

"Yes, one person GIVING their life to save many is altruistic and absolutely GOOD. Taking that person life whether they want it or not is EVIL."

"As far as an animal, only in self defense. I actually had a situation where a wolf that attacked the party due to hunger was injured and dying, the NG character walked up and coup de graced it. I had him switch to N. Good characters don't kill helpless dying animals, they heal them."

"If the devil surrenders and the paladin kills him anyway, then it is an evil act that requires serious atonement."

That's all I care to do for now. Anyway, each and every argument listed is one you either made or endorsed in this thread, and each is clearly an example of deontological thinking. If you wish, I will explain WHY each is deontological.

And don't accuse others willy-nilly of reading comprehension deficiency.

[Frostflame]

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Xum wrote:

calvinNhobbes wrote:

meatrace wrote:

"Ooh bad move, sorry you just slipped from NG to NE. The nine hells open up and swallow you whole. No saving throw. Pass the salad."

Eating meat is neutral, so he would be N not NE. Duh!

But what about those poor animals? :)

No good guy could use leather armor either, carefull there, it's a slipery slope.

Off topic (but what about this thread isn't), but why can druids use leather armor if they love the animals so much? Are we to assume that they stripped it off of the rotting corpses of fallen animals? And if so wouldn't they get a scent-based penalty on any stealth checks?

Druids dont let anything go to waste. Besides when Bambi buys the farm he is going to be reincarnated again as some other animal. The cycle of life continues

[Xum]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Xum wrote:

Druids are in tone with nature, so they get what they can from it, meat, food, clothing, friendship and all.

Please don't add "and all" to that. There are children who read these boards.

Damn! Sorry kids!

[calvinNhobbes]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

If you wish, I will explain WHY each is deontological.

Please go right ahead.

EDIT: The fact is, you have taken small quotes from multiple different conversations on mutliple different topics. Some are specifically addressing what the RAW say. Some are my own personal beliefs. Some are how the RAW would address said issue. The part where I address the virtue ethics is not in the quote, etc. etc.

Like I said, I addressed both the act and the motivation. You have simply tried to hang your strawman argument on selection bias.

But please, go ahead and waste your time.

[meatrace]

Xum wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Xum wrote:

Druids are in tone with nature, so they get what they can from it, meat, food, clothing, friendship and all.

Please don't add "and all" to that. There are children who read these boards.

Damn! Sorry kids!

My virgin eyes!

[Mrs. Fishy]

meatrace wrote:

Xum wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Xum wrote:

Druids are in tone with nature, so they get what they can from it, meat, food, clothing, friendship and all.

Please don't add "and all" to that. There are children who read these boards.

Damn! Sorry kids!

My virgin eyes!

Mrs. Fishy is here to care for your eyes...then eat them in the dark.

Mrs. Fishy's virgin....eh who is Mrs. Fishy kidding.

[Ross Byers]

Please folks, don't let this devolve into a shouting match or a religious debate.

[Ross Byers]

I cleaned up several posts of the trolling, flaming, offensive, and personal attack variety.

[TriOmegaZero]

Ross Byers wrote:

Please folks, don't let this devolve into a shouting match or a religious debate.

Too late Ross! Kill it with fire and sneak attacks! X)

[Ross Byers]

I removed a post that made reference to other removed posts.

[Frogboy]

Um...crap. Even I skipped reading 150 of the last 200 posts since I last checked in. :(

At least Mr. Fishy is here. Yay! :)

[Sebastian]

Ross Byers wrote:

I removed a post that made reference to other removed posts.

Ack! I keep trying to edit it out, but it comes back each time! Sorry Ross, looks like I'm working cross purpose with you. Thanks for taking out the offending post and sorry to keep re-posting when I don't mean to be.

[Frostflame]

Frogboy wrote:

Um...crap. Even I skipped reading 150 of the last 200 posts since I last checked in. :(

At least Mr. Fishy is here. Yay! :)

You see the can of worms you opened. At least Mr and Missus Fishy wont go hungry...

[Mirror, Mirror]

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

If you wish, I will explain WHY each is deontological.

Please go right ahead.

EDIT: The fact is, you have taken small quotes from multiple different conversations on mutliple different topics. Some are specifically addressing what the RAW say. Some are my own personal beliefs. Some are how the RAW would address said issue. The part where I address the virtue ethics is not in the quote, etc. etc.

Like I said, I addressed both the act and the motivation. You have simply tried to hang your strawman argument on selection bias.

But please, go ahead and waste your time.

Ok. *cast Wall of Text*

First, the litmus test. Deontological thinking will focus on the act, consequential thinking will focus on the outcome, and virtue thinking will focus on the relevant virtue.

According to my moral code, to have a standing order to kill innocent people is absolutely evil, even if it would save other innocent people.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule, as noted by the lack of exception stated in the post. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Killing people is NEVER for the greater good. History has been extrememly cosistent on this. Killing ONLY leads to more killing.:

Assumed consequent of the moral act is identical to the act itself, a tautological argument which cannot be evaluated consequentially. No consideration of a universal virtue governing the ethical judgment. The statement is focused on the act of killing with an a priori judgement that it cannot accomplish good. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Murder is murder. You have a good cause yes, but that does not make it the good choice even at the time if it is your only one. - you +1'd this one.:

Consequential consideration pushed aside in favor of opposed ethical judgment. No consideration of a universal virtue governing the ethical judgment. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

There is a difference between destroying an entire country and a few civilians dying in a handful of isolated incidents. In your opinion there is a difference. Evil people like to make justifications that their evil is not really evil because it has limits.:

Consequential consideration pushed aside in favor of opposed ethical judgment. No consideration of a universal virtue governing the ethical judgment. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

The use of the bomb in WWII was evil...:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Taking the wrong action is always worse than no action.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Why can evil never be defeated?
Because to destroy evil you must become evil yourself.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Yes, a child who does not understand the consequence of the actions and is being used is considered an innocent and therefore killing them is evil.:

Strangely, the ability to morally understand the consequences is brought up, but is then disregarded in favor of another general principle. No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

If the adult is a hostage being forced to do it, then yes. A suicide bomber? No, then it is an act of war and Neutral.:

A statement, which, btw, contradicts an earlier statement you agreed with. In any case, once again, the consequences are not considered nor is the universal virtue. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

2) Temples/mosques/churches are assumed no war zones. If your enemy violates this, they are the ones placing that location and its inhabitants at risk. And if you then violate it, then you are also putting the inhabitants at risk. Hence you are as evil as you enemy.:

Starts masked as a consequential argument, that bit about “if, then”, but does not actually account for differing consequences. Instead, “putting the inhabitants at risk” is equated with “evil”. No consideration of the universal virtue governing this judgment. The argument is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

I never said I had a problem killing innocent people in the arena of war. I simply acknowledge the fact that doing so is an evil thing.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

I believe war in general is neutral with many evil acts required on both sides. But in general it is the aggressor who has the most burden of evil.:

The logical conclusion is that “the aggressor bears a preponderance of the evil committed in a war”. No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

BUT, if the rapist/murderer breaks into my house and is raping/murdering my mom and the only way to stop it is to shoot him and he has a neighbor whom he's using as a body shield, well, life sucks for that neighbor.
Sure does, but it is still evil. Necessary sure, but still evil.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule, as noted by the lack of exception stated in the post. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Yes, one person GIVING their life to save many is altruistic and absolutely GOOD. Taking that person life whether they want it or not is EVIL.:

Starting again with a consequential argument, the tone changes once evil is brought in. No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule, as noted by the lack of exception stated in the post. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

As far as an animal, only in self defense. I actually had a situation where a wolf that attacked the party due to hunger was injured and dying, the NG character walked up and coup de graced it. I had him switch to N. Good characters don't kill helpless dying animals, they heal them.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

If the devil surrenders and the paladin kills him anyway, then it is an evil act that requires serious atonement.:

No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule, as noted by the lack of exception stated in the post. Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. The statement is focused only on the act itself. Conclusion: Deontological thinking.

Anyone here can read that these ARE your words, and that my analysis is perfectly accurate. No selection bias was necessary. This is also not a strawman argument (I wonder if you enen know what that means, your use of the term is so inaccurate).

Feel free to remain unpersuaded, this is not for YOUR benefit. You are well entrenched in your own beliefs, whatever those may be. I am simply calling out that continuing a debate on deontological vs consequential is rather pointless, and kind of like watching mules trying to mate.

[Xpltvdeleted]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

and kind of like watching mules trying to mate.

pointless but fun?

[calvinNhobbes]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

A bunch of text I didn't even read

I'm not an ethicist at all, deontological, consequential, virtue, or whatever.

Hope you enjoyed your mental masturbation ;P

[Jack Chick]

You're evil. EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS EVIL!!!

Spoiler:

CHICKED

Spoiler:

Srsly. This thread is pure slathered in failsauce.

[Mirror, Mirror]

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

A bunch of text I didn't even read

I'm not an ethicist at all, deontological, consequential, or virtue.

Hope you enjoyed wasting your time ;P

Not a waste of time at all. I just proved you are a liar:

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Actually, I would consider myself a virtue ethicist.

^__^

[calvinNhobbes]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Not a waste of time at all. I just proved you are a liar:

No you didn't? I said I consider myself a virtue ethicist. I did not state I was one. You did not disprove what I consider myself. That is in fact impossible.

;P