Violence is an object that should NEVER be used.
You're wrong. Violence can be used justly, and it is right and good, not just neutral to do so.
From the sound of things, you're a pacifist. No wonder you have problems adjudicating "good" and "evil" in your game -- the D&D concept of good includes violence, and that goes against your own moral system.Sorry, but you're wrong about D&D. If you don't like what it says, ignore it -- but don't try to act like pacifism is part of the D&D ideal of good. It's just part of yours.
So why do Paladin's get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?
Apparently so they can lose their paladin powers the first time they run into a chromatic dragon.
If you think the position I'm putting forward is moral relativism, then you don't actually understand what that term means.
If you were to provide an objective standard for distinguishing "good" from "evil," we might even believe you.
But you CAN Godwin a thread about alignment, and about the religious permissability of violence.I vote "Al Qaida" as the post 9/11 version of "Godwin".Even if it's relevant? I mean, can you Godwin a thread about WWII?
Apparently one person can do both, and still think he's making valid points.
|
So why do Paladin's get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?Violence = cause harm
Causing harm = evil
Violence = evil.Violence is an object that should NEVER be used. The fact that we Neutral humans use it and accept its use does not make violence right, it makes us wrong.
Because they train in weapons and armor? C'mon Mirror, you know better than that! :P
If you were to provide an objective standard for distinguishing "good" from "evil," we might even believe you.
The very fact that I'm putting forward an objective moral judgment on the act means that I'm not arguing moral relativism, whether you understand the basis for the judgment or not.
If you were to provide an objective standard for distinguishing "good" from "evil," we might even believe you.The very fact that I'm putting forward an objective moral judgment on the act means that I'm not arguing moral relativism, whether you understand the basis for the judgment or not.
The very fact that your moral judgment is totally subjective, and you're dodging providing a defintion, leaves me wondering if there's any basis at all other than your opinion.
get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?To protect the innocent.
Exactly right. To protect the innocent.
And if they kill the innocent, it's an evil act.And if they kill an evil creature oppressing the innocent, it's a good act.
This isn't a difficult idea; you can find it in the Bible if you like. Or in basically any fantasy story ever.
The very fact that your moral judgment is totally subjective,
No, it's not. It's based on my reading and understanding of the rules of the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Violence is an object that should NEVER be used.You're wrong. Violence can be used justly, and it is right and good, not just neutral to do so.
From the sound of things, you're a pacifist. No wonder you have problems adjudicating "good" and "evil" in your game -- the D&D concept of good includes violence, and that goes against your own moral system.
Sorry, but you're wrong about D&D. If you don't like what it says, ignore it -- but don't try to act like pacifism is part of the D&D ideal of good. It's just part of yours.
Actually, I'm a U.S. servicemember. Take from that what you will.
And no, I'm going from the definition of Good given by the game. It's very short, and doesn't spell out much. But it also does not state that killing is Good. Therefore, killing is NOT good. So no, the D&D concept of Good does NOT include violence. The game itself includes violence, to the contradiction of its own rules.
Violence is an object that should NEVER be used.You're wrong. Violence can be used justly, and it is right and good, not just neutral to do so.
From the sound of things, you're a pacifist. No wonder you have problems adjudicating "good" and "evil" in your game -- the D&D concept of good includes violence, and that goes against your own moral system.
Sorry, but you're wrong about D&D. If you don't like what it says, ignore it -- but don't try to act like pacifism is part of the D&D ideal of good. It's just part of yours.
You keep talking real world morality and we keep talking D&D definitions of alignments. In D&D killing is something that exemplifies an evil character. I would argue that killing in direct defense of innocents would be a good act, like placing yourself between the red dragon and the orphanage for example. Otherwise killing is evil.
Unless you are killing someone WHILE they are perpetrating an evil act, it is very difficult to know who is evil and who is innocent. Do you allow paladins to wantonly facestab anyone who pings evil? Or would you prefer them to go about things in the way that is altruistic and respectful of all life, i.e. try to rehabilitate the creature or bring them to justice?
No, you are wrong. Killing is neutral at best, not good. You can houserule how ever you want for your games though!
No, you are wrong. Killing can be good or evil. You can houserule your paladins into pacifism all you want in your games though!
No, it's not. It's based on my reading and understanding of the rules of the game.
That's a vague non-statement, not a clear definition. What constitutes "good" and "evil"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?To protect the innocent.Exactly right. To protect the innocent.
And if they kill the innocent, it's an evil act.
And if they kill an evil creature oppressing the innocent, it's a good act.
This isn't a difficult idea; you can find it in the Bible if you like. Or in basically any fantasy story ever.
No, you're commiting an evil act to protect an innocent.
I think the Bible is like the core rulebook. A good guide, but not the be all end all.
No, you're commiting an evil act to protect an innocent.
No. It's a flat-out good act.
|
|
get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?To protect the innocent.Aha. Just the answer I was looking for.
Now, they protect the innocent...how? Using their class abilities to disarm, demoralize, and subdue the opposition? Or kill them?
Remember, Smite is divinely granted. If violence=evil, a divine class ability primarially used for violence should not be granted by Good dieties.
Mmm, this is a good point. We should get rid of Smite.
Thinking about this contradiction, could it be that the designer was human and subject to the imperfections of logic that we all are, and thus explains why Good deities grant a violence based ability?
get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?To protect the innocent.Exactly right. To protect the innocent.
And if they kill the innocent, it's an evil act.
And if they kill an evil creature oppressing the innocent, it's a good act.
This isn't a difficult idea; you can find it in the Bible if you like. Or in basically any fantasy story ever.
Few things. Bible IS a fantasy story. Also any GOOD fantasy won't have such definitive morality.
Show me where the SRD defines 'innocent'. If it's not defined in the SRD, then we're allowed to interpret that however we like.
Perhaps in a fantasy world all men are born with sin and are therefore not innocent. In this world paladins could smite infants.
|
|
No, you're commiting an evil act to protect an innocent.No. It's a flat-out good act.
Well, we could continue the 'no it's not' 'yes it is' for another few pages, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere. Could you show me where it states killing is Good? I think I've already shown where it states killing is Evil.
You keep talking real world morality and we keep talking D&D definitions of alignments.
The problem is that D&D definitions are inherently self-contradictory. That's OK; it makes for a fun game if you're not looking for any deep moral significance. But it's not an internally consistent system of ethics.
Why do paladins get smite and weapon proficiencies? Because giving them magic powers of redemption would be BORING. No one would play. So the D&D defintion of "good" is basically "what sells."
Hey guys, I think we've gotten to the point where we're not going to budge on these issues.
We agree that good people protect innocent and respect life; that's right in the description.
You interpret that as meaning all killing is evil, or at best neutral, period.
I interpret that as meaning that killing for a selfish reason or no reason is evil, that hurting innocents is evil, and that killing evil for a good cause is good.
I think my interpretation is more in line with the rules as written, with the worlds that those rules support, and with what we actually see good-aligned deities and heroes doing. You don't.
I feel like I've spelled out my position. Does everyone else? If so, I don't really see the reason to continue at this point.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I think this could be answered by Mirror, Mirror's post on page 2.
The Act is strongly aligned, the Intent behind the act is weakly aligned.
If killing the Evil Dragon is a Neutral act, then doing so for a Good reason (like protecting the villagers) would make it a slightly Good act. Doing so for an Evil reason (fun or profit) would make it slightly Evil. Doing it for a neutral reason (self preservation), it would be just plain Neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You keep talking real world morality and we keep talking D&D definitions of alignments.The problem is that D&D definitions are inherently self-contradictory. That's OK; it makes for a fun game if you're not looking for any deep moral significance. But it's not an internally consistent system of ethics.
Why do paladins get smite and weapon proficiencies? Because giving them magic powers of redemption would be BORING. No one would play. So the D&D defintion of "good" is basically "what sells."
Oh I agree, wholeheartedly. My only real job in this thread is to point out that the D&D alignment system is archaic, poorly defined, and best left out of any proper games.
Nope. You're wrong.
Nope. You're wrong.
Are we done with that nonsense yet?
Good characters can kill things, but it is not a good act. Do you not understand this concept?
Yes, and I disagree.
Oh I agree, wholeheartedly. My only real job in this thread is to point out that the D&D alignment system is archaic, poorly defined, and best left out of any proper games.
Exactly what I've done in my home game. Well said, sir!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think my interpretation is more in line with the rules as written, with the worlds that those rules support, and with what we actually see good-aligned deities and heroes doing.
Hmm...so you're position is supported by the rules and is more accurate, but you're willing to agree to disagree.
How kind and considerate.
Particularly when you're so very, very wrong.
If killing the Evil Dragon is a Neutral act, then doing so for a Good reason (like protecting the villagers) would make it a slightly Good act. Doing so for an Evil reason (fun or profit) would make it slightly Evil. Doing it for a neutral reason (self preservation), it would be just plain Neutral.
This rings true to me.
This thread is rapidly heading down the path of many alignment threads that have come before. (Such as this one, or this one.)
I encourage everyone to stop, think, and ask themselves if whatever they're posting will actually contribute to the discussion, instead of merely retreading an old argument.
I cannot accept the idea that, if the only way to stop a child rapist is to get violent, than it is evil to stop that child rapist.
We must learn more ways to avoid, rather than check
Check, rather than hurt,
Hurt, rather than maim,
And maim, rather than kill.
Depends if you're done being wrong.
It's amusing that you can be so very, very wrong and so very, very childish at the same time.
Grow up.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot accept the idea that, if the only way to stop a child rapist is to get violent, than it is evil to stop that child rapist.
I appreciate the fact that different people have different ideas of what is good, but this is where *I* stand.
You're making 'stop the rapist' and 'do violence' out to be the same thing.
Stopping the rapist is a Good act. Killing the rapist is an Evil act.
I cannot accept the idea that, if the only way to stop a child rapist is to get violent, than it is evil to stop that child rapist.
I appreciate the fact that different people have different ideas of what is good, but this is where *I* stand.
You're making 'stop the rapist' and 'do violence' out to be the same thing.
Stopping the rapist is a Good act. Killing the rapist is an Evil act.
In game terms I agree.
IRL I think killing is almost always a good act. But I'm probably a sociopath.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Depends if you're done being wrong.It's amusing that you can be so very, very wrong and so very, very childish at the same time.
Grow up.
Not true. I'm using words to fight evil, therefore I'm good. And, I'm fighting immaturity and with immaturity, therefore I'm mature.
Woot!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This thread, and the well-trod ground it's covering, and the speed it's growing, astonish me. I haven't checked yet: has anybody brought up Batman?
--+--+--
My two cents: the alignment system in D&D comes out of Michael Moorcock's fantasy tropes about the eternal battle between Law and Chaos. Elric is an agent of Chaos, because he has made a pact with those gods. He can act as "lawful" as he pleases, however you would like to define that term (being a good ruler, entering into ironclad pacts with elemental entities, ...) but he remains Chaotic, because that's where his soul is pledged.
Alignment in D&D / Pathfinder is going to be incoherent and unresolvable if its dressed in terms of morality and ethics, rather than gods. Poison use is capital-e Evil, because it's part of Norgerber's portfolio. Goblins may dedicate their children to Rovagug, so their souls are promised to Evil, so killing those children serves the forces of Good.
In my campaign, alignments have less to do with being nice or mean or fair or trustworthy than they do with team colors.