AvalonXQ, I have a question, in game terms, why do you believe killing Evil must be a Good act? What would change if it wasn't?
Because then heroes vanquishing evil foes aren't spending their time doing good deeds. I think heroes who are mainly spending their time combating and defeating the truly evil are following a good path. Under the interpretation that these acts are neutral, they're following a neutral path instead.
Or do you believe this distinction doesn't hold much real meat?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the only way to stop the rapist is to get violent, then you can't separate them.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.
Then it is a Good and Evil act, and would cause the D&D system to have a fatal error. :)
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!
I never should've stopped worshiping you lol ^^
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
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?
You missed some important developments:
Ozmodius is the new Batman
Al-Queda is the new trigger for a Godwin
Other than that, it's the exact same arguments as have been made for the past 30 years, said with the same sense of absolute conviction and self-certainty that makes all such discussions end in fractured sanity and further loss of faith in humanity.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I never should've stopped worshiping you lol ^^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!
I would say all is forgiven, but that'd be a lie. Your betrayal shall never be forgotten and you wil...
...
...wait...you're the last member of my cult left, aren't you?
Er...like I was saying, even this transgression may be forgiven. We shall rejoice in my glory together.
|
|
Then it is a Good and Evil act, and would cause the D&D system to have a fatal error. :)If the only way to stop the rapist is to get violent, then you can't separate them.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.
Sticking to DnD and, therefore, fantasy melodrama, what percentage of good guys in fantasy melodrama never kill?
Robin Hood killed. King Arthur killed.
You had to stick with fantasy melodrama. :P Do Vash the Stampede and Train Heartnet count?
I don't think I ever said that heros don't kill tho. Just that they perform an Evil act when they do.
Depends if you're done being wrong.Nope. You're wrong.Nope. You're wrong.
Are we done with that nonsense yet?
This is fun. Lemme try:
No, you're wrong.
Nope, you are wrong.
No way, you are wrong.
Not even possible, you are .
I am fairly sure by this point that .
Whew, I just saved us all a whole bunch of additional posts on this thread...
:)
Carry on!
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.
If we're going to go by the rules of the game, I believe you are wrong. Killing an evil dragon or demon despoiling the countryside is a good act in an of itself, not a neutral one. A lawful good character is described as "She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly." If that's a hallmark of being LG, then I think butching the truly evil (and non-innocent) is quite in step with not only being LG but doing good.
I'd point out that good implies altruism, respect for life, etc. But it doesn't mandate it in all interactions nor exclude killing creatures whose own behavior has made them far too dangerous to innocent people to not oppose, relentless if necessary.
There are a lot of things that the brief definition of good does not encompass that I think most of us would consider good. The fact that an action isn't explicitly mentioned doesn't prevent it from being good.
If the only way to stop the rapist is to get violent, then you can't separate them.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.
Violence!=killing. You can beat him into submission if needs be and he won't come quietly.
Here's how I'd rule it. Assuming that child rape is against the law, because if it is then you would want to bring him to justice before a court of law which would likely be a lawful good act. If this child rapist will not stop, and when caught will not go quietly to jail, then it is your duty as a good person to subdue him especially if you are LG like a Paladin. If he fights back with deadly force and you have no choice, you can absolutely maim him, but you would be reticent to kill him. If he leaves you no other choice, then yes you would kill him in self-defense. However, being a good person you would still feel remorse becuase good people feel remorse about killing. Why? It is evil to do so. Doing so even in a situation where ones life is at stake will cause some moral qualms with a paladin or anyone IRL who is good in D&D sense. The act of killing in self defense is neutral, as is killing for food or killing in any situation a sentient being when it is not vitally necessary to do so, as in to protect yourself or innocents from death.
Now one of the problems with D&D and indeed this argument is that we are trying to apply some real world logic to these events. In the above example I feel I am very much in the right because while raping a child is an evil act that person is not irredeemably evil. Evil dragons, undead, and evil outsiders are intrinsically evil, cannot simply be "checked" and are an affront to a paladin's deity and he can kill them with impunity hence the enhanced smite. An invading band of orcs or goblins are unlikely to be reasoned with and therefore smite away. But in your every day, sleazy shopkeeper sense, killing that evil is still not particularly good.
I must say i really enjoyed Mirror, Mirror's logical breakdown. And I'm willing to admit that my assumption of the "Implies" statements being the same as "Equals" statements is wrong.
With that being said, why don't we be done with this thread and go hack at some zombies..
Then it is a Good and Evil act, and would cause the D&D system to have a fatal error. :)
That logic depends on how broadly you define the act. "Killing" is very broad. Killing an innocent minding his own business vs killing evil creature engaged in destructive behavior are two different things that can have very different moral implications. And we don't even have to consider the intent of the killer to judge the difference between these acts.
And thus we are left w/o paladins able to put BBEG on trial and execute him/her....Take it up with Gary.
Meanwhile, we'll just continue ignoring the logical inconsistencies of our favorite game. ^_^
You do that. We'll realize that the logical consistency is manufactured and not accurate.
The fact that your interpretation of the rules doesn't actually work should probably lead you to the conclusion that it might be wrong, rather than simply motivating you to drop the system altogether.|
|
If we're going to go by the rules of the game, I believe you are wrong. Killing an evil dragon or demon despoiling the countryside is a good act in an of itself, not a neutral one. A lawful good character is described as "She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly." If that's a hallmark of being LG, then I think butching the truly evil (and non-innocent) is quite in step with not only being LG but doing good.
I'd point out that good implies altruism, respect for life, etc. But it doesn't mandate it in all interactions nor exclude killing creatures whose own behavior has made them far too dangerous to innocent people to not oppose, relentless if necessary.
There are a lot of things that the brief definition of good does not encompass that I think most of us would consider good. The fact that an action isn't explicitly mentioned doesn't prevent it from being good.
Stopping the dragon is a good act. Killing him isn't. The fact that killing him is the best way to stop him is just an unfortunate reality.
You have a point, but I still stand by my statement that killing is not Good by the rules.
I may have stepped too far in the heat of disagreeing by stating killing and violence were always Evil acts. I apologize. My statement is that killing and violence are never Good acts.
That logic depends on how broadly you define the act. "Killing" is very broad. Killing an innocent minding his own business vs killing evil creature engaged in destructive behavior are two different things that can have very different moral implications.
Yes, exactly. And acknowledging this fact is not "moral relativism", regardless of how some keep wanting to misuse the term.
Dropping alignment as a mechanic in your game altogether is the closest thing to accepting moral relativism that anyone here is trying to do.
I am fairly sure by this point that .
Everyone is wrong. You are correct. Which means you're not wrong. Which means not everyone is wrong. Which means you're wrong. Which means you are correct. *brain melt*
And thus we are left w/o paladins able to put BBEG on trial and execute him/her....Take it up with Gary.
Meanwhile, we'll just continue ignoring the logical inconsistencies of our favorite game. ^_^
You do that. We'll realize that the logical consistency is manufactured and not accurate.
The fact that your interpretation of the rules doesn't actually work should probably lead you to the conclusion that it might be wrong, rather than simply motivating you to drop the system altogether.
Now you're just being mean.
|
|
You do that. We'll realize that the logical consistency is manufactured and not accurate.
The fact that your interpretation of the rules doesn't actually work should probably lead you to the conclusion that it might be wrong, rather than simply motivating you to drop the system altogether.
I retract my flippant statement, in light of my previous post.
And I drop the alignment system because it affords me no gain in my games, and usually a loss.
Now you're just being mean.
I'm sorry. I thought it was a valid point (read the rules when possible to preserve validity rather than interpreting them in a way that renders them inconsistent). If my post came off mean, I apologize.
The fact that your interpretation of the rules doesn't actually work should probably lead you to the conclusion that it might be wrong, rather than simply motivating you to drop the system altogether.
Why so... because the rules must be assumed as a "perfect" starting point? If that's the case, I see the problem -- TOZ and I very much think the existing rules are flawed in a lot of areas.
And I drop the alignment system because it affords me no gain in my games, and usually a loss.
That's a 100% valid thing to do.
I feel the alignment system has been a gain in my groups, but if it hasn't been in yours I admire the extra work you've put in to accomodate its loss.|
|
And I drop the alignment system because it affords me no gain in my games, and usually a loss.That's a 100% valid thing to do.
I feel the alignment system has been a gain in my groups, but if it hasn't been in yours I admire the extra work you've put in to accomodate its loss.
Everyone registers as Neutral mechanically unless they possess an alignment subtype or aura. Done.
The only stickler I haven't worked out is Paladin Smites. It hasn't come up because no one has played one since I adopted this rule. Still waiting for a chance.
Full disclosure, I've only DMed four different campaigns, and only one with the new rule.
Why so... because the rules must be perfect by definition? Or just because he disagrees with you?
Because when there are two or more ways to read an arguably ambiguous section of rules, we should read them to preserve validity. This is a basic canon of interpretation practiced by most every rule-making and rule-adjudicating body.
If Interpretation A makes the rules work and Interpretation B would generate a contradiction, the assumption is that Interpretation B is probably not what was intended.
The only stickler I haven't worked out is Paladin Smites. It hasn't come up because no one has played one since I adopted this rule. Still waiting for a chance.
And I worked so hard to make the paladin prestige class super-awesome... but still no takers!
|
|
The only stickler I haven't worked out is Paladin Smites. It hasn't come up because no one has played one since I adopted this rule. Still waiting for a chance.And I worked so hard to make the paladin prestige class super-awesome... but still no takers!
Well, I just didn't feel like it. Next campaign you run, I promise I will! Which could be some time from now...
Full disclosure, I've only DMed four different campaigns, and only one with the new rule.
Truth be told I've GM'd for only a handful of paladins in my time. It's not a very popular class in my experience.
And I think they've all lost their abilities at some point. So despite my arguments here I'm not at all tolerant of paladins using violence indiscriminately.
If Interpretation A makes the rules work and Interpretation B would generate a contradiction, the assumption is that Interpretation B is probably not what was intended.
That makes sense, and I agree. I think the problem that TOZ and I face is that both interpretations generate contradictions, so we go with a change in the underlying premise -- which works for our games, but I can totally understand why others wouldn't want to deal with it.
P.S. Edited the snark out of my post you replied to, because it wasn't merited in this case.
I seem to need to say this every time alignment comes up.
A good person can still do evil acts.
An evil person can still do good acts.
Good acts can end in something evil.
Evil acts can end in something good.
If someone kills a million people to save a billion, they have done an evil act. Yes, it had a good end. But that doesn't change the fact that the act itself was evil. The road to hell is paved in good intentions. There's a reason the insane zealot who burns twenty innocents at the stake rather then let one witch live is a villain.
|
|
Full disclosure, I've only DMed four different campaigns, and only one with the new rule.Truth be told I've GM'd for only a handful of paladins in my time. It's not a very popular class in my experience.
And I think they've all lost their abilities at some point. So despite my arguments here I'm not at all tolerant of paladins using violence indiscriminately.
I had one, brand new player. Lost his powers by the end of the first session. Didn't help that it was a one-shot based on the movie Saw.
Can I play a kender paladin?
Do you live in Houston?
Addendum: Killing is neutral at best when it is an act of justice. This is what makes games interesting. Having players torn between killing a prisoner on the spot or trying to take the chance of taking the prisoner with him is what makes for fun and interesting characters. Having a good aligned character who has to choose between giving a final justice and honoring the sacredness of life makes for fantastic drama. Throwing that away is such a huge loss of potential.
Can I play a kender paladin?
http://imgur.com/QQXzr.png
|
|
TriOmegaZero, I appreciate the fact that you are absolutely against taking life at any cost.
But if the only way to save a child from a rapist is to kill the rapist, I see no problem with killing the rapist.
This is beyond discussion.
I'm a social constructivist. As such, I don't get hung up on "good" vs. "evil" (which I think are just buzzwords for politicians). But I have noticed that the greatest evils are committed by those who think they are doing good.
I'd pull the trigger until my mag was half empty. Just in case he had friends.
Just because I believe something is evil does not mean that I won't do it if I feel the situation warrants it. But I will know it is evil, and I will answer for it.
I'm Neutral, after all.
I'd pull the trigger until my mag was half empty. Just in case he had friends. Just because I believe something is evil does not mean that I won't do it if I feel the situation warrants it. But I will know it is evil, and I will answer for it.
That's a better answer than mine. Bravo!
I've always tried to take into account the objective nature of D&D alignment, along with a sort of ladder of intensity towards each alignment. Most mortal races linger around 1 on the ladder, dedicated people hit 2, and truly zealous/devoted ones may hit 3. So a Paladin would be perhaps L2G3. A rogue who picks a pocket here or there when he isn't disabling traps in a dungeon is C1N.
Outsiders start at 3, and can go to 5. But anything past 3 should seem quite literally insane compared to mortal perspectives, be it good, evil, law, chaos. An inevitable that interacts with mortals might be a 3, like a kolyarut. Formian queens might be 4. And a modron who oversees thousands of other modrons might be 5.
Also, lets consider this. D&D alignment is objective, which on one level can imply that some entity or force is "objectively" watching everyone's alignment. There is a realm of evil and chaos (the Abyss) and there is a realm of good and order (Celestia). People who embrace these behaviors will be drawn to these planes. Yet many of the chaotic and evil people don't see this as a "bad" thing. Clerics of evil dieties strive to rise in the ranks of power, to be given places of eternal power in the afterlife. What I am saying is, many evil creatures, be they dark cultists, goblins, dragons, whatever, are totally OK with the fact they are evil. They know it. They are fine with it. Its what they want to be. Their god will reward them for it.
This is something that doesn't exist per se in the real world, where religions all try to describe themselves as "good" to their respective flocks. But in a world were evil can have literal physical mass, where you can find a dark corner to hide and plot and scheme in, evil can be a "good" lifestyle choice. Not "Good" but "good".
As such, I think that puts violence back into the category of "tool" rather than "action". If you can convince the goblins to leave your town alone, good for you. If you drive them away with fire and steel, good for you. Neither is particularily good or bad; either way, the goblins will likely find someone else to harass, even if your people are now safe. Hiring some adventurers to exterminate the goblins, is actively reducing the amount of evil in the world, even if it is through violence. Granted, you are just sending their evil souls to their diety a little sooner, wheras a true victory over evil would be to redeem them, steal their souls from evil entirely.