Some acts are simply immediatly recognized as evil : murdering an innocent, for example. However, if someone has a very strange way of seeing the world, would it be evil? It's hard to explain, so I'll write a few examples here.
1. The Child
Anyone remembers Buu from Dragonball Z? For those who don't, Buu is a demon summoned by an evil sorcerer to help him dominate the world. However, Buu ended up having the mental capacity of a child and was powerful beyond imagination. Basically, after killing the master that controlled him to free himself, he just went on a killing spree, but he did it because it amused him. He simply did not understand that he was killing people and causing suffering. Is that evil? If you're unaware of the consequences of your actions, are you evil for committing them?
2. The Ignorant
What if a man comes from a tribe in which you can kill someone just because he has red hair (because of an ancient legend), but in which people always act honorably? So this man comes into a town and starts helping the peasants with their daily work, fending off local monsters and teaching the militia how to fight properly. But then, he meets someone with red hair and ends up killing him for no apparent reason. Is he good because he helps people for free, giving his time for them? Is he evil for killing people with red hair because he was taught to kill people with red hair since he was born? Is he evil for doing something he was taught to do?
3. The Zealous Fool
What if a high priest loses his mind, blinded by a terrible curse, and thinks that the only way to save his people is to destroy the artifact that protects it? He thinks he is doing the right thing and remains as honorable as before, but in his quest to save the realm, he might actually have to kill some good aligned characters to accomplish his objective. Is he evil for trying to help people by causing their doom? I could use the example of Arthas from Warcraft here, except that Arthas actually becomes evil when he is possessed.
Some acts are simply immediatly recognized as evil : murdering an innocent, for example. However, if someone has a very strange way of seeing the world, would it be evil? It's hard to explain, so I'll write a few examples here.
1. The Child
Anyone remembers Buu from Dragonball Z? For those who don't, Buu is a demon summoned by an evil sorcerer to help him dominate the world. However, Buu ended up having the mental capacity of a child and was powerful beyond imagination. Basically, after killing the master that controlled him to free himself, he just went on a killing spree, but he did it because it amused him. He simply did not understand that he was killing people and causing suffering. Is that evil? If you're unaware of the consequences of your actions, are you evil for committing them?2. The Ignorant
What if a man comes from a tribe in which you can kill someone just because he has red hair (because of an ancient legend), but in which people always act honorably? So this man comes into a town and starts helping the peasants with their daily work, fending off local monsters and teaching the militia how to fight properly. But then, he meets someone with red hair and ends up killing him for no apparent reason. Is he good because he helps people for free, giving his time for them? Is he evil for killing people with red hair because he was taught to kill people with red hair since he was born? Is he evil for doing something he was taught to do?3. The Zealous Fool
What if a high priest loses his mind, blinded by a terrible curse, and thinks that the only way to save his people is to destroy the artifact that protects it? He thinks he is doing the right thing and remains as honorable as before, but in his quest to save the realm, he might actually have to kill some good aligned characters to accomplish his objective. Is he evil for trying to help people by causing their doom? I could use the example of Arthas from Warcraft here, except that Arthas actually becomes evil when he is possessed.
The way I do things is that ones alignment changes based upon your actions not your intent. This is how Paladins (and other varieties of zealots)can fall, the honestly believe that the things they are doing are for the greater good and not taking into account that their actions are actually evil until something revokes their powers and they must atone for their actions. If memory serves the Atonement spell says that usually the caster (or deity) will require a task before the actual atonement is granted, I know I certainly do, though I usually grant back partial powers to the person atoning (based on the severity of the infraction and the difficulty of the task).
So in all of your examples, Buu is evil (he is a demon after all. (For another example of a child demon read the Dragonlance novel "Tales of Uncle Trapspringer", I think that's the name, it tells the ACTUAL story of Trapspringer).
The ignorant tribesman has still committed an evil act, he is however mortal and therefore has free will, thus one such act is not enough to make him "fall". Despite that he still has to deal with the local ramifications of his actions (IE trial for murder).
In the latter example the priest slowly becomes evil (assuming he is lawful already as well) and as such will loose his divine connection which will hopefully clue him into the fact something is wrong. He is still commuting evil acts despite his intent.
|
I am also of the "Actions determine Evil, not intent" school of thought. Look at it this way.
A paladin is put into a position where he has a choice: torture twelve starving orphan children to death, or release an unimaginable terror upon the world, resulting in the deaths of a significant portion of said world.
If he chooses option A, he has just tortured, not only innocents, but those in need of his help. Evil.
If he releases the beast, he is indirectly resposible for the wholesale slaughter of his planet. Evil.
A more difficult situation that better fits your original intent would be the paladin who, in an effort to save his world from destruction, is instructed by the head of his order (whom he has sworn unquestioning fealty to) to cut out his (the head of the order) heart and eat it in order to gain the power to defeat the BBEG.
Usually, cutting out someone's heart and eating it is an evil act, but in this case we have a willing "victim." The fact that he has sworn fealty to this man means nothing on a Good vs. Evil axis (Law vs. Chaos, certainly).
What it boils down to is doing something to someone against their will is evil, regardless of intent. Having a willing participant muddies the waters a bit.
Intent and/or lack of knowledge can lessen or even eliminate culpability, but they do not change the moral character of an evil action.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Some acts are simply immediatly recognized as evil : murdering an innocent, for example. However, if someone has a very strange way of seeing the world, would it be evil? It's hard to explain, so I'll write a few examples here.
Well, let's see what the rules of the game have to say. Because, after all, this is about the game and not about your or my personal definitions of good and evil, etc.:
Good Versus EvilGood characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
1. The Child
Anyone remembers Buu from Dragonball Z? For those who don't, Buu is a demon summoned by an evil sorcerer to help him dominate the world. However, Buu ended up having the mental capacity of a child and was powerful beyond imagination. Basically, after killing the master that controlled him to free himself, he just went on a killing spree, but he did it because it amused him. He simply did not understand that he was killing people and causing suffering. Is that evil? If you're unaware of the consequences of your actions, are you evil for committing them?
And again let's look at the rules:
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
He is killing people for fun. Yes, he is evil.
Also, demons by their nature are not just evil by their acts, they are evil by essence--they are in fact the anthropomorphization of Evil. A demon that does not consciously consider the consequences of his actions is still a demon.
2. The Ignorant
What if a man comes from a tribe in which you can kill someone just because he has red hair (because of an ancient legend), but in which people always act honorably? So this man comes into a town and starts helping the peasants with their daily work, fending off local monsters and teaching the militia how to fight properly. But then, he meets someone with red hair and ends up killing him for no apparent reason. Is he good because he helps people for free, giving his time for them? Is he evil for killing people with red hair because he was taught to kill people with red hair since he was born? Is he evil for doing something he was taught to do?
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Yes, killing the red haired man is an evil act. Whether the man is evil depends on a lot of other factors ("People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."), but I doubt that he is good, because...
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Therefore, a good person will respect that a red-haired person is a living being and respect that person. They may have to even make the "personal sacrifice" of defying the law to protect that person. And I don't need to cite the zillions of stories about folks who defied their local laws in the name of what they personally believed was right.
Also, you seem to be conflating law vs. chaos and good vs. evil here. A lawful entity may uphold the right to kill red haired people according to local law in the "best" interests of maintaining order, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the morality (or lack thereof) behind the law in the first place.
A lawful good person would struggle in a situation like this--but as far as I can tell, killing people with red hair is legal but no one is required to do so. So likely, a lawful good person would still avoid killing red haired people, and may even work within the system to change that law so that red haired people may be spared in the future.
A chaotic good person would not kill redhaired people and outright defy the society that encouraged the killing of red haired people.
Now, of course, the man in your scenario would not believe that he personally is evil. He would not call himself an evil man, nor would his society. But that doesn't matter--we're not talking about what his society believes is good or evil, we're talking about what is written on his character sheet, and all that dictates that is the guidelines provided by the rulebook (and hopefully some player and GM common sense).
3. The Zealous Fool
What if a high priest loses his mind, blinded by a terrible curse, and thinks that the only way to save his people is to destroy the artifact that protects it? He thinks he is doing the right thing and remains as honorable as before, but in his quest to save the realm, he might actually have to kill some good aligned characters to accomplish his objective. Is he evil for trying to help people by causing their doom? I could use the example of Arthas from Warcraft here, except that Arthas actually becomes evil when he is possessed.
In this case, the man is not entirely in control of his own actions and thus would not be necessarily held entirely responsible for his actions--in part, whoever laid the curse upon him would be. More information really is needed in this case.
I would say however, that if he does kill indiscriminately (regardless of the alignment of the creatures he kills), that is an evil act. Depending on other factors (does he truly believe he or others he is trying to protect are directly in danger by these people, and does he believe to the best of his knowledge that killing is the only way to stop them?) it might not be.
I would say that if he's a priest of a good aligned god, once he came to his senses, I would have him play out an Atonement for good measure were I the GM in this situation (not that I tend to Geas my players like that very often).
Thanks for all, I now have my answers and learned even more as well! The great thing with RPGs is that you can still learn tons of things even after eight years of game mastering.
A paladin is put into a position where he has a choice: torture twelve starving orphan children to death, or release an unimaginable terror upon the world, resulting in the deaths of a significant portion of said world.
If he chooses option A, he has just tortured, not only innocents, but those in need of his help. Evil.
If he releases the beast, he is indirectly resposible for the wholesale slaughter of his planet. Evil.
Option C. The player of the paladin leaves the game for the DM pulling such a ridiculously awful move.
|
Option C. The player of the paladin leaves the game for the DM pulling such a ridiculously awful move.A paladin is put into a position where he has a choice: torture twelve starving orphan children to death, or release an unimaginable terror upon the world, resulting in the deaths of a significant portion of said world.
If he chooses option A, he has just tortured, not only innocents, but those in need of his help. Evil.
If he releases the beast, he is indirectly resposible for the wholesale slaughter of his planet. Evil.
Good call. I'd choose option C as well.
|
Option C. The player of the paladin leaves the game for the DM pulling such a ridiculously awful move.A paladin is put into a position where he has a choice: torture twelve starving orphan children to death, or release an unimaginable terror upon the world, resulting in the deaths of a significant portion of said world.
If he chooses option A, he has just tortured, not only innocents, but those in need of his help. Evil.
If he releases the beast, he is indirectly resposible for the wholesale slaughter of his planet. Evil.
Option C-a. Paladin player flips the table and moonwalks out.
Put me down for voting "action AND intent" matter.