On the subject of confusion. I thought people were saying there isn't evil or good in the modern world, just modern grays...
|
I could be wrong, but I understood the OP to be about people saying 'you have to play alignment using historical definitions of good and evil or you're not keeping to the setting'. Which is silly since the settings we use are NOT historical and can have any definition of morality we choose. Admittedly, I haven't read the ensuing discussion as close, so it may have gotten off somewhere else.
I view it more as a way to escape both the archaic laws and standards, and the abusive laws of real life, and rather adhere to a setting where standards are provided for you (in Golarion, magic might get you burnt in Ustalav, but make you a grand in Absalom), instead of playing history drama.
No question that modern politics are corrupt to the bone, and nothing short of a new civil uprising, curtailing the grasp of the upper 1% and returning the control back to the people can fix America. And the rest of Europe is either following, or bowing to the increasingly inane demands of the EU. (In Norway, we are likely to get our own data-oriented version of the Patriot Act, where everything we do on the internet, who we call, e-mail, skype and so forth is recorded for "national security")
I play to get away from all of this crap. And since it is a heroic game, I keep lofty ideals for what is considered good, and make demands of good aligned characters. You cannot justify evil and hope to be good, and I don't care if rape was cool, women were property, 10 year olds were prostitutes, torture was OK, war absolved you of the burden of killing people, God allowed killings of heathens, etc etc etc in any time or place in the real world. Shit is NOT gonna fly when I am behind the screen.
When I applaud use of modern morality, I speak of ideals, nor practice. Gods know modern practice is an atrocity to all that is good and decent. Zordon has nothing on the average corporation.
I love the story of the paladin that fell for eating meat, because the DM who was a vegan viewed eating meat as murder and evil (i.e. in his view animals are "sentient" beings and killing them for food was not something a good character should do).
|
solid pointsI guess so -- especially on the social standard one, I guess I hadn't fully considered what you were implying with 'top guy'.
Honestly I'm quite happy with my current time period -- I think I might like to move forward more, but I'm not sure on that.
Agreed on both.
I would like to adjust a few things in my current time period but for the average person it is the best period so far AFAIK.We are going toward the future one step at a time. Probably the best way for us to accept it and learning to live in the new times.
I love the story of the paladin that fell for eating meat, because the DM who was a vegan viewed eating meat as murder and evil (i.e. in his view animals are "sentient" beings and killing them for food was not something a good character should do).
Nice. I bet in his campaign, the tofu-eating lion from Futurama would have the celestial and advanced templates :P
Yeah, nutters are all over, on both sides of the extremes.
The high point of this thread was when Beckett stated that rape and torture was on the same level as an EMT saving a baby's life or, well, Jesus.
Anyways I have solved this problem by removing alignment from the PCs entirely and having them write the name of an action hero instead. The paladin isn't Lawful Good alignment, he's John McClane alignment.
|
The high point of this thread was when Beckett stated that rape and torture was on the same level as an EMT saving a baby's life or, well, Jesus.
Did nothing of the sort!!! I was trying to show that goodness can't be codified in all cases, and that there has never really been a time when good meant law and order and that evil meant outlaw or rebelion.
Anyways I have solved this problem by removing alignment from the PCs entirely and having them write the name of an action hero instead. The paladin isn't Lawful Good alignment, he's John McClane alignment.
I've done something similar, and also ported over the oWoD Nature/Demeanor along with aspects of various other people (real or not) that the character is suppossed to think and act similar to. But, the alignment system is very ingrained into the rest of the rules besides the suppossed characters general world view that nothing so far has worked extremely well, (been fai enough in my opinion).
I'm confused. Because there are evil people in the modern world, we cannot use modern concepts of good and evil in our fantasy game?
No, people want to "selectively" use historical concepts of good and evil - likely because they do not actually understand those historical concepts.
Also, many of our "modern" moral problems are not as new as people like to think. :)
I love the story of the paladin that fell for eating meat, because the DM who was a vegan viewed eating meat as murder and evil (i.e. in his view animals are "sentient" beings and killing them for food was not something a good character should do).
The real question is "did said GM make his view clear to the player of the Paladin?"
On the subject of confusion. I thought people were saying there isn't evil or good in the modern world, just modern grays...
I believe that you would also be willing to concede that this is also not a new problem. :)
The past isn't what it used to be...
Ok,
This has been bothering me for awhile, and I usually don't bother since there are people who get as nutty as cuckoos over this, but I'm in a bad mood so figure it's as good a time as any to rant about it and see what people think (...) This game is made for people who grew up in the modern world. If I wanted to do historical reenactments, I'd join a history club. This is supposed to be a game for modern people to enjoy.
Hum, hard to go against the OP after Becket's statement, but if you allow me, I do have a counter-argument.
I don't consider myself nutty as a cuckoo (well, my spouse may have a different opinion about this) and I don't want to put you in a worst mood than what you already are, but there it is.
The game is mainly made-up of archaic assumptions. Combat with swords? Magic using vocal incantations and somatic gestures? Dragons, fairies, monsters and princess in the highest tower of the castles? Roleplaying games already cater to a certain escapist crowd and fantasy games in particular uses more archaic - if romanticized - concepts. Mentality and morality are amongst them.
Themes like racism (why would orcs be attacked on sight) and slavery (some defend that paladins would be allowed to own slaves) are not viewed the same way as they are today, because the realities of our worlds are not even close. If outsiders are supposed to be the ultimate incarnations of good/evil, why are celestial allowing themselves to do battle at all when war is an evil? According to modern conception of morality, a necessary evil doesn't make it less of an evil.
So like the rest of the material covered in the game, I don't think alignment notions should be modern, nor historically accurate, but some romanticized conceptualization of what we think it was, mixed with what we wished it had been: fantastic in other words...
'findel
Ugh. Moral relativism is a failure of imagination and understanding.
Thank you for this.
Wow. Style-of-play issue.
The only right answer is what the group wants.
I can really go either way on this. Some games I am a total goblin sympathizer.
Other times, I want Tolkien-style evil races.
I mean, at core, this game features murder pretty centrally, and it is sometimes a lot more fun if you don't have to constantly wade through moral quandaries.
One thing is certain, though, there's no "right" way on this. This question would make it onto my short list of questions for group compatibility in a given campaign — but different approaches might well be correct for different campaigns!
|
|
Hum, hard to go against the OP after Becket's statement,
Then let me clarify past all the hate-mongering (or or doubtfully simple misunderstanding, which by the sheer amount of assholishness I've seen here), I don't even feel I need to do in all honesty.
I don't believe that one animal rapes another it is evil, because I don't believe that animals have the capacity to do either good or evil. Happens, or almost happens all the time.
If two people meat at a bar and later have sex while not in a perfect choice-making frame of mind and one or both regret it the next day and feels like they have been raped, I don't believe that either of them have done something that the D&D/PF world would call Evil.
I likewise do not believe that a couple that travel to an area with different laws in regards to either legal age of conscent or sexual orientation have done anyting wrong (AKA Evil) by having the same conscentual sex they otherwise would have.
If someone has sex with someone else they honestly don't know, (or couldn't reasonable know) is not of legal age, I don't believe they have done anything Evil.
If someone uses force, deception, or drugs to have sex with someone else who would not otherwise not do so, I DO believ that THAT is a 100% evil act.
I do not concider that last one to be the only OR INTENDED meaning of rape, and so when I say that I do not think all rape is evil, specifically in the way that the OP called it, to be a universal evil act, according to the infaliable modern standards that are so much better than others, nor better than any other cultures.
I am extremely against this modern gaming trend to say that ________ is Evil (or good or whatever) no matter what, particularly when it does not account for something.
Hum, hard to go against the OP after Becket's statement,Then let me clarify past all the hate-mongering (or or doubtfully simple misunderstanding(...)
I have no doubt you didn't mean what most people understood of it and that you were trying to make a point, but rape IS a sensitive subject, and one that is almost universally seen as particularly vile. Too many of us have been/had a loved one raped at one point.
In many way, it resemble any "Hitler arguments", there's no way anyone will side in favor of rape, even if your point is valid.
'findel
|
|
I didnt confuse or obfuscate anything. I said i think that not all rape is evil. You saying you and others dont concider a form of rape does.I agree with this point only when it happens to child molesters in prison from other prisoners.
Not sure what you mean here. (Is that the only circumstance that rape is not evil?)
I also want to say what I meant to say was "You saying you and others don't concider it a form of rape, does confuse the problem.", and that was also specifically towards the arguement that rape means only forced, nonconscentual sex.
Hey! I have a great new concept!
How about if the laws and societies of your campaign world are whatever you want them to be!
Wouldn't that be cool?
As far as rape goes, the legal definition has varied based on circumstances.
In the USA, in the 1800's, Raping a white woman was a crime, raping a black woman was a lesser crime and raping a native american woman was ok in some areas.
Raping someone of the same sex was considered homosexuality, which was in itself a crime at the time.
In the middle ages (in christian countries) raping a christian was a crime. Raping a heathen was not a crime. Also rape as a form of eliciting a confession to herasy was sanctioned by the church.
Also up until the 20th century, forced sex with someone you are married to was not defined as rape.
Its easy to see how in a fantasy campaign that a "good" aligned society could turn a blind eye toward the rape of a different race such as orcs or half-orcs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didnt confuse or obfuscate anything. I said i think that not all rape is evil. You saying you and others dont concider a form of rape does.I agree with this point only when it happens to child molesters in prison from other prisoners.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Wishing cruel and traumatic things to happen to people, no matter what they've done, isn't 'good.' If they are a continuing threat, put them down like you'd put down a mad dog, with no malice or venom in your heart, just resignation and regret at a life wasted. If 'justice' gives you a woody, it's not justice, it's just another form of perversion.
I was five when I was molested, and I wish no ill on the person who did it. I choose to not let that long-ago circumstance make me a victim or define my life, choices, beliefs or self-confidence. I'm not a victim. I'm not a 'survivor.' I'm just me.
Having seen a thoughtless, selfish, 'my needs come first' sort of evil first hand, at an earlier age than some, I could have allowed myself to have grown up bitter or vindictive or scared, but I didn't give that experience power over myself.
I chose to only let myself be hurt by that the one time, not to allow it to keep on hurting me for the rest of my life.
If I held on to anger or bitterness or fear, I'd be giving that person the power to keep on hurting me, even when they are thousands of miles away, almost forty years in the past and, quite possibly, dead.
These days, I go *years* without thinking about it. It's just the nature of the internet that, like Hitler, the word 'rape' gets flung around indiscriminately by those with no respect for others, quite often to describe things that are by no means rape (like, say, Uwe Boll's movies, being referred to as 'raping' someone's childhood).
They seem to get defensive about it afterwards, as well, almost like they knew it was a hot button to press, when they pressed it, making it less 'oopsy' and more 'ha-ha, I got away with being a dick by pretending it was a misunderstanding, and painting anyone who took offense as oversensitive.'
In the Real World (tm)*, Good & Evil are Subjective not Objective.
One man's good is anothers evil.
There is only legal & illegal in societies
*(your local laws may vary)
The high point of this thread was when Beckett stated that rape and torture was on the same level as an EMT saving a baby's life or, well, Jesus.
Anyways I have solved this problem by removing alignment from the PCs entirely and having them write the name of an action hero instead. The paladin isn't Lawful Good alignment, he's John McClane alignment.
COOL!
I want to be Christopher Walken alignment.
|
Wishing cruel and traumatic things to happen to people, no matter what they've done, isn't 'good.' If they are a continuing threat, put them down like you'd put down a mad dog, with no malice or venom in your heart, just resignation and regret at a life wasted. If 'justice' gives you a woody, it's not justice, it's just another form of perversion.
I've always felt this way.
Back on topic.
I think it is silly to have Middle Ages(or the Dark ages) morality in D&D. Because it is not Earth. There are a ton of social factors that change this.
But play what you want to play...and how to play. It could be interesting in playing a game with a Dark Age mentallity....but it does not mean it is the only way to play.
Also anybody who thinks D&D is ert during a Dark Age or medival time period is just plain wrong, well for thing like social changes....and morality. It has always been closer to the Renisance than Middle ages.
Also...just a point...I like to play heroes...to me a hero is somebody who does things that are good despite what their culture or etc tells them what is right.
Set: +1 on getting past trauma, but wishing hurt on someone for hurting you is a natural response however. Not a GOOD act, but hardly evil. And throughout my time in the CPS, I have never thought less of the traumatized victims for wishing pain on the ones who abused the child. And in the more serious, long-term abuse cases, I have found myself joining the child in wishing pain and even violent death upon the perpetrator when I see what it has done to the child. Not for some perverted satisfaction, but to right a wrong in the world, and be able to soothe the feelings of betrayal and outrage in the child.
I prefer to have my fantasy games somewhat black and white, where good tries to be really good, and have the magical rainbow power to do so, if can just be bothered to. It is rare that you come across a real moral dilemma, and when you are super-heroes, I see no problem putting stricter demands on what constitutes good and evil. A Lv5 cleric that spends his highest spell slot to cure a sick child does a greater act than a lv20 cleric doing the same. And while I forgive lv1-7 characters for killing neutral lv1 guards/soldiers in self-defense, I cross off an evil dot when LV13+ do so, as a lv1 warrior cannot hurt anyone, and it is not unreasonable to demand that the PCs at least TRY to subdue rather than effectively murder someone who does not present a threat other than making noise and allow the real enemy some time to prepare.
Consider: Would it be evil to kill all the babies in a nursery (which IMO is the mechanically equivalent when difference is 12+ levels) to keep them from making noise so the evil sorceress that runs the place cannot get away?
I would say that good vs. evil is subjective to each PC, and the GM behind the screen.
To dredge up the half orc that beats women and takes them. Yeah, probably sound creepy, but that argument actually makes sense to me. His character doesn't know any better, presumably because there is no paladin in his party curbing his primal instincts, or any strong moral figure for that matter. My CN tiefling rogue/wizard/AT from the Shackles didn't have any concept of "justice" further than the strong take what the weak can't defend until she initiated a relationship with the party paladin. Now in her "good" moments, she is actually good, though still exceedingly chaotic. Her idea of "good" is that she does all the things for the party that she sees needing done that the paladin is above doing, for example, spying on neighboring hostile camps, and mouthing off to lilends who turn "bad" people into stone statues she dances around like a loon.
One character, indeed, one player's version of good is not going to be the same as the next. Which makes sense, because for each player at the table, the interpretation of events to which the party is responding too is different based on their priorities.
I would say that good vs. evil is subjective to each PC, and the GM behind the screen.
To dredge up the half orc that beats women and takes them. Yeah, probably sound creepy, but that argument actually makes sense to me. His character doesn't know any better, presumably because there is no paladin in his party curbing his primal instincts, or any strong moral figure for that matter. My CN tiefling rogue/wizard/AT from the Shackles didn't have any concept of "justice" further than the strong take what the weak can't defend until she initiated a relationship with the party paladin. Now in her "good" moments, she is actually good, though still exceedingly chaotic. Her idea of "good" is that she does all the things for the party that she sees needing done that the paladin is above doing, for example, spying on neighboring hostile camps, and mouthing off to lilends who turn "bad" people into stone statues she dances around like a loon.
One character, indeed, one player's version of good is not going to be the same as the next. Which makes sense, because for each player at the table, the interpretation of events to which the party is responding too is different based on their priorities.
Nope. There exist predetermined forces of good and evil, which are essential to the very existence of the cosmos. While an evil character won't THINK himself evil, and many people might agree, it doesn't change the fact that he IS evil.
That is where the cultural break comes in. For some, it is OK to do evil things, as it is seen as a necessity or their way of life. Half-orcs that think rape is OK due to not knowing better are evil. Ignorance does not make it non-evil in the eyes of the cosmos.
What you as a character perceive as right or wrong is often baked into the perceptions of the alignment. A LE ruler will think that above all, rules and blood makes you "right" or even "just", and that everyone who thinks differently are either dissenters or just "wrong".
A LG, a LN and a LE character will never agree on the purpose of laws. Heck, they would likely not even be able to agree on a law if they were tasked to make one. Yet they are all lawful. Let's take their reaction to a law that would demand that a child must die for unwittingly breaking it:
- LG ruler: Makes an exception and rewrites the law so this may never happen when he is gone.
- LN ruler: Makes an exception if the law permits it, and makes sure that people become more knowledgeable of laws so it will not happen again.
- LE ruler: Does not make an exception. Laws are greater than feeble peasant lives, exceptions makes you appear weak, and this will teach them to take your laws seriously.
Same with ideals like honor. Honor is not inherently good, or even lawful. Honor is an abstract. Honor can be LG ("my honor demands I defend the innocent", and even that can be perverted), or it can be CE ("I must punish all who slight my honor, be it legitimate or no, combatant or child").
And this is why alignments need to be relatively set in stone in my opinion. No real life culture has it right, as real life does not reward good, nor punish evil. Pathfinder does.
Back on topic.
I think it is silly to have Middle Ages(or the Dark ages) morality in D&D. Because it is not Earth. There are a ton of social factors that change this.
In all fairness John, we could use the same argument to say that it would be silly to use modern conception of morality in D&D, because its not Earth.
D&D - or fantasy in general - is inspired from various eras of history (including misinterpretation of history), mixed with just as many elements of fiction. I don't think it is silly at all to have a fictional morality compass.
That being said, the game needs some common ground to link us (the players) to the characters. The rules go a long way to make that link, recreating laws of physics (to various levels of abstraction) and simulating the way the characters interact to their world in similar ways that we interact with our own. Like other fundamental concepts, morality shouldn't be that far off IMHO.
Again IMO, we can rationalize and abstract morality the same way that other fundamental concepts are rationalized and abstracted in a RPG, as long as we don't lose sight of what morality is, even if we allow it to be played differently.
'findel
Back on topic.
I think it is silly to have Middle Ages(or the Dark ages) morality in D&D. Because it is not Earth. There are a ton of social factors that change this.
In all fairness John, we could use the same argument to say that it would be silly to use modern conception of morality in D&D, because its not Earth.
D&D - or fantasy in general - is inspired from various eras of history (including misinterpretation of history), mixed with just as many elements of fiction. I don't think it is silly at all to have a fictional morality compass.
That being said, the game needs some common ground to link us (the players) to the characters. The rules go a long way to make that link, recreating laws of physics (to various levels of abstraction) and simulating the way the characters interact to their world in similar ways that we interact with our own. Like other fundamental concepts, morality shouldn't be that far off IMHO.
Again IMO, we can rationalize and abstract morality the same way that other fundamental concepts are rationalized and abstracted in a RPG, as long as we don't lose sight of what morality is, even if we allow it to be played differently.
'findel
I don't disagree....and probably should not have used the word silly. The reason D&D uses the mordern sensibilty for morality is because we can relate to it better. The same reason why certain cultures are mirrors of our own in most fantasy worlds. It is so we can relate to them better...or just take verbal short cuts. X is like the Roman Empire...excet for y.
I could be wrong, but I understood the OP to be about people saying 'you have to play alignment using historical definitions of good and evil or you're not keeping to the setting'. Which is silly since the settings we use are NOT historical and can have any definition of morality we choose. Admittedly, I haven't read the ensuing discussion as close, so it may have gotten off somewhere else.
This was my point. Sorry for abandoning the thread. They moved it on me, and I missed the move. Just found it again, and reading through to catch up.
Hum, hard to go against the OP after Becket's statement, but if you allow me, I do have a counter-argument.
LOL
So like the rest of the material covered in the game, I don't think alignment notions should be modern, nor historically accurate, but some romanticized conceptualization of what we think it was, mixed with what we wished it had been: fantastic in other words...'findel
That's actually what I meant, although it didn't quite come out right. What I meant was, why is it wrong for us to use a modern romanticized version of the setting. I get annoyed when people try to say that murder of orcs/gnolls/goblins/drow/evil/neutrals/dragons/etc is ok, regardless of age or creed or whether they are bothering anyone, because that's what would have been good in the dark ages, and you have to measure by that.
Personally, I do not think culture can affect the universal motivations of the cosmos. Just because a culture THINKS it is good, does not MAKE it good.
While it may be socially acceptable to rape/abuse/kill in war, it is never good. And killing is never a good act unless it is the destruction of a hopelessly evil incarnation of evil, such as an undead or fiend.
This is what I read into mdt's statement. No matter where you are from, what age, what norms you live by, perception cannot shape the constants of alignment. And I think Golarion support my theory. There are few good countries, and those that are good, live by lofty ideals and place philosophical concepts above personal or even national advancement. Like Liberthane, where they value lives and freedom above anything, and are willing to make sacrifices.
But now compare that to the river kingdoms: Slavery is an abomination, and all who seek to be free are welcome. Surely a noble notion, no? Yet they are CN, instead of CG. I don't think there is a single goodly country except previously mentioned Liberthane. And that is because while they all agree that freedom is a worthy cause, few are willing to stick their necks out to help others attain said freedom, apart from offering a place, if you are willing and able to live in the harsh conditions.
This is why I say that the justification for killing in war is void in a game like pathfinder. It may be socially acceptable to kill in war, and no-one will blame you for defending yourself, but it is still evil to kill people that you do not pose a threat to you.
I like to compare it to the concept of the light and dark side of the force. The closer you try to stick to the light side, the harder it is to overcome challenges. And the easier your solutions are, the darker your path. This is something I consider a good guideline for pathfinder. If you want to be good, you cannot be a pragmatist. Good demands that you stop and reflect, because it is not a side-effect that comes of being on the "right side". That is the reward for your efforts.
If you need to justify your actions with pragmatism or cultural/social relativism, you should likely be neutral of some sort as I see it.
@Set: A person may use a word, that while it may evoke emotion in people, may still be used in a legitimate way for a possible definition of the word. There is a word that means miserly that starts with an "n" that is looked down on using because it sounds similar to a more derisive word, even though the two are not related. How much worse is it when we are talking about different definitions of the same word. What I am saying is, someone might be using a word correctly, but still it might be socially inappropriate to continue using the word in that way.
@Kamelguru: Out of game, alignment is clearly subjective. Where the lines are drawn are set by each individual GM and/or group.
As for certain actions being defined as evil (or good or chaotic or lawful) by the group even if the character doesn't think so, I agree. But be careful, how we define terms can be socially constructed within the societies in a game.
For example, orcs could view sex in a very different fashion that we RW humans do. To them it could be akin to punching someone in the face or arm wrestling. It is done for determine power (or reproduce) with the cutlure, but it is very "normal" or "common" for people to force themselves on each other. Males force themselves on females and other males. Females force themselves on other females and males as well. To them, it isn't the same act as it is with us RW humans. To them maybe arm wrestling is "evil".
Now, within their own culture it might not be considered evil, but if they do it people from another culture, who do not hold the same view on the acts as they do, even though to the orcs the act wouldn't seem different. It would be on a universal level and would become evil. So acts can be evil or not depending on the standards of the culture, the issue is really, how much harm is being done?
Lots of stuff
Nice entry. I think you're giving me a bit more credit than I deserve, but I like the post.
Sometimes I have trouble getting across what I have as an issue. Let me see if I can try again after reading your post.
Let's start with OOC (Out of Character) vs IC (In Character).
OOC : The GM and the Players need to decide on what they consider GOOD and EVIL and NEUTRAL. Now, it's the GM making the world, so he's got the responsibility to set up the definition, then let the players know what he is expecting for that. If the players don't agree, they can work it out until everyone is happy.
IC : There should be no 'Well, it's dependent on what I thought' or 'it's dependent on what people perceive'. The game is not about subjective Good/Nuetral/Evil. They are forces with personifications. They are also forces that fight each other. So, there is a built in bias in the system towards combat. Good deplores the combat. If they didn't, they'd wipe evil off the face of the game. Why? Because Evil is inherently weaker. This is a classic thing, evil stabs itself in the back, envies itself, steals from itself. A house divided cannot stand. Good may disagree on some things, but Good is much better at working and playing with others. Neutral is just that, neutral. They don't really care if one or the other wins. The only thing that keeps evil going is the fact that Good hampers it's own effectiveness for the sake of it's ideals. Good doesn't believe in slaughtering wholesale to make sure the evil is rooted out completely. Good doesn't believe in not giving mercy. Good doesn't do a lot of very very effective, but ultimately evil, things because it is not evil. Good is not subjective, it doesn't say "Raping humans is evil, but raping orcs is ok, and raping drow is good.". It says "Rape is evil". It doesn't say "Murder is evil, unless it's inconvenient to not murder, then it's ok", it says "Murder is Murder and Murder is Evil". Does that mean war is Evil? It can't be in and of itself, because by the rules of the universe, Good and Evil are at war. Not an abstract thing, it's at war from the smallest mote of positive/negative energy to the most powerful of deities to entire planes. Reasons for war can be evil or good. Freeing a country from an evil despot, good reason to go to war. Concquering a neutral country because they don't worship your NG god? Evil.
Where I have the issue is when people come on in a thread, and say something along the lines of "Oh, so we're supposed to drag people to prisons because killing is bad" in response to someone saying "Killing babies is Evil". You know what? Good never said it was easy. Good shouldn't BE easy. If it was, Evil wouldn't stand a chance, who'd be Evil when they could be Good? But being good isn't easy, and it's not as much fun (potentially). It's hard, and you have to do things that are annoying and inconvenient. Evil get's to do the easy stuff, the fun stuff, the convenient stuff, because Evil only cares about Evil. And saying "Well, in the dark ages, people thought this way, so you have to look at Good and Evil like that" is just a justification for Good doing what's convenient, not what's hard, not what's good. It's easier to kill them all and let the gods sort them out than it is to stop and take time to figure out what you should do. It requires no thought, no compromise, no slow down in the slaughter and looting.
If someone wants to play a slaughter/loot fest, yay, go for it! Enjoy yourself! But play evil characters, not paladins!
I disagree, evil isn't easy either. Neutral is easy. Keep your head down, don't try to go out of your way to hurt or help anyone, that is easy. Actively helping or harming others is hard, it takes effort either way. Evil may be easier than good, but it still isn't easy.
@Kamelguru: Out of game, alignment is clearly subjective. Where the lines are drawn are set by each individual GM and/or group.
As for certain actions being defined as evil (or good or chaotic or lawful) by the group even if the character doesn't think so, I agree. But be careful, how we define terms can be socially constructed within the societies in a game.
For example, orcs could view sex in a very different fashion that we RW humans do. To them it could be akin to punching someone in the face or arm wrestling. It is done for determine power (or reproduce) with the cutlure, but it is very "normal" or "common" for people to force themselves on each other. Males force themselves on females and other males. Females force themselves on other females and males as well. To them, it isn't the same act as it is with us RW humans. To them maybe arm wrestling is "evil".
Now, within their own culture it might not be considered evil, but if they do it people from another culture, who do not hold the same view on the acts as they do, even though to the orcs the act wouldn't seem different. It would be on a universal level and would become evil. So acts can be evil or not depending on the standards of the culture, the issue is really, how much harm is being done?
This is pretty much the core of my argument. In the real world, as well as the fantasy world, you have cultures of differing perceptions of what is and is not "good/bad". Extreme example: In the west, most agree that active pedophilia/ephebophila is the most abject and depraved horror, while there are tribes in Micronesia and South America where it is ritualized and seen as a honorable rite of passage.
In game you have countries like Ustalav, where (among other things) it is OK to burn people for being spellcasters. And thus, the place is evil. The people view themselves as in the right, as spellcasters are dangerous and corruptible (dragon age, anyone?), but when you are willing to kill someone for being what they are, rather for what they do, you share a table with Hitler and friends.
Out of game, we have to deal with perceptions of the players and the GM. I have a much "higher" and abstract view of good/evil than most of the other players in my group. I have studied ethics, challenged my perceptions and reflect on both actions and consequences in my line of work, as I affect lives with my decisions (Child Protective Services). Thus I place higher demands on what is considered good and not.
While I am not demanding that they discard common sense to throw their lives away to achieve unfeasible goals (comparable real life scenario: It is possible to affect Libya and make an armed response if Gadaffi opt for genocide, but if China does the same, an armed response is next to impossible), I demand that they do not slaughter wholesale, and do not take the easy way. Then they should play neutral, and have some leeway to be colored by subjective perspective.
|
|
I think it depends. Partially on presentation, partially on culture, and other things. Would it be evil to purge spellcasters in Ustalav if in fact they do run a very high risk of falling into corruption, and feeding the curse of the land. In that case, by allowing them to exist might literally mean you are gambling with the life, sanity, health, and/or soul of your family and friends, as well as later generations.
Both Ravenloft and Dark Sun come to mind.
I think it depends. Partially on presentation, partially on culture, and other things. Would it be evil to purge spellcasters in Ustalav if in fact they do run a very high risk of falling into corruption, and feeding the curse of the land. In that case, by allowing them to exist might literally mean you are gambling with the life, sanity, health, and/or soul of your family and friends, as well as later generations.
Both Ravenloft and Dark Sun come to mind.
Would it be evil to kill spellcasters if the magic in their bodies leaked into the ground after being murdered and slowly warped the land and twisted it as a sort of death curse?
Of course, the people doing the murdering would think they were cutting down on the curse, when actually they are feeding it, because of their intolerance.
That's sort of the thing about intolerance, you can make all sorts of logical arguments about how it's not evil but instead good. I can go pick up a pile of cow offal off the ground, bake it hard, rub it with wax, shape it, paint it, and put it on sale as a great object de art.
It's still a pile of cow *@#*.
:)
|
|
Because in D&D, murdering evil is a good act, (though I personally don't agree with that).
For those not familiar with Dark Sun, arcane magic literally draws strength from the agriculture around the user, sapping life from trees and plants, ruining the land, and robbing the soil of its ability to be used for anything farming. Once Dark Sun, (Athas), was a normal planet like any other setting, but arcanists have literally drained it so that the entire world is a massive desert. People fully know that arcanists can do this. It doesn't matter if they are good, neutral or evil. It isn't their intent as much as it is thier abundant use of arcane magic.
In Ravenloft, and Ustalav, the land itself is tainted by dark powers and curses. The people do not have the benefit of knowing what exactly worsens the condition, but madness, physical deformity related to arcane energies, demon influence and corruption are common and serious threats, not only to yourself, but to your children, and every other person you might or might not know is very real and understood by all.
That doesn't mean I think anyone who burns a potentual demon/devil coruptee is good, by far. For example the heresy of the Burners (Sarenrae), who do not get divine powers, from what I have seen are very much your classic inquisitor and not Good. Some downright evil, though I don't know much about them past the novel.
I think to say that these things are evil regardless of the circumstances is getting very close to crap DMing, where the players have to begin to read the DMs mind or lose their alignment and powers in some cases. It robs the game of difficult moral choices, I think, also, because it means that the players have to metagame. It also makes the single most powerful item in and out of character the Phylactery of Faithfulness.
Because in D&D, murdering evil is a good act,
Unfortunately, this is true. Celestials and other creatures of "ultimate goodness" even have special powers to be better at it.
But I think that what MDT was trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong), is that we don't have to abide by that; we can choose to play with a less archaic "an eye for an eye" philosophy on morality if we want to. The game is not limited to the default assumption of what "good" is.
'findel
Really? It seems they specifically want a codified assumption that A.) is always Evil, B.) is always Good, AB42.) is always LN, . . .
Am I misreading it somehow? It seems that they are against circumstances and intentions having any influence on the alignment of an action.
No you are right, the game DOES make assumptions about what "good" and "evil" are, no so much in that creature X is always evil etc, but in that good and evil are quantifiable and measurable "energy forces" that come-up in several spells and abilities.
But as there are no wrong way to play the game, the divorce from "team celestial" and "good as an ideal in morality" is feasible with minimal impact on the RAW and gameplay.
'findel
@Beckett & @Laurelfindel
You're both getting some of my take, but not quite all. I am absolutely ok with Demon/Devil's being evil and Solars/Angels being Good, and both trying their best to kill the other. This is the fundamental of the multiverse. Angels are good, Devil's are evil. Can their be a fallen angel or a fallen devil (who turns neutral or good), yes. Are they all but unheard of except in legend? Yes.
Angels & Devils are outsiders, they are formed from the very essence of the planes of Good and Evil. That's why they have the [Good]/[Evil] tags.
I object to mortals without those tags being pigeonholed into good/evil slaughter at will. A solar might detest a human who's evil, but he's not going to advocate wholesale slaughter of all drow, including children. Why not? Because they are not inhrently evil. They are not born with evil built into them. Why? Because if they were, they'd have [Evil] subtag on them.
To me, the battle of Good vs Evil has many planes of combat. The solars/devils fight on one plane directly, against each other, solar vs devil. They also fight via proxy, on the mortal plane. Both sides have their pieces in that battle, both draw energy, and can weaken their opponents, by what happens in the mortal plane.
To a good god, who's fighting evil, advocating the very tactics of evil against evil is evil. So no, I have no problem with Solar's fighting and using smite evil on a necromancer when summoned. I would have trouble with them slaughtering goblin babies.