I have watched, with morbid fascination, episodes of Dexter from the 1st and 2nd seasons. I stopped watching when it was apparent what the writers were promoting. Dexter Morgan is, in my opinion, irredeemably evil. That goes without variation from watching the character. Is Dexter Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil? He doesn't murder like the Joker of Batman fame, he doesn't murder because he has no choice like a Lawful Evil person. Dexter chooses people based on a criteria and murders them with surgical precision, hiding the bodies and the remains. He removes them from society as best he can. He doesn't obey Biblical law or societal law, just the "Code of Harry" and his own feelings. He doesn't stop his murders, he won't stop his murders, he doesn't feel remorse at all but he also has a finely-tuned level of control to mask himself from others.
Dexter is Neutral Evil by my opinion. There's no difference in alignment between Dexter the human serial killer and a druid who murders anyone entering "his" forest. Dexter is the wolf in sheep's clothing, the serial killer hiding as a police lab analyst. He cannot be True Neutral, nor Lawful by any definition. He controls himself from normal human tendencies to have his murderous spree spiral out of the hidden harvesting, so he is not Chaotic.
In a normal sane society Dexter Morgan would eventually be caught, either by investigation or happenstance. Dexter is the best reason for a totalitarian surveillance state I can think of. Having a psychopathic protagonist as an entertainment media speaks volumes as to the degradation of our society. In roleplay scenarios, Dexter would not have the technology and situations that enables him to mask his killing tendencies quite as easily as is protrayed. Magic, either divine or arcane, would find him by spying or divination, and justice would not be blind.
I wanted to stay away from "biblical" arguments, but after seeing the thread moved to TV and not having it die off instantly I might as well address a few of thew new points jhpace1 brought up. Sure he doesn't measure up to Uriel & the gang with the lambsblood on the door & that firstborn sons thing. The bible (old testament in particular) is filled with some pretty brutal stuff)
With regards to the Totalitarian surveillance state 1984 and a number of tippyverse variants have pretty clearly explained why it's a "bad bad thing".
The last session in a PF game I'm playing in resulted in:
- The ringmaster tried to ignore the rogue and intimidate him into working for a pittance with a trial job to start.
-the CG sorcerer setting free a bunch of enslaved circus acts/mistreated wild animals
-The now formerly enslaved paladin took a sword from a half eaten dead body & went about cutting down some unlucky carnie folks/mooks on his way to the ringmaster that ran it all with help from the sorcerer.
- the LE rogue simply stood back and waved when his escort mooks got cut down by the pally/sorc duo before telling him his job
- Thre LE rogue waved goodbye to the duo and went back to the ringmaster who attempted to weasel out of paying for "competent staff" much to the rogue's continued & growing annoyance at him)
- The paladin cut down the basically helpless "evil" ringmaster that was running things
- The rogue convinced the paladin he showed great mercy by granting the guy a quick death while he was in the process of being eaten by a lion while also convincing the paladin that going to the authorities to report the murder and turn himself in would be a waste of time that could be bewtter spent helping "people in need"
- The CN cleric went loothappy & started searching wagons for anything of value while the LE rogue continued keeping an eye on his "potentially" useful/dangerous newfound paladin companion while the paladin turned the wagon inside out looking for his stuff.
- Sorc/Cleric ran away when an angry mob of commoners came with torches and pitchforks even though the GM openly admitted that we were all pretty sure we could probably take them out.
-Paladin explained that trying to reason with them might be the best course of action
- LE Rogue convinced the paladin that doing so with an angry mob would result in unnecessary bloodshed (without explaining to him that his reasoning for saying it was to help convince the paladin to work with him for the bump in credibility working with a paladin would give him).
-Paladin reluctantly agreed he was right and ran with the rogue.
-LE rogue/CN cleric smelled smoke & charred meat coming from the direction away from town, paladin failed his heck miserably and smelled nothing. Cleric started talking about going away from the smoke & it's potential danger. Rogue tells the paladin and explains how there might be someone in need of help upwind with the smell of smoke & charred meat rather than risk going back to the little unimportant village and killing civilians in front of the seemingly useful paladin
Out of the whole lot, the LE rogue was probably the least evil of the bunch & probably managed to help the world more than anyone else in the group with completely evil reasons behind it all. He wound up turning into the one that seems to glue the clashable personalities in the group together for his own reasons. Paladin on a quest to rid the world of some world destroying evil?... lets be off "both me and my stuff is here ... so it would be damned inconvenient if the world were to be destroyed"was perfect reasoning for him to look into the possibility with his "looking clearly useful & nonthreatening" credibility bump paladin cohort.
Why should there be benefits ?There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.
Smash alignment or remove the mechanical enforcement.
Because there are problems with mechanically applied alignment, and if there are no benefits to outweigh the problems, you're left with a system that actively hurts the game.
I remember I played a CN half-orc cleric/barbarian bare handed fighter in a Realms game. The DM was shocked how well it worked, and how he was the poster child for a chaotic neutral character
-All problems should be solved
-Violence is the best way to solve problems
-So a case in point, a man was hitting a child with a stick. The half-orc said, bad! and broke the adult's neck. Now of course this would be wrong, and the paladin tried to explain why it was wrong. But the half-orc said "You said it's wrong to hurt children. I agree. I stopped him. He won't hurt any more children." In other words, a Chaotic Neutral character can break laws and do bad things to prevent 'other' bad things. Said character had an intelligence of 8 and a charisma of 12. More conviction than theology.
-Now if the Orc was evil he would have enjoyed killing the man. Orc didn't. It was just a 'solution'. A lawful neutral character would have said, it's none of my business. A Chaotic good character would have stopped the man non lethally, regardless of the law. A Paladin would have to stop the man according to local custom "dueling, or even diplomacy checks". And a CE character would have killed the man and raped the child, or eaten the child and enslaved the man. A lawful evil man could do anything provided it furthered his own ends. I believe a true neutral character would just watch, similar to a group of Chinese people watching a woman being beaten in the street. (I live in CHina, I get to see this)
-I insist that most alignment arguments are people WANTING to do EVIL things and then justifying it later. This is not limited to role-playing games but most criminal court cases.
Because there are problems with mechanically applied alignment, and if there are no benefits to outweigh the problems, you're left with a system that actively hurts the game.
There is one big benefit and it's called Planescape. Let my favorite cosmology be!
Ok, it could be removed from the core rules and made part of setting specific rules... but hey, Planescape is the proof yopu can grow good stories out of the alignment system.
No benefit? Alignment is a very good shorthand for what people would be doing in certain situations. Every alternative is far more complex, tedious, confusing and otherwise problematic. Before scrapping alignment, you really should ask yourself what you want instead. Myers-Briggs? Does it make you feel better that the orc is an ESFJ than just plain old CE? Do you really want to make spells like Dispel Extrovert or Protection from Judging?
Because there are problems with mechanically applied alignment, and if there are no benefits to outweigh the problems, you're left with a system that actively hurts the game.There is one big benefit and it's called Planescape. Let my favorite cosmology be!
Ok, it could be removed from the core rules and made part of setting specific rules... but hey, Planescape is the proof yopu can grow good stories out of the alignment system.
I'm in a Planescape game that doesn't use D&D and alignment has yet to enter it at all.
If anything alignment made Planescape less sensical once you dove into the factions, with lawful good Harmonium paladins rubbing elbows with lawful evil tyrants.
No benefit? Alignment is a very good shorthand for what people would be doing in certain situations. Every alternative is far more complex, tedious, confusing and otherwise problematic. Before scrapping alignment, you really should ask yourself what you want instead. Myers-Briggs? Does it make you feel better that the orc is an ESFJ than just plain old CE? Do you really want to make spells like Dispel Extrovert or Protection from Judging?
This is why Ron Edwards said the nasty things he said about D&D players.
It goes to logic (I would hope) that removing the mechanical basis for alignment means there is no "Protection from <alignment>" spells. Alignment would be replaced with *drumroll* nothing, or maybe a backstory of your character, or a small blurb on their feelings, because you don't need to mechanize roleplaying.
Aaaaand the same would be needed for NPCs. Yay.
I'm in a Planescape game that doesn't use D&D and alignment has yet to enter it at all.
If anything alignment made Planescape less sensical once you dove into the factions, with lawful good Harmonium paladins rubbing elbows with lawful evil tyrants.
I agree. You can drop the alignment system even in a Planescape game.
My point was that the Planescape setting was inspired by the alignment system and that the great wheel would probably not exist if it was not for it. So, we can disagree with the mechanical side of the system, but as an inspiration for a cosmology, it was a good thing, if only for Planescape.
In gaming terms, the fluff is good, the crunch is bad.
Render unto Ceasar, etc... ;-)
I'm in a Planescape game that doesn't use D&D and alignment has yet to enter it at all.
If anything alignment made Planescape less sensical once you dove into the factions, with lawful good Harmonium paladins rubbing elbows with lawful evil tyrants.
I agree. You can drop the alignment system even in a Planescape game.
My point was that the Planescape setting was inspired by the alignment system and that the great wheel would probably not exist if it was not for it. So, we can disagree with the mechanical side of the system, but as an inspiration for a cosmology, it was a good thing, if only for Planescape.
In gaming terms, the fluff is good, the crunch is bad.
Render unto Ceasar, etc... ;-)
No... the concept far predates D&D by hundreds of years.
No... the concept far predates D&D by hundreds of years.
No. Sorry. It's a really far fetched historic hypothesis, and I do not think any serious research in history of ideas would be able to show a link between the two.
Hey, maybe the Planescape great wheel was inspired by Islamic astrology or by the Idea of a Musica Universalis.
You see, if you search history for circles, you'll get plenty.
Aaaaand the same would be needed for NPCs. Yay.
So what?
Also: No, it doesn't. The NPC rules for 3e were never intended to be used by everyone always forever. They were meant to be for beginners to get used to building NPCs so that, as they stopped being beginner DMs, they would be better at flexing their creativity muscles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-People who believe in objective good and evil are so different from people who don't that the two are not even capable of speaking meaningfully to each other.
-I can play with other party members who 'don't believe in objective evil' and I refer to such characters in my own head as "naive evil" . Characters who are 'neutral but I take your stuff' are "selfish evil". And outright sadists and child molesters are "dear God, my eyes" evil.
-That said I have played an evil character. And he was evil Not selfish, not sadistic, just convinced that the destruction of all the gods and all beauty was better than "this lie of a life." That said the DM was happy to have an 'evil character who doesn't just want to steal stuff."
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.
I'd argue that a god in a fantasy setting could be beyond good and evil, that is neutral. Getting involved on the the good and bad sides for a specific cause. For example a nature god flooding a town to prevent the destruction of a druid grove. Sure thousands die, but the oaks are saved. To us that is a terrible trade, but we're human. Fantasy gods are not required to be good.
|
In traditional D&D fantasy, good, evil, law or chaos are not philosophical concepts. They are forces that define the multiverse/existence, so they are objective rather than subjective definitions of character behavior.
In other words, in Pathfinder, killing is not evil and dexter's is not a good example I think.
For a player, alignment should be a guideline and I don't feel it's an overly important aspect of the game anyway.
Another one wo plays Paladins like Serial killers...
Gygax invented the Alignment system. Lawful Good is down as harmelss and law abiding: Which is why real Paladins Dont Take a a life under any condition and post 9-11 Paladins kill anyone who get in their way of the 'greater good' which is just code for 'didnt ask the majority their opinion or bother with a trial'.
-People who believe in objective good and evil are so different from people who don't that the two are not even capable of speaking meaningfully to each other.
-I can play with other party members who 'don't believe in objective evil' and I refer to such characters in my own head as "naive evil" . Characters who are 'neutral but I take your stuff' are "selfish evil". And outright sadists and child molesters are "dear God, my eyes" evil.
-That said I have played an evil character. And he was evil Not selfish, not sadistic, just convinced that the destruction of all the gods and all beauty was better than "this lie of a life." That said the DM was happy to have an 'evil character who doesn't just want to steal stuff."
Excellent post :) I love the alternate mental descriptions. I have a LE rogue/fighter with traits that let him treat Knowledge Arcana, Dungeoneering, Engineering, & Planes as class skills since the group had no real access to knowledge skills and Scholar of the Great Beyond
Scholar of the Great Beyond: Your great interests as a child did not lie with current events or the mundane—you have always felt out of place, as if you were born in the wrong era. You take to philosophical discussions of the Great Beyond and of historical events with ease. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (planes) checks, and one of these skills (your choice) is always a class skill for you.
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.
I'd say there's a word for people who actively think "I am doing something evil because I am a bad person" but there isn't because people don't think that way.
Thus the problem with alignment - anyone can scan their own alignment and go "Oh whoh, I'm horribly evil. I thought I was doing good. Nevermind!"
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.
We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.
I can think of several potential words, but don't think saying them would be wise for the health of the thread. Those who do think that way, should probably read Jim Butcher's Dresden files books. They have characters that range from Michael Carpenter (basically a real life paladin with a family & real world complications to deal with), to Harry Dresden who can pretty well be compared to David Tennent's Doctor (10th?) nicknamed the oncoming storm... Harry is a protector against the darkness who uses whatever reasonable things are required to get the job done when dealing with everything from werewolf type creatures to the Fae, actual fallen angels, outsiders, and corruption in his own organization but manages to do so in ways that cause both [spoiler1] and [spoiler2]to take an interest in his life (major spoilers there) along with a bunch of other folks who are just normal real world people doing their best to make things better along with the Lawful-(/n/A) fae who grow quite a bit from the first impression they seem to give the more you learn about them.
1:At least one actual named angel, not just some generic angel... he's in the bible by name
2:I warned you... Major spoiler from the tail end of ghost story(currently last printed in the series)
It's implied by someone who is incapable of telling a lie & would absolutely know but not directly stated that lucifer pushed harry towards a mistake.
The fae were pretty much my template for how I handle lawful outsiders, their nature is so incredibly different from ours that concepts like good & evil are not something they can even begin to understand. Turn someone into a hunting& keep them in your kennel with the other hounds?... what's wrong with that?... he'd be safe happy and well cared for through the rest of his life. What's not to like? The mindset of mortals (humans) is just as alien to them as their own mindset is to mortals. Over the course of the books, you start to understand their mindsets and come to realize they can be pretty nice folks within their limits. A LE devil could be pretty useful to a true neutral druid that wants to stop some force of chaos harming the forest... Given time, they might even learn each other's mindsets and be able to phrase to work well together given the limits of their underastanding oh the other.
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.
No. As a human, there are limits to what you should do. If you transgress past that line, you do something that reflects on the quality of your actions, behaviour, and the way you think. These limits look somewhat different at different places and times, but there is a central core of things that remains more or less constant. You do not kill someone without good reason, you do not steal, you do not lie with intent to harm, you do not commit incest, you do not eat human flesh, you do not rape, you do not betray those close to you.
Once you do these things, expect people to react badly to you if they find out. Why do they? Because you have shown by these actions that you actively distance yourself from all the things they consider basics of human behaviour. Some call this evil, some call it sociopathy, but all agree that such a person is not to be trusted.
Shades of gray? Sure. There are lots of shades of gray, but that doesn't mean there isn't pitch black as well. If you doubt this, think on what would make you consider rape or murder just for kicks to be acceptable. If you can't, well, then by your own admission, CM, Evil should apply just as well to you. Or, you could, you know, accept that shades of gray do not preclude unforgivable blackness.
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.No. As a human, there are limits to what you should do. If you transgress past that line, you do something that reflects on the quality of your actions, behaviour, and the way you think. These limits look somewhat different at different places and times, but there is a central core of things that remains more or less constant. You do not kill someone without good reason, you do not steal, you do not lie with intent to harm, you do not commit incest, you do not eat human flesh, you do not rape, you do not betray those close to you.
Once you do these things, expect people to react badly to you if they find out. Why do they? Because you have shown by these actions that you actively distance yourself from all the things they consider basics of human behaviour. Some call this evil, some call it sociopathy, but all agree that such a person is not to be trusted.
Shades of gray? Sure. There are lots of shades of gray, but that doesn't mean there isn't pitch black as well. If you doubt this, think on what would make you consider rape or murder just for kicks to be acceptable. If you can't, well, then by your own admission, CM, Evil should apply just as well to you. Or, you could, you know, accept that shades of gray do not preclude unforgivable blackness.
I once dated a rather kinky girl with a rape fantasy that wanted me to do so up to the point of giving me a recording explaining it and asking me to do so while saying that it was a completely desired and willing thing that I should not get in trouble for should anything go wrong if I were to accept and do go through with it for her (I didn't).
With regards to your"kill without good reason", that "good reason" is 100% subjective, as someone who signed a living will with conditions for when I want to have the plug pulled after a cerebral hemmorage where I learned what it was like to be trapped & helpless in my own body... I don't think anyone with a "never a good reason" argument has a chance in arguing that point. If it were legal to just OD me on morphine rather than just pull the plug, it would include circumstances for when do do that as well... anyone still thinking about arguing that point can bite me!
With the "lie with intent to harm" That is another subjective thing... Harm who? The one, or the many? What if it is not possible to be truthful with both without causing even more harm?
Grey area grey area grey area... One person's grey area is not necessarily another's likewise with good and evil. There are circumstances I would consider it an act of mercy to kill me, another might consider it a crime against humanity to do so and think that I should be kept alive as long as possible in a torturous state rather than granting me the desired mercy.
I stumbled across a fun technicality in another thread (about paladins of Asmodeus) that shows a flawed aspect of the alignment system's wording. So long as you do not "debase", "destroy", or "kill" an innocent... it is perfectly fine to corrupt them and not an evil act. By that same token, it is not good/evil to purify that corruption. it's a shame that I can't edit this into the original post now...
You do not kill someone without good reason, you do not steal, you do not lie with intent to harm, you do not commit incest, you do not eat human flesh, you do not rape, you do not betray those close to you.
Self defense? Stealing to stay alive or get food for a person dying of hunger? Lie, if the result would be to harm the gestapo officer and save your (or another) life? Incest: ok, the only good reason would (maybe) be if you and your sister were the last human beings on earth in order to save the human race. Eating human (assuming the human is dead) flesh when stranded in the Himalayas? Betraying someone close to you if it would save 10 000 lives? Or just one?
Objective rules are hard to apply to all and every circumstances.
Old same debate between Kant's deontology and Mill's consequentialism.
It's an old debate, yes. But if you claim that there are only gray areas, using only examples that most people acknowledge to be gray areas and thereby avoid even talking about the clear-cut pitch black cases that do exist, you don't impress anyone.
So I will put my question again:
When is raping or murdering, nonconsensually and just for kicks, acceptable? What special case do you need to build up to try to convince yourself that it could be done in your "gray area"?
My point is, if there is ONE SINGLE ACTION that is pitch black, no matter how many special conditions I have to add, then it is not ALL gray areas. You could claim that thereby I have to build such a weird scenario that it could not happen for real... but I am only talking about rape and murder here, something that is all too common.
Oh, and of course, do keep it up. Claim that this too is a gray area, and we'll next discuss violence against newborns. If even that is not a pitch black area to you, well, I think that says it all about how relevant your moral philosophy is.
It's an old debate, yes. But if you claim that there are only gray areas, using only examples that most people acknowledge to be gray areas and thereby avoid even talking about the clear-cut pitch black cases that do exist, you don't impress anyone.
So I will put my question again:
When is raping or murdering, nonconsensually and just for kicks, acceptable? What special case do you need to build up to try to convince yourself that it could be done in your "gray area"?
My point is, if there is ONE SINGLE ACTION that is pitch black, no matter how many special conditions I have to add, then it is not ALL gray areas. You could claim that thereby I have to build such a weird scenario that it could not happen for real... but I am only talking about rape and murder here, something that is all too common.
Oh, and of course, do keep it up. Claim that this too is a gray area, and we'll next discuss violence against newborns. If even that is not a pitch black area to you, well, I think that says it all about how relevant your moral philosophy is.
When is it acceptable?... I named two earlier, funny that you should rephrase it to specifically exclude them in multiple ways. It's even more amusing that one of those ways is barely even addressed by the alignment system unless very specific conditions are met to make it important.
I discussed nonconsensual murder and rape from the beginning, which you will realize if you're not acting deliberately obtuse. You were the one to add fictional weird conditions like "consensual rape", not me.
So, again: Someone commits a rape, and yes, it's AGAINST the raped person's will (how would it otherwise be rape???). This is what is commonly meant when discussing rape, you know. Is this pitch black, or do you see ways that this action would be a good thing, where you could weigh the pros and cons?
I understand your reluctance to answer this, given your position that there are always only shades of gray. Even so, it's important that you do so, without trying to ignore the existence of just such actions.
|
|
I stumbled across a fun technicality in another thread (about paladins of Asmodeus) that shows a flawed aspect of the alignment system's wording. So long as you do not "debase", "destroy", or "kill" an innocent... it is perfectly fine to corrupt them and not an evil act. By that same token, it is not good/evil to purify that corruption. it's a shame that I can't edit this into the original post now...
Wrong.
Debase (alt. abase, degrade, disgrace, dishonour, humble, humiliate, lower, reduce, shame, adulterate, contaminate, corrupt, defile, impair, pollute, taint): To lower in value.
It's an old debate, yes. But if you claim that there are only gray areas, using only examples that most people acknowledge to be gray areas and thereby avoid even talking about the clear-cut pitch black cases that do exist, you don't impress anyone.
So I will put my question again:
When is raping or murdering, nonconsensually and just for kicks, acceptable? What special case do you need to build up to try to convince yourself that it could be done in your "gray area"?
My point is, if there is ONE SINGLE ACTION that is pitch black, no matter how many special conditions I have to add, then it is not ALL gray areas. You could claim that thereby I have to build such a weird scenario that it could not happen for real... but I am only talking about rape and murder here, something that is all too common.
Oh, and of course, do keep it up. Claim that this too is a gray area, and we'll next discuss violence against newborns. If even that is not a pitch black area to you, well, I think that says it all about how relevant your moral philosophy is.
I said : We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.
My argument, in a syllogical form, if you want it more clearly :
Some people think there is only black and white.
But, there is also grey areas.
Thus, those people are wrong.
I don't know by what twisted logic you concluded I was defending a world where there is only shade of grey and no black or white. My argument certainly does not entail such a conclusion.
In mathematical logic, if you want:
A - is a Shade of grey
B - is Black and white
From : (1) If there is a x that is a A, then it's false to say that for all x, x are B
You can't conclude : (2) For all x, x are NOT B
Or, the negation of a universal quantifier never gives you a universal quantifier, but only an existential one.
You can also consultAristotle's logical square.
I certainly argued thet those clear cut situations are the exeptions rather than the rule, but never said they did not exist.
Maybe my moral philosophy (which you know almost nothing about and seem to invent the most part yourself) is not relevant, but you grasp on basic logic is certainly inadequate and lead you misconclude, from a single sentance, something about my moral philosophy.
I dunno how sissyl got "only shades of grey" out of what people were saying either. Just because it's not always a simple either/or equation doesn't mean it can't be black and white on occasion. Sometimes there is not even a choice too:
-guy gets a phonecall explaining how his wife & kids have been kidnapped and will be killed if he doesn't plant a bomb, if any attempt to contact or alert the authorities is made, they will be killed. if the bomb fails to detonate, they will be killed... there is no white choice.
- Same guy... instead of a terrible phone call The office building is on fire and he is trapped on the 23 floor with no hope of rescue or getting past the fire that has spread to corner him and a baby in this room right up against the window he broke to let in fresh air. The fire is getting closer & will get both soon... does he leave the baby to burn to death in agony with him or jump out the window with it for a quick death. Those are situations where you only ave a pair of grey options. As you can see, they are a bit more complex than the simple "murder is always wrong" example you tried to put out earlier when it was shown that there are exceptions to that overly simplified setup of yours.
Jus because it's not always a pure good/evil binary choice doesn't mean it can't be... just like sometimes you don't even have a pure good -or- evil choice.
Good to see that you acknowledge the existence of evil acts, tetrasodium. It's a bit galling that you consider seeing only black and white (which is a straw man if I ever saw one, if it's applied to what I said) as being evil in and of itself. It would be good to see how you mean being naive is evil, if you can explain that. If you ask me to quote you on this, I will.
However, if we DO have evil acts, and possibly also good acts, then perhaps good and evil are more valid concepts than you have thus far pretended. Perhaps it's just a question of accepting that, and you will see that there might be a relevance to the alignment system, even if it's not perfect.
Nobody is trying to say that a person is only his or her alignment. That way lies cardboard cutout characters and boredom (at least to me, others may prefer kicking monster butt to roleplaying). However, alignment is only meant to be a shorthand for certain priorities the character has, priorities that are enforced by certain game mechanics.
Like it or not, it works.
P.S. Right, I should also return the favour and show how valid examples can be: During the Nanjing massacre, japanese soldiers took a newborn child and dissolved it in acid because they felt like it. Nazi germany sent the SS to kill the 26 children living in a home for mentally handicapped children in Berlin, because they were not "productive members of society". One of the mass murderers executed some time ago in the US killed only very young children, boys for preference, because he liked the feeling of hurting their parents. Gray areas, gray areas, gray areas?
Certainly. However, the existence of gray areas do not, in any way, shape, or form, preclude the existence of evil acts. Thus, the fact that there are extenuating circumstances for SOME acts is completely meaningless to the discussion at hand, which concerned alignment. An evil character is one who will use evil acts to reach goals. If evil acts don't exist, then alignment becomes meaningless, but since we all agree that monstrous evil does, in fact, exist, then I should say that alignment remains a relevant concept.
Hmmm. Seems I made one mistake here. Tetrasodium wasn't the one who claimed that being naive was evil. It was CunningMongoose who did. Consider the question I put two posts up adressed to CM instead. My apologies.
Humans are actually incapable of 'action' devoid of context. Since nobody can exist in an 'out of context' situation, arguing the morality of an action devoid of context is an 'absurdity' similar to 'can god make a rock to big to lift?'
-Classic example. Killing is not an evil act. Today I killed a fly. So only murder is evil? murder is a LEGAL term. It gets so strange.
HarbinNick: That's as confused a jumble as you can hope to see in a debate, even on the internet.
As I understand you, your point is that since every action has a context, there can be no evil acts. The you try to prove this by giving an example of a gray area.
The first part simply does not follow. Whether an act is evil or not is certainly dependent on lots of things. However, when you judge if an act is evil, you always have to factor in the situation. More specifically, taking a murder as an example, you delve deeply into questions such as whether the murderer acted with intent to kill or was careless, if the murderer was of sound mental faculty, what the murderer's motivation for the murder was, and so on. That does not change the fact that given a certain act, in a certain situation, some acts are truly wicked. And yes, murder is a legal term, but it's also a commonly used term for a despicable act. It does not get strange at all.
The second part is just as meaningless to the discussion at hand as all the previous attempts at proving how useless alignment is by showing "gray area" examples. What you need to do is prove that black and white areas no NOT exist, that would invalidate alignment. What you are doing, however, is showing that gray areas exist - and that does not prove or disprove anything regarding "black areas".
Hmmm. Seems I made one mistake here. Tetrasodium wasn't the one who claimed that being naive was evil. It was CunningMongoose who did. Consider the question I put two posts up adressed to CM instead. My apologies.
Wait, What?
Please, read again, and stop making me say things I never said.
If you want a strawman, give it another name than mine. It's getting really frustating. I wrote 3 but lines and you are reading in them far more than there is. It's dishonest.
I only said disregarding the grey areas and seeing everything as black or white was "evil", as "evil" as thinking yourself "beyond good and evil".
I'ts called dogmatism and it shortcircuit critical thinking about complex moral situations.
The second part is just as meaningless to the discussion at hand as all the previous attempts at proving how useless alignment is by showing "gray area" examples. What you need to do is prove that black and white areas no NOT exist, that would invalidate alignment. What you are doing, however, is showing that gray areas exist - and that does not prove or disprove anything regarding "black areas".
Again, I never asserted there is no clear cut situations, only that most situations are not. The only thing it proves about "black areas" is the following : sometime, its easy to misjudge and think something is black, when it's in fact grey. That is why, for exemple, I would never support death penalty.
The failure is not in an objective and clear moral system, which may in some case exist for all practical purpose, but lies in our (in)capacity to correctly acess complex situations without errors.
Dogmatics, seeing only black and white, make a lot of judgemental errors by ignoring the bigest part of the picture. They do so by painting in black a lot of grey areas. That is what I called "evil", practical evil - most of the time it harms other persons.
Also, you seem to assert that, the existence of a clear cut situation is a sufficient condition to support the thesis of an objective moral order in the world. It's not. At most it proves only an universal human moral response to a neutral cosmic situation. Our brains are wired in a way to emotionally respond to certain basic situations, and culture will add to those primitive responses a complex moral code. The examples you use (dissolving a baby in acid) makes it so that the moral response of any normal human brain will be about the same. You did not prove that the act, in itself, as a "thing happening in the world" was evil.
Good and evil are not objective properties of the world, but properties of human judgement, rooted in the evolved nature of our brains. The act was "evil for human brains".
Now, I you want to misread me again and paint my opinion black, go ahead, you'll only prove what I am saying.
Really nice post CunningMongoose. As to Sissyl, it's great that you finally acknowledge that there are grey areas, but given the admission... what exactly have you been attempting to argue all this time considering the OP was using Dexter as an example of why the alignment system's attempt to remove the subjective nature of concepts like good & evil is flawed and should be fixed to account for that to avoid the sorts of problems it causes.
Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.
No, TriOmegaZero, it was CunningMongoose. And CM: I still don't see why dogmatism is evil. There are many things it is, including naive, but evil? Not unless you are desperate to make a pithy quip. Painting too many acts as evil is not in itself evil, even if you want to pretend it is.
Next, you try saying that evil is not objective because it's our brains judging the act. Which is truly irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's like saying reading is irrelevant because it only happens in our brains. Certainly, our brains judge these things, but as you say, certain acts cause all healthy persons to consider them evil. It's how our brains are wired, and that's my working definition of evil. It's not provably objective, true, but it might as well be. Do such things, and you are an evil person.
Then add to that the fact that D&D/PF also has entire planes devoted to good and evil, and you have a strict objective, cosmic, morality in the games. Make a setting without those elements, i.e. outsiders, alignment planes, alignment spells, and yes, you have a case.
I still don't see why dogmatism is evil. There are many things it is, including naive, but evil? Not unless you are desperate to make a pithy quip. Painting too many acts as evil is not in itself evil, even if you want to pretend it is.
Ok, seems I'll have to break it down even further...
I gave you a definition of what I meant by evil : a way of judging things and acting according to those judgements that cause more harm than good. I then said I believed it was the case with what I called dogmatism.
As dogmatism, a way of judging state of affairs that consider there is no shade of gray is causing more harm than good, I was thus entailed to qualify it as evil, according to my definition of evil.
Now, you said dogmatism is not evil. Ok, but please, define evil. That would be the only logical way to show I am wrong.
You gave examples of thing "clearly evil", but failed to provide a working definition of the concept. Seems you are the only one to know what you mean by "evil", and thus are able to shift the debate to your advantage whenever you want because you are working with a shifting concept you may dress as you like to appear to be right.
Next, you try saying that evil is not objective because it's our brains judging the act. Which is truly irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's like saying reading is irrelevant because it only happens in our brains. Certainly, our brains judge these things, but as you say, certain acts cause all healthy persons to consider them evil. It's how our brains are wired, and that's my working definition of evil. It's not provably objective, true, but it might as well be. Do such things, and you are an evil person.
I never said it was irrelevant. I said it was not objective. Again, see how you twist my words. Going from "not being objective" to "being irrelevant" is a move I never made. You made it. And I would disagree with that move. Something not objective can be important and have value.
Then add to that the fact that D&D/PF also has entire planes devoted to good and evil, and you have a strict objective, cosmic, morality in the games. Make a setting without those elements, i.e. outsiders, alignment planes, alignment spells, and yes, you have a case.
The argument was about the truely objective nature of good and evil, which is the conerstone on which the great planar wheel cosmology is built upon. Going from a "working definition" of evil and making the jump that say this working definition, related to the way our brain is wired, possess an objective reality outside our brains and outside our memes (social reality), is what I refuse.
Going from "it so deeply wired it might as well be, for practical purpose, objective" to "it's a cosmological, really objective feature of the world as it's the case in Planescape", was exactly the move I was trying to show as very bold.
You seem to make this move easily, good for you. I, myself, see a serious logical problem with that kind of "ontological jump".
It's the same jump you do when you say "I understand what a unicorn is, and every human brain can understand what a unicorn is, so unicorns must be an objective feature of reality."
-An individual act can NOT be good or evil. Rape and Murder are acts defined by their context not defined by some inherit nature. Killing a man who holds a bus of children hostage is not murder. You can't for obvious reasons 'rape the willing.' Since no 'action' exists without a situation, arguing the morality of any action without taking into account the situation is impossible. This is not situational ethics, this is obvious.
-If Objective good and evil exist, they must function at an 'a priori' level. Attempts to prove good and evil exist are doomed to failure since they depend on metaphysical constructs about the nature of the universe.
-Notice this phrase by mongoose
As dogmatism, a way of judging state of affairs that consider there is no shade of gray is causing more harm than good, I was thus entailed to qualify it as evil, according to my definition of evil.
-There is no such thing as a personal definition of evil. Evil must be true for all people all things in all cases, which is why the whole issue of good and evil become an argument that is impossible. One can not argue the issue of good and evil without either holding to the notion of a god, or natural law. An atheist, objective materialist worldview must discount the idea of 'moral good and evil.' That said, one could believe in evolutionary evil, the extinction of one's species would be the greatest evil. Or one could argue 'pain is evil.' And the "destruction of the whole world is preferable to a paper cut on my little finger."
-In other words although there is much 'evidence' for moral good and evil, there is no sufficient strong argument that will prove the existence of Good and Evil. Furthermore it has been said that "good things happening to bad people proves there is no good and evil"-All said I believe in objective good and evil, but that's cause I'm a vague deist. Not because of a proof or aphorism.
-last of all does this thread remind any one of coffee shops, turtlenecks, and liberal arts degree grads? I'm getting serious deja vu here.
An evil act? Hmmm... okay, let's start with something then:
We can be sure an act is evil if the act harms another, intentionally or through grave negligence, where the person committing it is capable of understanding the reasonable consequences of his/her actions for others, and where there is no goal for this other than personal gain.
There are other acts that can be evil as well, especially the variations around the last part, where many people are prepared to sacrifice others to serve their own goals, as noble as those goals may be. A reasonable principle is then that the ends do not sanctify the means.
I am sure you have objections to make.
-If Objective good and evil exist, they must function at an 'a priori' level. Attempts to prove good and evil exist are doomed to failure since they depend on metaphysical constructs about the nature of the universe.
Realism and criticism are not the only way to deal with the question. I am trying for a pragmatic awnser here.
-Notice this phrase by mongooseAs dogmatism, a way of judging state of affairs that consider there is no shade of gray is causing more harm than good, I was thus entailed to qualify it as evil, according to my definition of evil.-There is no such thing as a personal definition of evil. Evil must be true for all people all things in all cases, which is why the whole issue of good and evil become an argument that is impossible.
The fact I coined the definition (and thus, it' my "personal definition") is irrelevant. Every sentance will have an author. If you prefer, I could rephrase in a more neutral way:
Let "evil" stand for a way of morally judging state of affairs and acting according to this jugement that is causing more harm than good.
One can not argue the issue of good and evil without either holding to the notion of a god, or natural law. An atheist, objective materialist worldview must discount the idea of 'moral good and evil.' That said, one could believe in evolutionary evil, the extinction of one's species would be the greatest evil. Or one could argue 'pain is evil.' And the "destruction of the whole world is preferable to a paper cut on my little finger."
False. As an atheist, materialist and evolutionist, I still think the idea of morality is very important. As I said, because something is not an objective feature of the material world but only an elaborate way to regulate society and human interactions in order to lessen pain and augment pleasure does not mean it's not important and have no value. In fact, the Idea of value is in the same case, it's not an objective property of the material world.
Hume's aphorism is a good challenge, but he eventually foud a way aroud it: empathy. If the pain I cause to others, I feel in a way, I would not prefer the destruction of the universe.
The japanese soldiers from the former example certainly lacked empathy. It's called sociopathy, and is a medical condition according to modern psychiatry. That is why I said morality should apply to "normal brains" so yes, there is a normative part to my theory.
What they did was certainly horrible, but evil? I don't know. They probably had a mental impairment that would disqualify them as moral agent according to Syssyl's own definition :
An evil act? Hmmm... okay, let's start with something then:
We can be sure an act is evil if the act harms another, intentionally or through grave negligence, where the person committing it is capable of understanding the reasonable consequences of his/her actions for others, and where there is no goal for this other than personal gain.
There are other acts that can be evil as well, especially the variations around the last part, where many people are prepared to sacrifice others to serve their own goals, as noble as those goals may be. A reasonable principle is then that the ends do not sanctify the means.
I am sure you have objections to make.
I mostly agree with you, and now understand why you said my definition of dogmatism did not qualify te be "evil". It's because according to you there is no such thing as "uncunscious evil"... interresting. I am not sure I agree with you on this.
So, lets say a religious dogmatic political movement judge homosexuality to be unnatural and send homosexuals to "retraining camps" in order to "help them". According to your definition, this would not be evil, because the person comitting the act believes she is doing good and have good intentions and does not aim for personal gains?
According they have the possibility to change their view (they are no sociopaths) I myself would qualify this as evil.
I still have to give it more though, but at least we now know what we are debating about. Thanks.
-last of all does this thread remind any one of coffee shops, turtlenecks, and liberal arts degree grads? I'm getting serious deja vu here.
Is that a bad thing or a good thing? ;-)
Good to see we're approaching one another here.
Yes, I am opposed to the concept of unconscious evil. If I take a certain bus home, and that happened to be the cause of someone flipping and detonating a bomb and killing hundreds, I am still not to blame for taking that bus. It's also a question of the rabid dog. You don't rehabilitate rabid dogs, you put them down, as quickly as possible. By the same token, it is not reasonable to expect someone who is unable to grasp the consequences of his actions to others to avoid taking said actions due to the consequences of them. A sociopath is not what I would call evil, interestingly enough, if his or her handicap regarding the feelings of others is sharp enough. Or otherwise put: You don't act against those people because they are evil, you act against them because they are a danger to others. Morally, they are comparable to a fire, if you will.
And no, you are wrong regarding the retraining camps. Note that I said the first definition is not exclusive, only that it's a certain evil act. What I mean is that you have a "core" of evil acts that are pretty much absolutely true, and around it comes acts that are more debatable. Not because they are less evil, but because defining them is harder. I would say that the benevolent religious people sending gay people to retraining camps are harming the gays, if nothing else by imprisoning them. Certainly, they might want what is best for the gays, but that is no real excuse. Either they are guilty of committing evil because they ignore the harm they are doing to the gays in pursuit of their goal, or they are too brainwashed to even see they harm them. This latter situation is not an evil act, but falls under the above discussion. Fanaticism is not evil in and of itself - but neither is it any sort of excuse.
Regarding atheism, I completely agree. People have the same brains and the same behaviours whether there is a God or not. Studies show that all over the world, functioning people consider more or less the same things evil - murder, rape, theft, lying - which I think is pretty good evidence that there IS a universal morality. Certainly, there may be societies that push to change this in one direction or another. However, my point is that we need no God of any sort to accept a universal morality.
And now I am tempted to raise the following question:
What if everything you call "core evil", that is to say all that fall strictly under your definition was to be nothing but a medical condition called sociopathy which, to your own accord, is a danger, a kind of social "fire" but should be considered out of the scope of morality?
Lets see : "the act harms another, intentionally or through grave negligence, where the person committing it is capable of understanding the reasonable consequences of his/her actions for others, and where there is no goal for this other than personal gain."
Where do you draw the line between "sociopath" and "core evil"?
Or is it another of those grey areas? ;-)
Note that the question is if they UNDERSTAND the consequences, not how they value them. Given this, it is obvious that there exist a good number of people who understand perfectly well what they do, but for the sake of their own gain are willing to harm others. This is not sociopathy, and if you claim that only sociopaths commit evil acts, then I should say the burden of proof is on you.
Note also that there is at least some evidence of this thinking in the games. Animals are considered always neutral, since they can't be expected to understand the consequences of their actions. These same animals are also strictly limited to a very low intelligence score (1 or 2). It's not perfect, I know, but it's there.
This is not sociopathy, and if you claim that only sociopaths commit evil acts, then I should say the burden of proof is on you.
I certainly don't claim that. It only seems to follow from your definition. My claim was there is uncounscious motive to evil acts. I'll get back to it in a moment.
"the act harms another, intentionally or through grave negligence, where the person committing it is capable of understanding the reasonable consequences of his/her actions for others, and where there is no goal for this other than personal gain."
Note that the question is if they UNDERSTAND the consequences, not how they value them. Given this, it is obvious that there exist a good number of people who understand perfectly well what they do, but for the sake of their own gain are willing to harm others.
How can you understand the consequences, and be unable to value them correctly? Seems impossible to me (and that is probably why Dr. Evil is such a great character. It could not exist in reality!) But, lets try to awnser. I see two options:
Option 1: You are talking about a neutral, objective understanding as : I understand the baby will be dissolved - it's a simple chemical reaction. In that case, is that not sociopathy, absence of empathy?
Option 2: You talking about somethink like "I could understand, morally, the consequences of my act, but something (ideology, dogmatism, etc.) act as a screen and this knowledge stay uncunscious. In that case, you need to aknowledge most "evil" motivations are uncunscious.
There is also the Dr. Evil option : I want to do evil for the sake of doing it. Niak Niak Niak. Lets not go there.
I choose option 2, that is why I included uncouscious motives in my working definition of evil.
Note also that there is at least some evidence of this thinking in the games. Animals are considered always neutral, since they can't be expected to understand the consequences of their actions. These same animals are also strictly limited to a very low intelligence score (1 or 2). It's not perfect, I know, but it's there.
Oh, sure, the system is flawed, but far from being totally dumb!