| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it's agood thing to say it this way: There is no insanity defense in morality.
Its like meta perception. we view our self's by intent and others buy actions.
Gah I forget how complicated this subject gets. Its been philosophized upon at least since recorded time. So naturally its complicated.
Its like Oh through my perception all green people are evil (orcs goblins etc.) So I go to kill All the greens and if i kill all the greens and turns out they all weren't evil it would be an evil act from outside perspective. However if you don't believe that there were no non-evil greens then Through your perspective you committed no evil. However Typically it is not your perspective that matters except sometimes it does... sigh. This is why their is like 500 paladin fall threads.
If paizo came or with a. Alignment handbook clarification Shen perspective matters we would need a lot less of these threads :p
I mean, in real life perspective clearly matters some. We don't execute the insane who commit crimes because we don't hold them as responsible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but being insane involves suffering from an actual mental disorder.
Merely believing in something terrible (such as life as awful, so we have a duty to kill everyone) does not, in of itself, make one insane.
I think you're trying to equate stupidity to insanity, and that's not how it actually works.
Edit: Another way to put it - there's a significant difference a person who's ability grasp reality is compromised and a person who's consciously chosen to reject reality.
Stupid != crazy.
The situation is actually even more complicated than that, but I am not going to delve into it now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All right. It is complicated. Let me try.
Mental disorders can result in people doing bad things. The classic two situations are when someone is psychotic (including manic) or confused. These situations are relatively rare as cause of violent crime, and as you say, the legal principle is that they shouldn't be held accountable if they were not of sound mind when it happened.
However, people get drunk all the time and do bad things. Typical reasoning is that people aren't unaware when drunk, and they are expected to know how badly they react to alcohol. The exception is the first time someone gets a bad reaction from alcohol, some countries allow for that. If so, see the above.
So far, so good. The next part is where it gets more difficult.
Empathy and functioning social behaviour is located in the mirror neurons of the frontal lobe. Not everyone has them. Those who do not generally fall into two groups: Autism spectrum disorders and antisocial personality disorder, with a few other groups added such as histrionic, narcissistic and borderline personality disorder (the rest of cluster B personality disorders, which is characterized by poor empathy). Among them, relating to other humans as relevant people with feelings and nuances is difficult. Note that the severity of this handicap varies. Legally, the personality disorders are often not treated more leniently, though the autists can be.
Finally, it is quite possible for people to convince themselves of all sorts of things. Nobody needs a mental disorder or neuropsychological handicap to become a fanatic. Generally speaking, fanaticism is ALWAYS a bad idea, and it is what happens when you stop doubting.
To that end, the cult has decided that the most efficient way to do so is with a special disease they've concocted. Is painless even as it weakens and kills the body. They offer a message of peace and hope to anyone who would listen, and actively oppose any groups or individuals (even in the face of personal peril) that would cause suffering to others, even as they wait for their disease to spread and end life. They do not do this with any expectations of reward or gain, but merely because they believe this is the right thing to do.
So they reinvent Leprosy two?
Leprosy 1 is the weakened and dying body. This is the common version. Carried by Armadillos.Leprosy 2 makes you actually beautiful the best you'll ever look as you are slowly decaying inside. Painless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, some of your rewards are being turned into slugs and fed upon, or tortured, or shredded to the point you have no identity.
No one says that Pharasma sends you where you will be happy, she sends you where you belong, without any hint of mercy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Sissyl - Thank you. Mental illness is a personal issue for me (my brother has schizophrenia), but IIRC it's a professional issue for you, and a professional's insight is always welcome.
@ Daw & Purple Overkill - Not even "reward," persay. Pharasma is simply sorting you into a dimension filled with (and literally made of) people just like you. With all of the ramifications of that.
Abyss and Hell are both places where evil people trive and revel in, exactly because how the system works.
Being forced to start from the bottom is what Evil wants, even if does not admit it. After all, Evil is all about self-empowerment at the expense of others, and Abyss and Hell is nothing BUT a huge ladder to climb endlessly.
The flipside, the Good souls, find it harder to continue their lifestyle of self-sacrifice without taking bigger and more reckless risks. Lack of conflict in Heaven forces you to go help people somewhere else.
Outer planes are not the place you retire in.
You just restart the process you started as mortal. This time, it can go on forever if you are lucky/powerful/skilled enough.
@ Sissyl - Thank you. Mental illness is a personal issue for me (my brother has schizophrenia), but IIRC it's a professional issue for you, and a professional's insight is always welcome.
@ Daw & Purple Overkill - Not even "reward," persay. Pharasma is simply sorting you into a dimension filled with (and literally made of) people just like you. With all of the ramifications of that.
It's like grouping people at a wedding. Todd is a professional photographer, and Sheila paints landscapes. Kostchorkokov is a demon worshiping cultist, and Taryn has perfected every sin.
That said, even when you go to the upper planes, you're still eventually reforged into an outsider with no prior memories of your old self (if the system works as intended anyway). So really depending on your point of view that's not much of a reward either beyond the centuries/millenia it takes for that to happen involve less torture.Now, some of your rewards are being turned into slugs and fed upon, or tortured, or shredded to the point you have no identity.
No one says that Pharasma sends you where you will be happy, she sends you where you belong, without any hint of mercy.
If by less torture you mean zero torture, sure...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Paizo promotes organized play, equating a light touch on moral issues with a lack of balls is rather naive, in addition to being rather rude at best.
Because PFS exists Paizo has more social and legal exposure than other publishers have, and infinitely more than we posters have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If by less torture you mean zero torture, sure...That said, even when you go to the upper planes, you're still eventually reforged into an outsider with no prior memories of your old self (if the system works as intended anyway). So really depending on your point of view that's not much of a reward either beyond the centuries/millenia it takes for that to happen involve less torture.Now, some of your rewards are being turned into slugs and fed upon, or tortured, or shredded to the point you have no identity.
No one says that Pharasma sends you where you will be happy, she sends you where you belong, without any hint of mercy.
If you're a person who values their individuality, then having your soul reforged into 1 of thousands of identical Lyrakien Azatas could be considered a form of torture.
|
If you're a person who values their individuality, then having your soul reforged into 1 of thousands of identical Lyrakien Azatas could be considered a form of torture.If by less torture you mean zero torture, sure...That said, even when you go to the upper planes, you're still eventually reforged into an outsider with no prior memories of your old self (if the system works as intended anyway). So really depending on your point of view that's not much of a reward either beyond the centuries/millenia it takes for that to happen involve less torture.Now, some of your rewards are being turned into slugs and fed upon, or tortured, or shredded to the point you have no identity.
No one says that Pharasma sends you where you will be happy, she sends you where you belong, without any hint of mercy.
Aside from the butterfly wings I don't think they have to be identical. No more than one human to the next.
If paizo came or with a. Alignment handbook clarification Shen perspective matters we would need a lot less of these threads :p
I mean, in real life perspective clearly matters some. We don't execute the insane who commit crimes because we don't hold them as responsible.
I´d be careful about that.
I guess you´re a young US American an have a certain stance on crime vs. punishment.
I´m an older european with a stance on punishment vs. redemption.I´ve said it before and another poster threw in buddhist morality: We have a neutral talk on that level, everything is fine. Now Paizo simply doesn´t has the balls to go there.
I don't understand the relevance if talking about punishment vs redemption here?
And what do you say is the difference between Right and Good?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PO: There is ONE cosmic truth in D&D. That is what "objective morality" means. To clarify, Good in D&D is objectively defined, which means that what any one person thinks that definition should be is meaningless. Likewise, even if every sentient being in the D&D world thought the definition of good should be different, it wouldn't matter one iota.
Like it or not, that is how it has time and time again been described, from Gygax forward. Relative morals could of course be pushed into the system or setting, but that would be a houserule.
What Sissyl said. In D&D Good is good in and of itself its a fundamental force in D&D.
In real life who knows?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly so. That people are uncomfortable with it doesn't, however, mean that morality in D&D is relative.
You can houserule it, of course.
Note that it's not too far-fetched to claim an objective morality for real. See, when studies have been made to find out how other cultures have thought about it, the lists of good and bad actions are remarkably similar. It is almost as if we humans have a genetic dislike of being subjected to certain things and label them bad. Lies, theft, imprisonment, violence, force, and rape are, not very surprisingly, not popular anywhere.
Indeed. Freedom, predictability, restraint and options are all necessary for society to function. The exact forms, though, will vary.
*sigh* shes right you know^^^
You know what might be useful for all these thread if we someone put all good concepts in a category all evil and then the ones that overlap like a venn diagram. Good circle might have Forgiveness lawful circle might have punishment and then the concentric circles would have like rehabilitation or something in it.
Well I don't think Punishment and revenge are idealistic Good concepts punishment can be used to enforce good concepts but it does kind of make me think more of lawful good then NG and revenge seems way more CG to me then NG.
|
|
So? Good does and should have more weight than the others, since its, ya'know, GOOD.
Chaos is not as "Good" as Good.
Law is not as "Good" as Good.
Evil is not as "Good" as Good.
I have committed no error.
You have.
For you, certain things might have a spacial meaning but you fail to actually explain what they are.
??
Balancer and Sissyl have done a good job pointing out things that are universally Good and universally Evil, other than that I don't know what you mean by "special meaning".
Can we please not use Good and good in the same sentence.
How about "nice" or "right" or "pleasing" or something else.
No. Good is not the same as pleasing etc. But the answer to not liking an objective morality system is not to pretend that Good is something otherworldly that we can never touch, while the good things we experience are nice or pleasing etc instead. In D&D, Good is also how people act on a day to day basis in a positive fasion toward one another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PO, you are arguing that Objective Morality does not exist.
All you arguments are for Subjective Morality.
Since this a game forum, and within this game, a core assumption is that Objective Morality does exist, and the definition of that Morality is laid out, if somewhat sketchily.
Within this context, your arguments are specious, as you are not accepting the basic assumptions implicit in the original question.
You are not adding value to the discussion, but I suspect that may be the point.
I think Sissyl is spot on.
Real world "good" does not equal D&D "good".
It's unfortunate they used that terminology. It would have been far better to have used a "light side and a dark side of the force" kind of language for the D&D concept of alignment rather than using real world moral terms to describe something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the other axis is also frequently misunderstood, with frequent conflation between Chaotic and Evil, as well as Lawful and Good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to put it: socially acceptable evil is still evil. A society being okay with slavery or spousal abuse or whatever does not cause those things to stop being terrible.
Scythia: It should come as no surprise, though. Original D&D had only Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as alignments, with the idea being that Lawful was the "goodest" and Chaotic the "evilest".
Scythia: It should come as no surprise, though. Original D&D had only Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as alignments, with the idea being that Lawful was the "goodest" and Chaotic the "evilest".
Some other game systems also use the terms similarly. For example, Chaos in Warhammer is the in-setting evil.
Warhammer used the Runequest/Glorantha model of Chaos as corrosive and corruptive when it contacts reality. It is more accurately universally destructive. Dealing with and using Chaos in this context is the Evil. Chaos cannot be evil in and of itself, because it has no consciousness or volition.
Has Paizo given specific guidelines of what objective evil is? Is the objective morality system more consequentialist or deontological?