Alignment myths?

[Hussar]

The reason the woodsman, or anyone would feel bad is that, per D&D alignment rules : good implies altruism, and respect for life. That the child has died is a sad event. The death could have been prevented through greater action on the part of the woodsman. He feels guilty about because he feels responsible for the early termination of a life.

However, he doesn't just feel responsible, he is, in fact, actually responsible. He cut down the tree. He is directly responsible for the death of that child. Thus, he did commit an evil act. Killing an innocent is pretty much an evil act in D&D alignments. However, his later actions are dictated by his alignment. Or rather, his actions reveal his alignment. A good woodsman immediately goes to the authorities and pays restitution. An evil woodsman hides the body and attempts to get away with it.

However, good or evil, the woodsman has still commited an evil act. His actions directly led to the death of an innocent.

 

[Sound of Azure]

However, he doesn't just feel responsible, he is, in fact, actually responsible. He cut down the tree. He is directly responsible for the death of that child.

Yes, that is true. I should have stated that as well.

Thus, he did commit an evil act. Killing an innocent is pretty much an evil act in D&D alignments.

Um, what? Are intentions to be completely ignored here? The woodsman's actions have not been shown him to "have no compassion for others and to kill without qualms if doing so is convenient", nor was he "actively pursuing evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master". Unless you count the trees, that is.

However, his later actions are dictated by his alignment. Or rather, his actions reveal his alignment. A good woodsman immediately goes to the authorities and pays restitution. An evil woodsman hides the body and attempts to get away with it.

Agreed. I would place the greater emphasis on these actions, if the death was unintentional.

However, good or evil, the woodsman has still commited an evil act. His actions directly led to the death of an innocent.

Through negligence, sure. Again, I think intentions are important.

 

[delericho]

Ask yourself this: if the woodsman who cuts down the tree and accidentally kills the child didn't commit an evil act, then why does he feel remorse? Assuming the woodsman is good aligned, then he knows that his actions were wrong. If the woodsman is evil, then he doesn't care and gets back to chopping wood. However, in both cases, the woodsman still commited an evil act.

He feels guilt because as a direct result of his actions a child is dead. He has to deal with a whole load of questions, like "did I provide adequate notice that I was logging in this area?", "should I have done more to check whether someone could be hurt?", and so on.

But, assuming the woodsman wasn't acting in a reckless or negligent manner, he probably did everything right. That a child happened to be there, and happened to be hurt. As such, he committed an Evil act if and only if cutting the tree down would have been an Evil act even if no-one had been there to be hurt.

Somewhere in there, there has to be a "law of unexpected consequences", which would state that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions that you could reasonably predict, but that you bear no responsibility for fluke outcomes that are beyond your ability to see. So, if the woodsman is logging in a busy area, he bears responsibility for his mistake, while the woodsman working in an area that he has tried very hard to ensure is clear does not. Similarly, the doctor who sneezes during a routine operation and kills the patient has not committed an Evil act... he's just fallen foul of some really bad luck. By contrast, the doctor who performs dangerous surgery while suffering from hay-fever is being negligent and bears responsibility.

 

[Hussar]

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

That's from the first line defining evil. Now, as evils go, our woodsman is pretty mild. He certainly isn't actively trying to kill the child, nor is he doing it for some sort of benefit. But, killing others is generally not a good act.

Actually, thinking about it, there's another point of view to take. The actions actually have no particular alignment. It's the reactions to the actions that matter. Both a good and and evil character could do the exact same action, but, their alignment should be reflected in their reaction. Instead of worrying about whether or not a particular action is good or evil, which is problematic, perhaps it would be better to look at the fall out of that action.

 

[delericho]

That's from the first line defining evil.

The problem with that is that you're reading it to say that killing others is always Evil, regardless of other considerations. Which makes it impossible to play a Paladin - one intentional Evil act, and they're out.

 

[Aaron L]

So, let me get this straight; you are in public with someone with a heart condition, you sneeze and it startles them, giving them a heart attack and they die, and that's an Evil act?

Or how about this: You are a Bard, and you are performing at a dining establishment. You tell an extremely funny joke which causes a man to laugh so hard he chokes on his food and dies, and this is an this Evil as well?

Accidentally causing death is NOT Evil.

 

[Hussar]

So, let me get this straight; you are in public with someone with a heart condition, you sneeze and it startles them, giving them a heart attack and they die, and that's an Evil act?

Or how about this: You are a Bard, and you are performing at a dining establishment. You tell an extremely funny joke which causes a man to laugh so hard he chokes on his food and dies, and this is an this Evil as well?

Accidentally causing death is NOT Evil.

So causing someone's death through negligence is never an evil act? After all, it's accidental. Granted, I could have prevented the accident, maybe, had I not been negligent, but, it's still an accident. That's the same problem as what I'm saying in that it's trying to make a blanket statement.

I'm not making myself clear I think.

Alignment is simply the universe's way of keeping score. What you wanted to have happen doesn't really enter into the picture other than as a reflection of the character's personality. Otherwise, alignment becomes entirely subjective and meaningless. After all, one group's evil is another's good.

 

[delericho]

So causing someone's death through negligence is never an evil act? After all, it's accidental. Granted, I could have prevented the accident, maybe, had I not been negligent, but, it's still an accident. That's the same problem as what I'm saying in that it's trying to make a blanket statement.

I think there's a lot of context that is being glossed over.

A woodsman cutting down a tree after setting up barriers to keep people out, and checking the immediate area for people, and generally doing all the required due diligence, isn't committing an Evil act if he cuts down the tree and kills a child who shouldn't have been there but, by some misfortune, was.

A woodsman who doesn't do that due diligence is acting negligently and recklessly when he cuts down the tree, and if there is a child there that he didn't bother to check for, then yes he has the responsibility.

Either way, though, it's not the cutting down of the tree in itself that's Evil, and it's not even the death of the child that makes the action Evil - it's the context in which the child dies. Did the woodsman use the necessary safety precautions, or did he short-cut those to save time?

 

[Psion]

If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act.

I continue to disagree.

Ask yourself this: if the woodsman who cuts down the tree and accidentally kills the child didn't commit an evil act, then why does he feel remorse?

Because he has empathy for others. That's a sign of his goodness, not his evil.

Having concern for others, and willingness to act on behalf others, is definably good. Now if he was callous enough to not care what had happened, or (worse) instead of trying to make ammends, act to cover up the incident, then his actions come into question. But if I had some logging paladin, there is NO WAY I would remove his paladinhood over an accident.

If it was a morally neutral act, then why would anyone care?

Non sequitir. Because an action affects people, or is tragic, is enough that people would care. Those don't reflect on the morality of said woodsman.

 

[Fifth Element]

And that paladin would be woefully deluded and not a paladin long in most games I've seen and run. Ruthless methods are one thing, lawful execution another, and delusional beliefs a third entirely.

What if the paladin's beliefs were in line with his code of conduct? What if they are prescribed by his deity?

More to the point, what if his beliefs are simply true? This is a fantasy game. Anything can be true if the DM wants it to be.