Alignment myths?

[Celebrim]

The problem with that is that you're reading it to say that killing others is always Evil, regardless of other considerations.

No, he didn't say that at all.

 

[Sejs]

The Tree/Woodsman/Child example fails due to the nature of the scenario. Intent is very important in determining good vs evil. You can't accidentally do either and have it count in an determining-your-alignment sense. Just because the effects were X doesn't matter because you didn't intent for that to happen, it just did.

Remove the ignorance component and the example starts to hold together more.

Child's hidden in a tree, Woodsman comes to cut the tree down:

IF the Woodsman knows the child is there and still cuts the tree down, THEN it's an evil act.
Saying accidents sway you toward evil is ridiculous. They are by definition outside of your control.

 

[Celebrim]

I continue to disagree.

And yet, you can't provide a reason for doing so.

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

Which is pretty much exactly what Hussar said. You are agreeing in saying this, not disagreeing.

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.

Which is also pretty much exactly what Hussar said. Paladinhood is only lost for willful evil acts. Hussar said that the Paladin would have to atone for unintentionally committing evil, and Hussar is correct.

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.

Which is a non sequitur itself, because Hussar didn't say that it reflects on the morality of the said woodsman. He said that the act itself was evil, and how a person responded to having committed an evil act (unintentionally) reflected on thier morality. You seem to be unconsciously adhering to the myth that people always act in accordance to thier alignment.

 

[Psion]

The Tree/Woodsman/Child example fails due to the nature of the scenario. Intent is very important in determining good vs evil.

Since that was the point of me invoking the scenario, it sounds like the scenario served its purpose.

 

[Celebrim]

The Tree/Woodsman/Child example fails due to the nature of the scenario. Intent is very important in determining good vs evil.

Sure, but it is not wholly important in determining good vs. evil.

You can't accidentally do either and have it count in an determining-your-alignment sense. Just because the effects were X doesn't matter because you didn't intent for that to happen, it just did.

Remove the ignorance component and the example starts to hold together more.

Child's hidden in a tree, Woodsman comes to cut the tree down:

IF the Woodsman knows the child is there and still cuts the tree down, THEN it's an evil act.
Saying accidents sway you toward evil is ridiculous.

Note that Hussar didn't say that they did.

They are by definition outside of your control.

Are they? They may be outside of your intent, but they are rarely outside of your control. The fact remains that your actions caused an evil event to occur. You are still responcible.

 

[prosfilaes]

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

A character (in a TV show) comes upon a man who's beating another person to death for the heck of it, and without a means to subdue him, is forced to kill him. Is that an evil act? If not, then why does he feel sorry about it? Why is the dead man's family distraught?

 

[Psion]

And yet, you can't provide a reason for doing so.

You know, you have to be about the most aggravating poster. This sort of proclamation of wrongness, as the mods put it, escalates the rhetoric.

I certainly have stated my stance and given reasons. Just because you do not agree -- or rather, you fail to percieve where the root of our difference lies--does not mean they have not been put forth.

Which is pretty much exactly what Hussar said. You are agreeing in saying this, not disagreeing.

Incorrect. Hussar said "If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act." He is implying that he had remorse because the act was evil... that remorse implies the act was evil. That is precisely contrary to what I had to say. My assertion is that, separate from intent, the act cannot be judged to be evil; the existence of remorse is a sign of good.

Which is also pretty much exactly what Hussar said. Paladinhood is only lost for willful evil acts. Hussar said that the Paladin would have to atone for unintentionally committing evil, and Hussar is correct.

Ah. No we get to the heart of the disagreement.

Some philosophy holds that "act" and "agent evaluation" are separate things (I forget the exact philosopher known for this, BID). That's a valid stance, in the realms of ethical philosophy, but the D&D alignment system really only addresses agent evaluation. The text on becoming an ex-paladin does seem to support this interpretation, but it seems to be the only place that it does. How many spells or effects operate on "evil acts"? I merely think it's nonsensical to divorce them for gaming purposes, for what other purpose does an assessment of "good" or "evil" act serve separate from intent or how it reflects on the actor?

Which is a non sequitur itself, because Hussar didn't say that it reflects on the morality of the said woodsman.

But that's not where we differ. He said that nobody would care if it was a morally neutral act. Not so. People care when people they care about are impacted negatively; that does not mean the act is "evil".

You seem to be unconsciously adhering to the myth that people always act in accordance to thier alignment.

Speaking of unsupported assertions...

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

I don't see how that follows. The universe can read intent just as well as actions. Saying that accidentally killing an innocent isn't evil doesn't give a free hand to intentionally kill innocents.

 

[Felix]

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

I cared when the Yanks beat the Braves in the World Series in 96. Doesn't mean that their beating them was Evil.

I mean, if any baseball team was Evil it would be the Yanks, but simply because I cared, or anyone on the Braves cared, does not mean that the act of winning was Evil.

Are they? They may be outside of your intent, but they are rarely outside of your control. The fact remains that your actions caused an evil event to occur. You are still responcible.

The woodsman's act was: cut down tree.

The woodsman's act was not: kill child.

Though he may have caused the death of the child (for which the child is also party lresponsible for having been underneath a falling tree), he did not act to do so. He merely acted to cut the tree down.

If you judge the morality of an act based on consequences, then you must judge them based on all consequences. And because it is absolutely impossible to have knowledge of every consequence of an action, the morality of an act becomes beholden to he who judges the act, because they can select which of the action's consequences to use to condemn or exonerate the actor.

The only thing that can be known is the act itself, and the reasons for the act. This makes intent absolutely central in determining the morality of an act.

HOWEVER

This does not mean that good intentions cannot lead to Evil actions; they can. It just happens that unintentionally and unwittingly causing the death of another does not constitute an evil act in the lumberjack and child case.

If a child dies, no matter the circumstances or intentions, is the act that caused it evil?

If anyone, child or adult, dies, no matter the circumstances or intentions, is the act that caused it evil?

If anyone, child or adult, gets seriously injured, no matter the circumstances or intentions, is the act that caused it evil?

If anyone, child or adult, is mildly inconvienienced, no matter the circumstances or intentions, is the act that caused it evil?

If anyone, child or adult, does not benefit, no matter the circumstances or intentions, is the act that caused it evil?

---

At what point do my actions that have affect others begin to be evil acts because of the consequences? When do you stop tallying the consequences? Immediately after the act? 5 minutes after the act? A year? When trumpets sound? You can't judge morality on consequences because you can't know the consequences. An act is good or not, evil or not, regardless of the consequences. It is the act itself and the intention behind the act which determines the morality.

 

[delericho]

No, he didn't say that at all.

My reading, both of the post that I quoted and previous posts in this thread, lead me to that conclusion, and I still think it's accurate.

However, since it is bad form to put words into another poster's mouth, I shall at this stage bow out, and apologise for any misrepresentation of Hussar's point that I committed.