Alignment myths?

[billd91]

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.

Like I said, most games. The DM is free to redefine what LG is. But with LG out of the book, that paladin won't pass muster. And a deity who puts that in the code of conduct isn't LG either.

 

[Aaron L]

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.


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.

We can go even further, and say that the wood from that tree ends up being made into a bow that later is used to assassinate the king. Obviously, the woodsman, the merchant who sold the wood, the bowyer who made the bow, and the farmer who grew food that the assassin ate all committed an Evil act because their actions contributed to that assassination, since their intentions don't matter.


It's absurd.

 

[Merkuri]

Regarding the issue where the man chops down a tree and kills a child, I think there's a big disagreement because people generally hold one of two views of the universe.

In one view, the universe is a machine. There is black and white, ones and zeros, and no middle ground. In this universe, you are held accountable for your actions, regardless of what you meant to do. If you aim for a wolf attacking a boy and shoot the boy instead, you just performed an evil act. This one act does NOT make you evil, but if you do it enough you may become evil.

In another view, the universe is a caring, sentient being. There are many shades of gray. In this universe, you are not punished for doing evil deeds if you didn't have evil intents. Shooting a boy when you meant to shoot a wolf was just plain bad luck, but not evil. In fact, it may actually be considered a good act, since you intended to save the boy.

The caring universe is a more attractive view, and is probably what most of us believe the universe is really like, considering that's the nature of the universe according to America's (and I believe Europe's) most prominent religions. In a caring universe truly good people don't go to hell even if their scoreboard may have more ticks in the evil column

However, personally I think the machine universe provides a more dramatic backdrop for a D&D game. I like the idea that a paladin has to atone for his actions if he meant to strike down the wolf but hit the boy. It adds internal conflict, creates tortured souls craving to be good but unable to do so, and gives characters something to strive against. In this world it's hard to be good, but those who are truly good stand out like tiny sparks in a mound of dead coals.

In the end, whether intent matters depends on what type of universe you want to play in. For a more dramatic, soul searching game, you want the machine universe. If you want something fair and more carefree, pick the sentient universe. Your game's take on alignment will flow from there.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Do all actions that cause an evil intent to occur, no matter how remote, amount to an evil act? I don't think so. In law, we use a standard called 'foreseeability' that seperates acts for which one is responsible from those for which one is not. I think, for an act to be evil, there must either be an intent to do evil, or that it must be reasonably foreseeable that the act would cause an evil outcome. I just don't see either in the woodcutter hypothetical.

 

[Storm Raven]

However, personally I think the machine universe provides a more dramatic backdrop for a D&D game. I like the idea that a paladin has to atone for his actions if he meant to strike down the wolf but hit the boy. It adds internal conflict, creates tortured souls craving to be good but unable to do so, and gives characters something to strive against. In this world it's hard to be good, but those who are truly good stand out like tiny sparks in a mound of dead coals.

I disagree, in my view it seems that the mechanical universe you postulate makes good and evil a matter of accident and circumstance, as opposed to a matter of choice and action. That seems to me to be a situation in which the moral dilemmas, such as they are, are not really that interesting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Through negligence, sure.

This is the crux of my disagreement with Hussar on the issue.

Failing to do good is not, in and of itself, evil. Could he have checked for the kid, yelled TIMBRE, cut down the tree in another direction? Sure. But failing to do so is not evil, no matter what consequences the action has. Tragic accidents happen every day, with no "fault" assigned -- and you need to *choose* to be evil to be evil. Evil isn't something you can slip into, it's a deliberate intention you make. Same with good.

No, accidentally killing some innocent isn't evil. Callousness to having accidentally killed an innocent would certainly be. He feels regret because an innocent life has ended, the same way people feel sad when a friend's parent dies or somesuch -- it's a sad event, and he realizes that a life has been snuffed out. He doesn't feel much regret (unless he's HEAVILY deterministic), he's not repentant, he's sorry that the accident happens.

To be evil, you have to be culpable. The woodsman isn't culpable, it wasn't his fault, it just happened.

Again, failing to do good is not evil. You have to choose to do evil, you have to choose to do good. Failing to do either is largely a neutral act. He wasn't choosing to kill the kid, nor was he choosing to be extra-careful, so cutting down the tree was neutral, regardless of the consequences. It's not really about their intentions, as it is about their reasons.

 

[Felix]

Regarding the issue where the man chops down a tree and kills a child, I think there's a big disagreement because people generally hold one of two views of the universe.

<snip>

I believe that the consequence of killing the child does not necessarily make the woodsman's act Evil, but I reject your supposition that it is because I think the universe is a caring sentient thing.

The argument is defining where in the interaction of intent, act and consequence the morality of the act lies; it is not an argument over the disposition of the universe towards individuals.

Incidently, Absolutism and "shades of grey" are not incompatable; Absolute Truth does not enforce a binary morality of "Good or Evil, If Not One Then The Other." It simply means that Good is Good and Evil is Evil regardless of one's subjective opinion on the matter; things can still be "slightly Good", or "very Evil", and even "neither".

 

[Merkuri]

The argument is defining where in the interaction of intent, act and consequence the morality of the act lies; it is not an argument over the disposition of the universe towards individuals.

What is morality, if not the disposition of the universe towards individuals?

Well, maybe they're not the same exact thing, but I think they're related. Morality can be defined a number of different ways, and the way it's defined depends on how the universe works. If the universe has a strict code that lays down what's right and what's wrong then it may not take intent into account. But you may have a universe that can make exceptions to the code based on intent.

I guess basically what I'm saying is that you can use either method of determining morality based on the type of game you're playing. They both lend themselves to a certain style of game, while neither is absolutely right in the sense of D&D.

Personally, I believe that intent matters in the real world, but that has no bearing on D&D. Sometimes I may want to play in a cold, harsh, uncaring reality where morality is strict and evil is evil regardless of intent, and sometimes I want to play in a world more like what I think of as our own, where what you believe is just as important as what you do.

 

[Felix]

What is morality, if not the disposition of the universe towards individuals?

It is the presence of absence of Good or Evil in one's actions.

If the universe has a strict code that lays down what's right and what's wrong then it may not take intent into account.

Like Storm Raven said, this turns morality into a matter of chance and circumstace. Morality is grounded in choice and understanding that choice you make to be Good or Evil. If you have either a deficit of understanding or an absence of choice, the act becomes harder and harder to label as a moral one. The woodsman did not choose to kill the kid: it simply happened because of something he did.

But you may have a universe that can make exceptions to the code based on intent.

If choice and understanding is the code, then accounting for intent is not making an exception to it, it's integrally part of it.

I guess basically what I'm saying is that you can use either method of determining morality based on the type of game you're playing. They both lend themselves to a certain style of game, while neither is absolutely right in the sense of D&D.

No, neither is "absolutely right in the sense of DnD", but if the alignment and morality of my character is based upon circumstances out of his control then I suggest that they become meaningless. At that point I'm not going to pay attention when the DM says that my attempt to save a child's life that resulted in the accidental death of another child was an Evil act. Which it could be if you define morality based on consequences.

Sometimes I may want to play in a cold, harsh, uncaring reality where morality is strict and evil is evil regardless of intent

Evil is Evil because of choice, not because of results; disabuse yourself of the idea that including intent into morality necessitates that the moral system is slack.

If you have an Evil king who governs his kingdom in such a way that makes trade prosper and the people happy and healthy he does not become Good. He hasn't necessarily commited Good acts though the consequences of some of his actions lead to felicity for others.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

My apologies, I certainly did not intend to 'escalate the rhetoric'. I tend to have rough skin and little tact, and I've no idea why people understand a proclamation of wrongness of one sort to 'escalate the rhetoric' and on of another sort, saying proclaiming that a posters argument is a non sequitur, doesn't.

If your prefer, understand my 'proclamation of wrongness' to mean, I thought you entire responce was a misreading of the poster and an argument non sequitur.

I don't see how debate is possible if we can't proclaim that another person is wrong, which no matter how tactfully we phrase our disagreement is precisely what we are doing.

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.

It's quite possible that I fail to percieve where the root of our difference lies. It's implicit within every debate that I could in fact be in the wrong. But just because you state your stance and reasons does not mean that I'm forced to see them as a valid rebuttle or a logical stance.

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.

Remorse does not necessarily imply the act was evil. People can be wrong and have remorse for acts which are not in fact evil. But in this case, the death of an innocent was an evil act and the remorse is present in a person of good alignment (and sufficient wisdom) because they recognize that - however unwittingly - they've just done a terrible thing.

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;

Circular logic. You are taking your statement as proof of itself. That is your assertion, but you are expected to prove it.

...the existence of remorse is a sign of good.

Again, Hussar said the same thing. So by stating this, you aren't differentiating your stance from his. All I'm seeing, and granted I could be blind, but all I'm seeing is your repeated assumption that separate from intent, the act cannot judged to be evil.

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...

Ok, so you are agreeing that Hussar's stance may be valid, but that its not valid in game even though we both seem to (I could be wrong here) agree that the Paladin should atone for the unwitting death of an innocent that he caused because a Paladin is required to maintain a very high degree of purity? But if the death is not evil at all, surely he doesn't need to atone?

...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?

Because intent is not in and of itself a judge of the righteous of an act. It's not at all irrelevant, but intent doesn't determining the goodness of the act nor can intent turn an inherently evil act into a good one. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

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 are correct to the extent that we can't use an absolute here. Some people would care for mistaken reasons. Others would care for the wrong reasons. But for the purposes of the example, its presumed that people care for clear headed reasons within the bounds of thier alignment.

If they care because they are impacted negatively, that is itself morally nuetral. The woodcutter, if he is good, doesn't care because he is impact, but because the child (and his loved ones) is impact. And if he is wise, he cares because the universe is impacted by the death of an innocent. But the point is, if it was a morally nuetral act, goodness would not require him to care to the extent of making restitution, attonement, and experiencing remorse. He would be and know he would be exonerated. Now of course, if he is not good, then he would believe that he is already exonerated and doesn't need to make restitution, because afterall, "I didn't mean to do it.", but that is precisely the point, isn't it?

Speaking of unsupported assertions...

No more or less unsupported than I percieve your assertions.