Morality in your D&D - b&w or gray?

[JackGiantkiller]

See, to me that's just as true in what i mean by black and white. you still have difficult decisions: do I sacrifice myself to save the village/child/whatever? But I do indeed see your point. That's just good story telling.

 

[barsoomcore]

Then when you say "black and white" and I say "grey" we're actually talking about the same thing, so we agree.

Which is pleasant.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

And unusual.

Still, we have differences.

I like the idea that when you see Evil you kill it. No questions. That the Gods, at least, know what Evil is. That a paladin will not be penalized for using the tools he is given by the gods to do his job: Destroy Evil, root and branch. If, in the specific game world, red dragons are inherently evil, I think the paladin is perfectly justifed in smashing eggs.

Conversely, I often play Evil characters that are sympathetic, or have redeeming qualities...but they are still undeniably Evil, and the players sometimes have to make difficult decisions about whether cooperating with evil in the short term for a long term goal is acceptable. They *know* they are dealing with evil, and have to make the choice.

 

[barsoomcore]

Ah, you see, now we come to it. To me, the scenario you've just posited, wherein an unimpeachable source identifies Evil for you and gives you explicit instructions on how to deal with it is not a very interesting one. For that very reason.

I like my players to have to decide what needs doing without that unquestionable authority providing them with goalposts to kick between. It's the process they go through making that decision that I find most interesting.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

It has its moments. I play a lot of gray games. It's just that they aren't D&D, even if they are D20.

 

[John Morrow]

I like the idea that when you see Evil you kill it. No questions. That the Gods, at least, know what Evil is. That a paladin will not be penalized for using the tools he is given by the gods to do his job: Destroy Evil, root and branch. If, in the specific game world, red dragons are inherently evil, I think the paladin is perfectly justifed in smashing eggs.

While I, too, like the idea that when a paladin sees Evil, they can kill it, the concepts of redemption and free will as well as the whole nature vs. nurture debate complicate things. It's hard to strike down a foe that is willing to repent and turn to the Good side and difficult to hate orcs as a race if the only reason they are Evil is because they've had a bad upbringing.

The way I have gotten around this problem in my current D&D game is to add an additional axis of sorts to alignment. There are creatures that are Good or Evil as a matter of nature, there are creatures that are Good or Evil as a matter of both nature and nurture (meaning that they are strongly inclined to be of a certain alignment but can be trained otherwise in some cases), and there are creatures who are Good or Evil by choice (the free moral agents). This means limiting alignments more strictly than what's implied in the monster books for the "nature" creatures in most cases.

A paladin's obligations concerning creatures in each of those categories are different, the way my setting works. A paladin can destroy that Evil which is Evil by nature root and branch but must show mercy of varying degrees in the other cases. My setting has both sorts so that I can have both simple and complicated moral decisions. I can have my black and white and my gray, too, in varying degrees.

Of course there is also an element of reincarnation in my game (though it is not universal and a person's consciousness doesn't normally transcend it) so killing a creature is, to some degree, tossing them into a recycling bin rather than tossing them into a fire. The way you redeem a creature that is Evil by nature is that you kill it and hope that it's soul will come back in a creature that is not Evil by nature the next time around.

Conversely, I often play Evil characters that are sympathetic, or have redeeming qualities...but they are still undeniably Evil, and the players sometimes have to make difficult decisions about whether cooperating with evil in the short term for a long term goal is acceptable. They *know* they are dealing with evil, and have to make the choice.

On the other hand, Evil in my game (particularly that which is Evil by nature) has no sympathetic qualities, at least none that are sincere and will stand up to long-term scrutiny. As I often put it, Evil is Evil. They might pretend that they are lovable and friendly but they never are.

My Evil clerics are sadistic and will toss a woman's baby to a ghoul as a snack (and let her know about it so they can watch her reaction). My Evil goblins abuse each other relentlessly and goblin mothers will sacrifice their own children to save themselves. My demons are vengeful, twisted, and vain. My devils are domineering, manipulative, and cruel. And so on. Learn who they really are and you won't like them.

That doesn't meant that the players have never talked to an Evil character or cut a deal. It's simply been a painful choice in ever case and the deals were made out of necessity, not because they liked the Evil creature (though one goblin did play act being pathetic enough to get the desired sympathy from some of the caracters).

In many ways, I think of this quote when I think of Evil in my game:

Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

That's pretty much what Evil by nature is in my game. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse. It only fears for itself. And it will not stop until it has everything it wants and what it wants isn't pretty. Evil by nature and nurture is a tough call. Kill it if you must and spare it if you can. Those who are free moral agents are like real world people and should be handled with as much mercy as possible, though killing in self defense or to save others (because your opponent is not then innocent) is always an option.

 

[vulcan_idic]

I like the idea that when you see Evil you kill it. No questions. That the Gods, at least, know what Evil is. That a paladin will not be penalized for using the tools he is given by the gods to do his job: Destroy Evil, root and branch. If, in the specific game world, red dragons are inherently evil, I think the paladin is perfectly justifed in smashing eggs.

In which case the "black and white" of morality really becomes an excuse for otherwise inexcusable behavior.

Murder is evil. But according to this argument it becomes "good" or at the very least acceptable to commit the murder of the murderer. Does the nature of the one killed really moderate the morality of the act of killing them? Or then are you no better than the ones you so quickly slay? And why is it in D&D that the answer is always to slay the evil? In the real world rehabilitation is a questionable and, if possible, difficult task - but in a world where magic exists spells could easily be designed to rehabilitate criminals and make them into productive members of society. So why is it that the supposed epitome's of good so often stain their white cloaks with the lifeblood of their of their opponents rather than serving to help them overcome their evil?

So why do you like the "black and white" variety of morality? Because you don't want to have to deal with the greys of reality or to make an excuse to get to slay foes rather than having to keep them alive and deal with them once they're alive (and maybe missing out on all the good loot you could steal from their corpse)?

 

[diaglo]

Murder is evil. But according to this argument it becomes "good" or at the very least acceptable to commit the murder of the murderer. Does the nature of the one killed really moderate the morality of the act of killing them? Or then are you no better than the ones you so quickly slay? And why is it in D&D that the answer is always to slay the evil? In the real world rehabilitation is a questionable and, if possible, difficult task - but in a world where magic exists spells could easily be designed to rehabilitate criminals and make them into productive members of society. So why is it that the supposed epitome's of good so often stain their white cloaks with the lifeblood of their of their opponents rather than serving to help them overcome their evil?

So why do you like the "black and white" variety of morality? Because you don't want to have to deal with the greys of reality or to make an excuse to get to slay foes rather than having to keep them alive and deal with them once they're alive (and maybe missing out on all the good loot you could steal from their corpse)?

real life issues of religion creep into the game here. if you, the player/referee, feel in real life that murder and the death penalty are morally wrong then you will have a harder time accepting the point the others are presenting.


just as they will have a harder time accepting that you disagree with them.

 

[vulcan_idic]

real life issues of religion creep into the game here. if you, the player/referee, feel in real life that murder and the death penalty are morally wrong then you will have a harder time accepting the point the others are presenting.


just as they will have a harder time accepting that you disagree with them.

I'm not sure I actually believe in these things or not... but it serves as a good case for argument, even if it's just to play Devil's Advocate. And in a world where things *are* black and white and murder - at least in the PHB and BoVD - is concretely listed as Evil, it simply begs the question it seems to me. Or, to phrase it as a logical proof: "Murder is Evil. (PHB, BoVD) Murder is the crime of intentionally killing a person. (Cambridge Dictionary Online (because I'm not up to paying for the OED online)) Therefore a Paladin intentionally killing a person (whether or not the person is Evil or not is undefined) is an Evil act." I'm not sure I would apply such rigorous simplistic logic in reality... but if you want to apply simplistic black and white morality in your fantasy game this is the way it seems the logic plays itself out.

 

[Marimmar]

I'm not sure I actually believe in these things or not... but it serves as a good case for argument, even if it's just to play Devil's Advocate. And in a world where things *are* black and white and murder - at least in the PHB and BoVD - is concretely listed as Evil, it simply begs the question it seems to me. Or, to phrase it as a logical proof: "Murder is Evil. (PHB, BoVD) Murder is the crime of intentionally killing a person. (Cambridge Dictionary Online (because I'm not up to paying for the OED online)) Therefore a Paladin intentionally killing a person (whether or not the person is Evil or not is undefined) is an Evil act." I'm not sure I would apply such rigorous simplistic logic in reality... but if you want to apply simplistic black and white morality in your fantasy game this is the way it seems the logic plays itself out.

Interesting to see that the anglo-saxon definition of murder differs from the german definition of murder. To be a murderer as per the german definition is that you have to kill someone not only intentionally but with a morally low motive like greed. Otherwise it's just a killing.

A samurai helping another samurai performing seppuku by beheading him before the other samurai could dishonour himself by crying would not be considered a murderer, even when he killed with intent.

~Marimmar