[Alignment] Is the target THAT important?

[Kahuna Burger]

I've noticed in alignment threads that a lot of weight tends to be given to the target of an action in determining the good vs evil of the action. ie, it's ok to kill orc babies if orcs are instrincicly evil in your campaign, it's ok to torture an evil cultist for information, because they have abandoned their right to the protections of civilization when they decided to follow evil gods, etc... In a similar vein, there was an argument made in discussions of the "Pegasus" arc of the new Battlestar Galactica that the torture and rape of a cylon prisoner did not make the soldiers 'bad' because a) she was part of a genocidal enemy of humanity, and b) "she" was just a machine anyway and probably couldn't really expereince it as a human would.

The alternate view, expressed in the BSG threads but rarely (ime) in alignment discussions, is that some actions, regardless of their target, indicate a depraved nature on the part of the actor. That is, even if orcs are intrinsicly evil and every orc baby will grow up to be the enemy of humanity, a good person should not be able to chase down a screaming toddler and spit them through the back without needing some major therapy afterwards. Even if the cultist is completely depraved and literally soulless, a good person should be unwilling to inflict pain until they give in. Because those acts are about the actor not just the target.

Now you can easily exagerate this into saying if the target doesn't matter then self defense is murder and you are letting evil flourish by not fighting it, blah blah blah. My question is not about combat, which is very solidly in the "fighting evil is (usually) good and fighting good is (usually) evil" definition in D&D, but rather issues like slaughtering the helpless/non combatant survivors, torture, rape, genocide, slavery and the like. Can a non human / undeniably evil / definitely will be evil someday target change the morality of an action? How much weight should be given to the target? Is there a point where seeking out those targets because it makes otherwise evil behaviour "ok" says something about the actor even if being stuck in the situation and gritting your teeth to deal with it is ok?

 

[EP]

There are some deeds that are evil in action and intention, no matter what cause they are used for and torture is definitely one of them. Inflicting pain for one's own purpose, no matter that it is disguised under the need of others, is evil. Beating on a person until they talk isn't exactly torture (but that's interpretive), but hooking up electrodes to genitals and turning up the juice definitely is. I don't watch Battlestar, but I highly doubt everyone involved or in knowledge will simply live with their actions/in-actions over time.

Theft of innocence is something else I think is evil, no matter the intentions, and for that killing young ones fall under this category. Orcs are mortal creatures, which means they grow into their alignment based on their upbringing. This means it is not written in stone and they could change to something non-evil. Therefore, killing a young orc is not a guarantee of avoiding the death of a human later on. Drizz't is the prime example of this in all fiction and his conscious decision to stray from his heritage and their alignment was done with very little outside influence. Slavery falls under theft of innocence in my opinion.

Even murder - the pre-planned kind - is evil in most cases. Causing the death of another in battle to protect oneself is generally viewed as necessary, even if walking into the battle was your own idea. But breaking into someone's home and killing them when they are unable to defend themselves is evil because of the selfish need to kill that person in that manner.

There does appear to be a lot of gray area for evil deeds in alignment, but most of that comes from society. In a D&D game, the gods have a bit to say too because they choose where you go (or at least where you don't get to go) when you die and they lay down a code to follow, but that generally forms the society's view of good and evil. The simple question that must be considered, and this is different for every GM, is whether or not the act was intended for the sole purpose of the perpetrator or for the benefit of others. Even if a portion of the deed was done for the pleasure of the perpetrator, then there has to be a flair of evil to the deed. Even if you are defending a town from invading orcs, if you enjoy killing them and take pleasure in chopping off their heads, sorry, my friend, but you're turning evil.

That help any?

 

[Arkhandus]

It's mostly up to individual DM adjudication of alignment.

Far as I'm concerned, the target only matters a little, D&D alignment seems to be more about actions than it is about consequences and intentions. If you save the kingdom by slaying the orc woman who would have, in the near future, given birth to what would have been the greatest orc warlord in history, it doesn't change the fact that you slew an orc woman, nor does it change the fact that she was probably more or less incapable of defending herself. Chances are she was a 1st-level warrior or 1st-level commoner, probably pregnant, and likely unarmed at the time you got that far into the orcish lair on your orc-slaughtering spree. Orcs do not have the Evil subtype (in most settings) and are not Outsiders, so they are not evil incarnate nor even just-heavily-infused-with-Evil. So mark 1 point in the 'evil act' column and 1 point in the 'chaotic act' column for that (it being a dishonorable and unfair act to slay defenseless creatures without giving them a chance to surrender or something).

Now, it wouldn't be a terribly evil act, as she probably was evil-aligned and was at least indirectly contributing to the death of humans in orcish raids by raising orcish children who would most likely go on to join the tribe's warriors one day and begin slaughtering humans themselves. But still an evil act to kill her. Orc babies are less evil at first and it would be a more-evil act to slay them. Still, it prevents them from perpetuating more evil, so it's not pure-evil to slay even defenseless orcs. Most, if not all, orcs will never do any good, so their deaths only prevent further evil from being done.

Fiends are of course pure evil, so killing fiends, even defenseless ones, is a good act. It may be chaotic to kill them when they're defenseless, but it is not evil to do so.

Some other acts, like slavery or, ugh, rape, are just plain evil. They don't really serve to prevent further evil from being done, and are just evil themselves. A slave may still abuse other slaves or try to escape and kill their 'master', for instance. So they are inexcuseable. Indentured servitude and similar stuff is more iffy and more likely to be neutral, depending on how they're handled.

Imprisonment is the 'good' alternative to these, locking a dangerous individual away so they can do no harm to others, but it can be perverted toward evil depending on the manner of imprisonment and the circumstances that accompany it. Banishment is also 'good' as long as it's banishment to a suitable place where the individual is unlikely to do any harm and won't simply be serving a death sentence by a different name (i.e. banishment to a frozen wasteland where they're likely to die of natural hazards).

 

[Hypersmurf]

There's a Paladin thread over in Rules at the moment. A party made an agreement with an NPC to cooperate to achieve their separate objectives. There was a combat where they fought side-by-side, during which it was revealed the NPC was an Imp. Once the objectives were achieved, the party paladin attacked and killed the Imp.

There's a lot of "Killing Fiends is not an evil act!" support for the paladin in the thread. But I seriously question the honour of the action.

-Hyp.

 

[WayneLigon]

Can a non human / undeniably evil / definitely will be evil someday target change the morality of an action? How much weight should be given to the target?

A great deal of weight should be given to it, since it's the linchpin in any alignment discussion. The only reason we have most alignment threads and arguements is that morality as written in the D&D rules is different from our own real world. In the real world there is no such thing as absolute evil or good, no way to detect same, and no supernatural forces. In the D&D world, absolute inbred 'born Evil' (or Good) unchangeable morality is a reality for a number of creatures, and a great likelihood for several more.

If you have a creature that is born evil, then killing it is the only way to deal with it; it can't be reasoned with or brought over or converted to your point of view by any means I know of save the Helm of Opposite Alignment. If you don't, then you can't justfiy a lot of actions unless you've taken the time to ascertain if the targets are Evil. And even then, there are a number of situations in which they should be given options.

At the same time, the orc coming at me with a sword in hand and blood in his eyes is gonna die if I have anything to say about it.

 

[Nifft]

The alternate view, expressed in the BSG threads but rarely (ime) in alignment discussions, is that some actions, regardless of their target, indicate a depraved nature on the part of the actor. That is, even if orcs are intrinsicly evil and every orc baby will grow up to be the enemy of humanity, a good person should not be able to chase down a screaming toddler and spit them through the back without needing some major therapy afterwards.

The thing to realize here is that D&D isn't real life.

In real life, we only deal with humans, who are NOT intrinsically, irredeemably evil. So our morals and motives are based around what our actions would mean if they were applied to humans.

But intrinsic, irredeemable evil is NOT like human evil. It's like a fatal disease. If it's really irredeemable, you can't reason with it. You can't deal with it. You can't co-exist with it. All you can do is try your best to stamp it out.

Could you give a child penicillin, if you could see the ebola germs looking up at you with big, frightened, tear-stained eyes? I'll bet you'd get over that particular instinct and save the human pretty quickly.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WayneLigon]

There's a lot of "Killing Fiends is not an evil act!" support for the paladin in the thread. But I seriously question the honour of the action.

Normally, you're only required to be honorable to a foe capable of being honorable himself. And even if not, an evil demon can have no honor in his heart.

 

[coyote6]

Imps aren't demons; they're devils, the quintessential pact-making (and keeping, though caveat emptor) fiends.

 

[Celebrim]

I thought I'd get a word in before this thread invariably and tiresomely vears off into the real world. (In fact, it already has started, as various posters insist on commenting on how the real world works in thier opinion while stating this as a fact, which is only slightly less ridiculous than stating as a fact the intrinsic spiritual nature of hypothetical fantasy beings in a universe which is likely radically different than our own at least in some aspects.)

Anyway, no, the target is not THAT important. Quite obviously, you can come up with examples where the target isn't really that important at all.

But, I think so far you've steered clear of asking why the target is important. For example, I think we'd generally agree that regardless of the target it is still intrinsicly evil to take pleasure in causing pain. Even supposing that it was intrisicly good to destroy fiends, primarily taking pleasure from the act of destruction itself (and in particular the suffering it causes) rather than from the good that is protected and the innosence that is saved is probably not sign of a morally stable person. Regardless of the target, it is still intrinsicly depraved to participate in certain acts because you are then a part of the act. Even if it would be impossible to do evil to the target, say it were an inanimate object, if the act is inherently depraved and you do it, then it is a sign of your own intrinsic and deepening depravity.

In other words, regardless of whether it is possible to do evil to the target because of the target's evilness, certain acts are injurous to ones own moral standing. What those acts are is probably a matter for the particular DM and a particular campaign, as there are innumerable opinions on what is inherently evil and makes you unclean to participate in.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Normally, you're only required to be honorable to a foe capable of being honorable himself.

Uh, what? While that may have been true of certain real-world historical codes, it flies in the face of every knightly/paladin code I've ever seen in fiction or RPGs. A paladin's honor is his own; he is a man (or woman, or whatever) of his word, and behaves honorably, because that's who he is and what he does. Whether or not someone else would grant him the same in return is utterly immaterial.