[Alignment] Is the target THAT important?

[delericho]

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.

Agreed.

However, in the example given, the deal was stuck between the Paladin and a creature who was later revealed to be an Imp. Under those circumstances, I would accept the argument that the Paladin wouldn't have entered the agreement had he known this at the outset, and so could be considered null and void. Whereupon, the Paladin is entitled to slay the Imp, given that that would be his normal response to such a creature.

Of course, if the Paladin had known the Imp's status at the outset, then I would take the contrary view, that the Paladin was bound to honour his agreements.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's impossible to discuss morality in D&D without implicitly using our real-life morality as a reference, which may or may not be based on religion. And this may mean it's impossible to fully discuss this on EnWorld.

Because those acts are about the actor not just the target.

That's what I think in RL, and I tend to "port" that into the game as well. But you'll never agree with someone who in RL is convinced of the otherwise.

 

[delericho]

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.

I think there's a lot of truth in that, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think, to a large extent, it comes down to enjoyment (or sometimes expedience). If the actor is performing these acts because he enjoys doing so, then that clearly indicates to me a depraved nature. Likewise, if other options are available, but the pain/suffering/torture route is chosen because it's quicker or easier than the alternatives, then that's a very dangerous step.

However...

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.

If Orcs are truly, inherently Evil, and have no choice in the matter, then exterminating them is little different to wiping out a plague. Which is not to say it's something that one should take any pleasure in, or draw out beyond the cleanest methods possible.

Additionally, the moment you find even one non-Evil Orc it puts the lie to the whole "truly, inherently Evil" line of thinking, and extermination becomes unacceptable.

Even if the cultist is completely depraved and literally soulless, a good person should be unwilling to inflict pain until they give in.

Unwilling, certainly. And, indeed, I would argue that the torture suggested would be Evil in all cases. I will certainly accept that sometimes such actions are necessary. But I don't accept the argument that the necessity of an action makes it any less Evil.

 

[EP]

There is an easier way to handle this in a game: just see what your specific religion or kingdom says is right and which is wrong. In the case of the paladin killing the imp, I'm sure there's a specific code of honour laid down by his order detailing that it is perfectly honourable to slay an imp (or evil fiend, to be more general) no matter the details. Knowingly or unknowingly assisting an evil creature can cost the paladin his paladinness-ship - it seems like the only valid response allowed in his order is to slay the imp and prove the higher powers and his masters (if his order works this way) that he took action once he found out.

Without belonging to a specific religion or society in the game, alignment seems to take on the form of a very vague morality check rather than a code. It tells us where our characters fall based on the actions they perform and, as a result, where we will go when we die. It's fairly simple to play D&D without an exact alignment telling you what to do - just look for the wizard with a unibrow, gold dome on his head, and an army of twisted warriors sacking a village and burning it to the ground. And make sure he's cackling when they do it.

What's odd to me is that so many good character define themselves by what they do against evil. Proving their worth by demonstrating how many evil characters they've slain seems to be the norm rather than listing how much good they've done without consideration for whether or not it stops evil. Evil, on the other hand, lists its evil plots as they are and not how they stuck it to the good guys. Weird, huh?

 

[delericho]

There is an easier way to handle this in a game: just see what your specific religion or kingdom says is right and which is wrong.

Which is fine, right up to the point where the religion or kingdom gets it wrong.

 

[Rvdvelden]

If Orcs are truly, inherently Evil, and have no choice in the matter, then exterminating them is little different to wiping out a plague. Which is not to say it's something that one should take any pleasure in, or draw out beyond the cleanest methods possible.

Additionally, the moment you find even one non-Evil Orc it puts the lie to the whole "truly, inherently Evil" line of thinking, and extermination becomes unacceptable.

One name springs to mind immediately: "Akin, the friendly fiend". So, by your reasoning, fiends shouldn't be exterminated as there is a single exception to the rule?

I'm not asking this just to criticize your line of thought, but to show that defining alignment doesn't follow straightforward rules.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

One name springs to mind immediately: "Akin, the friendly fiend". So, by your reasoning, fiends shouldn't be exterminated as there is a single exception to the rule?

I'm not asking this just to criticize your line of thought, but to show that defining alignment doesn't follow straightforward rules.

You are looking at it from an out of character perspective. A point to consider is that a adventurer, happily slaughtering orc villages from babe to grandpappy, who deals with an orc long enough to discover that this one is not evil should rethink his assumptions about orcs. Maybe this orc who he was trapped in an avalanche with and couldn't kill it for long enough that he realized it wasn't evil was one in a million. But if it was the first orc that he personally has ever held back from killing long enough to notice it wasn't evil, for all he knows the majority of orcs are not evil and he just hasn't noticed because any ones who he dealt with either were war bands or he was killing them on sight.

 

[delericho]

One name springs to mind immediately: "Akin, the friendly fiend". So, by your reasoning, fiends shouldn't be exterminated as there is a single exception to the rule?

If there is a single non-Evil fiend, then that proves that not all fiends are truly, inherently Evil with no choice in the matter. At which point, the implication that "we can therefore wipe them out with impunity" fails.

Of course, IMC fiends are irredeemably Evil, since a fiend who becomes non-Evil ceases to be a fiend, and becomes something else, which is why my previous post dealt with Orcs.

Returning to the question of Orcs:

If we find a small number of Orcs may not be Evil at all, then we have to question: what has this Orc done to deserve death? In many cases, the answers will be simple to give, and we can act appropriately. However, in the case of Orc toddlers, it's rather less clear-cut.