Alignment myths?

[Shemeska]

[Evil] spells are a perfect example of choice and understanding. The caster knows that casting the spell is Evil. The caster understands that casting the [Evil] spell will further his journey to perdition. And yet he still does it. Though he may attempt to do good through his casting, he still knows that he does Evil by casting it.

And of course everyone casting an [Evil] spell has access to the PHB where they can see that the spell is [Evil]. And beyond that, a good number of [Evil] spells are rather questionable in their status as such, while other spells end up replicating the same, or worse, but face no such stigma.

 

[Storm Raven]

My point is that it really doesn't.

And other than saying "it doesn't" your argument thus far has no content.

It's worth noting that in some ethical systems, this is in fact true. That, because the universe is flawed and every consequence likely to lead to ill, that no one can be righteous or innocent (except someone who could see every consequence down the road).

Such a system, however interesting in theory, is entirely beside the point when discussing D&D alignment. Every act is not evil. It cannot be - otherwise the game's assumptions on the subject of alignment break apart by the seams. Clearly, in the context of D&D it is possible to remain good (many NPCs, for example, are clearly labled as such). Hence, such an unworkable "everyone is evil" stance is incorrect under the rules of the game.

Foreseeability is a good place to start in a court of law because the judge also cannot foresee consequences and has no standing to judge someone for not foreseeing consequences that he himself probably could not have foreseen either. But again, the court isn't necessarily a good place to start because when we speak of objectively good and evil from the stand point of an observer outside of the frame of the universe this is not necessarily the case.

But we are not talking about "outside the frame of the universe". we are talking about the context of actors within a system making moral decisions relating to good or evil. If, regardless of foreseeability, all acts are judged by all consequences, then we must go through all published products relating to D&D and scratch out all alignments stated as "G" (and probably "N") and replace them with "E". Clearly, this is not what is intended by the design of the game, and hence, it cannot be correct.

Again, whether the law excuses something or not is not particularly relevant. The law excuses people and does not generally prosecute them for lying outside of a few particular contexts, but that does not mean that the law is because it excuses and does not find culpable, maintaining that to lie in those other contexts is moral.

Actually, it is very relevant. Our view of law is predicated upon our societal sense of right and wrong. We do not prosecute small children for murder because we believe that they cannot understand the consequences of their actions and believe it is wrong to punish those who cannot understand what is right and what is wrong. And so on. Law is a concrete, although clearly incomplete, expression of morality (at what point is a wrong great enough to require the intervention of the state).

Which is pretty much precisely my point. Both have to be taken into account.

Which gets us to foreseeability. If intent counts (and in morality, for the most part, the most important thing that counts is intent), then the question of whether an action will foreseeably cause an evil consequence is of primary relevance. If the actor's intent is a critical issue, then the foreseeable consequences of his actions are of paramount importance when evaluating whether an act is good or evil.

 

[Fifth Element]

Evil is so far as I'm concerned the absence of good in the actions of beings possessing a will. It remains evil whether or not anyone judges it evil.

So any act that is not Good is necessarily Evil? Can an act not be Neutral? There are, in fact, three points in the D&D alignment system here - not just Good and Evil, but Neutral as well.

 

[Psion]

And of course everyone casting an [Evil] spell has access to the PHB where they can see that the spell is [Evil].

[Evil] is another matter entirely, but it could either be supernatural evil and taint, as it were, or the understanding of the magic involves understanding of its immediate consequences.

 

[Felix]

Celebrim & Shemeska:

You are quite right that I assume that the caster knows which spells labeled as [Evil] are, in fact, [Evil]. In defense of this assumption, I suggest that it is as reasonable as assuming that the caster knows that a Magic Missile has a range of Medium, that Acid Arrow does not allow Spell Resistance, that Hold Person forces a Will save, and that Bull's Strength is a Transmutation spell. The descriptors of a spell, [Evil], [Mind-affecting], [Sonic], [Language-based], [Fear], [Death], etc. are integral to the functioning of the spell; I can't think of an argument why a caster shouldn't know the spell's descriptor, but would be willing to listen to one.

<snipped description of role-playing effects>

...

If everyone just knows that Animate Dead or whatever has an evil descriptor

Oh, I don't think that everyone should know. Or even that everyone should know the spell cast was Animate Dead.

But I don't see why you would divorce the spell descriptors from the spell for characters that are familiar with the spell (would be able to cast/ have sufficient ranks in Spellcraft). What virtue do the descriptors possess (or lack) that they are not considered integrally part of the spell, as much even as the spell effect itself?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I separate motive from intent. Intent implies a bit of foresight -- what you expect the action to accomplish. I'm more concerned with motive -- why you take the action you do. Sometimes it is because you hope to accomplish a specific end, but sometimes its just because it's the right thing to do, or because you don't care about anyone else, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

And other than saying "it doesn't" your argument thus far has no content.

No content? Ok, fine, whatever.

Such a system, however interesting in theory, is entirely beside the point when discussing D&D alignment.

Not necessarily. It seems to work for me.

Every act is not evil. It cannot be - otherwise the game's assumptions on the subject of alignment break apart by the seams.

I think your assumptions of alignment break apart at the seams. Mine don't, and they work within the game just fine.

Clearly, in the context of D&D it is possible to remain good (many NPCs, for example, are clearly labled as such). Hence, such an unworkable "everyone is evil" stance is incorrect under the rules of the game.

Everyone is impure, prone to evil, and unintentionally causing evil in the world does not equate to 'everyone is evil'. As long as we are talking about the rules of the game, would you please read under the spell 'Detect Evil' how evil occurs in a great range of strengths - between 0.2 and 20 or more just on that table. That's two orders of magnitude that is. I think we can account for perhaps there being people walking around with no more than a feather's worth of evil in them, to say nothing of the fact that they might even be positive forces for good registering stunning richter shocks of great bright auras of good for which the little bit of blackness in thier souls is of comparitively small import in thier overall decision making process.

Hussar got it AFAIC. I think I could trust him to play someone who was striving out of his mortal frailty to be something better and get it. Paladins are one of the hardest classes to play right. I've seen pretty good jobs, heard some great lines, but never just an overall bang up oh wow job. I can't help but think that the problem is that most of us aren't cut out to even imagine the motivations of someone like that, so we trivialize them. Different philosophical traditions out there have different notions of how you get to that refined state where you have right understanding, right intentions, right speach, right action, right livlihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. We could on another board argue over the insight they have, but this isn't a religion board.

What we can point out here is that I don't know of any ancient ethical tradition that claims right intention, merely 'meaning well', is of such central importance on the subject of what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, that it overshadows all the others or is even first amongst all considerations. Right intentions alone don't make for right actions, and actions proceeding from right intentions can still be evil even if you didn't mean for them to happen. Innocent intentions don't make for innocent minds. And as far as I know, the law won't excuse your folly just because you meant well.

But we are not talking about "outside the frame of the universe". we are talking about the context of actors within a system making moral decisions relating to good or evil.

I don't see why evil and good should be any radically different of things within a fantasy universe than they are in this universe, and it seems to me that fantasy good and evil is most interesting if it relates to how I see good and evil here.

If, regardless of foreseeability, all acts are judged by all consequences, then we must go through all published products relating to D&D and scratch out all alignments stated as "G" (and probably "N") and replace them with "E". Clearly, this is not what is intended by the design of the game, and hence, it cannot be correct.

And clearly this is not how I've been describing the game either.

 

[Felix]

Hussar got it AFAIC. I think I could trust him to play someone who was striving out of his mortal frailty to be something better and get it.

But according to Hussar, it doesn't matter what his motivations or intents are, if the consequences of his character's actions arn't good, then his actions are Evil or Neutral. Hussar rejected motivations and intentions upthread and unless he's modified that claim he is still operating under a morality that the individual has no control over.

 

[Celebrim]

I can't think of an argument why a caster shouldn't know the spell's descriptor, but would be willing to listen to one.

I thought I just offered one. If you missed it, it went, "Because it is interesting."

If you don't mind me saying so, I think that's about the strongest argument for how things should work that can be made.

But I don't see why you would divorce the spell descriptors from the spell for characters that are familiar with the spell (would be able to cast/ have sufficient ranks in Spellcraft). What virtue do the descriptors possess (or lack) that they are not considered integrally part of the spell, as much even as the spell effect itself?

I haven't thought about this much, because it hasn't come up and I've moved away from my old classy experienced grognard play group and have gotten older hard time finding time and great players to play with (previous friends of mine left a very high standard). I would say that there is every reason why a player should be able, upon reading a new spell to know the spells descriptors through a successful spellcraft check. But I think it likely that such subtleties of the spell might well be beyond the caster when he first gained sufficient prowess to cast the spell. Classically, in the stories, ability always proceeds wisdom. Why? Because it is interesting. For a recent reference, I seem to remember that in Harry Potter and the Half Blood prince, he casts a spell which has (for that world) an [Evil] descriptor without knowing what he's doing or what even will happen. Not the classiest reference, but hopefully you get my meaning. So instead of knowledge I think young wizards would tend to rely on what guidelines they have been given by thier mentors if any, and if they are the sort to listen. In the case of animate dead, that it is an evil act is probably something that even ordinary people would know for evil (at least in most of the game world's cultures) with only a mere Intelligence check. Necromancy = Bad is probably 'common sense' in worlds with animate dead spells, and might even result in a little bit of over zealous fear of anything that remotely smacks of necromancy out of ignorance.

But there is no reason I can see why more subtle or exotic spells should immediately smack the reader as evil, and now that I think about it I'd definately want to add some exotic little known (or DM created) spells with the [Evil] descriptor into my game without necessarily making it obvious what they were. Put that in my queue of ideas.

 

[Raloc]

No content? Ok, fine, whatever.

Yes, this is why everyone is saying your posts (and the ideas that you're attempting to convey) are absurd.

Everyone is impure, prone to evil, and unintentionally causing evil in the world does not equate to 'everyone is evil'.

Now you're attempting to attribute Storm Raven with the "everyone is evil" thing? You're the one that proposed it in the first place. Your logic in determining the morality of actions explicitly implies it.

Hussar got it AFAIC.

Actually, neither of you "got it." In fact, you both fail to "get it" and you specifically have used specious logic to support your arguments multiple times. That's the entire point of why people keep bringing it up. You fail to "get it" and continue using the same (flawed) arguments.