Alignment myths?

[Hussar]

I really think that the biggest alignment myth and misconception is that alignments must be symmetrical.

Symmetrical? Could you expand on that please?

 

[Storm Raven]

Secondly, whether the woodsman would face social consequences for his action is also irrelevant to alignment. Murdering a peasant child is just as Evil as murdering the heir to the throne, and that applies whether the murderer is a peasant himself or a Samurai (who, legally, might have the right).

Except in the example given, we aren't talking about murder. Not all killing is murder. We are talking about a death that occurred presumably through run-of-the-mill negligence. That isn't murder under any moral analysis that I have seen.

 

[Li Shenron]

Symmetrical? Could you expand on that please?

Some example ideas could be:

- doing evil things against evil is a good thing, just like "-1 x -1 = +1"

- the neutral alignment being treated as a mere half-way between good and evil: "If I do one good thing for every evil thing I do, then I'm neutral"

- if there are demons and devils, there has to be a NE group too to fill the gap, and then there has to be similar groups of celestials as well

- if a certain alignment has one option, the opposite one must have the same option (appropriately switch): e.g. anti-paladins and "why are paladins a core class and blackguards a PrCl?"

- the shape of the universe must accomodate outer planes so that they mirror each other, no gaps or the whole universe cannot exist

 

[prosfilaes]

None of these acts, in and of themselves are evil. Granted, the ACTORS likely are.

Why are the actors? A man who inherited the spot of mob boss who has called hits out on everyone who opposes him has done no evil acts by your argument.

 

[delericho]

Except in the example given, we aren't talking about murder. Not all killing is murder. We are talking about a death that occurred presumably through run-of-the-mill negligence. That isn't murder under any moral analysis that I have seen.

No, I got that. I was giving another example, in an attempt to demonstrate my point... which was that what society does about an event has little to no bearing on the morality of that event.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Any weaponsmith knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at the very least, one of the weapons he makes will be used for an evil act. To think anything else is naive. Now, knowing that someone, at some time will use his weapons to commit evil, is the weaponsmith guilty of evil acts every time he sells a weapon?

I brought this up before with the two knights. At what point does selling that magic weapon become evil? When the weapon is sold? When the weapon is used to kill the king? But, the weapon seller didn't actually kill anyone. His part of the action was over long before.

I think this is a perfect example of why action alone is not enough to determine alignment.

A tool, an effect, an event, has no alignment until sentient morality gives it the motive and the reflection. A sword is not evil just because it is a tool to kill -- there are many kinds of killing that, in D&D, aren't evil, and many reasons to draw blood or hurt someone that aren't evil, either. Causing pain and suffering is not nessecarily evil. That pain and suffering could make the world a better place, could end someone else's pain and suffering, or could be the instrument of true justice.

No one is evil just for manufacturing, selling, or educating on the use of a tool (unless the tool itself is somehow evil). It is entirely in how and *why* this tool is used that the one using it gains an alignment other than "neutral."

You can kill someone, even inflict pain and make them suffer, while still holding the highest respect for the sanctity of their life.

 

[Hussar]

Some example ideas could be:

- doing evil things against evil is a good thing, just like "-1 x -1 = +1"

- the neutral alignment being treated as a mere half-way between good and evil: "If I do one good thing for every evil thing I do, then I'm neutral"

- if there are demons and devils, there has to be a NE group too to fill the gap, and then there has to be similar groups of celestials as well

- if a certain alignment has one option, the opposite one must have the same option (appropriately switch): e.g. anti-paladins and "why are paladins a core class and blackguards a PrCl?"

- the shape of the universe must accomodate outer planes so that they mirror each other, no gaps or the whole universe cannot exist

I never gave much thought to that before, but, you are right of course. Why does everything have to perfectly mirror?

 

[Li Shenron]

I never gave much thought to that before, but, you are right of course. Why does everything have to perfectly mirror?

That is a question I cannot answer

Maybe it's just that D&D attracts a lot of people with technical culture/minds, and they like having their stuff in theoretical order?

 

[Hussar]

Why are the actors? A man who inherited the spot of mob boss who has called hits out on everyone who opposes him has done no evil acts by your argument.

Well, let's take our mob boss for a second shall we?

Is asking someone to kill someone an evil act? Is there a huge difference between the act (not the actors, the act) of the mob boss ordering hits or the king posting a bounty? (note, there are definite Law/Chaos ramifications here, but, we're talking good/evil at the moment)

I would say that the act of asking someone to kill someone isn't necessarily evil. Granted, the alignment of the ACTOR will determine whether or not someone would do it. This is what I keep trying to get at. I am not interested in the actor here. Not in the slightest.

If the mob boss has committed an evil act in ordering a hit, has not the king done as well?

I freely admit that this is a reductionist view of alignment. I does not cover all things. It ONLY looks at the action and the immediete result of that action. The DMG specifically states that intent does not equate with alignment. Under the section on changing alignment it states that intent is not enough. You must act in order to change your alignment. Right there, it seems pretty clear that alignment is meant to be divorced from intent as much as possible.

The mob boss orders hits because he wants to keep his position and eliminate the competition. He doesn't do it because its evil, he's evil because of what he does. The actions he takes are not evil because of his alignment - which should be the yardstick of the character's intent. The actions are judged based solely on themselves.

Like I said before - the evil knight who saves the princess has done a good act. That he only saved her so he can serve her up to Orcus on a platter doesn't change that.

Heh, I did think of another Alignment Myth: When discussing alignment, we must only look at actions which help our point of view and ignore all counter examples.

 

[prosfilaes]

Is asking someone to kill someone an evil act? Is there a huge difference between the act (not the actors, the act) of the mob boss ordering hits or the king posting a bounty?

Yes. If the target doesn't matter, then that woodsman would have committed just as evil an act if he had killed a troll that was about to eat the child.