Raven Crowking said:
So your answer is to let the orcs, goblins, or whatever, "characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit," alone to "be fruitful and multiply" until such time as they actually show up and wipe out a village? Consider the following quote:
"At the time, 1996, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it [the bin Laden issue] was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." - Bill Clinton, February 2002
Leaving the orcs alone until they actually
do something Evil sounds very nice in theory until the 12 year-old lone survivor of that orc-ravaged village asked you why you didn't do something before the orcs slaughtered their mother, father, and brothers and carried their sister off for additional entertainment. Simply put, allowing "Evil characters and creatures [which want to] debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit" to prosper is not really a viable way to "protect innocent life".
Basically, you'll wind up with, "At the time, the orcs had committed no crime against the innocent villagers, so I did not attack them there because we had no basis on which to harm, though we knew they wanted to commit crimes against the innocent villagers..."
We show pause in the real world because we can't really know what's going on inside of someone's head or whether their heart is truly evil unless (A) they actually do something Evil or (B) clearly tell us what they are going to do. In D&D, on the other hand, we not only have Detect spells but also the ability to read minds, determine the truth, and even query the dead for answers.
Raven Crowking said:
D&D evil has no problem with killing. It may or may not like it, but it will do it without qualms. He doesn't lose his evil status no matter what he does, although he might qualify to become Vile if he's bad enough.
I think you're making Evil too nice here. "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." They don't just think about it. They'll actually do it when given the opportunity.
Further, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." A sentient creature with no compassion for others who will either kill without qualms if it's convenient or even kill for sport is almost a textbook description of a sociopath or psychopath. If they don't like killing (as you suggest is possible), then I think that's not really Evil. "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." That's Neutral. The Evil side of Neutral, perhaps, but still Neutral.
Raven Crowking said:
D&D neutral has a problem with killing INNOCENTS (and apparently none with killing the guilty)... but still does it sometimes. A neutral character who kills an innocent person may or may not lose his neutrality. If he does so regretfully, knowing that he's doing wrong but thinking he has no choice, he gets to stay neutral. If he does so in the heat of passion and later regrets his action, he probably gets to stay neutral.
The SRD says, "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." Again, I think you're making this alignment too nice. It doesn't say that Neutral characters lose their neutrality if they kill an innocent person, nor does it say that a Neutral person might only kill an innocent person in the heat of passion. In fact, given that "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships," and won't "make sacrifices to protect or help others", I can picture Neutral characters killing innocents for all sorts of reasons, including the classic "I was just following orders and if I didn't do it, they would have killed me, too."
Raven Crowking said:
D&D good won't kill INNOCENTS (but have qualms with killing the guilty). A good character who kills an innocent person loses his goodness, which in the case of paladins and certain clerics means he loses class abilities. Even if he regrets it, or does it for the greater good.
Actually, a paladin "regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate." The Atonement spell says that it "removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds." So regret after the fact actually can help restore your class abilities. And if the misdeed is deliberate, the additional penance is 500XP plus any additional penance demanded by the caster to determine "whether the creature is truly contrite." So basically Good can do Evil and repent, with a spell and possible XP cost to formalize the gesture. Good doesn't have to be perfect, can return to the fold if it slips, and the loss of class abilities is ultimately more of a warning to repent than enternal damnation for doing wrong.
Raven Crowking said:
A good character who kills a guilty person may or may not lose his goodness. If he does so regretfully, knowing that he's doing wrong but thinking he has no choice, he gets to stay good. If he does so in the heat of passion and later regrets his action, he probably gets to stay good. (NOTE = Most D&D adventures include only these last two types of killing; "I had to do it to save the X" is the oldest excuse in the rulebook.)
I'll agree that enjoying killing isn't Good, but I don't think that Good necessarily has to feel any regret or that the killing is wrong. You are assuming that a Good character should have qualms about killing the guilty. I still don't understand why that necessarily follows, unless you are simply trying to say that Good shouldn't enjoy killing, shouldn't kill when other options are available, or shouldn't kill without feeling at least some empathy for the Evil being dispatched and some regret that other alternatives were not available. And, in practice, none of that need stop the genocidal extermination of an inherently Evil enemy or one guilty of wanton murder, pain, and/or destruction.
Raven Crowking said:
Of course, the aforementioned killing applies to sentient beings only. It is probably always okay to kill creatures with the [Evil] subtype, and always evil to kill creatures of the [Good] subtype. If orcs in your campaign world behave as though they have the [Evil] subtype, then I imagine you can have a reasonable argument that the aforementioned rules do not apply to orcs.
The "Evil Subtype" really has nothing to do with alignment. The Evil subtype "usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype." In other words, you could have a poodle from an evil-aligned Outer Plane and it would be of teh Evil subtype, even though it's alignment, as an animal, is Neutral. Similarly, a redeemed fiend, assuming that one can exist, who became a Paladin would still be of the Evil subtype.
If what you mean is "irredeemably Evil", then I think that's exactly what a lotof us are saying. We treat some or all of the Evil creatures as "irredeemably Evil". As such, they are fair game for extermination.
Raven Crowking said:
Returning the dead to a peaceful slumber is not evil, either. If undead are in torment, it is good. If the undead are not in torment, it is neutral. Respect for life is not compromised where no life exists. One may make similar arguments for constructs. In campaigns were "slain" elementals and outsiders are simply banished back to their plane of origin, similar rules apply.
I think a ghoul or vampire might disagree that simply because it's not technically "alive" (it's animated by Negative energy rather than Positive energy), it's not a sentient and not the moral equivalent of any other similarly aligned creature that just happens to be alive. You are using a technicality here. Would it also be OK to torture a vampire for fun or slaughter ghouls for sport or enjoyment? Somehow, that just doesn't seem "Good" to me.
Raven Crowking said:
In Tolkein, the "Free Races" were Dwarves, Men, Elves, Ents, and Hobbits. If you were not one of these, you didn't qualify as a "person" in a very real sense and you were fair game. Orcs simply could never be redeemed. Gollum, however, being of Hobbit-kind, could not simply be offed.
Fair enough. But how many Evil dwarves, men, elves, ents, or hobbits did we see in Tolkien (that remained dwarves, men, elves, ents, or hobbits) and was it really wrong to kill Gollum? What good did keeping him alive do? Was he redeemed? In fact, wasn't Samwise, arguably the most Good of the charactes, willing to do away with Gollum and wasn't he ultimately correct?
If Evil creatures (including humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.) are the sociopaths and/or psychopaths that the Evil alignment definition essentially says that they are--that they either have "no compassion for others and kill without qualms" or, worse, "actively pursue evil, killing for sport"--it's really not that much of a stretch to assume they are irredeemable. After all, sociopaths and/or psychopaths generally cannot effectively be treated in the real world.
This page:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm
...does a pretty good job of illustrating how I think the definition of Evil in the SRD might be described in psychological terms:
"Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is practically synonymous with criminal behavior. [...] They seldom show anxiety and don't feel guilt. There's really no effective treatment for them other than locking them up in a secure facility with such rigid rules that they cannot talk their way out."
This would be redeemable Evil (see below).
Sociopathy is chiefly characterized by something wrong with the person's conscience. They either don't have one, it's full of holes like Swiss cheese, or they are somehow able to completely neutralize or negate any sense of conscience or future time perspective. [...] Lykken (1995) [...] clearly distinguishes between the sociopath (who is socialized into becoming a psychopath) and a "true" psychopath (who is born that way).
"Psychopathy is a concept subject to much debate, but is usually defined as a constellation of affective, interpersonal, and behavioral characteristics including egocentricity; impulsivity; irresponsibility; shallow emotions; lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse; pathological lying; manipulativeness; and the persistent violation of social norms and expectations. [...] Further, criminals and APDs tend to "age out" of crime; psychopaths do not, and are at high risk of recidivism. [...] They are calculating predators who, when trapped, will attempt escape, create a nuisance and danger to staff, be a disruptive influence on other patients or inmates, and fake symptoms to get transferred, bouncing back and forth between institutions."
These two would represent irredeemable Evil, particularly the latter. If one presumes that some or all Evil are born psychopaths, then it's not a stretch to say that they are irredeemable.
But better yet, consider this article:
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9301_a.html
"Some predatory sociopaths can be deterred. None can be rehabilitated, since they cannot return to a state that never existed. The concept of coercive therapy is a contradiction; successful psychiatric treatment requires participants, not mere recipients. What makes [...] predators so intractable and dangerous is that [...] they like what they do and intend to keep doing it."
"Chronic [...] predators have crossed an osmotic membrane. They can't step back to the other side--our side. And they don't want to. If we don't kill or release them, we have but one choice: Call them monsters and isolate them."
"When it comes to the [...] sadist, psychiatric diagnoses won't protect us. Appeasement endangers us. Rehabilitation is a joke."
"I've spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism--an endangerment of our species."
That last point also cuts to the heart of moral relativism and the idea that morality is relative and everything thinks of themselves as Good. The predatory sociopath often knows
exactly what he is and has illustions about being Good. He (or she) simply doesn't care and may even be proud of that fact.
Bear in mind that this article was written by someone who is opposed to the death penalty and suggests, "no-parole life sentences". If you have several million sentient Evil creatures in your world who are all predatory sociopaths of one sort or another, is that really a practical solution that Good characters should be expected to implement? Would it really be any fun to role-play that?
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
