Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 194203" data-attributes="member: 2013">Please...Please, everyone, stop trying to interpret D&D from a moral relativist perspective.  It will never work, because D&D itself, like it or not, is based on the assumption of moral absolutism.  I may be beating a dead horse here, but it seems to me that we're back to the old alignment question..."What is good or evil?  Who gets to define it?  In a fantasy world, wouldn't it be different?"Then we get into discussion of alignment and how it's such a chore and so tough to adjudicate.  Ugh.Again, what this boils down to is moral relativism vs. moral absolutism.  The moral relativists want to remove the label of "good" and "evil" from behaviors... because, from a certain point of view, anything is "good."The problem is that, whether moral relativists like it or not, D&D is a system built on moral absolutes.  Harlock's summary of p. 88 of the PH is not only relevant here, but as far as D&D is concerned, is "gospel truth" whether the moral relativists like it or not...That pretty much sums it up.  A good character will protect INNOCENT life (note the choice of words... there is a big difference between good and innocent... a 3-month old human - or hobgoblin - is neither good nor evil, but innocent).  Moral relativists like to disagree with this, but that's the definition D&D uses and you have to accept it when you accept a game that features spells and such with Evil or Good descriptors.  Let me re-iterate that - whether you like it or not, it is inherent in the system.  You can change the system if you like, but then it becomes a House Rule discussion.Now, I have one more point to make.Absolutely true.  However, I would suggest that MOST actions are neutral.  Only a few actions are intrinsically good or evil.  Slaying of innocents, for example, is by definition evil.  Casting a spell with the Good descriptor is by definition good.  You will note that a spell like Cure Light Wounds does not have a descriptor... we tend to think of healing as a good act, but it is not necessarily so... it depends very much on who you are healing and why.  The act of healing itself is neutral.A relevant question, however, is "what makes a character evil/good?"  I believe it has everything to do with intentions... as I have stated before, consider the example of a rich man and a poor man seeing a hungry man on the street (assume for a moment that giving a hungry man something to eat is "good").  The poor man passes the hungry man by, and gives him nothing because he has nothing, all the while thinking to himself, "if I had anything to give him, I would, but I have nothing to give so I cannot."  The rich man passes the hungry man by and gives him a loaf of bread, because he has the means to do so.  Both the rich man and the poor man wanted to do the same things and had the same motivation.  The only difference was that the rich man had the capacity to.  Does that make him more "good" than the poor man?  I don't think so.In my mind, anyway, intent is what makes a character good or evil.  The actions he takes will usually bear this out... though sometimes a "good" person will commit an "evil" act (and vice versa).  That's one reason that the D&D game has the "atonement" spell.  A paladin may kill the wolf that is eating the town's chickens, only to find that the wolf polymorphs back into the form of an innocent child when killed - the child had lycanthropy.  Does that act (killing an innocent) immediately change the paladin's alignment to evil?  I think not.  Will he lose his powers until he atones?  I think so.That good people commit evil acts does not change the validity of their intentions or change their alignment... provided they try to change when they realize what they did that was "out of character" for them (the reverse is also true).  An evil villain does not become good simply because he takes pity on one small child and spares the child... and then continues his killing spree.I think I'm starting to ramble, so I'll stop.  Anyway, my point is twofold: (1) D&D is a game of moral absolutism, so any attempt to interpret it from a moral relativist standpoint is pointless and (2) what makes a character good/evil are his intentions; what makes an act good/evil is its intrinsic nature - and good people sometimes commit evil acts... when this happens, it is time for atonement or, if the character does not desire to atone, THEN comes the alignment change.  IOW, an evil act from good intentions requires an atonement (and vice versa).  As soon as the alignment of the intentions matches the act, the alignment has changed.Back to the first point - taking an *innocent* life, of whatever stripe, is an evil act.  If a "good" character does this and then tries to atone, his alignment does not change.  If he does not try to atone, his alignment changes to evil.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification