Good, Evil, or Gray

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Just for the record, I do agree that if you are playing alignment as it is written in the books then it is very clearly defined and backed up. I really didn't see the question in this thread as whether you agreed with the fact of the alignment system in the book, but whether you played it that way in your home campaign. If we are talking playing straight by the book, then yes I allow no overlap and make the lines *extremely* defined. As to the comment about doing a single evil act does not make one an evil person, well that depends. I tend to disagree because the books sound to me like that is exactly what they do when you head to the extremes of alignment. That is why the atone spell is so available. Especially paladins, whom take very strict oaths, can fall prey to the 'you are refused my gifts until you atone for your *sin* (note singular here intentionally). Dnd sounds to me kind of like catholocism, where if you sin you fall out of grace but you can go and confess that sin and all is forgiven. It isn't going to have an effect on a normal person, but someone with such a close tie to a god (such as a paladin and maybe certain clerics of very strict deities) is going to be affected as soon as he makes the choice, even if it was unavoidable. It isn't that the god thinks the paladin is evil, but he does take away the gifts in case the paladin continues his downward spiral. To me it is like a parent who takes away the peice of candy from the child who cussed. The parent doesn't throw the candy away or forever forbid candy to the child, they use as a way of bringing attention to the mistake. They continue to take away candy from the child as long as the child makes mistakes and then giving it back when they do something good.

Does anyone remember what system it was that had the sliding lawful/chaos/good/evil scale? where as you did things you lost points from one side and gained to another (it was probably a lot of systems, but this one had a nifty little box for it on the character sheet and really made it obvious to the players).

I promise, I'm heading to bed now;P

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

So, I lied, this is the last, promise, lol.

Don't want to cloud the board yet again with a post, just wanted to let you know, bas, that I do not think morals are unsophisticated or primitive. I actually think morals can be very sophisticated, just see a difference in the origin, is that the right way of saying it maybe?

Also, as for my definition of fundamentalist, I am meaning the more book defined term than any historically appointed period or media hype. When I say fundamentalist (if I am trying to insult I always say fundie, which means something completely different to me) I mean those that take an extremely literal and fundamental interpretation to the bible (or any other work, for that matter). They hold to a specific translation and refuse to intertain others. My mother is one, she refuses to admit that anything but the king james could be right. This is not, to say, a bad thing and I do not mean it that way. I mearly mean those christians who take what seems to many today as a very backwards veiw of things (i do not agree that it is backwards, for I think your religion is defined by when you grew up as much as anything, christianity, like all religions, is something that usually makes people polarize to some extent.)

Not sure if this is understandable or not, it's veyr late here, lol, and i have martial arts tomorrow. I think you and i might be taking over the thread so was wondering if you would like, instead, to email each other? It has been a long time since I have had someone to really talk to seriously without insults beginning to fly. For you and anyone else, the meail is Kaleon(at)jpopmail(dot)com and just put enworld in the subject so i know it isn't junkmail.

We obviously have some very different philosophies and theories but I do genuinely enjoy talking with you.

For information on the japanese religion things about the dogs (was that the one you were curious in?) you can look up information by doing searches on 'shogun' 'dogs' 'law' maybe. It was in one of my many classes and so the exact dates leave me, I was more interested in china. He believed that dogs were the reincarnation of his ancestors, i think, anyway, he gave them all the rights of people and gave his justification as being buddhism. It was very interesting, he was obviously a lunatic, but then so were many of the people who created laws over the ages, lol.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

A lawful-good paladin is leading an army against the horde of demons which plan on killing everything before their path. He knows that a small town of mainly women and children are 5 miles away from his army and about to be overrun by the demons. He also knows that the demon horde's commander is leaving himself open at this very moment and it may be the only chance his army has of ending the entire threat once and for all. Give me your personal thoughts on this situation, which should he do? Now give me explanations of why he could justify either path. Now tell me if this same paladin, no matter which way he chooses, is able to remain a paladin after his choice?

As nearly all examples concerned with alignment (and paladins in general), this one suffers some serious logical errors.
First, a town made up of women and children? That's rather strange, because a community cannot function properly unless it has a large percentage of robust, hard-working adult men . Even if they fled, that's even more strange, because women and children have always been the first to be evacuated. Third, it is altogether weird that the town's dwellers did not attempt to flee 5 miles to the safety of the paladin's army if they knew about the imminent demon attack.
Then, it is nigh impossible that sacking a small town (and a "small town" in D&D terms is a community of 901-2000 citizens) would place the fiendish general in a vulnerable position. It would be really foolish of him to low down his guard at the moment; a commander that managed to make a name for himself in the Abyss should be too cautious and intelligent to do this.
Overall, this example reminds of the worst kind of parascientific speculation, sometimes known as "calculating an ellipsoid-shaped horse's speed in vacuum", or scholastic paradoxes such as "can the Lord create a mountain that he is unable to move?"

I understand and agree with your dislike of such scenarios but this is really more of a thought experiment and is in line with some of the thought experiments used in philosophy papers--if you had a raygun with one shot and the evil murdering child molester were standing behind an innocent and you knew that he would get away to kill and molest again if you didn't shoot him and you knew that you couldn't shoot him without shooting the innocent and you knew that your shot would kill him, would you it be right to choose to let the bad guy get away or to kill the innocent in order to prevent future crimes. But wait, that's too easy, what if the bad guy had rigged himself up to the innocent so that the only way to kill him was to kill the innocent--now you're not killing the bad guy and accidentally killing an innocent in the process, you're deliberately killing an innocent in cold blood in order to kill the bad guy.

The problem with this example, as with thought experiments such as the one I outlined above is that, often they create a situation that can't really exist in game or in life by artificially restricting options in order to sharpen the horns of the dilemma. It also generally artificially restricts the consequences. In that case, whether or not there is an answer, it may not matter since it's an entirely fictional dilemma that often could not possibly happen due to the impossibility of knowing that option X is the only way or of ensuring that option X is the only way to accomplish result Y.

In the thought experiment proposed, there is real question as to whether the paladin (or anyone else--paladins just make the best test subjects because they can lose their powers for making the wrong choice; it's just as wrong for anyone else) should take either option. The leader of the demon hordes is leaving himself open to attack!?! Why? Perhaps it's a ruse. Perhaps his master ordered him to do so for fear that he might try to usurp his master's throne. If that's the case, then is he likely to succeed or fail and is his usurpation of the throne likely to bring good or bad results? (For instance, if we're talking about replacing Pyrak from Blackdirge's story hour with Hedrantherax, Hedrantherax is a lot less effective than Pyrak so the short term results of the usurpation would probably be good. Long term, I think it results in Hazergal on the demon throne which is probably worse than having Pyrak there. But in any case, the paladin has to base his choices on the forseeable future and the information he has available to him and his intuitions about whether or not that information indicates that it's a trap set by the demon-lord or a suicide mission from his master or whether it's really just a mistake. (Even archons and devils make mistakes). The choice will depend upon those matters.

Also the village. Leaving aside the question of whether women and children really have greater moral value than, say, young men and senior citizens (and of whether the greater value/obligation might come from the fact that women and children are not typically capable of defending themselves so in this case, anyone in the village, male or female would impart the same degree of obligation to us), there are still a number of questions. Is it possible to expend extra resources or take extra risk and do both? Are the demons going to kill everyone in the town or simply capture and enslave them. If the latter, what are the odds of staging a successful rescue mission?

Heck, it's also quite relevant whether the paladin thinks he can stop the demon hordes without the decaptiation strike against the leader and what kind of losses he's likely to take doing so. Are the lives of several hundred non-combatants worth 10 soldiers? Probably. Are they worth a hundred thousand? Probably not.

Without knowing the actual resources available to the paladin and the actual information about both the demon commander and the demon horde, it's impossible to make the best decision. It may well be that there is only a risk that the demon hordes will over-run the town before we can get back from killing the demon lord but it's not certain. In that case, the paladin might well take the chance. It may be that, by splitting his forces, the paladin could have 50% odds of accomplishine each task rather than 75% odds of accomplishing one.

So what is the paladin's obligation in this case? To make the best decision he can with the information and resources available to him. There are justifications for doing both and I don't know which I would choose as a player without knowing my full capabilities and opposition. (But I'd take it as a personal challenge to come up with a way to do both).

 

[ARandomGod]

As nearly all examples concerned with alignment (and paladins in general), this one suffers some serious logical errors.
First, a town made up of women and children? That's rather strange, because a community cannot function properly unless it has a large percentage of robust, hard-working adult men . Even if they fled, that's even more strange, because women and children have always been the first to be evacuated. Third, it is altogether weird that the town's dwellers did not attempt to flee 5 miles to the safety of the paladin's army if they knew about the imminent demon attack.
Then, it is nigh impossible that sacking a small town (and a "small town" in D&D terms is a community of 901-2000 citizens) would place the fiendish general in a vulnerable position. It would be really foolish of him to low down his guard at the moment; a commander that managed to make a name for himself in the Abyss should be too cautious and intelligent to do this.
Overall, this example reminds of the worst kind of parascientific speculation, sometimes known as "calculating an ellipsoid-shaped horse's speed in vacuum", or scholastic paradoxes such as "can the Lord create a mountain that he is unable to move?"

Interestingly enough, I use that very same ("can the Lord create a mountain that he is unable to move?") idea to illustrate my personal philosophy on the nature of good and evil.
Or to say, while it may not be a very applicable example, it nonetheless can be used to illustrate certain facts...

 

[ARandomGod]

I have a question for you, is it really your dm's idea of what is good or evil for that restricted character? If that is the case then I have to say it shows a lack of ability in the dm. On the other hand, if it is the restricted character's idea of good and evil then that is completely different.

Gray areas are very interesting because they bring forward *personal belief.* I used to use this example a lot with my players to get them thinking about how they believe one thing but the character could very well believe something else and both be right.

A lawful-good paladin is leading an army against the horde of demons which plan on killing everything before their path. He knows that a small town of mainly women and children are 5 miles away from his army and about to be overrun by the demons. He also knows that the demon horde's commander is leaving himself open at this very moment and it may be the only chance his army has of ending the entire threat once and for all. Give me your personal thoughts on this situation, which should he do? Now give me explanations of why he could justify either path. Now tell me if this same paladin, no matter which way he chooses, is able to remain a paladin after his choice?

It was very interesting. I even had one person reply that the paladin would choose to kill the general (which is the choice most of them made, btw, since he was lawful-good) but that by ignoring the small town he becomes Lawful-evil, and that he would still be a paladin because he did what his god expected of him and carried out his *duty* to the fullest of his ability.... which would mean you had a lawful-evil paladin.

I am not saying I agree with that, but it was very interesting and made me really think. That reminds me, I need to give that question to my present group.

just my two cents

Oh yea, it's really his idea. Not that of the character's. It's as if the characters actual motivations don't matter, only the character's actions.
And, I agree, that shows a lack of ability on the part of the GM.

For that matter, in the same campaign with the same GM... The paladin lost an exhalted feat because members of his party (not him) were in a skermish wherein they performed an action that THEY believed to be good but did have some bad consequenses (an innocent was killied). The paladin wasn't actually able to affect the fight in any way, and wasn't even in the room at the time. The characters involved in the fight were firmly convinced that this was an enemy that needed killing... and yet.

Now, as to which he should do.
Both are really nearly equal, and depend on the person's own personal beliefs and motivations.
Saving the town would be a good thing to do, there's always a chance that the army can be defeated later, and this is saving the most innocent lives NOW. A paladin (or any good character) with lesser wisdom, or less stratigic knowledge of the situation would be more likely to choose this path. Becuase the character would be less certain that this is the only opportunity to take out the army as a whole.
Allowing the town to be slaughtered in order to take the opportunity to destroy the army entirely would also be good, and more tactical, more wise. Because if the army isn't taken down then it could always take out the town later... On the other hand, it would be best to not only take this course of action, but to also send a runner out to the town to get them to evacuate, and then help with rebuilding later. But not everything is always thought of, and there could be some reason why this isn't an option, etc...

He'd still be lawful good either way. A lot depends on his motives, and I personally do think that a good person can do some "evil" and remain good, although an alignment restricted character should be held to a slightly higher standard. Allowing the town to be killed could be a minorly evil action, but not enough to remove any paladin abilities... depending on the character's thought process. If the character didn't really think of the town at all, that's a very minor mark against him. But only minor. The character should have at least attempted (alghough a cursory attempt, or a failed attempt would be fine) to think of something to save the people, or anguished a bit, or something. If the paladin was actually glad that the town were there as a diversion, then that would be an actual evil thought, and might even warrant some small reprimand, although I wouldn't say a loss of paladin power. Likely a phrophetic dream/nightmare showing the suffering of the pesants, followed with a revelation of things that the character COULD have done (Even possibly with revelations of things the character couldn't have done, but could have considered and didn't, and therefore is a little guilty for not having even tried...).

 

[LizardWizard]

2 Kaleon Moonshae:
Whew, thanks for such a lengthy and well-considered reply!!!
Yeah, I understand that such paradoxes are intentionally off-beat and have little to do with real-life situations, but some are quite odious, because they demonstrate the flaws of such method of thinking. They do stimulate cogitation, but at the same time they can lead one's thought into overly abstract areas -- so abstract, in fact, that the very process of thinking becomes meaningless.
Real-world scholastics helped develop human reasoning, but too often did it concern itself with really peripheral and weird matters. Apart from this God and mountain paradox, scholasts discussed such themes as "Could the Lord assume the form of a pumpkin to spread His word, and could the pumpkin preach, die on a cross and raise from the dead?" and the well-known "How many angels/devils can sit on the edge of a knife/point of a pin?"
It may look like nit-picking, but such way of making questions about the world is overly metaphysical. Personally, I would try to solve dilemmas of this kind on case-by-case basis.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

2 Kaleon Moonshae:
Whew, thanks for such a lengthy and well-considered reply!!!
Yeah, I understand that such paradoxes are intentionally off-beat and have little to do with real-life situations, but some are quite odious, because they demonstrate the flaws of such method of thinking. They do stimulate cogitation, but at the same time they can lead one's thought into overly abstract areas -- so abstract, in fact, that the very process of thinking becomes meaningless.
Real-world scholastics helped develop human reasoning, but too often did it concern itself with really peripheral and weird matters. Apart from this God and mountain paradox, scholasts discussed such themes as "Could the Lord assume the form of a pumpkin to spread His word, and could the pumpkin preach, die on a cross and raise from the dead?" and the well-known "How many angels/devils can sit on the edge of a knife/point of a pin?"
It may look like nit-picking, but such way of making questions about the world is overly metaphysical. Personally, I would try to solve dilemmas of this kind on case-by-case basis.

Wow, you have completely changed my beginning thoughts of you, thank you. That was very studious and focused and I enjoyed it. I agree that some logic problems can lead to too much overcomplication and 'thought for nothing but thought' type situations. The example of the pumpkin is one that I would agree is a bit out there. As you have seen, however, at least three people have used my example to come up with very diverse and interesting scenarios, by filling in the blanks and giving else/then/if kinds of statements we have learned a lot about people's own personal view of the world. The angels on the head of the pin can actually be very real world thought provoking. It takes into account the very nature of angels and spirits.. do they take up mass? Are they pure thought? If they are able to effect the real world then they must have energy which means they must have mass, so there *is* a limit to the number you can have dance. This may sound silly, but it gets you thinking about the *nature* of angels which can help you look at the nature of other things because it trains your mind in a certain way.

-

Something aimed toward Basilisk. I think over the course of our extremely interesting debate we both may have lost our original points. All of that responding to responses will do it to yah every time. I apologize for wandering all over the place with my talk and muddling the water. So I thought I would get back to basics.

Starting all over, I think what I was trying to get at originally when you made your comment that all societies have the same (or very similar) moral idea of good and evil (at least that is the way I understood you when you said that the moral concepts were similar and cultural differences were not actually so different) is thus:

1) Western European traditions tend to be similar due to a common origin in the tigris/euphrates area.

JCI, zoastrianism, hinduism and early buddhism all share a similar concept of the spiritual world (not completely the same, but I agree that at heart they are). They all have a certain concept of good and evil as opposing forces (some say equal but opposite, some say good is stronger).

2)Eastern cultures (including native american here because of the land bridge and the different fundamental belief structure) tend to not recognize "good" and "evil." (note that I said tend, some do, but they are rare)

I know, a lot of you are calling foul about now, but hold on. Books on Eastern culture do use the term good and evil, but that is translation. If you want to use the yin and yang as proof of good and evil, again, it doesn't work, at least not in the western way. The y/y is based on the idea of siblings, each equal to the other and containing the other. It is about balance between 'natural' and unnatural' laws, and only then if the y/y is not present. This is not the same thing as good and evil. If someone has examples against this, let me know and I will take them each in turn. All that I ask is that the examples be from classical eastern history (ie before the east met the west and there was a mingling of the minds and a lot of melding happened on both sides).

3) Yes I know there are examples that go against both points (the egyptians did not see good and evil quite the same, nor the baalites, nor a lot of other prejudaic religions and there are examples of smaller religions in china which do have a hard line between a 'good' and 'evil' ideal.

4) I may be full of dung. I am an aries and know that I tend to think I know more than I actually do sometimes. These are my theories and therefore may be completely wrong. Basilisk has already made some points that have changed my opinion and showed that I was wrong. (good job on getting an aries to admit they're wrong, that's tough)

peace and two cents