Limits of morality in the game?

[mmadsen]

No.

You say that like you're contradicting me.

Mercy - in the classical sense rather than the crude or vernacular sense - is based on the idea of the sanctity of life itself, irrespective of who holds it. In this sense, it is right, but very regrettable and to be avoided if at all possible, to take the life of one to preserve two.

Again, mercy makes more sense if we value the life of our target. Would you kill an insect to save a person? Would you kill a plant? Would you "kill" a robot? Would you kill a demon? Presumably yes, and probably without a second thought to the sanctity of its life.

Would you kill a criminal to save another person? Now you're considering the issue in much greater depth, because the criminal is human, with potential for both good and evil. Mercy makes more sense, because (a) we value the life of our target, and (b) our target might not cause great harm in the future.

 

[edgewaters]

You say that like you're contradicting me.
Again, mercy makes more sense if we value the life of our target. Would you kill an insect to save a person? Would you kill a plant? Would you "kill" a robot? Would you kill a demon? Presumably yes, and probably without a second thought to the sanctity of its life.

It's more appealing if we value the life of our target, but it's not what mercy in its historical or classic form is really about. You kill an insect to save a person because the insect isn't thought to be capable of suffering to the degree the person is.

Killing evil beings or persons is regarded as mercy whether or not you're saving any life in a classical chivalric/Christian sense applicable to Paladins, because you are sparing them the possibility of earning themselves condemnation in the hereafter - perhaps even sparing their immortal life, if they haven't yet committed evil or if you can manage to convert them before killing them. If you take the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, for instance, various knightly Orders could kill Cathars with impunity and be in full accord with their theology and philosophy on mercy, because they were saving the Cathars potentially thousands of years of Purgatory. It's not that they didn't believe in the sanctity of life, they did (or at least supposedly did), it's that the doctrine held them to be easing suffering to a degree that made the killing a small matter by contrast.

Would you kill a criminal to save another person? Now you're considering the issue in much greater depth, because the criminal is human, with potential for both good and evil. Mercy makes more sense, because (a) we value the life of our target, and (b) our target might not cause great harm in the future.

This is a far too modern perspective for any conception of a Paladin that I'd care to indulge. You're looking for a modern sense in medieval ethics, and its just not there.

 

[mmadsen]

You're looking for a modern sense in medieval ethics, and its just not there.

I was presenting an argument outside any particular theological viewpoint, assuming that a quasi-Christian paladin would value the lives of races with souls and free-will and not the lives of soulless beings of pure evil, but recognizing that the theology of different settings differs, even if the logic doesn't.

 

[mmadsen]

Killing evil beings or persons is regarded as mercy whether or not you're saving any life in a classical chivalric/Christian sense applicable to Paladins, because you are sparing them the possibility of earning themselves condemnation in the hereafter - perhaps even sparing their immortal life, if they haven't yet committed evil or if you can manage to convert them before killing them. If you take the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, for instance, various knightly Orders could kill Cathars with impunity and be in full accord with their theology and philosophy on mercy, because they were saving the Cathars potentially thousands of years of Purgatory. It's not that they didn't believe in the sanctity of life, they did (or at least supposedly did), it's that the doctrine held them to be easing suffering to a degree that made the killing a small matter by contrast.

I am not familiar with this argument. Could you explain it in more detail?

My understanding is that a crusader or conquistador would theoretically prefer to convert heathens and infidels without violence, but violence works quite well at hastening a conversion -- and, of course, brings the holy warrior many benefits in this world...

I was also under the assumption that killing heathens and infidels was considered no great (spiritual) loss, since they were likely going to eternal torment sooner or later. I hadn't heard the argument that killing them -- and not just threatening to kill them -- saved their souls.

 

[edgewaters]

My understanding is that a crusader or conquistador would theoretically prefer to convert heathens and infidels without violence, but violence works quite well at hastening a conversion

Conversions at swordpoint are suspect, though. Conquistadors are a different era altogether, and one with a drastically different theological outlook than an era such as the Carolingian period. The Song of Roland and the Discovery and Conquest of Mexico are worlds apart in ethical approach.

I was also under the assumption that killing heathens and infidels was considered no great (spiritual) loss, since they were likely going to eternal torment sooner or later.

Depends on the era of course, and whether we are speaking of archetypal ideals of the period (Roland) or the actual reality (Godfrey de Bouillon etc). One was austere, merciful, uncompromising, a defender of the weak, and courageous; the other was swathed in luxury, proud, and full of temerity rather than courage. Remember that the archetype epitomized in Roland is everything that the most ascetic, penitent monk is, but armed to defend the defenceless and for no other reason. The reality need not even show mercy to Christians, if they were not of noble birth ("The gates of mercy shall be all shut up, And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart, In liberty of bloody hand, shall range, With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants . . . What is’t to me, when you yourselves are cause, If your pure maidens fall into the hand Of hot and forcing violation?")

Killing is always a spiritual loss in Christian theology, especially out of wrath or pride (which are cardinal sins). Killing infidel for not being Christian would typically violate both and possibly other cardinal sins, and requires a good degree of abstract rationalizing before it was ever received as permissable. An example of a justifying argument would be that anything that threatened to destroy Christendom might extinguish the light of redemption and damn all mankind, or things along that line.

"He who can think of war and can support it without great sorrow is truly dead to human feelings," in St. Augustine's words.

I hadn't heard the argument that killing them -- and not just threatening to kill them -- saved their souls.

Killing them doesn't save their souls, but it might save them time in purgatory if they were generally good people. It might also save other souls, if the heathens in question happened to be of a proselytic faith such as Islam or one popular among the locals such as paganism, or a schismatic heresy such as Catharism.

Again this is typified by St. Augustine's theories on war and violence, in which he insisted that Moses condemned the idolators worshipping the golden calf to death out of charity and not wrath, as he was preventing them from living in sin.

 

[hopeless]

Limits of morality

How about baby demons?

See Hellboy

 

[hopeless]

Limits of morality

No.
No.

No.

OTOH, sometimes it is very, very necessary, and the forces of Good take up that burden because it must be done. The important question, IMHO, is are these actions evil? IMHO, the answer to the first question is No...if you can know that answer, and the other two enter a more grey area.

RC

I believe the best explanation is from Star Wars in that it is always easier to take the path that provides least obstruction and taking the hard way (Good) is never easy but life is never meant to be easy and Dm's who think they're god should think twice about going behind the screen because to get that good requires them to be impartial and open minded traits I have found to be harder than it appears and thats from experience of others dming including myself.

I believe Bound in Iron by Edward Bolme has provided a good explanation of this quandry and is well worth reading.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, mercy makes more sense if we value the life of our target. Would you kill an insect to save a person? Would you kill a plant? Would you "kill" a robot? Would you kill a demon? Presumably yes, and probably without a second thought to the sanctity of its life.

Would you kill a criminal to save another person? Now you're considering the issue in much greater depth, because the criminal is human, with potential for both good and evil. Mercy makes more sense, because (a) we value the life of our target, and (b) our target might not cause great harm in the future.

May I point out that, in D&D, good is defined by valuing life, and evil by not valuing the life of our target?

 

[mmadsen]

May I point out that, in D&D, good is defined by valuing life, and evil by not valuing the life of our target?

Certainly, but even if we value the life of our target, we also value the lives our target may ruin, and we have to weigh them against one another.

In the case of a baby demon (or newly spawn vampire, or whatever), do we value its life at all? Then, even if we do, do we expect it to ruin more lives than we can justify?

Where does a baby goblin fall in this moral calculus? Presumably it's "only" very likely to kill good people. If we decide it should live, is it somehow better to leave it to die than to kill it outright?

 

[edgewaters]

Certainly, but even if we value the life of our target, we also value the lives our target may ruin

True but there's no "if" in a generally "good" outlook about valuing life. It is valued. Thats not to say there might not be reasons to end it.