D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Maxperson]

Yeah but getting charged with something and getting convicted? Two different things. Being charged with a crime does not make you guilty of said crime.

Nice Red Herring there.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Meh. For many people it's just one step away from a wargame. Not my style, but I think D&D can and should support a wide variety of styles and preferences.

Great! More broad-based Orcs rather than just narrowly-defined barbarians would help support a wide variety of styles. Feels like a win-win.

 

[Maxperson]

Hard to say.

No it's not.

I guess it depends on how you view the nuking of two major cities in Japan.

After all, the argument has been made (whether you agree with it or not is another matter, I personally do not) that the nukes ended the war much earlier than it would have and spared many more lives than were lost.

So, if you view those acts as evil then yes, it would be good. If you view it as a good act, then no, killing Opp's would be evil.

Those were absolutely evil acts. No doubt about it. You can't murder innocent men, women and children and have it be anything else.

Then one must contend with whether the existence of nukes constitute good or evil.

The existence of a tool is not good or evil. How you use the tool is good or evil. Using nukes against innocents = evil. Using nukes to destroy a meteor heading to earth, saving millions = good.

 

[MGibster]

have we made any conclusions at all?

Yup. D&D is in a constant state of flux as it attempts to remain relevant to it's core customer base. Some of us are no longer part of WotC's core customer base for D&D though.

 

[HJFudge]

No it's not.

Those were absolutely evil acts. No doubt about it. You can't murder innocent men, women and children and have it be anything else.

The existence of a tool is not good or evil. How you use the tool is good or evil. Using nukes against innocents = evil. Using nukes to destroy a meteor heading to earth, saving millions = good.

At this point its clear you're projecting your real life morality on things and refusing to recognize that people have differing moralities that are also valid.

Also your views are internally inconsistent and hard to parse, changing at whim.

So is using nukes to destroy a meteor that you didn't know had alien life that was coming to make contact: Good or evil? You thought you were trying to save millions, sure, but you actually just blew up a diplomatic envoy.

But if you never find that out, in your view what the person did was good.

 

[Maxperson]

At this point its clear you're projecting your real life morality on things and refusing to recognize that people have differing moralities that are also valid.

Yep. I refuse to recognize any morality where it's good to murder an innocent as valid.

Also your views are internally inconsistent and hard to parse, changing at whim.

If by inconsistent, you mean consistent, I agree. I've changed nothing about my views.

So is using nukes to destroy a meteor that you didn't know had alien life that was coming to make contact: Good or evil? You thought you were trying to save millions, sure, but you actually just blew up a diplomatic envoy.

Accidental death is different than murder and you know it.

But if you never find that out, in your view what the person did was good.

Perception(or misperception) doesn't change reality.

 

[HJFudge]

Yep. I refuse to recognize any morality where murdering an innocent is valid.

If by inconsistent, you mean consistent, I agree. I've changed nothing about my views.

Accidental death is different than murder and you know it.

Perception(or misperception) doesn't change reality.

An alien sending down someone to kill the person who ordered the meteor be nuked: Good or Evil?

The aliens tried to convince them "Hey dude dont shoot we're peaceful"

Person thinks that they are lying.

Game theories it out:
If I shoot and they are peaceful, some lives are lost, which is bad but diplomatic relations can be repaired.
If I shoot and they are not peaceful, I save the world.
If I do not shoot and they are peaceful, nothing bad happens and we begin diplomatic contact.
If I do not shoot and they are not peaceful, the whole world is blown up.

The correct choice, the MORAL CHOICE, is to shoot that meteor down. The person doing it is not evil by any means nor is he committing an evil act. He is doing what is right. The risks of not shooting it down from his perspective are too great and far outweigh the risks of shooting it down.

The aliens have the same choice here. To them the correct moral choice is to stop the people from launching the nuke.

Just cause you cover your eyes and refuse to recognize something doesn't mean it stops existing.

Also wtf is INNOCENT in this context? Oppenheimer himself would disagree with you that he is innocent, for example. "For I have become death, destroyer of worlds." The Prince may not believe what he is going to do (or not do) causes a war, but his belief on it has no bearing on what happens. The scientist also, how is someone developing a poison for a water supply in any way shape or form INNOCENT?

 

[Remathilis]

have we made any conclusions at all?

We've jumped to plenty of them.

 

[Lanefan]

The idea that any race can NOT learn the meaning of personal property is dangerous. This I think is far more an attack on the Rom then the vistani

Er...there's a leap there that I'm just not seeing.

Are you suggesting that every race and culture has to have a more-or-less similar outlook on the concept of personal property; or - put another way - that the concept of personal property has to be universal among non-alien species; and that it's racist or otherwise problematic to have one or more cultures that don't view personal property in the same way or even care about it at all? Because if yes, this rules out:

--- cultures where everybody collectively "owns" everything (i.e. all resources are shared for the common good; no personal ownership)
--- cultures where nobody "owns" anything (i.e. Kender as commonly portrayed; ownership simply does not exist as a concept)
--- cultures where ownership forever resides with the creator and-or its descendants (i.e. the Goblins in Harry Potter)
--- cultures whose primary goal is to take from others and then hoard the loot (i.e. a Dragon-like "I want it all" outlook on life)
--- cultures whose primary goal is to give to others (think vow-of-poverty Monks and apply that to a whole culture)

Or, on a different tack, are you suggesting that having a culture based on (what we see as) thievery is problematic, even though that culture doesn't see what they do as thievery because in that culture thievery simply doesn't and can't exist as a concept?

 

[Campbell]

Here's my personal take : there is a world of difference between preemptive violence and preventative violence. Preemptive violence is when you engage in violence against someone there is evidence someone means to do specific harm and they pose an immanent danger. Preemptive violence is sometimes morally justified, but should never be entered into lightly or with moral surety. Preventive violence is when you undertake violent action against someone with no evidence of a specific danger they mean to take or where that danger is not immanent. The reason why preventive violence is wrong is because you are taking away someone's moral agency away from them. You are treating them as guilty of actions they have not yet taken or even planning to take.

I am personally fine with preemptive violence taken with due diligence. I am even fine with games where preventive violence happens or might be a thing PCs do. I am not fine with it being treated as the morally right thing to do.