Player Dilemma

[Shining Dragon]

I'll put to you the same question I asked earlier in the thread:

Let's say I've spent the last five years being evil, but I've just realised the error of my ways and have (sincerely) resolved to do only good from now on. Is my alignment, immediately after making that decision:

1. Still evil. I have to perform good deeds to make up for my past wickedness.
2. Neutral. I'm no longer evil, but to become good requires demonstrable progress.
3. Good. It's what's inside that counts.

-Hyp.

Again. If the game has been, so far, a typical DND dungeon-crawl type game such an NPC does not exist. All the villains are through-and-through evil and not likely to change their alignment as soon as the characters appear to whoop-his-arse.

These deeply philosophical discussions may be very thought provoking and result in some suprising revelations about your beliefs and such, but if its not fun then I'm not likely to be playing.

Don't get me wrong. Such games can be fun - but you can't just turn what has been up to that point a typical "we be the heroes, they be the vilains, lets rock" game into one at the drop of a hat and expect all the Players to roll with the change.

Edit: By the way - does this person intend on submitting themselves to justice for all the evil they have comitted? Or is it "I'm a new man, you cannot punish me for the wrongs the old guy committed".

 

[Sundragon2012]

Justify your assertion. Why can a human child have no alignment, while a goblin child can?

Children have murdered people, tortured animals, lied, stolen, and so on. Some of this might be 'didn't know any better', but some of them gain genuine pleasure from causing pain to others. Is this not the definition of evil?

-Hyp.

Children, like those you describe are an abberation amongst our species, there are not enough of them to provide a percentage in regards to the whole of humanity. These grow up to be the real predators and bastards amongst us. They are themselves often the victims of horrible abuse, but sometimes not. But lets not forget their mental damage of their lives, in the real world, is reflected in a mental illness, a psychopathic or sociopathic personality.

In D&D and high fantasy in general the evil are evil and not merely the victims of bad mental wiring or a terrible, abusive environment, they are evil because in fantasy evil is a real, tangible force. Madness exists in D&D but its not the root of all or even more evil.


Chris

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But lets not forget their mental damage of their lives, in the real world, is reflected in a mental illness

Be aware that you are making assumptions about the nature of Evil in the real world that not everyone shares.

 

[Hypersmurf]

All the villains are through-and-through evil and not likely to change their alignment as soon as the characters appear to whoop-his-arse.

This isn't a campaign villain. This is a guy who happens to be in the same tavern as the PCs, who has been very very bad, but has had a change of heart. He's met this girl, and wants to be a better person to impress her.

Edit: By the way - does this person intend on submitting themselves to justice for all the evil they have comitted? Or is it "I'm a new man, you cannot punish me for the wrongs the old guy committed".

He isn't admitting anything to anyone. He knows he's killed, and stolen, and lied, and been an evil person. He wants to make up for that. But it's not society's idea of punishment he's interested in. He's performing his own penance - this is a personal redemption.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

There's no two ways about it. You can't say oh yes but he's evil so its ok. It's never ok that the point of being virtuous and good. Stop reading the rules and start understanding the game.

What exactly is your reasoning here? Where are you getting this from? Because from my perspective, understanding the game starts with understanding the rules. And from there, it moves into understanding the designers' intentions, and from there into the players expectations and desires.

As far as I can tell, the very existence of the paladin class invalidates your "it's never good and virtuous to whack a guy because he's evil" stance. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what you base your assertion on, save the fact that this is your own moral stance and the way you've chosen to define the game in spite of itself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Children, like those you describe are an abberation amongst our species, there are not enough of them to provide a percentage in regards to the whole of humanity.

I don't disagree with that. But they exist, and they are evil, and they would register on a Detect Evil spell.

In D&D and high fantasy in general the evil are evil and not merely the victims of bad mental wiring or a terrible, abusive environment, they are evil because in fantasy evil is a real, tangible force. Madness exists in D&D but its not the root of all or even more evil.

Okay. So let's say the in-game evil human children under discussion are the result of that real, tangible force.

-Hyp.

 

[haakon1]

No, it would not. Delivering the goblin children into the hands of a group that will only ensure that they grow up to be evil goblins is unacceptible. Indeed, I'd consider it irresponsible, since you're guaranteeing that those children will become future raiders, doing their best to kill human farmers and shepherds.

IMC, a goblin whose parents were slain by a paladin, and who was saved by that paladin, and raised by a bugbear king who made peace with the humans . . . that's some cool, complex stuff going on. The goblin kid could turn out many, many different ways.

It's absolutely an issue. It comes back to, "what the heck is the paladin going to do with these children?" If he can't find a group of goblins who aren't evil to take them in, what would your answer to this question be? Apparently, it's "turn them over to other evil goblins, and hope that they turn out to be like Drizz't." :\

Leave them to their own devices would be the usual answer. Again, I don't know why there were no female survivors to raise the kiddies. Or at least non-toddlers. Every goblin the equivalent of a 7 year old or older is dead? What happened to the equivalent of 7-12 year kiddies, too young too fight, but old enough to find their own food if need be? If they are all toddlers, giving them to the bugbear king to raise is the least evil alternative.

Did you read my response to another poster upthread? I've amended my statement regarding your point about moral relativism, somewhat. I'm not going to argue the "Just War" theory, because in the real world all morality is relative. But I do admit that in the D&D world, the "Just War" theory can be morally absolute, if the DM so decides.

I read it after I posted. Opps. I think this argument comes down to differences in real world philosophy, as reflected in DMing style. In the real world, I think moral relativism is crap, and so my game definition of good and evil is also absolute, which is just me plus I also think it's more fun and classically heroic.

Note that your example mentions "negligence" with regards to the lesser charge of Manslaughter. Are you arguing that if one kills the parents of small children, then leaves those children to die, that's merely negligence on the part of the killer? I think you'd find that any competent DA could make a fairly good case for murder, under those circumstances. And that's what I'm arguing. If you kill the parents, you're killing the children. Doing it by leaving them in the house to die of starvation is not less morally reprehensible than quickly knifing them.

In a fantasy world, an abandoned baby doesn't NECESSARILY die -- think of Romulus and Remus, or Oedipus and I think a few other Greek heroes, or Moses in his basket . . .

However, I'll agree with you, which is perhaps your point, that the moral obligation to goblins is lower, IMHO, because they are inherently INCLINED towards evil. But it's not so low that you can bayonet their babies, or boil them alive for kicks, IMHO. So, collateral damage is regretable but acceptable (neutral), abandoning goblin babes in the wood is acceptable but regretable (neutral), bringing them to be raised by druids or good goblins is good, bringing them to be raised by the bugbear king who has made peace is acceptable and could turn out well or badly (good), and bayoneting them and bragging about is evil.

I talk too much.

 

[Corben Willemne]

What exactly is your reasoning here? Where are you getting this from? Because from my perspective, understanding the game starts with understanding the rules. And from there, it moves into understanding the designers' intentions, and from there into the players expectations and desires.

As far as I can tell, the very existence of the paladin class invalidates your "it's never good and virtuous to whack a guy because he's evil" stance. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what you base your assertion on, save the fact that this is your own moral stance and the way you've chosen to define the game in spite of itself.

Well ok lets take that to its conclusion.
Does a Paladin "whack" a guy because he is in danger of becoming evil? A human? at birth? Who may make the wrong decision in sixteen years? Thats farsical and typical of an America Military philosophy of shoot it, it may move soon!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Let's say you're an advance scout for an Army of Goodness and Light, and you've sneaked up on an evil human adult sentry, dozing at his post.

If you kill him, no alarm is raised, and the evil human army falls easily. If you don't kill him, you risk his alerting the evil human army to the presence of the Army of Goodness and Light.

Killing the dozing sentry - evil, or not evil?

Regrettable, but Not Evil. The sentry has made a choice. He's chosen to attach himself to the evil human army, helping further the evil human army's goals and objectives. His death is unfortunate, but cannot be helped.

It's certainly not good to kill a human being, thereby removing his chance to become a better person. But it's not evil to kill one that has thrown his lot in with evil, and if unchecked will see to the destruction of the good and the innocent.

I should note that I've never bought into the "killing someone who's helpless is worse than killing someone who can kill you back," so the fact that the sentry is dozing doesn't make any difference, for me.

 

[haakon1]

Would your answer be the same if I haven't decided to do good deeds henceforth, but have resolved to stop doing anything evil?

I've sworn off kicking puppies, selling drugs to small children, stealing little old ladies' handbags, and raping elves. But I have no intention to give to charity, volunteer at the homeless shelter, or help cripples cross the street.

I've just now made the decision - no more evil. Is my alignment still evil, neutral, or (unlikely as it may be) good?

Again, interesting question. I'd probably have that detect as NE, eventually moving to N.