Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 1116890" data-attributes="member: 2486">Hear, hear!  This point cannot be emphasised enough.  Most people do not follow a prescribed dogma or alignment, but simply make their way through life treading a path between self-interest and conscience.  Very few people indeed think in terms of cosmic good and evil. I'm not an experienced enough theologian to rebut this effectively, but I'm an experienced enough ENWorlder to know that this is a dangerous path to tread if the thread is to stay open... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />  I would tend to agree.  People who tend to find themselves at the top generally tend to be neutral- partially through the sheer fact that they form the majority of a population; partially that good is often self-defeating in practice and evil is often rooted out in the end (particularly with detect spells).  However, there is no reason why evil cannot reach the top- wealthy nobles can easily get alignment concealing spells and/or items.  More interestingly, evil might be 'tolerated' by a neutral or even good society if there are practical benefits.  As a LN ruler, I would be loath to sack my LE chief advisor if he is both loyal and competent (for this example, he is evil for an unconnected reason, such as being abusive to his wife and kids)- and a LN society might well tolerate a LE ruler (again, evil through unconnected reasons) if he proves himself to be capable. For several reasons.  The first is, as Jurgen points out, a good society believes in altruism, not arbitrary punishment.  Secondly, as illustrated above, there can be pragmatic reasons for not locking up individual 'evil' people.  Thirdly, there is the 'macro-social' argument.  For example, if a society went around actively locking up 'evil' people, there is a good chance that the 'evil' people, even if erstwhile law-abiding citizens, would go into open conflict against the 'good' people.  The result is chaos and a debilitating civil war (which could end up with more suffering in the long run), so it is *less* evil to let evil people carry on their everyday lives.  Fourthly, prison capacity  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> .  Fifthly, they have not committed any act, necessarily, to harm society or others, so there is no *reason* to lock them up.  Being evil does not mean that one has or will commit a crime; it merely means that one is greater disposed to committing a crime.  Locking up 'evil' people because they commit a greater level of crimes, demographically speaking, is effectively locking up a particular section of society simply because the crime % in that demographic is higher.  I won't spell the next logical step out to you- just read crime statistic by demographic and you can see how chilling the logical extension of this notion would be in practice. Two problems for absolutists quickly arises.  Firstly, what is "good" and "evil"?  Woodelf's paradox must be answered- the notion of two diametrically opposed notion, neither of which is good nor evil; I defy you to answer it.  Secondly, you must query whether good or evil is based primarily in cause or consequence.  For example, if you murder a tyrant and liberate his people, this is generally seen as good.  Now, assume that instead of a freedom fighter, you are a self-interested thief.  You have robbed several nobles, and want to raid the royal treasury.  Whilst breaking into the royal treasury, you see the king counting his wealth, and kill him.  Was it a good or evil act?  You acted purely out of self-interest (motive: evil), but the outcome (freeing the people) was good.  This dichotomy poses a fundamental and irresolvable problem to moral absolutists.</blockquote>

Verification