Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1812825" data-attributes="member: 18280">D&amp;D draws a fairly sharp distinction between, say, killing the orcs in the dungeon and killing the peasants in the field.&nbsp; Both are the same act -- killing -- but the choice of victim determines the ethical nature of the act.&nbsp; Killing the orcs is neutral.&nbsp; Killing the peasants is evil.&nbsp; Whether or not this is supportable in real-world ethics is questionable, but it is the ethical structure inherent in the D&amp;D rules.Note that killing the orcs is still neutral.&nbsp; It is not a good act.Bringing harm to the harmful is acceptable in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Not good, but not evil either.&nbsp; Sometimes, bringing harm to the harmful is necessary to prevent evil, in which case it is a neutral act that good characters will perform.Harming others for your gain is, however, pretty much the definition of evil in D&amp;D.&nbsp; The questions become:(1)&nbsp; Are you harming others?Stealing from the rich causes less harm, one could argue, than stealing from the poor.&nbsp; So, by choosing his victims, a thief can actually mitigate his slide to evil, IMO.(2)&nbsp; Are you out for your own gain?Giving a portion of the loot to those who truly need it, ala Robin Hood, is another potential mitigation.&nbsp; Or, for example, stealing the goblin's swords not because you want swords, but because the goblins were planning on using them to raid the peasants in the fields.As the difference between &quot;killing&quot; and &quot;murder&quot; is found in the motive and circumstances, so is the difference between &quot;neutral theft&quot; and &quot;evil theft&quot;.&nbsp; One is opportunistic, perhaps misguided, but not out to screw someone else over.&nbsp; The other is screwing someone else over.&nbsp; Simply put, when the harm you are causing is fairly severe, and fairly obvious (i.e., breaking into cars, mugging, stealing some poor shmo's television), then it is an evil act.&nbsp; Where the harm you are causing is mitigated by circumstances, inclusive of (but not limited to) the relatively small amount of harm you are doing vs. the relative amount of good your acts may bring about for you and (especially) for others, then it is a neutral act.At least, IMHO, and in the way that I read the alignment descriptions in the rules.&nbsp; Of course, YMMV.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1812825, member: 18280"] D&D draws a fairly sharp distinction between, say, killing the orcs in the dungeon and killing the peasants in the field. Both are the same act -- killing -- but the choice of victim determines the ethical nature of the act. Killing the orcs is neutral. Killing the peasants is evil. Whether or not this is supportable in real-world ethics is questionable, but it [I][B]is[/B][/I] the ethical structure inherent in the D&D rules. Note that killing the orcs is still neutral. It is not a good act. Bringing harm to the harmful is acceptable in D&D. Not good, but not evil either. Sometimes, bringing harm to the harmful is necessary to prevent evil, in which case it is a neutral act that good characters will perform. Harming others for your gain is, however, pretty much the definition of evil in D&D. The questions become: (1) Are you harming others? Stealing from the rich causes less harm, one could argue, than stealing from the poor. So, by choosing his victims, a thief can actually mitigate his slide to evil, IMO. (2) Are you out for your own gain? Giving a portion of the loot to those who truly need it, ala Robin Hood, is another potential mitigation. Or, for example, stealing the goblin's swords not because you want swords, but because the goblins were planning on using them to raid the peasants in the fields. As the difference between "killing" and "murder" is found in the motive and circumstances, so is the difference between "neutral theft" and "evil theft". One is opportunistic, perhaps misguided, but not out to screw someone else over. The other is screwing someone else over. Simply put, when the harm you are causing is fairly severe, and fairly obvious (i.e., breaking into cars, mugging, stealing some poor shmo's television), then it is an evil act. Where the harm you are causing is mitigated by circumstances, inclusive of (but not limited to) the relatively small amount of harm you are doing vs. the relative amount of good your acts may bring about for you and (especially) for others, then it is a neutral act. At least, IMHO, and in the way that I read the alignment descriptions in the rules. Of course, YMMV. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification