Slavery and evil

[Geron Raveneye]

The "innocent" qualifier never appears in the PHB or DMG.

Just curious...do you mean it has never been "quantified" for D&D, like they did to the word "enemy" in D&D 3.5 PHB glossary? Or do you mean it's never used in context in D&D PHB and DMG?

 

[fusangite]

Just curious...do you mean it has never been "quantified" for D&D, like they did to the word "enemy" in D&D 3.5 PHB glossary? Or do you mean it's never used in context in D&D PHB and DMG?

(a) Never quantified. I misphrased earlier.

As John pointed out, it is utilized in an inconsistent and undefined way. But apparently, BOED does define it, or so the rumour goes.

 

[John Morrow]

The "innocent" qualifier never appears in the PHB or DMG. I think it is a mistake to discuss the core rules and rely on rules that do not appear in the core books.

All of the quotes that I've been using are taken from the 3.5 SRD. The last time I checked, I thought the wording was the same in the 3.5 PHB but I'll verify that tonight. The 3.5 SRD clearly uses the word "innocent" in several places, as I've quoted.

I would never buy BoED or BoVD; it seems unreasonable to suggest that by purchasing the core books I have not been given the equipment necessary to run the alignment system.

I agree. I'm not using BoED or BoVD. In fact, I don't own either one and have only looked through them in the bookstore (including two nights ago, after this discussion started).

I think the PHB/SRD tried to be vague enough to let a GM use it in different ways. In fact, the SRD alignment section says, "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent." Basically, I think they wanted to be flexible so reduced it all to a fairly fundamental core.

 

[John Morrow]

This 'innnocents' thing that keeps coming up bothers me, and the argument that (in D&D) it is OK to do bad things to bad people (eg hurt, kill) but not to 'innocents'.

Why? The distinction between the guilty and the innocent, good people and bad poeople, is the core basis of most legal justice systems and most moral systems. In fact, if you read the Bill of Rights, you'll notice the phrase in the "without due process of law" in the 5th Amendment right after "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property". The 14th Amendment uses the exact same language and applies it to the states. What does "due process of law" do? It determines whether they are innocent or guilty of crimes. If they are innocent, the government may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. If they are guilty, the government may. PUt in really basic terms, the guilty deserve to be punished and the innocent do not. Mapped onto a more moral sense, the idea is for bad people to be punished and for nice people to be left alone.
`
Is this really that alien of an idea these days?

This seems to me a slippery slope because 'innocent' is a) absolutist and b) has to be judged subjectively. Even in D&D detecting someone's alignment doesn't tell you if they're 'innocent' or not.

I think you are thinking legally rather than morally. Look at Merriam-Websters definition of "innocent" 1b -- "harmless in effect or intention". American Heritage offers two more definitions of "innocent" that are appropriate -- 1 ("Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing;") and 3 ("Not dangerous or harmfu; innocuous;"). None of those definitions are so subjective as to create a slippery slope.

Since Evil isn't bound to respect innocence, clearly the definition of "innocent" is from the perspective of Good and any or all of these could be applied in that way. These definitions are also such that they'd clearly show up as part of a person alignment, with Neutral being unclear. A peson who is "harmless in effect [and] intent", who is "uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing", or who is "innocuous" would not be Evil and would most likely be Good.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[John Morrow]

Um, you do know the difference between "often CE" and "always CE," don't you?

Sure. But what does "often CE" really mean? According to the Monster Manual, it means that at least 50% of the creatures have that alignment. But does that mean that they can be any other alignment?

Does it make sense that the "usually" aligned Aboleth, Banshee, Beholder, Cloaker, Cinder Swarm, Derro, Displacer Beat, Hag (various types), Harpy, Lamia, or Mind Flayer would ever be, say, Lawful Good? Or does it make sense that the "usually" in those cases allow for only a limited set of other alignments? See below...

Or are you seriously suggesting that your two options to a problem are (1) kill them or (2) ignore them?

There are other options, but those would seem to fail the Goodness test, if you apply it to everyone equally, on oppression grounds. If you don't leave them alone and don't kill them, then what do you do with them? That's what I'm asking you.

Some evil creatures simply do evil acts if doing so is convenient. Like, say, slaughtering a village because some day that village might attack you. These evil beings won't necessarily go out of their way to kill, but they do not think that killing is wrong. They even think that, in circumstances when it benefits them, killing is the right thing to do. This does not mean that they like killing, merely that they are not opposed to it.

The problem is that your examples do not simply describe killing out of convenience. Your examples describe killing with a cause (self defense in the case of the village and when circumstances benefit them in the second case), which could arguably just be Neutral. Killing out of convenience means "'Man, how could you do that? You just walked into the house and killed all those people?' And the guy said, 'Well, they was home.'" (Quote courtesy of Richard Pryor.) It doesn't mean "killing with justification". Even if they don't like killing to the point where they actively seek to do it, an indifference to killing others is sociopathic. And I think that you are trying to suggest the existance of "harmless Evil", which, if it isn't an oyxmoron, makes the term "Evil" pretty useless.

And that isn't "The Evil side of Neutral" either. The definition of Neutral in D&D boils down to "I understand what Good is on about. I've got some problems with Evil. I would like to be Good, and would be Good if it were easier, but I lack the commitment to do so."

I don't think Neutral necessarily wants to be Good nor would it be Good if it were easier. I don't think the definition demands that. The compunctions could come from wanting to be a better person or it could come from fear of the consequences of killing an innocent person. That's why I talked about the "Evil Side of Neutral". The "Evil Side of Neutral" is Neutral out of fear of the consequences of being Evil. The "Good Side of Neutral" is Neutral because it's too hard to be Good. There are also other types of Neutral.

(Now on its third term?):

I read it the first, second, and third times. If it answered my questions, I wouldn't be asking more of them. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result generally doesn't turn out very well. At least try to re-explain yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting.

Oooookay. Out of curiosity, what percentage of creatures with the [Evil] subtype are not "always" some form of evil alignment?

I just happen to have a database that can answer that question...

The following creatures from the 3E Fiend Folio have an "Often Neutral Evil" alignment:

Demodand, Farastu
Demodand, Kelubar
Demodand, Shator

The following creatures from the 3E Fiend Folio have an "Usually Neutral Evil" and "Usually Lawful Evil" alignment:

Kaorti
Maelephant

The following creature from the 3E Monster Manual II has a "Usually Lawful Evil" alignment:

Half-Fiend, Durzagon

See my point above about what "Usually" and "Often" means. In fact, you'll notice that the Half-Fiend template says "Any Evil", thus the "Usually" in "Usually Lawful Evil", in the case of a Half-Fiend, Durzagon, really means "Any Evil". So why can't the "Usually Neutral Evil" Goblin simply mean that a Goblin can be "Any Evil"? Does it have to allow for the existence of Lawful Good Goblins?

What percentage of these creatures do not radiate evil?"

The description of the Evil subtype says:

"Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment."

In theory, with an Atonement spell, a repentent Erinyes Devil could become a Lawful Good paladin and radiate Good and Evil and be affected by spells that affect Good and Evil, I suppose. But the point remains that the "Evil" subtype does not necessarily indicate a creature that is behaviorally Evil.

If you have a poodle from the Nine Hells, don't you have to give it a template to make it of the [Evil] subtype? How many of those templates do not change the creature's alignment to evil, if it is not evil already?

You are, of course, evading the point that if that poodle's alignment is then changed to make it's real alignment Neutral, it's subtype will remain Evil because it's Evil subtype is not inherently tied to it's real alignment (as the subtype description clearly specifies).

What I am saying is that, in these situations, the lesser of two evils is, at best, neutral, simply because it is the closest thing to good that can reasonably be accomplished. That still doesn't make it good. A large part of the difference between a good character and a non-good character is that the good character knows this does not make it good.

While I think that's one way to interpret Good, I don't think it's the only way. And I think that approach turns Good into an inherently tragic alignment, which does not really fit with the heroic fantasy approach of the rest of the game.

The SRD is clear enough here. Good "respects life" and the "dignity of sentient beings"; evil enjoys killing and hurting others.

bugbe

The SRD also says that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life," not all life. It also says, "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Somehow, I don't think that means a paladin sacrificing their life to stop some villagers from slaying the ogre that has eaten a dozen local children that wandered away from the village.

Destroying the undead does not disrespect life,

So do you think it would be better for a Paladin to slay a Lawful Good Ghost (the Ghost template can create a crature of "Any Alignment") simply because they are of the Undead type than a Neutral Evil Goblin because they are of the (alive) Humanoid type?

but torturing them certainly fails to respect the dignity of sentient beings and falls square into the definition of evil. Likewise, destroying the undead because it must be done to protect the village is not the same thing as treating slaughter as a sporting event.

Correct. But does a paladin need an excuse, like protecting a village, in order to justify the destruction of Evil Undead or, indeed, Evil creatures of any sort?

Evil men included the Dunlendings who fought with the Orcs at Helm's Deep, and who were later disarmed and allowed to return home.

Where they "Evil" in the D&D sense? Also remember that Tolkien was writing from a quasi-Christian perspective, which always allows for redemption through divine intervention. In fact, I personally oppose the death pentalty on those very same religious grounds. That doesn't make it true for all sentients in a D&D fantasy setting, though.

Wormtongue was an evil man in LotR who remained a man, and remained evil, despite several attempts to redeem him. Although Wormtongue is not redeemed, again Tolkein makes sure that we understand that he is not redeemed simply because he doesn't have the courage to be redeemed.

Which means that even given the choice, offering Wormtongue redemption was ultimately futile.

Please note that I don't have a problem with the idea that some Evil can be redeemed (as I've said, my setting has both types). I also don't have a problem with some Good characters always allowing the possibility for redemption and always avoiding slaying whenever possible. A pacifist can clearly be Good. What I'm disputing is that this is the only interpretation that falls within the bounds of Good.

If Bilbo had killed Gollum, the Ring would have found it easier to corrupt him, and perhaps Sauron would have gotten it in Mirkwood (where he was hiding) before the end of The Hobbit.

Thanks for answering but that's not really what I was asking. My point was, did it really save him or his soul in the end?

Of course, had Sam been the "most good" character in the novel it would have been Sam, rather than Frodo, who had been chosen as Ring Bearer.

I think you are confusing Alignment and Will Save.

Sorry, but you haven't even come close to demonstrating that your take on Evil is correct. Certainly, you are correct if we simply assume that evil always means the greatest extremes of evil but this seems ludicrous to me. And, again, I've already answered "the greatest extremes of evil" query.

That's OK. You haven't convince me, either...

What I think it lucicrous is to call anything less than Evil "Evil". As I repeatedly say in my game, Evil is Evil. It's not simply misinformed, culturally distinct, misguided, badly raised by awful parents, or selfish. If an alignment can't differentiate between a heartless imp that steals candy from a child and a heartless imp that roasts children for lunch, then I don't think it's a very useful tool. I don't think one should radiate an Evil aura simply becauase you think unpleasant thoughts that they'll never act on. Similarly, I think people who radiate Good auras should essentially simply be nice people who do nice things when it's convenient. I think the norm or standard of the alignment system is Neutral. I think you have to be something special to be either Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I oppose the death penalty as a quick-and-easy answer. I agree with Gandalf that, unless you can restore life, we should not be hasty to deal out death in judgment. But, there is a difference between not being hasty and being unwilling when a death sentence is the only reasonable course of action. Even when the death penalty is the only reasonable course of action, and a very high (higher than normal) burden of proof has been met to acertain guilt, having crowds stand around outside to cheer the execution is not my idea of "good".

I understand your point, but I think it depends on why they are cheering. In most real world cases, I'd probably agree with you. But the point that ultimately matters is whether a player's paladin can wade into a group of goblins and slay them without feeling anguish for all of the sentient creatures being killed. While I think that's one possible way to play a paladin and could provide plenty of interesting role-playing possibilities, I don't think it's the only way to play a paladin. And I don't have a problem with a paladin feeling good after slaughtering the goblins because it's made the world a better place to live rather than feeling awful because of all the sentients he had no choice to slay. If the focus is on the Evil that has been defeated rather than the loss of life, then I'm not sure cheering is wrong.

I think that you are mistaking "good" for "reasonable." Being good is not always reasonable. Being reasonable is not always good.

Not at all. But I'm not mistaking "good" for "unreasonable", either. Everyone needs to cope with the implications of their alignment, no matter what it is. That can mean looking at the positives or dwelling in the negatives. I don't think that one has to dwell on the negatives to be Good.

 

[John Morrow]

FYI, for those wondering if these threads have any use for actual gaming, my answer is, "Yes". The boundaries of Good and Evil and how they should behave is quite important in the game that I'm running in and these discussions have helped me (A) test the ideas that I've developed for my setting and (B) test my thinking on alignment in general. If this ultimately comes down to an "agreeing to disagree" situation, I'm fine with that, too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed