Slavery and evil

[John Morrow]

Glad you're getting something out of this. I know I said I wasn't going to post again regarding the topic, -- the alignment system demands a certain degree of "house ruling" to define the terms, and there is no real way to tell whose house rules are "correct" so long as they follow the SRD -- so let me just stick with two things:

Fair enough. I saw our discussion more as working out the bounds of the SRD and what's possible under it than trying to find one correct answer. I simply think that alignment is integral enough to D&D and the intended tone of heroic fantasy that I think it's important to keep. But since I tend to run world-based games and play world-based characters and versimilitude is pretty important to me, having a definition of Good and Evil that stand up to at least some modicum real world logic is important to me. My foray into real world issues was an attempt to put a real world spin on the discussion, not an attempt to drag real world politics or social issues into the debate except, perhaps, get people to think about them and to point out that they are positions or arguments that real people hold in the real world.

No, it would not be "better" for the paladin to slay either. Slaying either might be necessary, though.

Part of what I've been trying to say is that if a slaying is necessary, a paladin shouldn't necessarily need to trouble themselves over it. You can dwell on a necessary Evil or you can move on. I'm more concerned if the paladin does "X", they are still Good than whether "X", in isolation or in the abstract, is Good.

As I've said elsewhere, the PCs in the game that I'm running didn't enjoy slaying goblin women and children. In that sense, yes, it was an unpleasant task--a necessary Evil. On the other hand, they don't regret or second-guess that choice because it was the right thing to do. In that sense, it was the Greater Good. On the small scale, it was unpleasant and even troubling but, on the large scale, it was necessary and correct. I think that, perhaps, your focus has been on the immediate small scale while my focus has been on the big picture.

In fact, I think a Good character could justify their actions in either scope and might even link the scope that a character focuses on to the Law-Chaos axis, with Law being "big picture" and procedures while Chaos is "little picture" and individual rights, with Neutral being a pragmatic center. And that paladins are Lawful Good suggests to me that they would tend to operate in the "big picture" realm without a lot of pause. In fact, I'd suggest that paladins are Lawful Good (and not Neutral Good) because that alignment will act without hesitation based on rules of conduct rather than taking everything on a case-by-case basis.

In LotR, pride is the greatest sin, and the root of evil.

And I think that's Tolkien's Catholicism slipping in. It's also, arguably, his response to Wagner. But it's interesting how many other cultures actually expected (or even still expect) pride from their heroes and elite and didn't consider it a sin or weakness. From Achilles to the samurai, displays of pride was the norm. In fact, I'd argue that we're seeing a revival of that in everything from professional sports to politics. While I'm certainly sympathetic to Tolkien here, is that the only way to look at it? Are goblins Evil out of pride or nature? Depending on how you answer that will change how a paladin should treat them. In fact, that's why I have both types in the D&D game that I'm running and give the players some clues as to which type of Evil they are dealing with.

However, the attempt was as important to the soul of the one making the offer as to the one accepting or denying it. Which is why the bit where Gandalf tells Frodo not to be so hasty to meet out death in judgment is so important -- in the LotR, taking for yourself power and authority which you do not have is the first step onto the road of Evil.

As much as I agree with them personally, I question whether those values necessarily translate into a D&D setting that has many gods, the standard Outer Planes, might have reincarnation, has alignment as a detectable force, etc. Tolkien was working within a quasi-Catholic worldview where people were free moral agents that could choose good or Evil and where redemption was always possible for people. Is this true of the creatures that are Usually Lawful/Neutral/Chatoic" Evil aligned in D&D, rather than the "Often Neutral" or "Usually Neutral" that humans would be? How one answers that changes a great deal.

And that is why I am not confusing Alignment and Will Save. In LotR, at least, they are integrally bound. Your Will save is based upon your knowledge of your place in the universe, and so is your alignment.

I still think you can seperate the two, even as you describe it here. It wasn't as if Sam had to resist as great a temptation (which would have required great Willpower). The temptation wasn't so strong because Sam's nature didn't give it fertile ground to grow in. I think that was his good nature protecting him, not his will in the sense of a conscious struggle with Evil.

To be honest, I've only read about half the Trilogy and that was very long ago. You're certainly giving me some incentive to give it another try, since these are the sorts of details that don't make it into movie theaters.

Now, the above may have little to do with the alignment system of the average campaign. I will freely agree that the average campaign uses definitions of Good and Evil far closer to yours than to mine. But, then, I assume that Neutral plays the most active role in a campaign setting, and that the average Good or Evil creature is going to be a lot closer to Neutral than to Good or Evil in its absolute form (if such exists). If this is calling "anything less than Evil, 'Evil'" I suppose I'll have to live with that.

I, too, assume that Neutral plays the most active role in a campaign setting but I (A) assume that Neutral is a fairly wide band of values and actions that can roughly be defined as "pragmatic self-interest and survival" and (B) assume that in order to radiate a Good or Evil aura, you need to cross a line where pragmatism and survival are no longer your primary objectives in life. In the case of Good, it's a transition from pragmatic self-interest and survival to altruism (at least toward "innocent" or nice people, which I'd broadly define as Good and Neutral-aligned people). In the case of Evil, it's a transition from pragmatic self-interest and survival to cruelty (usually toward other sentients of some sort).

And just as the Good person will go out of their way to help others, I think the Evil person will go out of their way to hurt others. Looking at Evil as the mirror of Good in some ways, the SRD says, "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." To me, that also implies that "Evil characters take personal risks to hurt others." In between, is the pragmatic survival center where people don't risk themselves (or those that they have personal ties to) to indulge either their desire to help others (the Good side of Neutral) or their desire to hurt others (the Evil side of Neutral). Now you can argue that those on either side of Neutral are essentially Good or Evil but I don't think they cross the threshold of radiating an alignment aura. To do that, your altruism or cruelty needs to become your goal, priority, or lifestyle.

Put another way, if a child runs into the road in front of a car being driven by a Good, Neutral, or Evil person: The Good person will do everything they can to avoid hitting the child, including risking their own life. The Neutral person will avoid hitting the child if they can but won't endanger their own life to do it. The Evil person will swerve to make sure that they hit the child or, if they swerve not to kill them, their objective is to hurt and cripple the child. How a Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil person hit the child and what they do afterward might be very different, but the thing that binds them all together is that their first thought, upon seeing a child run into the road, is "How can I hurt this kid?" where the first thought that a Good person woudl have is, "How can I save this kid?"

Now, the Neutral person might have, "If I hit this kid, I'm going to get sued!" running through their mind. They might also be thinking, "I'll feel really awful if I hit this kid," or even "I wish I could get away with hitting this kid." Ultimately, they'll try to avoid hitting the kid for pragmatic reasons but they are more concerned about how hitting the kid will affect them than they are about how it will affect the kid.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Torm]

What? Slavery is not oppressive? Huh? There is a kind and happy slavery?

Yes. But it requires that you take a deeper look at the meaning of the word, "slave" - someone who submits themselves voluntarily to another's will. Throughout earlier literature, you will find plenty of examples of people saying "I am your slave" when they mean "I stand ready to do your bidding" or "I am devoted to your causes." Even very recently, a Britney Spears song refers to being a "slave for your love." (Although one might argue that this use is diluted for my purposes by the purpose of the record execs being to use the appeal of the idea and image of Britney in bondage to sell CDs... )

Now, in "slavery" as we understand it in general speech (the arguably Neutral - CE variety), that submission is done because of fear of consequences - the whip, the removal of family, etc. I say this is voluntary because, ultimately as Gandhi and others have showed us, there IS a choice....maybe not a happy one, but a choice nonetheless.

But, loathe though I am to admit it, by the strictest definition of slavery, there is another, CG through Neutral variety - Paladinhood! (or priesthood, nunnery, some marriage, etc.) Submission in this case is done because of an understanding of possible rewards - an understanding that makes those rewards almost literally irresistable.

So that is why "slavery" is always evil - when it rises above a certain level of neutral, it isn't usually CALLED slavery, anymore, but other words like "dedication" or "devotion" or even sometimes "love". (Except for the occasional third-party cynic - a fighter in one of our campaigns regularly referred to my Paladin of Mystra as "Mystra's slave". And I had to admit, he was right, from a certain point of view. Darn Obi-Wan, anyway. )

 

[Torm]

Ultimately, they'll try to avoid hitting the kid for pragmatic reasons but they are more concerned about how hitting the kid will affect them than they are about how it will affect the kid.

Does that make any sense?

It makes sense, but I'm not totally sure it is fair - by this definition, we are ALL Neutral, because there is no such thing as a truly selfless good deed. Everyone who does something nice for someone else does it, at least in part, because it makes them feel like a good person to do so - it isn't selfless, because there is a benefit to themselves, as well.

While I'm sure someone can point out an exception, I think the difference between doing good and doing bad is whether, when all these things are weighed in your head (and weighing them doesn't make you good or bad, just your action and your ultimate reason for it) you decide that it is more important to feel like a good person, or to just "feel good".

 

[Spatula]

Fair enough. But how many Evil dwarves, men, elves, ents, or hobbits did we see in Tolkien (that remained dwarves, men, elves, ents, or hobbits) and was it really wrong to kill Gollum? What good did keeping him alive do?

If Gollum had been killed, Sauron would have won. So the good that resulted from keeping him alive is that the world was saved. I suppose if you never finished the trilogy (nor saw the movies?) you would have missed that.

Was he redeemed? In fact, wasn't Samwise, arguably the most Good of the charactes, willing to do away with Gollum and wasn't he ultimately correct?

Not at all. If Sam (or Bilbo, or Gandalf, or Aragorn, or the elves, or Faramir) had killed Gollum, the ring would have fallen into Sauron's hands.

 

[John Morrow]

If Gollum had been killed, Sauron would have won. So the good that resulted from keeping him alive is that the world was saved. I suppose if you never finished the trilogy (nor saw the movies?) you would have missed that.

As I said in another reply, what I was really asking was whether it did Gollum any good, because in theory, I assume most of them weren't keeping Gollum alive simply because he was a useful tool in their battle against Sauron to be discarded at the end. Regardless of Gollum's use as a plot device and as a poster boy for the corrupting influence of pride, the mercy shown to him didn't do him a whole lot of good in the end, did it?

 

[John Morrow]

It makes sense, but I'm not totally sure it is fair - by this definition, we are ALL Neutral, because there is no such thing as a truly selfless good deed. Everyone who does something nice for someone else does it, at least in part, because it makes them feel like a good person to do so - it isn't selfless, because there is a benefit to themselves, as well.

It's my experience that when someone defines a word used to make a distinction in such a way that the distinction can't be made or the concept can't exist, the problem lies in the definition being used and not in the word or distinction.

For an act to be altruistic or selfless in a meaningful and recognizable sense, it doesn't need to be joyless or without any emotional benefit to the person doing it. It simply has to put the welfare of others before the welfare of the person doing the act. That they get such a great feeling of happiness from the act such that they are willing to sacrifice their own wealth, property, or even life in order to help others does not negate the fact that they are sacrificing of themselves to help others or that they are putting the welfare of others before their own welfare.

While I'm sure someone can point out an exception, I think the difference between doing good and doing bad is whether, when all these things are weighed in your head (and weighing them doesn't make you good or bad, just your action and your ultimate reason for it) you decide that it is more important to feel like a good person, or to just "feel good".

One of the characteristics of a sociopath is that they can believe that what they are doing is good, to the point of even claiming that their victims enjoyed being victimized. The last thread where I talked about criminal psychology and real world examples got locked so I'll simply say that it looks to me like your definition is morally relative and could allow a sociopath to be defined as Good.

Do you really find it that difficult to differentiate an action motivated out of altrusim from an action motivated out of pragmatic self interest or cruelty?

 

[Spatula]

As I said in another reply, what I was really asking was whether it did Gollum any good, because in theory, I assume most of them weren't keeping Gollum alive simply because he was a useful tool in their battle against Sauron to be discarded at the end. Regardless of Gollum's use as a plot device and as a poster boy for the corrupting influence of pride, the mercy shown to him didn't do him a whole lot of good in the end, did it?

Wouldn't Gollum be the poster boy for greed?

Well, you're right, the mercy shown him didn't do Gollum himself a lot of good, since he ended up in the fires of Mount Doom. At least he died happy. The point was that killing him would have been a huge mistake, though there was no way to know that at the time. "Even the wise cannot see all ends."

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Wow. Still going...John, I'm firmly in your camp, at this point. I thin k you've put a lot of thought into it, and I, for one, believe that thinking about how alignment works is very useful for gaming.

On the other hand...read the trilogy, John. Then read the Silmarillion, followed by Beowulf, the Kalevala, and the Ring Cycle. Finish with the Eddas. Skip any step you've already completed. I found Beowulf much better in the original Anglo-Saxon, even if i did have to have the Anglo-Saxon dictionary beside me to muddle through it.


As to the sociopath thing....I agree that they fit any reasonable definition of evil, but according to the SRD...

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. "

Most psychologists and texts I'm familiar with say psychopaths and sociopaths could not distinguish right from wrong. That's what sends them to sanitariums rather than jail or the electric chair. So the SRD could be read to say that truly insane people would not read as evil, no matter what they did.

 

[John Morrow]

On the other hand...read the trilogy, John. Then read the Silmarillion, followed by Beowulf, the Kalevala, and the Ring Cycle. Finish with the Eddas. Skip any step you've already completed. I found Beowulf much better in the original Anglo-Saxon, even if i did have to have the Anglo-Saxon dictionary beside me to muddle through it.

While I do want to give Lord of the Rings another shot, I have only so much interest in reading mythology. I have read Beowulf in translation and I'm simply not up to reading it in Old English. Middle English is about my limit. Now if you want to talk Shakespeare...

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. "

Animals are defined in the SRD as creatures with a sub-3 intelligence. If one defines "incapable of moral action" as being unable to choose to behave differently, then the only alignment that could have the "Always" modifier (indicating an absence of moral choice) would be Neutral and that's clearly not the case. An angel can't choose to not be Good but that doesn't make it Neutral, right? So if I say that a goblin can't choose to not be Evil, does that make them Neutral?

Most psychologists and texts I'm familiar with say psychopaths and sociopaths could not distinguish right from wrong. That's what sends them to sanitariums rather than jail or the electric chair. So the SRD could be read to say that truly insane people would not read as evil, no matter what they did.

We lock of plenty of sociopaths because the insanity defense is very difficult to use successfully. In fact, quite a few nutty serial killers wound up on death row for the same reason. It's really more a matter of whether they understood their society's expectations for their behavior than whether they actually felt like what they were doing was wrong. One article that I found described why the insane are treated differently--they lack "malicious intent". It would be difficult to argue that an Evil sentient creature lacks "malicious intent" when they hurt somebody. So as long as an Evil creature has "malicious intent", understand that it is hurting others, and can grasp the distinction between Good and Evil alignments, I think they are sane and responsible in a legal sense.

Is an inherently Evil creature Evil? Yes, I think so. Should it be held responsible for it's actions? Maybe or maybe not. In the game that I'm currently running, a goblin can choose not to hurt or kill if they want (e.g., If I try to kill that hobgoblin that is ordering me around, he'll kill me instead.). Their nature simply means that they pretty much always want to hurt or kill and will generally do so if given the opportunity. So there is an element of free moral agency, even if they normally don't use it for very much.

That brings us back to the question I've been asking -- "What do you do with them, then?" You've got a hundred thousand goblins, each of which is inherently Evil and cannot be reformed. What do you do with them if you are Good?

 

[JackGiantkiller]

I don't see a satisfactory answer. So, in D&D, Evil gets killed. At least in my games. We're on the same page.

edit: I don't see killing evil things as a punishment for evil. I see it more like eliminating threats to life, libert, pursuit of happiness, et al. Proactively, in the case of evil races in D&D.