Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 1918763" data-attributes="member: 27012">First, thanks for the reasoned responses.  I also appologize if I'm sounding a bit snippy and hostile in some of my replies.  I'm honestly interested in testing my ideas out here and appreciate the criticism.I agree that the D&D notions of alignment may be applied to persons, institutions, actions, and intentions, but I don't necessarily view it as simply the sum total of a person's actions with respect to characters and creatures.  Alignment is something that can be detected for, just like Magic can be.  That suggests to me that alignment is a matter of internal nature of psyche.I'll try to explain in a bit more depth how I've been interpreting it.I think that alignment, on the Good to Evil axis, corresponds roughly with empathy and cuts to the core of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you).  In the real world, sociopaths lack empathy and view other people as little more than playthings.  At the other end of the spectrum are people who have such a strong sense of empathy and need to help others that they dedicate their lives to helping others.  In between are peoople who just want to get by and worry about themselves more than others.  They have enough empathy to not casually abuse others but no so much that they are going to make great sacrifices to help others.  Similarly, they don't go out of their way to hurt other people and get no joy out of it.  Those three "natures" correspond to Evil, Good, and Neutral, as I see it.On the other axis, you have the Franklin quote (I'll use the misquote because it better fits this discussion of alignment) that "He who sacrifices their liberty for security deserves neither."  The Chaotic character values liberty in the same way that the Good character values the lives of others, while the Lawful value security through order with the same zealousness, with the Neutral looking for a pragmatic balance between the two.  In many ways, the Chaotic character equates liberty with Good while the Lawful character equates order with Good.At the four corners (LG, LE, CG, and CE), you have characters who have their loyalties divided between two ideals and they are forever on a slippery slope, dealing with the inevitable conflicts of interest between the two "Goods" that they serve at the same time.  At the four centers (NG, LN, NE, and CN) you have people who do whatever it takes to further their single ideal or "Good".  In the middle is simply pragmatic survival, which is why animals also register as Neutral.  It's basically people worrying about themselves, their family,and their friends.So, ultimately, I view Neutral as the default alignment and, perhaps, most common alignment.  They are "good" in the sense that they are often nice people who are good to their family and friends, pay their taxes, etc., but they are not Good in the D&D detectable sense in that they are not actively altruistic or seeking to help others. People who register as Good or Evil using a detect spell, in my opinion, aren't casually altruistic or cruel but altruistic or cruel because their nature all but demands it.  So the question of whether slavery is Good or Evil, in a meaningful sense to me, is a matter of whether owning a slave is compatible with altruism, pragmatism, or cruelty.  I see it as being compatible with pragmatism and cruelty.  Of course that means that I'm also not looking at the act in isolation.But in this way, a Thomas Jefferson or George Washinton would detect as Neutral (or possibly even Good, particularly in the case of Washington) despite the fact that they owned slaves because their hearts were not cruel (for the sake of argument -- I don't want to get into a debate of historical personas).  A Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahlmer, on the other hand, were cruel and enjoyed dominating, hurting, and or killing others so they would detect at Evil.  It's that sort of distinction that I'm looking for.I agree in principle but interpret it a bit differnently than you do.And I think that's the problem with trying to evaluate the alignment of an act independent of the motive and results of that action.   I don't think you can always say that "Slavery is Evil" or "Healing is Good" because there are contexts where slavery might simply Neutral and Healing can be Evil.  I think it all goes back to altruism and cruelty.  If you can argue that Healing is always altruistic or Slavery is always cruel (and you are making a very good case that it's at least always opressive and may always be Evil on those grounds), then I think you can say that Healing, as an abstract act, is Good or Slavery, as an abstract act, is Evil.I would also point out that 3.x D&D alignment system puts the qualifier "innocent" in the definition of Good for a reason but I would argue that torture is never really necessary and modern standards of warfare and law enforcement would agree (in fact, an American soldier has been charged for simply tormenting an Iraqi insurgent by discharging a gun next to his head and threatening to kill him).  In my opinion, the character who would detect as Good would not think to torture an opponent.  "The ends justify the means" is a pragmatic assessment and pragmatism, in my opinion, is Neutral, not Good.  Good means having standards and ideals just as Evil means having cruelties and perversions.  I don't think that a Good person, in the sense that a person detects as Good, could ever be blind to the evils of slavery because their altruism and empathy would not permit them to turn a blind eye.  Yes, they might choose to ignore the evil because the fight is too difficult or costly but they would take every opportunity to undermine that Evil.  See, for example, the Abolitionists in the United States.  They were willing to nearly destroy the country in order to end slavery.  They didn't simmply wash their hands of it.  Similarly, a society that is predominantly Good (or wants to think of itself as Good) would not continue to condone slavery and, again, I point to the American experience with slavery as an example, with the critiques of slavery predating the founding of the country.I do agree that once we are talking about societies, we can discuss averages and there can be ideosyncracies and holdovers from an earlier day, but just as slavery was an open wound that tore the United States apart, so too would slavery be a contenious issue ultimately destined for extinction in a society peopled predominantly with Good people and with a predominantly Good leadership.I don't entirely agree.  There is "leeway" and there is "leeway".  American soldiers fighting in Iraq and American police officers have far less "leeway" in how they deal with the bad guys than a lot of Paladins seem to be given in a D&D game.  If soldiers and police officers can be expected to respect civilized rules of warfare and the civil rights of the accused, so too can a Paladin.  The problem is that a lot of players, like the police officers who beat Rodney King or the officer in Iraq who threatened to shoot in Iraq in the head if he didn't tell the officer where other insurgents where hiding, lose their temper or take the quick and dirty way out.  I don't think that's Good and I especially don't think that's acceptable for a Paladin at all.  For a Paladin, the ends should not justify the means, any more than it should for a soldier or police officer.  Paladins should be special and hard to play.  To paraphrase the old Hebrew National hot dog commercial, they answer to a higher authority.Often, I think the GM is responsible for players with Good characters to cut corners through frustration.  If the GM keeps putting Paladins in situations where they have to torture the bad guys or thousands will die, then the players will eventually start torturing to solve the problem.  And if it works, they players will just keep doing it.In the core rules, killing others is also Evil in the exact same sentence.  Yet under Neutral, it says that, "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent," which implies that a Neutral character might kill an innocent under certain circumstances and may have no compunctions about killing those who are not innocent.  Transferring that line over to oppression, a neutral character would compunctions against oppressing the innocent but might accept it in certain contexts (such as in the institution of slavery) and would accept it where those who are oppressed are not innocent (e.g., a generally Evil race).Perhaps you are correct that slavery, as a practice, is Evil but it can be practiced by a Neutral character or society, just as murder is Evil but might be committed by a Neutral character or society in the right circumstances (e.g., particularly a "The ends justify the means" context).  My main concern is whether the character practicing an act is Good, Neutral, or Evil in (A) the sense of a detect spell and (B) where their soul goes when they die.  Fair enough.  But there are also pragmatic acts that do have ethical weight but still wash out as Neutral.  They range from killing animals for food to the death penalty for murder.  Some people will see them as Good or Evil but on balance, most people will just consider them a pragmatic part of life.I think that over simplifies slavery.  The slave owner also had obligations to their slaves and in many societies, slaves had substantial rights.  In fact, the slave owner in the American South had more obligation to look after a slave who became injured and could no longer work than a businessman had to look after a worker who became injured and could no longer work.  In fact, I've read that's why the industrial North preferred immigrant labor to slaves--they were cheaper and had fewer strings attached.I presume that by "taking", you are implying a lack of willingness in the exhange.  Perhaps that, alone, makes slavery Evil.  But don't forget that slave owners did generally have obligations toward their slaves, as well, and it is not as if slaves got nothing in return in most cases.  Again, I'm not calling it an ideal or even desirable situation.  I'm simply pointing out that most slave owners didn't grossly mistreat their slaves, if for no other reason than pragmatisim.  Slaves were an investment and if you abuse them, you destroy your investment.  Slavery in an entirely Evil context, where orcs or some other Evil group simply gather slaves through conquest, may have no such incentive to treat their slaves well. My primary concern is whether a Neutral character or Neutral society could engage in slavery.  I think you've made a good point that just because a Neutral character or society might engage in slavery for whatever reason that the act, itself, is always Evil.  I think you've persuaded me that you are correct.Yes, in a round-about way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I would argue that the root of Evil is not greed but cruelty.  The SRD alignment definitions allow for Neutral characters to do Evil things in self interest but not recreationally.  That's the dividing line.  The Neutral character might buy slaves to keep his farm running, might murder to get food to feed their family, might torture to get information to save their friends.  A Good character would do none of those things while an Evil character will enslave, murder, and torture with impunity, either because they enjoy it or because they are indifferent to it. I agree with you abotu goodness and about the fact that most people are Neutral.  In fact, that's a big part of my point.  I don't think that many historic slave owners were Evil in a D&D sense.  I think they were simply Neutral.  I don't think it makes sense to catagorize both George Washington (because he owned slaves) and Ted Bundy (because he murdered women for kicks) as Evil.  Fair enough.I do think that a Good character, in the sense that they detect as Good, would recognize nearly every Evil as wrong and this would shade what they are willing to do.  I do think that a Good character might not necessarily slip out at night and free every slave they can find but I don't think a Good character would ever indifferently look the other way about slavery or consider it the proper order of the cosmos.  Especially, as if you convincingly argue, slavery as an act is always Evil.Remember, it's not necessarily Good if it's not altruistic and the alignment definitions rightly suggest that altruism extends beyond personal friendships and familial obligations. My game makes a distinction between creatures that are Evil by nature (they have no choice) and Evil by nurture (they can choose not to be Evil).  While Orcs fall into the latter category in my game, goblinoids fall into the former category.  Because of that, a gobling would simply never choose to take in the orphaned son of a comrade-in-arms because it's beyond their nature to even think of such a thing.  In fact, goblin mothers are not beyond sacrificing their own children to save themselves.  That's what I think it means to be Evil by nature.  You won't even think of being Good or doing Good things.Well, one might argue that Jefferson was Neutral, though a good case can certainly be made that George Washington was Good (and, in fact, he freed his own slaves upon his death).Please do not mistake my analysis as moral relativism.  I'm not a moral relativist in real life and I'm certainly not trying to be one here.  What I'm trying to do is determine the limits of what Good and Evil are in the objective context of the D&D alignment system as presented in the SRD and PH.Thanks for your comments.  They've certainly given me a lot to think about.</blockquote>

Verification