D&D General The child stealing food to survive scenario, for alignment

[Flamestrike]

If you say you would not kill in an emergency or self defense, to protect yourself someone you love, then I think you either do not love that someone or not telling the truth.

I would kill in self defence (or the defence of others) if no other option reasonably presented itself to me, and that use of force was proportionate to the threat posed. But that killing is not murder in any legal jurisdiction I know, and never has been.

Its not morally Good to kill in such a manner, but neither would we call such a killing immoral or evil either.

 

[Flamestrike]

They've got their back to you running and are scared the shop-owner is going to snag them. Come here kid I have gold, or just yelling to stop seem pretty unlikely to succeed to me unless you have some magic backing it up.

Then chase them. You dont toss a hammer at them. I dont care what the DM said (that is only relevant to the player, from a metagame perspective), from the perspective of the character (and others witnessing the action), tossing a hammer at the childs legs will hurt the child, and may even seriously injure or kill him.

 

[DammitVictor]

Your implication there is most people would engage in murder, rape, assault and torture if they could get away with it, or could do those acts without anyone else finding out. With no-one to judge, why not right?

No, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post... you'd see that my implication is that most people would engage in murder, rape, assault, and torture if an external authority validated their behavior. Which is why I'm so bitchy about the Gygaxian morality of post-Arneson D&D and its defenders: they will readily admit that to enjoy slaughter and pillage, they need an external authority to validate their behavior, and a terrifying amount of argumentation of Alignment's merits boils down to the fact it clearly identifies who can be slaughtered and pillaged with moral impunity.

Which is a terrifying view for you to have. Indicative of a lack of empathy on your behalf.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Unless you're trying to claim that it does, in which case it's an ad hominem fallacy.

I'm not sure what the name of the fallacy is, in which you claim that something must not be true because it makes you feel bad.

I'm not going to sit here and claim I'm better than most people, because I'm really not-- I'm a monster-- but my conscience seems to be a hell of a lot more effective than most others', because it doesn't let me get away with telling myself that what I want is the right thing because it's what I want.

People choose not to engage in murder, rape, torture and assault, because they're human beings with empathy and compassion for the suffering of others.

Leaving aside all of the real-world examples I'm not allowed to bring up here, I can dispute this argument with two words: "Milgram" and "Zimbardo". Human beings have empathy and compassion for the human beings they believe they're supposed to. The empathy and the compassion run out real fast as soon as we start considering them "others".

 

[Flamestrike]

No, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post... you'd see that my implication is that most people would engage in murder, rape, assault, and torture if an external authority validated their behavior.

Yeah, thats why (most) Orcs are CE. Their society encourages and condones that kind of behaviour (rape, assault, murder and so forth).

But our society does not condone rape, murder, torture and so forth does it? People have reached a broad consensus that those things are wrong. I dont know where you live, but Im fairly certain your democratically elected representatives have enshrined legal prohibitions and punishments for just such behaviour.

They wouldnt reach that consensus if people were 90 percent Evil. We would reach a very different consensus indeed.

People can be led to evil for sure (look at Nazi Germany or literally every genocide ever). But its a stretch to say we're all just NE, and being kept in check by a Goodly aligned State.

 

[Cadence]

Then chase them. You dont toss a hammer at them. I dont care what the DM said (that is only relevant to the player, from a metagame perspective), from the perspective of the character (and others witnessing the action), tossing a hammer at the childs legs will hurt the child, and may even seriously injure or kill him.

Except the chasing wouldn't have worked..

I didn't have the speed to do a tackle.

And tossing the hammer wouldn't have injured them. It's not a normal person tossing the hammer in our world. The character is a fantasy world hammer expert, judged it (e.g. the player checked with the GM), and thought it was a sure thing not to injure the child...

Asked the DM if I could throw my hammer in such a way as to not cause real damage but knock him down by hitting the back of his legs IIRC.

... and the kid got a shot at an apprenticeship and saved from a life (and possibly death) of theft.

In that world, the hammer throw was safe for that character to make. Even if it wasn't, and the GM hadn't confirmed and merely said "do you think it is?", then if the character honestly believed it was a safe thing to do then it would call the characters judgement of their skills and physics into question... but I don't see how it raises a question about their morality.

Presumably jumping off a building with a child would also be something that could seriously injure or kill a child. Or walking through a fire with the child could seriously injure or kill them. Or throwing a hammer at a their legs could seriously injure or kill a child.

Except you know feather fall. Except you have a potion of fire resistance. Except you're apparently as good with the hammer as Captain America is with his shield. Because it's not our world.

 

[DammitVictor]

Exactly, but it goes deeper than this. Your goods e.g. textiles made by quasi slave labor are an example: ... if many people would boycott the goods he manufactures then his "company" would go down and he would be unemployed and starve along with his family.
So what is the better thing to do? There is no easy way out.

If buying the goods is causing the least harm, why do you have to justify it by calling the conditions "quasi-slavery"? If it's better for the slaves to buy their goods, why can't you admit that they're slaves?

I'm not rejecting your argument, by the way. I struggle with the ethics of how to do the most good and the least harm as possible, and in the current civilization... all of my options suck.

And he should eventually have written it a bit more context driven, just because authority would allow e.g. murder, people would not necessary kill other people needlessly (of course psychopaths would readily exploit that situation), but if the circumstances are dire enough, almost everybody would kill and torture, e.g. a him or me situation, or getting food for the starving kids.

No. Psychopathy is a medical condition. I'm talking about-- if you'll pardon the term-- normal people.

Nazi Germany and the Antebellum South didn't suddenly develop a mysterious surge in neurological disorders. They were full of normal human beings who loved their families, enjoyed the fellowship of their communities, and considered themselves deep-down good people. Some of them felt terrible guilt after their monstrous regimes were destroyed, but most of them didn't because they were only doing what everyone else was doing, only doing what they thought was right.

As soon as the excuses went away, as soon as the permission went away, the atrocities stopped. In Germany, at least.

If you say you would not kill in an emergency or self defense, to protect yourself or someone you love, then I think you either do not love that someone, or not telling the truth.

I don't think anyone's talking about self-defense, here. I don't think anyone's claiming that killing in justifiable self-defense is Evil, or even "a necessary evil" of the sort that Good characters can regularly engage in. We're talking about cruelty, unnecessary violence, and malice.

 

[Flamestrike]

Except the chasing wouldn't have worked..

The character cant possibly know that!

Not every Dwarf has lost a foot race with every Wood elf ever. While (in game) Olympics sprinting podiums are generally dominated by Wood Elves, the occasional Dwarf has won gold as well.

Put yourself in the shoes of the character on the ground, seeing a child run away through his eyes. Remove all meta-game knowledge as you do so, and include doubt into everything you see, think and do.

You dont know that child can run faster than you with certainty and you dont know that the hammer you toss at his legs will not hurt, or maybe even injure or kill him with any certainty. You cant know either of those things with certainty.

And tossing the hammer wouldn't have injured them.

The character cant possibly know that either!

You're confusing the players knowledge of his movement speed on the character sheet, and his chat with the DM about 'doing non lethal damage', with what the character knows.

Drop the game talk. You're walking down the street and you see a carpenter (he's really good with a hammer) tossing it at the legs of a fleeing child, who just stole from a neighbouring shop.

The child is struck on the back of the legs, and goes down, screaming in pain (but un-injured other than bruises, scrapes and bumps).

Do you agree that:

1) There is a chance the carpenter could have resolved that scenario without hurting the child?
2) There is a chance the child could have been seriously injured by the hammer throw?

 

[DammitVictor]

Yeah, thats why (most) Orcs are CE. Their society encourages and condones that kind of behaviour (rape, assault, murder and so forth).

If you leave off "rape", so does Lawful Good-- according to Gygax, and according to the most vocal defenders of Gygaxian morality. Lawful Good assaults orcs, murders orcs, takes their property and their land for the benefit of Lawful Good civilized people. Nits make lice. There are references to "Goodly" human communities having goblinoid and orc slaves, as well. Pretty sure the only reason Lawful Good isn't allowed to rape orcs is that most D&D gamers don't condone that kind of sexual content in their games.

But our society does not condone rape, murder, torture and so forth does it?

Doesn't it? I can't name examples here, but I shouldn't have to.

People have reached a broad consensus that those things are wrong. I dont know where you live, but Im fairly certain your democratically elected representatives have enshrined legal prohibitions and punishments for just such behaviour.

I am American. Hopefully that is a sufficient counter-argument because, again, I can't explain it here.

Sure. We have laws that say all of those things are wrong, in theory. In practice... it depends very much on whom the perpetrators are and whom the victims are. Just like it always has, in every human civilization in human history.

People can be led to evil for sure (look at Nazi Germany or literally every genocide ever). But its a stretch to say we're all just NE, and being kept in check by a Goodly aligned State.

If I have ever given you the impression that such a thing as a Goodly-aligned State has ever existed, I sincerely apologize.

 

[Flamestrike]

As soon as the excuses went away, as soon as the permission went away, the atrocities stopped.

If people were overwhelmingly fundamentally NE as a majority, why did the permission go away, and why did the atrocities stop?

I think people are overwhelmingly Neutral as a base line, but can be led to embrace evil by social pressure, consensus and authority, just like they can be led to embrace good by the same forces.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you leave off "rape", so does Lawful Good-- according to Gygax,

Gygax is not my moral arbiter.

If I have ever given you the impression that such a thing as a Goodly-aligned State has ever existed, I sincerely apologize.

Jesus man. You cant envision a State with welfare of the people it represents as a priority above its own interests even existing?

I get that might be difficult in contemporary USA at the moment, but Im pretty comfortable with where Australia (where I am from) sits. We have a history of colonial oppression (not great), but have generally implemented policies of welfare, foreign intervention (including military intervention) to stop tyrants and dicators, a policy of human rights and so forth and generally engaging in a benevolent manner.

The whole point of liberalism is to put the interests of the people before that of the State, and to have a State that exists solely to protect the people that comprise it from harm (from each other, and from others).

While its cool (indeed expected) to be cynical of the State (liberals did just this with the separation of the powers, free media, independent judiary, term limits on executive power, democracy, the Rule of Law etc) I feel you may have taken that cynicism too far.