D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Flamestrike]

What's deliberate? Should the Allies just have let the Nazis take over the Europe because fighting them would inevitably cause civilian casualties?

CIVILIANS. Deliberately targeting them is evil. They're no threat to you (or anyone else).

Yes, Dresden and Hiroshima were evil.

The assault on Omaha or Okinowa was not.

Read the Geneva Conventions man. Deliberately targeting civilians is expressly prohibited!

 

[Vaalingrade]

And alignment is not one of those instances. It's a False Equivalence to label it like that. I've watched the very real benefits of alignment time in and time out for decades. Nothing you can say or do can change that.

See also False Equivalence.

See also 'anecdotal evidence', but that is defined as 'the best evidence' in Internet Philosophy 101 alongside 'Use Philosophy 101 terms instead of actually engaging.

 

[Flamestrike]

I remember at least one, yes. But that still means that deities were at least superficially checking every follower requesting spells. Because clerics without that feat would be denied refreshing their repertoire as soon as they change to a wrong alignment.

There was the one step away rule in 3E.

But as Eberron showed that was campaign specific really.

Mystra in FR also granted spells to Evil Clerics despite being NG (she kept granting them to follpwers of the prior LN incarnation of the deity).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wow, we got to Real World Political Moralizing quick this time.

 

[lingual]

CIVILIANS. Deliberately targeting them is evil. They're no threat to you (or anyone else).

Yes, Dresden and Hiroshima were evil.

The assault on Omaha or Okinowa was not.

Read the Geneva Conventions man. Deliberately targeting civilians is expressly prohibited!

What about Sherman's march through Georgia? He deliberately targeted civilians there and ruined the livelihoods of many civilians. It, however, ultimately helped end slavery as Lincoln was in danger of losing the 1864 election.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The worthwhile element.

Like we could be talking pretender gods and faithless clergy and other interesting things that would serve the game, but instead we're talking about alignment.

That is difficult to discuss without bringing in real life attitudes to region, which is expressly against forum rules.

 

[Flamestrike]

Wow, we got to Real World Political Moralizing quick this time.

Godwin's law of Alignments.

In any alignment thread the Nazis and or Hitler get dragged in

 

[Maxperson]

See also 'anecdotal evidence', but that is defined as 'the best evidence' in Internet Philosophy 101 alongside 'Use Philosophy 101 terms instead of actually engaging.

They key there is evidence, and anecdotal evidence is factual evidence when used to counter blatantly false assertions like, "There's no use at all for alignment." Even one piece of anecdotal evidence to the contrary proves that statement to be wrong.

See also the Covid Vaccine and other things people want badly to believe are all bad, but really aren't.

 

[Flamestrike]

What about Sherman's march through Georgia? He deliberately targeted civilians there and ruined the livelihoods of many civilians. It, however, ultimately helped end slavery as Lincoln was in danger of losing the 1864 election.

I call the deliberate targeting of non combatants an act of evil, and one that would see you locked up for life under the modern rules of War under the Geneva conventions

 

[Crimson Longinus]

CIVILIANS. Deliberately targeting them is evil. They're no threat to you (or anyone else).

Yes, Dresden and Hiroshima were evil.

The assault on Omaha or Okinowa was not.

Read the Geneva Conventions man. Deliberately targeting civilians is expressly prohibited!

I agree with you that according to my morals too Dresden and Hiroshima were wrong. But a lot of people disagree even today and even more did back then. And those are extreme cases. It is far more common that the civilian casualties were not the intent, but the high risk of them occurring was known and was considered to be an acceptable price. These things are not simple and it does disservice to the moral complexities to pretend that they are. And of course you're still ignoring all sort of lesser 'harm' that society routinely imposes on people for 'greater good'.

Also, it seems funny to me that you defined yourself as Chaotic Neutral, as the insistence of defining nuanced and complex matters in absolutist black-and-white terms seems like a very Lawful trait to me...