Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Coik" data-source="post: 964072" data-attributes="member: 38">Ehh...I disagree, if for no other reason than the game does make the distinction between &quot;animals&quot; and &quot;beasts.&quot;&nbsp; Though I hear that's going bye-bye come next month.I should clarify...I'm not saying that I *am* a nilihist, just that I get called one quite a bit...mostly, it seems, because a lot of people seem to equate cynicism with it.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No, no, no...I'm not talking about relativism.&nbsp; Perhaps &quot;secular humanism&quot; wasn't the best thing to call it...it's entirely possible that I misused the term, since most of my philosophical background is in epistemology and politcal theory, not ethics.&nbsp; What I was getting at was a moralistc model based on concern for (demi)human welfare in the currant world.&nbsp; Ya'know, the kinda stuff that Locke was talking about (which Jefferson later borrowed/stole for his most famous work).&nbsp; It's not really convention to say &quot;stabbing people is wrong&quot; (asrising out of peoples' desire to not be murdered) because it can be demonstrably proven that such an act directly harms that person.But I think I see what you're saying...it's insanely difficult to say &quot;There is no aboslute, objective moral code&quot; (as D&amp;D presumes with its alignment system) and not fall into relativism.&nbsp; Back to the subject at hand, then, let's simplfy this a little by dropping any rejection of the D&amp;D moral absolutism and look at this from within it.&nbsp; Since that's what the argument seems to be boiling down to, it seems like an unnecessary tangent to go off on alternative models...&nbsp; (which I'm pretty guilty of, I'll admit)&nbsp; [Though, E-B, just let me know if you want contiune this discussion]Going by page 88 of the Player's Handbook, D&amp;D defines evil as &quot;hurting, oppressing, and killing others.&quot;&nbsp; Very succinct.&nbsp; Animate Dead, I feel, doesn't fit any of these criteria.First of all, hurting.&nbsp; Obviously, since the body in question is dead, its nerves have shut down, so there is no physical pain.&nbsp; Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that the soul that once inhabited the body is bound to it in any way, or is even aware of what is happening to its corpse.&nbsp; If that were the case, I don't think it'd be something they'd neglect to mention in the spell description, particularly given the&nbsp; rules about &quot;willingness to return from the dead&quot; in 3e.Secondly, opression.&nbsp; Again, there is nothing to suggest any opression of the soul is occuring.&nbsp; The body, on the other hand, is a thing.&nbsp; I doubt that even Dennis the Peasent from Monty Python's Holy Grail could come up with a way you could opress a thing.And obviously, nothing is being killed by the animate dead spell.So it would seem that, despite being labeled an Evil spell, animate dead fails D&amp;D's acid test for evil.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Coik, post: 964072, member: 38"] Ehh...I disagree, if for no other reason than the game does make the distinction between "animals" and "beasts." Though I hear that's going bye-bye come next month. I should clarify...I'm not saying that I *am* a nilihist, just that I get called one quite a bit...mostly, it seems, because a lot of people seem to equate cynicism with it. :) No, no, no...I'm not talking about relativism. Perhaps "secular humanism" wasn't the best thing to call it...it's entirely possible that I misused the term, since most of my philosophical background is in epistemology and politcal theory, not ethics. What I was getting at was a moralistc model based on concern for (demi)human welfare in the currant world. Ya'know, the kinda stuff that Locke was talking about (which Jefferson later borrowed/stole for his most famous work). It's not really convention to say "stabbing people is wrong" (asrising out of peoples' desire to not be murdered) because it can be demonstrably proven that such an act directly harms that person. But I think I see what you're saying...it's insanely difficult to say "There is no aboslute, objective moral code" (as D&D presumes with its alignment system) and not fall into relativism. Back to the subject at hand, then, let's simplfy this a little by dropping any rejection of the D&D moral absolutism and look at this from within it. Since that's what the argument seems to be boiling down to, it seems like an unnecessary tangent to go off on alternative models... (which I'm pretty guilty of, I'll admit) [Though, E-B, just let me know if you want contiune this discussion] Going by page 88 of the Player's Handbook, D&D defines evil as "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Very succinct. Animate Dead, I feel, doesn't fit any of these criteria. First of all, hurting. Obviously, since the body in question is dead, its nerves have shut down, so there is no physical pain. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that the soul that once inhabited the body is bound to it in any way, or is even aware of what is happening to its corpse. If that were the case, I don't think it'd be something they'd neglect to mention in the spell description, particularly given the rules about "willingness to return from the dead" in 3e. Secondly, opression. Again, there is nothing to suggest any opression of the soul is occuring. The body, on the other hand, is a thing. I doubt that even Dennis the Peasent from Monty Python's Holy Grail could come up with a way you could opress a thing. And obviously, nothing is being killed by the animate dead spell. So it would seem that, despite being labeled an Evil spell, animate dead fails D&D's acid test for evil. [/QUOTE]

Verification