Ladybugs chew sideways.

Iron brought up a few interesting points. To expound a bit on them, it's pretty safe to say that Good and right as well as Evil and wrong are not mutually inclusive terms.

I'll concede that the extra layer of morality that Faerun possesses with the tangible forces of Good and Evil being present makes for a more complicated reasoning of what exactly is Good and Evil. However, I feel that it's only logical for anyone to recognize that, as players, trying to discern and give name to these forces is foolhardy. Ultimately it is the call of the DM and their call alone.

The DM may have a very good reason for why the slaying of that kobold (or insert your favorite notoriously evil race) made your paladin fall or why giving that beggar a gold coin wasn't the Good act you thought it would be.

_________________


"I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III

To play decent evil your character must be convinced he is doing the world a favour by what he is doing.

and they shouldn't ever state that "I am evil, bwuahaha!" becouse then they become the idiotic cliché stereotype of evil characters.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

Careful saying "shouldn't ever", some characters are like that, everyone's different. I've seen some great comedic evil characters too (Plankton is the greatest of them all). Don't be afraid to wander out of the box, and use some imagination.

_________________

You need a good side kick, like Mutley.

_________________

You been talking to my wife?

_________________

I think everyone's forgetting the actual word we're debating: ALIGNMENT.

As in, where do you align yourself? With whom?

Here's the difference between the real world and Faerun: in the real world, we have nations and ideals and social constructions that can be evil if viewed one way, good if viewed another. That's because our moral compasses are humanocentric. In the absence of humans, good and evil don't exist in the real world.

On Faerun, good and evil are concepts with supercede humanity. They are handed down from another place; they are external to the human experience. Therefore, a character's alignment has mostly to do with what forces he or she chooses to align themselves with. I happen to agree with an early post: good = empathy/compassion/creation, while evil = selfishness/sadism/destruction.

As far as "negative energy" creatures, undead are inherently evil because the forces that create them are evil, and the act that creates them is a perversion of life. A shadowdancer's summons isn't evil because, while it may be constructed of negative energy, the act that creates it is not an evil one - it's not a perversion of life, but rather the expression of an individual's artistic virtuosity.

Criminals can be good because, by and large, crime falls on the law/chaos axis, not the good/evil axis. Hence, the mistreatment of child molesters in prison: many criminals will accept breaking a societal code, but there is a higher moral code they will not break, nor tolerate being broken.

Hate to rain on some folks' parade, but killing is evil. Now, sometimes it is a necessary evil, as when you're protecting innocents by killing things that would harm them. But taking your paladin into a remote mountain giant village and slaughtering them indiscriminately and then taking their stuff is murder and robbery, plain and simple. Running around maps killing things and taking their stuff is murder and robbery, no matter how "good" you claim your character is.

Hmm... Both paragraphs seem valid, but I think you're implying things that this argumentation doesn't support. Our moral compasses are "humanocentric" for sure, but so are those of Faerûnian people. Good and Evil "supercede" humanity in the sense that their ontology seems more fundamental: you can kill a human, but you can't kill Good. But it doesn't follow that Good and Evil are the ultimate moral authorities for people in the Realms. They're not "handed down" to anyone. They exist in their own realm, and they're by and large unknowable, even to gods. If they weren't, every god who'd choose to embrace either Good or Evil would be identical; there's no variation in an absolute ideal, after all. The everyday reality of Faerûnian people is no different from ours. They have their historical and cultural, as well as personal, moral norms and values. There's certainly no distinction of "good guys" and "bad guys" who "choose to align themselves" with Good or Evil. The political and ethical reality is very similar to ours.



I don't see what the treatment of child molesters has to do with good criminals. Do you argue that beating the crap out of them somehow attests to your high moral character? I find it more likely that it's a handful of other things: kneejerk reaction at something you find disgusting (and your preference hardly determines your morality; someone who wants to molest children but doesn't because he finds it wrong shows a higher grade of morality than someone who doesn't even have the urge), reaching for power and control in something when you've been left powerless in the eyes of society, an attempt to feel better about yourself by showing that you're still better than someone, and simply a human desire for violence. Whatever the motive, I don't see how it tells anything about D&D Good and Evil.

Criminals can be (Lawful) Good in the Realms because, simple enough, legislation and society's ethical norms don't conform to the abstract energies of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos. (And the fact that individual actions may not change a person's overall alignment, but that's trivial and beside the point.) This only enforces my argument.



What's your textual or aprioric evidence for this? This seems like a blatant expression of taste more than anything. Also make note of the hyperboles and strawmans you use. "Slaughtering a giant village and taking their stuff" does not equal the broad category of "killing". That's invalid argumentation and poor taste. In a recent paladin topic you may find links to in this thread, I have extensively shown why you can't say "killing is evil" and assume it's universally true. That is, unless you define the specific instances the category of killing applies to and keep your your statement to that empirical, numerically limited group.

_________________

You couldn't be more mistaken in this regard. I am coming at this from an atheistic perspective, but given the nature of the discourse I figured that was a safe assumption to make. God does not exist in the real world. Hence, good and evil are human constructions in an amoral universe. In Faerun, the moral axes exist outside of humanity. There are entire heirarchies built up around good and evil, including the physical, metaphysical, theological, even the zoological. In Faerun, debating whether or not good and evil exist is as foolish as debating whether or not gravity exists - of course it does; you can see it all around you. A nation can be classified as "good" or "evil" by the faith it aligns itself with. Individuals can be similarly classified. This isn't possible in our world - you can't say that, for example, the nation of Norway is predominantly Lutheran and therefore good, or that an individual is Hindu, and therefore evil.



I use the example to suggest that there is a difference between the code of laws one breaks to become a criminal and a higher code of behavior, much like there is a difference between a lack of respect for law and a lack of respect for goodness. Someone who steals might consider themselves a "good" person because, even though they break a code about property, they haven't broken a more fundamental moral code about, say, hurting little kids.



Actually, technically, criminals can be lawful. Rogues cannot.



Sorry to bring this up, but it's a peeve. Technically, "aprioric" isn't a word. You can't just take a latin phrase and make an adjective from it by adding "ic" to the end.

My evidence for this is that taking a life from another is depriving that person of a fundamental human right. It's the exact same reason that imprisoning something against its will is an evil. Now, sometimes this is a necessary evil, as when society imprisons a criminal convicted through due process, or when we execute someone based on their propensity to commit violence upon others.



I'm hardly the most guilty of that on this board, am I?



I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree. I see a lot of people on the server carving their way through hundreds of bodies without giving it the slightest thought, and I think that on a "roleplay server" this should be more of an issue.



I disagree, for the reasons stated above. Certainly, there are times when killing is a neccesary evil, as when innocents or social order or whatever are threatened. A paladin killing scores of werewolves in the Forest of Despair can certainly justify their actions, I would think. But the fact is, absent moral justification, killing is, in and of itself, an evil act.

Killing is not evil. It would otherwise be impossible to have a Good character in a game about killing monsters. A paladin would fall as soon as he went to Cordor sewers. Killing is neutral - what matters is who it's inflicted upon and why.
Unless you're trying to tell me that killing a demon, epitome of all evil, trying to eat a child is an evil deed in itself? Such a stance should really have some strong arguments behind it, if the answer is 'yes'.

Please, justify why killing is inherently Evil, keeping in mind epitomes of pure good do it too.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

*points to the above post*

I also disagree that this is a "game about killing monsters". This is a game about telling stories. Now, fighting monsters is more often than not a big part of the picture, but I have played characters on other servers that did not enter into a single round of combat.

That didn't justify why killing is evil. It only said it can be justified. Many evil things can be justified, but that doesn't make them less evil. A paladin should still fall for it (or an Exalted creature especially) if it is evil.

I don't see any justification presented as to why killing is an inherently evil act, nor have I been able to find such a point established in the sourcebooks.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

It's a fantasy game, it's part of the world, it's part of the rules. Its also part of the world and rules that Amia uses.

Don't like it? Go play another game. DnD is all about going into dungeons, killing monsters, getting loot, and defeating great evils. Don't like it? Then allow my boot to show you the door.

_________________
I keels u with my axe!

"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"

I'm not referencing D&D canon. I'm saying that the violent taking of another sentient being's life is an evil act, because it denies another of what we consider a basic human right - i.e. the right to exist. It's an evil act for the same reason why imprisoning another against their will is an evil act, or torturing another is an evil act. It's an affront to their inherent rights as a sentient being.

My whole point is that a paladin SHOULDN'T be a bloodthirsty killer. A paladin is invested with the powers that they are precisely because they have proven themselves worthy to make good moral decisions about how to use that power. It's also why that power is instantly revoked if that judgement is ever in error.

I'm also saying that the inherent evil of the act of killing is sometimes superceded by other factors, such as self-defense. If you are walking through the marshes and goblins attack you, you are morally justified in defending yourself. If they were to surrender to you, and you killed them anyway, wouldn't that change the moral landscape? I would think that a paladin who killed creatures who had surrendered to him would suffer some serious consequences. How could that be, if killing had no moral baggage in and of itself?

I think a problem here might be that you seem to be talking strictly about game mechanics, while I am speaking more metaphysically about the game world from a storytelling perspective?

Then you're doing it wrong 'cuz that's the context that's being discussed, imo.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

That's what the entire discussion of Good and Evil in a D&D setting is about.



Why should denying what we consider a basic human right be considered evil? Access to clean drinking water is another basic human right, but many areas are too poor for this - does that make them evil? No.
Our understanding of morality doesn't necessarily have to agree with FR's definition of Good and Evil. For example, killing an inherently Evil being makes sense to be an inherently Good act if done for a Good purpose - we can't base this off our view of human rights, because we don't have an objective measure of Good and Evil in real life. Is every soldier on a battlefield Evil? No, that would be ridiculous.

In short, I fail to see how killing is always universally Evil, and I fail to see how everything that disagrees with our modern interpretation of human rights is Evil.



One doesn't need to be bloodthirsty to be a killer. One can see it as a duty - you see a demon and you destroy it because it is Evil and destroying Evil is your duty. Deliberately committing an evil act would make a Paladin Fall, and yet killing the demon most certainly wouldn't under any reasonable (and I should imagine most unreasonable) DMs.



So now you're arguing that it depends upon the circumstance of the killing as to whether it's Evil or not? That would mean that killing isn't inherently Evil but circumstance-dependent which is what I, and I believe Iron, were arguing.



Indeed it would - killing defenceless prisoners could be (and in most circumstances probably is) an evil act. That doesn't mean the act of killing in itself is evil, though. As for the Paladin killing the surrendered creatures, he would Fall for breaking the Paladin Code and for committing murder of defenceless creatures. However, you are pointing out a specific circumstance where killing is Evil, rather that supporting the argument that killing in general is Evil.



I think the problem here is that you are stating that killing is universally Evil, but when questioned as to the reasoning behind this you provide specific situations to support your case, and even more importantly you provide examples where the act of killing isn't Evil.

If killing is universally, objectively Evil, then killing anything for any reason is objectively Evil.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Uh, first you say Good and Evil are forces external to humans in the Realms, and now you bring such a contextual and modern concept as human rights into this? You presume the reality of the game world is completely different to ours (which I think I've given enough reason to refute), yet you use the exact same standards of morality as you would in a modern Christian country.

Yurell is undeniably correct based on game rules alone, if you want to read them strictly: a paladin cannot perform an evil act without consequence, whether it's for the greater good or not. A paladin can and does kill. Therefore, killing is not an evil act. Of course, I think speaking of "evil acts" is arbitrary and unnecessary in and of itself, because there's no such ontological entities as "acts"; they're categories we use to arbitrarily seperate a part from the whole. "Killing" can be neither Good nor Evil inherently, because there's no such thing as "pure killing." It always happens in a context. But I suspect you're even less willing to agree with that.

Nonetheless, I think we're mixing morality and the forces of Good and Evil a bit willy-nilly, here. You keep insisting that they're logically connected and that nobody would question their existence (or content or validity) in the Realms. That's just BS. People question the gods just as well. People who believe in God in the real world question his supposed will and the value or morality all the time. Personally, I can't be Christian not because the existence of God is an issue, but because even if he did exist I couldn't accept his will as a binding ethical norm. This is no different from Good and Evil: a person in the Realms can always ask what right Good has to dictate how you should act. A person can always ask how Good can possibly be connected to what's right and what's wrong, and why anyone should care more about Good than they care about the ethical tradition of their culture from which they've gained all their values.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the fact that Good and Evil are real forces doesn't make morality a no-brainer. In fact, because Good and Evil are actual entities in the world, they become less relevant to morality; they become part of nature. And we all remember Hume's Guillotine or the Naturalistic Fallacy: you can't deduce ought from is (that is, "X is Evil" doesn't logically lead to "I ought not X"), and no matter how far into natural facts you reduce morality (equating it to pleasure or, in our fantasy case, conformity to objective energies), you can always ask "but is this right?" It's just as true in FR as it is in our world.

From a story perspective, I think this is imperative. It means we have the responsibility to make up our minds about these things for our characters, and we are prepared to tell a story on its own terms; not on conditions forced on us from the outside. But either way, my arguments stand inpdenendent of this subjective motivation, based on their inherent logic. This is just an additional boon.

_________________

That's a funny point to make, because when I played my Lathandran paladin, he actually didn't kill any living creature. Since both the rules of DnD (4th Ed, especially), and the rules of the server allow the attacker to decide whether the finishing damage is done to kill or to incapacitate, I always imagined (and a very small handful of times, actually roleplayed) the fact that he never killed anything.

One exception: the undead. Because they're already dead/not living creatures. You're not killing them, you're destroying them.

It always made me grin because I felt like, in my own way, I was playing a kind of Lawful Stupid. I felt like other paladins would look at my paladin opting not to kill even the most vile evildoer, and instead incapacitate and apprehend him and put him into the hands of someone who can heal the evildoer's broken morality (usually the priests of his own faith), as either a moron perpetuating someone's ability to continue to commit evil, or as an insufferably holier-than-thou personality, aka, "I am so goodly I choose never to kill."

The reasoning I chose for this is the fact that I believed that what Vince said about mankind's comprehension of the right to life being a basic right applies as much to this setting as it does to our real world, because that was one of the first rights civilized cultured decided on prior to Moses, Hammurabi, Zeno, etc. I also felt like this applied in particular to a Lathandran paladin due to the Church of Lathander's insistence on civilization and "applied virtues" in the social stratum.

That said, I think you can easily get away with playing a character who believes in this, and since everyone comes down to wanting to know what the majority opinion of the world is on every little issue, I'll just say that it depends upon the community you're in, the people you're around, and more importantly than anything else, the individual demands of whatever story you want to tell.

I think that's an excellent way to go about it. My paladin, for his part, always (or rather, when I remember) offers mercy to critters if they yield. Of course, they never do, but at least he feels better about himself doing Lathander/Amaunator's work. It's certainly Lawful Stupid, because it's not like the kobolds probably even understand Common.

I don't think it's so important what the majority opinion is. I'm interested in showing that one counter-example alone, even one instance of a killing that wasn't evil or a paladin that killed and didn't Fall, is all it takes to disprove the blanket statement about killing being evil.

_________________

Excellent example, except that it's not the absence of clean drinking water that's the evil, it's the deliberate denial of it. Wouldn't you agree that, if there was a village whose water was somhow being withheld from them, or if there were someone who poisoned their wells, THAT would be an evil act? Because, at its core, the definition of evil is causing harm to another sentient being.



Ask every soldier or policer officer who's ever had to take a life, even in self-defense. It's something that stays with you for the rest of your life. If it were a morally-neutral act, this wouldn't be the case.



You need to make the distinction between "disagreeing" with our modern interpretation of human rights and violating it. I'm not saying that intellectually disagreeing with a theory of human rights is evil, I'm saying that violating that code is. Ask yourself, why are Drow the only elves who practice slavery? Why is human sacrifice considered "evil" even if the victim is willing? Why do "good" nations and groups in FR more or less conform to "our modern interpretation of human rights"?



No, you're not understanding my point. My argument is that killing is an inherently evil act, but sometimes inherently evil acts are necessary to promote the greater good. It's no different than our society recognizing that, under certain conditions, even the most heinous crime we have, murder, is justifiable, such as self-defense, under conditions of war, etc. It's not that the circumstances remove the moral baggage from the act, they mitigate them. A paladin has sort of a license to kill, as it were, and the fact that this has to be aimed at precisely the correct people means that killing, in and of itself, is an evil.



Exactly. Killing anything is evil. However, if what you're killing is going to kill something innocent, the evil of the act is mitigated by the circumstances. If you're defending yourself against something that's trying to kill you, the evil act is mitigated by the circumstances. Absent those mitigating circumstances, you have committed an evil act. A paladin who kills without good cause is guilty of a moral transgression - which would NOT be the case if killing were morally neutral.

I prefer this view because it recognizes the world not as a set of black-and-white rules, but rather there are shades of gray to everything. In my opinion, it leads to more satisfying, nuanced roleplay.

What is "pure killing" in your mind, then? Killing without any material context whatsoever? Because the way I see it, that's the crux of the issue. To me, "killing" seems like a way to categorize individual actions. Killing is not an ontological entity itself, it doesn't exist. Rather, there are instances in reality that more or less fulfill the criteria culture and language set for "killing" and therefore they are called "killing". Sometimes people say "he was killed by an avalanche." But the avalanche is hardly evil, is it? Sometimes people are "killing time". You're hardly Evil for doing that, are you? Sometimes taking the life of a person is called "murder" and sometimes it's called "self-defence." They are two different things, just like two individual murders are two different things. They're not both evil because they're murder, but the opposite: they're both called murder, because they fulfill certain cultural criteria, one of which might be the perception of the act as evil.

Alignment is always assigned to an individual act in a unique context. There's no ontological category which determines the alignment of the action beforehand. While Good and Evil are objective entities, surely you don't argue that language and universals are, too? It is simply not possible to say "killing is evil" and be perfectly correct. What you mean, in fact, is that "I have percieved X number of such events that have been evil and that have been called killing, and I have observed no events that have not been evil but called killing." It's an empirical statement, the strongest one you could possibly make, and it can be challenged with a counter-example. I don't see how you could even theoretically, let alone in practice, say anything more certain and universal about it.

_________________

I found this post extremely offensive. You think that, because I have a different idea of a game concept than you do, I somehow don't deserve to play the same game? Are you being serious? Because it honestly sounds too immature to be taken seriously.

Do you think that I'm trying to tell people that they shouldn't kill monsters? All I'm suggesting is that people take a bit of time to consider the in-game moral consequences of their characters' actions. You know, to pretend that they're people actually living in this world. Which is what I thought we were all supposed to be doing here, in this thread entitled "Good? Evil? What are they?"

"DnD is all about going into dungeons, killing monsters, getting loot, and defeating great evils."

Actually, that's World of Warcraft you're describing. Dungeons and Dragons is a roleplaying game, and Amia is billed as a "roleplaying" server, which means that it's supposed to be a game about telling a story. A great deal of the time, that story involves killing, yes. But it doesn't have to, and the only thing that is going to dictate whether or not I play the game is ME, not your boot or any other part of you, thank you very much.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your argument anymore. What is "killing"? It's taking the life of another sentient being. Yes, if we go around and deconstuct things to a absurd level, maybe there isn't any such thing as "killing", or "time", or "you" or "me." Theoretically, you can't ever travel any distance in the real world, because first you have to travel halfway, and before you can go there you need to get halfway there, ad infinitum. But the fact is, we do travel through space. And the fact is, I think most rational people would agree that there is such a thing as killing, and they would be able to give a reasonable explanation for what it is.

It's not that I'm not interested in your view, it's that I see you quibbling about semantics rather than addressing the meat of what I'm saying. Killing must be mitigated by circumstances, or else it's a moral transgression. Therefore, the nature of the act must be evil. Let's say I went out and killed another person for no reason other than for the purposes of killing. My victim is picked at random, I kill them in a quick, painless manner, and I don't desecrate their remains in any way. Have I committed a moral transgression? Absolutely. The only way we can excuse killing is if it is either done for a "higher" purpose or if there were extenuating circumstances.

Actually, Christianity has very little compunction about killing, as long as it's nonbelievers who are dying. The view I'm championing here is more akin to the Buddhist perspective. I believe there is a moral guideline in Buddhism that goes something like, "check rather than hurt, hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill."

My point is extremely relevant: you say killing is always, inherently evil. I say that you cannot prove that, and that nothing is "inherently" anything. Most rational people will agree on what killing is, yes, but surely the universe itself doesn't recognize such a human-made category? Even that "purposeless killing" you described is clearly an individual event in a material context, ergo, an action to be evaluated. It's not that the category of "killing" itself is evil, it's that many individual actions associated with that category are evil.

You've yet to answer Yurell's paladin example. Yes, actions can be mitigated by circumstances, but if killing is inherently Evil it will remain Evil no matter the circumstances, even if the entire event, the big picture, was ultimately Good in sum. Reading paladin rules strictly, however, it's not enough that the ultimate alignment of your actions is Good. Everything about what you do has to be non-Evil. A single Evil action will cause a paladin to fall. Now, if killing is inherently Evil whether it's mitigated by circumstances or not, then killing will always and unconditionally cause a paladin to fall. This is not the case, so something's fishy.

I'm not getting into what kind of killing is evil and what kind of circumstances mitigate it, because I'm not interested in what your subjective taste, whether it's Christian or Buddhist, says about right and wrong. I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion, either. That's not something we can reasonably debate: the reality of this imaginary world and its morality is completely subservient to the Story we want to tell, and any clear definition of rules and standards only serves to limit our options beforehand. I am happy to look at alternative ways to look at the world from an IC perspective, because I'm sure the IC reality is incredibly rich and diverse. I don't care about OOC beliefs concerning good and evil, though, because they're irrelevant to the story.

If you want to quibble, though: historically, Christianity has everything to do with modern human rights. The first Medieval human rights thinkers were Christian, and the Enlightenment is such a blatant product of Christianity it's not even funny. "Aprioric" is also a perfectly valid word and in use by several professional philosophers, at least in casual chatter. Didn't you know that 80% of the English language amounts to slapping on an "ic" after a Latin word or phrase, or dropping the suffix? And to return to Yurell's clean water example: if you have a right to clean water, it means other people have the responsibility to make sure you have it. That's what a positive right in rem means, and human rights are such rights. It's not a negative right that stops anyone from pissing in your water, it's a positive right that demands action. So Yurell seems to be correct again.

_________________

So deliberately refusing to pay the exorbitant cost of transporting water to a remote village would be Evil too? I use this ridiculous example for the purpose of illustrating that "Denial of modern human rights => Evil" isn't universally the case.
As to answer your questions - no, I do not think either of those circumstances are necessarily evil. It would all depend on the circumstance in which it happened.
For example, my government poisons our water supplies wit sodium hypochlorite. However, the reason for this poison is to kill harmful creatures in the water - should I consider this evil? Now, I know this clearly wasn't the intent of your question, but it was an opportunity to illustrate that the alignment of a general action is dependent upon circumstance.



So torturing a bird for no reason isn't evil? You have defined Evil as the deliberate infliction of harm to another sentient being (implying animal maulings aren't evil, which makes sense). However, so long as it's non-sentient, it's alright? I strongly disagree with your definition of evil. This would also mean that if I knocked unconscious a demon that was charging at me with the intent of killing my soul, possessing my body and slaughtering a million virgins I will have committed an evil deed - again, I disagree with this.
Furthermore, there are spells that are classified as Evil that do no such harm - how does your philosophy reconcile the existence of these, with your definition of evil?



Something staying with you for the rest of your life => Not morally neutral.

Justify this. That is a hell of a leap of logic.



I shall address your last question first - they don't. Many nations, for example, still carry the death penalty, which would be a violation to our right to life. Many allow slavery - in fact, in Calimshan slavery is not only legal but practised by Paladins (and to address your first questions, I do believe that there are elf slave owners, making the drow not the only elves) - if this were inherently Evil, why do the paladins not Fall?
As to your question regarding human sacrifice, by whom is it considered Evil if the victim is willing? You're assuming it's considered Evil, but as far as I know people who are willing to off themselves to their gods are perfectly reasonable in FR (please correct me if I'm wrong, and if so provide a source).

Now, as for your claim about human rights, let us address each of the 30 points in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ignoring the fact that they only apply to humans:



So if I do not treat a demon as a brother, I am being Evil?



Well, every point I make will be challenging this, anyway.



Right, so if your contention of "breaching human rights is inherently Evil", this article makes killing Evil. However, it also makes prisons Evil - what are we to do with criminals?



If this were true, slavery would be Evil, and committing slavery would be an Evil act. There are paladins who commit slavery, and they do not Fall. A Paladin Falls if he commits an Evil act (PHB p.44), thus slavery isn't inherently Evil. This is a case of our empirical observations disagreeing with your theory.



I agree that torture is Evil. However, what counts as 'cruel, inhuman or degrading'? Surely a gibbet would be degrading? Well, that means most FR nations are Evil right there. What about cultural differences? What I consider degrading, you may not. What an elf considers degrading, an orc may not - are all creatures now Evil, or does this one only apply to humans? If so, does this mean that only humans are capable of Evil? Or are all other races still bound by these rules in the treatment of humans? Why do humans hold this much importance in the cosmology?



This brings us back to the slavery argument - slaves are property, thus breaking this article and thus slavery is Evil. But we see Paladins who do not fall commit this act. Therefore, slavery is not Evil.



Slavery again as an example.



Slavery again as an example.



Not sure how to address this one, so I shan't.



Slavery again.



(2) makes most of the Nuremberg trials Evil, let alone FR law. While ex post facto laws make me exceptionally uneasy, why are they necessarily Evil?



No attack on his honour or reputation? So a child yelling at a man saying "You're stupid!" would, under your definition of 'breaking human rights is Evil', be committing an Evil act.



(2) Implies any country that enforces exile is committing an Evil act, and any country which places persona non grata status upon individuals is committing an Evil act. Please justify this.



I can't think of anything off the top of my head.



Same as previous.



By (1), countries that do not have institutionalised marriages are Evil. By (2), organised marriages are Evil. Please justify this.



See the slavery example.



So stopping someone form worshipping an Evil god is an Evil act? Okay, I can fly with that. However, interfering with his right to 'manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance' is also an Evil act - that means stopping that human sacrifice is an Evil act. Better get the Paladins to watch out for that one, too.



This puts all laws of sedition and mutinous talk as Evil. It also means that stopping a mad Maskite standing in the centre of a city preaching is Evil. Please, justify this.



Can't think of anything for this off the top of my head.



Well, that's every country that isn't a democracy committing Evil acts constantly. Please, justify why this is necessarily Evil. For that note, it means that each of the gods are constantly committing Evil deeds by being the dictators of their respective realms.



Hang on, so now states without social security are Evil? How many countries in FR have beggars? All of them I should imagine - does this mean every country is Evil? Or is constantly committing Evil deeds upon thousands of people not Evil?



(3) Brings up the point of slavery again.



Who defines reasonable? If it disagrees with my definition of reasonable, is it Evil?



So no pension is Evil?



So if a parent chooses the best form of education for their small child would be learning how to be a coal boy, stopping them and giving him a good education for a solid future is Evil?



Can't think of anything off the top of my head.



This one is pretty redundant, since if one of the above is proved wrong, this fails by default.



What happens when (2) (i.e. the law) disagrees with one of the above? Are both Evil? Since that would mean breaching one of the above Articles, but not applying the law that breaches that article would be breaching this article.



Oh good, I'm glad that settles our problem created by Article 29.

Remember, you must be able to support that breaking any one of these articles is Evil - if a single one isn't, then your claim that breaking any human right being Evil is shown to be simply wrong.



So the end justifies the means? It is morally justifiable to commit an Evil deed if it is for the Greater Good? This may be true - personally, I'd draw the line on the degree of Evil and the degree of Good, but potentially a workable method. However, you are also stating that the act of killing itself remains evil nonetheless.
This means if a Paladin kills someone it is an Evil act (you specifically stated that killing is always an Evil act, even if done for the greater good). This means that in killing something a Paladin has willingly committed an Evil act no matter how much good comes from it. By page 44 of the PHB, the Paladin should Fall for willingly committing an Evil act. Since they do not, under the premise that the rule is true (since if the rules are not true we're pretty screwed in any discussion, lore or otherwise) we have only one plausible conclusion - killing is not in itself an inherently Evil act.



Hang on, this disagrees with the definition of Evil you gave above. Which is it? Is a farmer harvesting wheat Evil? Is a butcher killing a cow Evil?



So whether an act is Evil is circumstance dependent? That's what I've been trying to establish. If an act is no longer Evil when committed under certain circumstance, it is circumstance dependent and thus not inherently evil.



Actually, your requirement for an act to be inherently an alignment and always that alignment requires it to be more black and white, not less.

Edit: If I employed a logical fallacy at some point, please point it out (especially you Iron) ... I need to make sure that I avoid those.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Wow.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to most of your post, to be perfectly honest, because you continue to miss my main point: that there can be acts that are "evil" acts, but that are necessary in the pursuit of the greater good. The execution or incarceration of a prisoner, for example. You're really misreading that document: it doesn't mean that these things are violations of human rights, it means that these things are violations of human rights UNLESS they are the result of due process of law. Obviously, nations are free to incarcerate, exile, even execute people who break their laws and are convicted under recognized due process of law. Societies couldn't function without that understanding.

You keep using demons as an example, but keep in mind that demons are outsiders, and hence can't really be "killed" on the PMP. I would argue, however, that a paladin who engaged in deliberate acts of cruelty towards a demon would be committing evil acts.

Your example of paladins engaging in slavery is a good one. Frankly, I don't know enough about FR lore to give an intelligent answer; all I can say is, if that is true, then obviously the designersof that particular mechanic have a different model of moral values than what I have put forward here. Personally I don't find that particularly consistent, for reasons stated above, but it's their game, not mine.

I think we're better off letting this argument lie. You have obviously provided the trumping example and are a much more informed and tenacious debater than I. Congratulations.

Can the OP comment please.

Has this gone WAY off topic? Was the general point to discuss good & evil in the DnD universe?
If not, this should be in off topic.

If it's meant to be in the DnD Universe, like what the OP seems to obviously be suggesting, then can you two cut out the bloody mountain posts that have headed into the hole of off topic.

_________________
I keels u with my axe!

"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"

First off, it's three of us.
Secondly, if you read his last post, the discussion is already over.
Thirdly, the OP said:

As it applies to the D&D universe (I presume since it's in General), which is what those posts were about.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Really? Because most of those posts don't seem like any DnD universe I've heard of.

_________________
I keels u with my axe!

"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"

It was originally meant to be sort of an "in general" whilst also asking about the presence of the same ideals and basis within the DnD Universe.

_________________
Jack Tesilent - Jack's Bio

That's what we were contending - whether in the FR universe Good and Evil behaved in manner X, and we concluded that it most likely does not.

Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and Iron and I were just discussing with Vince as to whether his interpretation is consistent with observed phenomena in Forgotten Realms.

Edit: And there we go, the OP hath spoken ... while I was posting

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Observed phenomena in a fantasy world prone to retcon that is further independently expounded on a table by table basis?

_________________
I play: Gage le Gris
Socially and recently politically Inept Knight of Xymor

you can only get comedy out of that, ergo, the evil one will not be taken seriously.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

Vince, I do get the point I think you're ultimately making, and I agree with it: killing is always ethically relevant and you should take it seriously in RP. Not because it's inherently Evil on a metaphysical level, but because it's a real situation in a real context with consequences on a personal and a social level, not to mention the possible implications to your relationship with Upstairs. Goodly warriors shouldn't dismiss wholesale slaughter of entire peoples with a shrug and the remark that "they're bad guys." When you make a decision to end a life, you bear the responsibility.

The disagreement here is about the relevance of Good and Evil to this ethical responsibility and whatever consequences in the story. It is not only inaccurate to say that killing is always and unconditionally Evil at its core (even if we allow for justification to supercede this evil in quantity), but it's also irrelevant. A person (in the Realms, or anywhere) doesn't judge his decision on an abstract standard he probably doesn't know much about and that is, at best, an academic point of interest. He judges based on what's right and wrong, what kind of values and ethical norms he subscribes to. I think you make this point yourself, when you say that real people who've killed don't take it lightly - exactly. They take it seriously as an ethical burden, and they need no fantasy energy of Evil to facilitate their guilt and responsibility.

That's what my stance boils down to: let our characters play out their story authentically according to their own mindset and culture. Applying an OOC standard of evaluation may serve the story sometimes, but not always. It's nobody's job to define in absolute terms what we should know about the mysteries of Good and Evil behind the scenes. Ideally, the DM and the players use their best judgement in an actual context, always with the best interest of the story in mind.


Selvec, I'm not going to defend the discussion we were/are having in this topic. The arguments presented are their own justification, if you bother to read and comprehend them. If the level of sophistication herein is too high for your entertainment, you're free to either ignore the topic or steer it into a direction more to your liking by offering new perspectives and issues to discuss. You don't need to spam about your unhappiness, because nobody cares about your opinion. We might care about your thorough argumentation in support of your opinion, or your application of that opinion into practice in entertaining RP. Your abrasive one-liners are so very uninteresting.

Admittedly, the above is more venomous than is fair, but you don't seem to understand how rude your posts here (and before, if I recall correct) really are.

_________________

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous

Not really. DnD is solid blocks of good and evil.

Good guy wins, then good has won. Evil wins, then evil has won.
Your good if you do specific things, your evil if you do specific things, you neutral if you don't do either of those specific things.

There's no grey for this kinda stuff, you are these things because of the specific things you choose to do. Which is where stuff like The Witcher and things come in with their "revolutionary" direction of grey grey grey. ( I like the Witcher mind you.)

_________________
I keels u with my axe!

"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"

I like to point out that black and white good/evil is totally unpractical to the entirety of reality, or an accurate reflection of reality in a game setting, black and white do exist as possible philosophies, but it is not the entirety. There is a grey scale, and various shades of said grey, and they vary from person to person.

However, it is 'fantasy' after all, and actions can be pre-set by the module designer to be 'good' or 'evil' based on various module designers' sense of moral compass or in some cases sick sense of humor where you might get -50 evil points for saving the drowning kitten for example. However most of us would say that situation was a poor(or epically awesome) script design.
(lol double meaning, using the word most, implying a double majority of a singular populace *giggle*)

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

Behold good and evil, order and chaos... and then some.

Toward the middle the color seems to turn grey, but if you look closely you'll find each square on the lawful side to be very distinctly blue or red. On the chaotic side, it's a little harder to tell... as it should be, honestly. Now if you look back to the lawful side, you might find that the red stretches a little further up than you had previously thought. It gets hard to determine the more you consider it. My point is that while it seems to be a fact that good and evil are black and white in D&D, it isn't necessarily true that it's easy to distinguish between the two. That job befalls the DM.

_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous