From the recent discussion that arose in another thread, perhaps people would like to discuss the difference between good and evil.

For instance, killing an evil person.  Is that an evil act?  What does the other person have to do to be evil enough to warrant killing?  If they're a hobgoblin, is that enough?  If they're crunching on human bones, is that enough?  Attacking farmers?  Stealing loaves of bread?  What if the evil person has committed the horrific evil crime of worshipping an evil god, then goes around and tells everyone and makes it sound cool and counterculture and now the kids in town are starting to "ironically" worship the evil god and aren't worshipping properly anymore -- can a good person cut off the rot at its source and kill that evil dude?

It is not the dead itself that matters for good or evil. It is the thoughts behind them. A good person may kill evil for the sake of the world, while an evil one may kill them because they are there, or to farther their plots. At least that is the way I understand it. Good would kill the goblins to rid the world of a problem, while evil would do it because they could. Just a couple of examples.

A good person can kill an evil one without needing more justification then "It's the right thing to do". Then again, D&D this logic does not seem to apply. All that dungeon raiding is sometimes killing creatures just defending their home...

Makes me wonder Darth Vader's alignment? Definitly lawful, but good or evil?

True alignment is subjective. Everyone sees themselves as doing good, doing what is right. In game terms, alignment is how everyone else perceives you according to their standards. Arguments of alignment are why, in my games, I either don't worry about them, or do a dynamic alignment system where players earn/are penalized points based on their actions.

Darth as far as in Imperial space would be Lawful Neutral, at the top. He doesn't use the Law (Imperial law) to do good, he is a Sith, who are all 'might makes right', so he'd err to evil just for that more than anything else. Yes, he does break alignment to save Luke and find redemption in Return of the Jedi, a final act that is 'Good' (he takes the Emperor's Force Lightning in defence of another, even if it is his son).

I won't go into the moral implications of what makes good or evil, but rather point out the split that doing Good alignment-wise generally means being charitable, helping people in a selfless way and generally being willing to sacrifice to help another. Evil acts are causing pain and damage for the lulz and doing acts which cause grief to others but better yourself because you can.

Is killing an act of good? Hm, not really as written, but killing someone or something that's been going about doing evil as written above, especially if that evil one has been killing others, that would probably be an act of good as you're doing an act to save others, such as killing a dragon as they've killing a bunch of people in a nearby village. That would be a good act to help the village. Long as you're not killing the dragon because of something like 'killing is awesome' in doing it, it'd be an act of good. Otherwise, you would be erring to an evil act justified as a good one.

Again, real life is much more complex, but thats a can of worms I'll stay away from.

Alignment is really only appropriate in games where there are real and active deities that delineate good and evil, law and chaos.  Such a system system does not brook any relativistic argument (sure, that guy thinks committing genocide is a good act, but the deities of good can tell you it isn't) and makes arguments pointless.

Almost everyone sees themselves as the good guy, which is largely true, but there are two aspects to that I'll cover.

Good and Evil isn't exactly correct.  Both are good.  The question is who are they good for?  The typical definition of "good" is "good of the many" while "evil" is "good for onself".  Law and chaos can similarly be divided up as action within and outside of established social constructs.  So... Lawful good is the good of the many by working within social constructs.  Chaotic evil is the good of oneself by any means, including those outside of social constructs.

"Good" is what your deity tells you it is.  If you worship an evil god and you follow his or her teachings, you will get the afterlife that he or she promised you (mostly, anyway).  In most game cosmology, you go to your god and get rewarded or punished according to their desires.

So... alignment is absolute, but the perception of alignment will vary depending on ones worldview and deity.

^ This. You nailed it right on the head with that paragraph. Of course when you think Lawful, you think of good laws that benefit society, but the Empire in Star Wars happened to be the social construct for the majority (The Sith itself built around a philosophy of 'good for oneself') where the Rebel Alliance was Chaotic there, going against the majority to benefit those stepped down upon.

Of course there's also the tale of the builders still on the Death Star constructing it when those Rebel Alliance villians came and destroyed it, that poor builder was just in for some contract work to feed his family, he wasn't in the whole Imperial thing, he was just doing a job for coin when some radicals took his life...

Perception is kinda a funny thing sometimes ;)

Interesting comments. I had a lawful evil wizard who eventually turns lawful good according to some of them. Unless he saves the world time and time again to rule it. Idk I am not a philosopher. I never liked the d&d alignment system anyway.

Maybe the fact that his base island is a bunch of undead to serve him helps keep him lawful evil @.@

Evil is the intentional bringing of harm (Not necessarily physical, it could be psychological or financial such as torture or theft, or it could be social, such as bearing false witness.) to an entity capable of expressing its distaste with the idea (though not necessarily through speech, whimpers will do) without justification.

Race is not a justification. Religion is not a justification. Any categorization of an individual into a group that is 'prone to evil' is not a justification. Punishment for a crime is, as long as it is proveable. Self defense is a justification, but I consider that derived from punishment for the crime of attempting to bring harm (such as by assault or theft) to the defender. In short, you don't go attacking beings because they are this or that, you go attacking beings because they have done this or that.

The other thing to consider about alignment is that it doesn't represent ONE value. It's actually a mix of Morals (Good Vs Evil) and Ethics (Law Vs Chaos).

Also, what's evil for one person isn't evil for what's another. If you grew up being taught and believing that might makes right, how is it evil to prove your superiority by enslaving others? To you, it's not evil, however, to others, it is. Again, it's all subjective.

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 1):

There is no difference because they are the same: they are imaginary. They are human constructs used to organize our thoughts and to justify the allocation of resources to those in power.

the 'you' in your example that believes it isn't evil is wrong. The only variable is what you mean by slavery. The slaver is under no obligation to preserve their wellbeing in any way, but not doing so (feeding them regularly and only punishing them for valid reasons, treating them with dignity and so forth) is likely to be evil. If they're working to pay off a crime they committed, that's... less unjustified than slavery I suppose. I get that you're trying to justify slavery because a of a misguided opinion on the part of the slaver, but his opinion doesn't affect whethere there's any justification for any treatment he gives the slaves.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:06, Mon 21 July 2014.

You're still looking at it from an outside, objective point of view. You have to look at it subjectively from the point of the person doing it.

True and do not shoot me for this. How many dictators considered themselves good? For example Hitler. Germany considered him good, most people consider him evil.

Exactly. Another good example is the Spanish Inquisition. It was done by the Catholic Church. Not to mention The Crusades. All these atrocities in the name of "God."

I don't think acts are either good or evil, as though they can be only one. Instead I define good as "something that benefits or creates life" and evil as "something that degrades or destroys life." Thus most acts are both good and evil, and a person's values and morals derive from where they find an acceptable balance between the two.

Ask any gardener, a healthy garden requires pruning and weeding, both of which are evil, yet good.

As for lawful vs chaos. Misnomers really, as lawful was never intended to have anything to do with legal issues.

The best example of a lawful person is someone that is OCD. For them everything has a place and a process.

The best example of chaotic is someone who never makes plans, but instead just goes with the flow.

For example, lawful is a concert violinist who practices the same time everyday to achieve perfect technique, while chaotic is the fiddler who plays without care for techniques or the proper form, playing by feel instead.

Actually the point of morals is that no, I don't. Subjectivity is irrelevant. You either are treating someone like they're not human, or you're not. That being said, I'm perfectly willing to accept justifications. It doesn't change the morality of the act, rather your personal comfort level with the act. Mine too.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:50, Mon 21 July 2014.

If we define good and evil using subjective terms, then they're meaningless.  They only make sense as part of some kind of objective framework.  I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, and Mao saw themselves as good, but the destruction of tens of millions of lives is the mark of evil.

That said, all of us have some measure of good and evil in us.  As Luke says in Jedi, "There is good in you," and he was right.  Vader systematically killed children and hunted down many Jedi, slaughtering them, and yet even he still in the end was able to find redemption.

I've always liked a line from Robert Jordan's The Great Hunt:  "No man can walk so long in the Shadow that he cannot come again into the Light."  (Also, holy mangoes, Google Books as The Great Hunt now?  Part of it, anyway.)

Look at any war in human history. Has either side ever considered themselves to be the bad guys? I doubt it...

War movies used to typify one side as the goodies and the other as the baddies. Most modern war films tend to depict each group of combatants as just a bunch of grunts trying to do their bed and survive the mess that their superiors have gotten them into.

I might even go so far as to say that the soldiers are the good guys while the leaders are the bad guys!

As a close personal friend of several soldiers, I commend you for this comment, and wholeheartedly agree.

The problem is this.

Every race and creature in a game with an Alignment system comes with one. Orcs are evil, does that mean they will eat their young and rape their own women? Wouldn't an Orc mother care for her child?

Same for, for example the Lawful Good Dwarves (whom I hate to use as an example, but they are perfect in this case). They hate Goblinoids and Orcs. They war with them. If a dwarf clan, takes their grudge too far and eliminates an entire village of Goblins and Orcs, wouldn't that be genocide? Wouldn't that be evil?

If you look at it from the systems perspective, No, the Orc mother is still evil and the dwarves did a perfectly natural Lawful Good job.

The setting and the system tells us that everything is clear cut. If it is an Orc you are facing %99 of the time he is going to be a Chaotic Evil blueberry who deserves to die, if you are facing an Elf, he is a Chaotic Good blueberry that deserves to die because he is an Elf. Both acts would be good and justified. XP is the one true god, next to dice.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 07:24, Mon 21 July 2014.

Alignment/racial justification for genocide? Yep sounds like a normal Day in D&D.

'Good' is the one I agree with.

There is no good or evil in physics.

There is no art, music, sound or color either- all we get are energy waves of various frequencies.  All the good stuff is created by brains, and the mechanisms by which frequencies are interpreted as "color" can be hacked, which is how we see the whole range of colors from a screen that is in truth emitting photons at just three frequencies.

But all these things are useful interpretations for us, and it is quite useful to describe a particular ratio of Cyan, Magenta and Yellow light  as "forest green", to describe a certain category of patterns of kinetic vibrations in air as "smooth jazz" and to describe the mass gassing of a civilian population as "evil".

Like smooth jazz, or the Mandelbrot Set, or our planet's atmosphere, evil may be fuzzy around the edges and impossible to pin point exactly, but the our inability to define these things with precision do not render them non-existent.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:53, Mon 21 July 2014.

Rid yourself of the notion that morality and alignment have anything to do with each other.  "Good" is what the gods that live in the "good" place say it is.  Same goes for "law".

We aren't talking real world here.  This is a game with some very different premises than reality.

Game mechanics and mythos' are irrelevant. Otherwise, two deities with conflicting or outright opposing codifications on what is good are good. That's a false premise as far as I'm concerned.

If they both live in the upper planes and grant positive energy to their followers, they are both right, though.

Alignment is only meaningful in games where such deities exist.  Otherwise, you end up falling down the rabbit hole of subjective definitions.

Trying to use the alignment system to describe the real world is nearly impossible, because things just don't work like that.

No sorry, It's debatable that one of them might be right, but if they are conflicting, it's not actually possible to both be right.


Alignment is only meaningful in a game where a single rule exists. Deities that want their worshippers to kill others are a joke in terms of being good. And if you'll remember, neutrals get the choice which energy to channel, so say the dwarven deity that hates goblins... Yeah that guy's LN.


No, when you have variety of definition, that's where subjectivity is. If you have a single defining trait, What is or is not moral, then you have objective definitions. Morality has no concern for anything other than treating people like people, (in the case of RPGs, even if they're non-human people) What changes is societal acceptance. Killing a goblin on the basis that he's a goblin is always wrong, but for the dwarves, it's acceptable. Not moral, but accepted. Morality is unshaken here. A single solitary core definition. Not subjective. Not fluid in any way like societal norms.

Sure it is. If you don't give people dignity, the best you can claim is neutral.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 26):

Kind of like trying to explain exactly what HP represents in D&D.  =)

My thought about this: Given an ethical, moral, or religious framework (ethos), evil is that which doesn't follow it and good is that which does. There probably will be many acts, thoughts, etc. to which the adjectives "evil" or "good" don't apply...choice of salad dressing for example.

In reply to OceanLake (msg # 29):

Everyone knows vinaigrette is evil, and only chaotic people enjoy french dressing. Only holy Ranch is lawful Good


On another note, i've always assumed that what is considered good and evil depends on how everyone around you sees it, of course there is a little variation, but i'm pretty sure most people in your neighborhood would consider you evil if they saw you kicking puppies.

In reply to OceanLake (msg # 29):

Tell that to the paladin who loses his religious powers for a month over atoning for accidentally taking a sip of chicken broth, when part of his oaths cause him to vegetarian.

It violates too many diet regimens. At best, I'd call it Neutral Good :D

Swordchucks has touched upon it.

Good or Evil depends upon one thing only:

Who's making the rules?

In my games all Paladins are "Lawful." Why?

Does, or does not, a Paladin Lay on Hands? You think some mortal king gives him that power? Some mortal king gives the Paladin power over the Undead?

All Paladins are Lawful because they obey the Laws of the God/Goddess they serve. Not the Laws of men.

Are they Good or Evil? That depends on the God/Goddess they serve, because that God/Goddess makes the rules for "that" Paladin.

So, simply put: Who decides what's "good" and what's "evil?" If you're playing in a game without Gods/Goddesses, then you, the DM, make that call.

If you are playing in a world with Gods/Goddesses, then the "Gods" do, ultimately. While it's true that Society plays its part, a Society (Kingdom) that mainly serves/worships Heironeous is going to consider anyone who worships -- or any act sponsored by -- Hextor as "evil." So, ultimately, the God -- via the Society -- makes the decision.

So various nations would have varying laws.

Speaking of salad dressings and paladins, can an entity, apart from that entity's choice or action, be either good or evil?

First:

A paladin is lawful because it is expected to have a steady mind and follow oaths, laws, and dictates of its government and FAR more importantly its faith. Just following the law does not make one lawful, following it even when it is NOT the right thing to do, always following it. When someone wonders about you, they will ALWAYS come to the same conclusion about your actions. Also the Why they act that way matters.

That is how I always understood Lawful. That being said... Richard Rahl, or does warfare not count? His actions, on and off the battlefield, often surprised people. Then again that could be his world versus their expectations.

An entity good or evil? I have a pair of deities in one campaign world that have no alignment other then what their particular followers give them. One is a real diety raised after being undead, I forget the particular story... sadly... While the other was a mere king that died, and somehow her loyal followers raised her to godhood. Is she good or evil? No, but her followers are all over the board.

Whether that is ok in normal game terms, idk I blame my crazy dreams.

We're talking about imaginary sky people that grant power to people who pray to them.  Why do other rules of a logical world have to apply?

What if the question was the consumption of alcohol.  One good deity prohibits it as evil, but another celebrates it as good.  Can both be right?  Must one be wrong?  If so, which one is right or wrong?

As for killing... we are talking about a world where there is a real and verifiable afterlife.  Why would killing someone be seen as such a huge tragedy when they will be rewarded by their god and have some sort of eternal existence from them on?

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 36):

One issue to consider is commitment.  For example, why couldn't Samson cut his hair?  Was it because it is wrong to cut hair?  No.  It was because he was a Nazarite, and part of the Nazarite "Code" or "Promise" is that they won't cut their hair.

So by breaking a promise to deity, it can be "wrong" even if it is not otherwise wrong.  The "lawful" thing to do is for them to obey their promises to deity.

In reply to Heath (msg # 37):

Agreed. For Paladin or Cleric, their "promise" to their God comes first. Promises to man come second.

Depends on your perspective. What is natural for the spider is chaos for the fly.

back to the point. Alignment is a matter of perspective and absolutes. It all depends on who's reference it is.

Because if we start trimming too much the game becomes worthless. Just look at D&D 4th edition, it was so embarrassing, they didn't even call Next 5th Edition.


Depends on if there's sufficient consumption to risk causing harm (as I said whether it's financial, physical, psychological, social, etc) to a sentient being. If so, that's wrong. Whichever one allows/supports by his tennants that kind of excess is wrong.

Because the victim could have experienced any other means of death, and the attacker prevented that choice.

I find it funny how this conversation still confuses and blurs the lines of Morals and Ethics. Once you realize the two are mutually exclusive, your perspective on everything (in and out of game) changes.

Anywhere else apart from rpol that phrase might sound a bit weird!

I'm not sure I understand the question, but it looks like you're asking if a single action can conflict with a general alignment. I'd answer yes to that, if the action isn't an extreme deviation, or repetitive.

I'm referring to the entity itself. For example, if the Joker (or Hitler...gotaa' get the Nazis in here someplace) is just taking a nap, is the Joker/Hiter evil at that time.

When one describes Hitler as an evil man, are we saying that we consider most off, or his most significant, acts evil?

But what's good for the goose might also be just as good for the gander.

Strange question. A person is evil as a result of evil acts that are either significant, frequent, or both.

EDIT: Or a lack of remorse, but I'd consider that a significant evil act on its own.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:36, Tue 22 July 2014.

For real life, yeah. For a game with Alignments, not so much on most circumstances.

The problem with the alignment system isn't that its clear cut, or restrictive or any other thing. Its just us players. We who play our characters do not have alignments. Our moods, emotions, and thought process determines our actions. While playing the game, we might spare that little kobold because clearly killing it isn't going to grant any extra xp or loot, but we might slaughter a group of merchants to get to the goods they carry for profits. We might dismiss the lovely barmaid who asked for a little help with her boyfriend troubles because we can't be bothered with a side quest but jump up and down yelling "pick me" to join a group that is off to raid a temple for the loot.

No matter the circumstances, as players we always prefer to take the monetary adventagous position wheter it be for xp, or loot. And most of the time(operative word being most), the only thing our Alignment determines is whether or not our characters are effected by certain spells or effects, and can or cannot use certain equipment.

When we delve outside the dice rolling and adventure and words became our weapon, most of us would just check our character sheets to remember what our Alignment was to see if we can act irritatingly or snubly against the NPC's so we can mess with the GM and his perfectly assembled plot.

Again, that's all from an outside perspective. Hitler did not see himself as evil. He saw himself as good. By his morals, he was cleansing the human race. Did the Church consider itself evil during the Spanish Inquisition or any of its numerous Holy Wars? No. Again, they were acting in accordance with their morals.

Morals are a personal set of values that cannot be weighed or measured against another's.

In reply to Patsup (msg # 48):

And that's easily solved by using a Dynamic Alignment system. Imagine alignment as a grid system. Law and Chaos being one axis, Good and Evil being the other and there are assigned value ranges for everything (I typically do 1-40 Good/Lawful, 41-60 Neutral, 61-100 Chaos/Evil). Whenever a player acts in or out of alignment (say, sparing the life of the surrendered thug vs killing him), that player is given/penalized points. While I love this system, it is generally met with a lot of resistance because people realize they will actually have to be held accountable for their actions.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg # 49):

Yup they can't. That is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, morals and ethics are already taken into the equation for the Alignment system. Orcs are evil because the powers that be and most of the "civilized" world belives so.

Likewise, Hitler is evil because we believe him to be. If most of the human race tomarrow started to believe that red was actually blue and blue was actually red, it would be so. Anything and everything is subjective and mostly determined by what most of us believe. Unless otherwise scientifically proven, and sometimes even after that; we are weird like that.

What is morally right or ethically right is determined by the majority of the population. In the past, slavery was accepted and it was okay to enslave others. Now we believe that it is a morally and ethically wrong thing to do and classify that as a crime against humanity. Why? Because most of us believe so. If, in the future generations it turns around on its head again (I so hope not) it would once again be an okay thing to do, would be an everyday activity.

In games, to simplify things like morals and ethics we have this horrible system of Alignment which are born from morals and ethics but have nothing to do with them. Lawful Good gods and characters are dutiful, care for and protect the people, Lawful Neutral ones fight to maintain order, Chaotic Evil deities and characters just want to watch the world burn in pretty colors. There is nothing moral or ethical about the general consensus of the Alignments, they are just there to say "This is an evil person. He kicks puppies, steals candy from children, and occasionaly tries to bring forth the armageddon. You should kill him for xp and loot".

Whether or not we agree or disagree, we are actually defending the same point. Morals, ethics, good and evil in real world are totally different from what they are in the game world. In the game world a Lawful Good state can be a totalitarian regime, while a Lawful Evil one can be a democracy while we ourselves consider totalitarian regimes in real life as bad political systems and democracy as the only preferable one out of the rest.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg #50):

I have played in the Dynamic Alignment System, the problem with that system is not about being accountable but to do with certain things. For example, it forces Monks and Paladins to be much more strict characters. When using the normal system a Paladin wouldn't be concerned too much about his actions, in the Dynamic Alignment System he would be hard pressed to make decision and I have seen people outright refuse or fight against certain plans and ploys the party comes up with in fear of loosing their Good or Lawful status regardless of wheter it would fit their deity, character, both or not.

What I prefer are games that hardly have any Alignment or Moral system. Take the Fantasy Flight's 40k RPG. You act pretty much however you want, with all sorts of ramifications and accountability problems that can arise, but still you will be able to play your character. Other than the inquisition's Puritan and Radical sects, there aren't much clear cut definitions of ones view of approach to situations; much like how it is in the lore and setting.

Same could not be said in a D&D setting. It makes a clear cut of what you are. If you are slaughtering millions for the good of your people, in the end the game will label you as evil. There are no moral conundrums or morally questionable acts that makes you wonder if the person infront of you is evil or not. You just cast a "Detect Evil/Good" spell and voila your questions are answered. Same for anything, you can use various spells to determine whatever you are planning to do will fall within your alignment or not. Basicly, the system forces you into being either good or evil, lawful or neutral.

Right, but time and time again I see people play out of their alignment. I've seen the chaotic good barbarian plan an assault, I've seen the lawful good fighter slay a surrendered enemy. When Alignment isn't really taken in to play, it lets people not play their alignment. With a Dynamic system, players come to realize the kind of characters they are truly playing. As far as it forcing the Paladins and Monks into "stricter" roles, I think that's a farce. If someone is playing a type of class that loses abilities for falling out of alignment without worrying about losing those abilities, then they're only playing the class for the abilities, not for ROLE playing. Besides, if they are that worried about slipping out of alignment, then they need to do things to gain points.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:30, Tue 22 July 2014.

I absolutely, totally %100 agree with you on that.



This is where I see the problems occur in my personal experience. Paladin and Monk players become MORE concerned with keeping their alignment as opposed to staying in character or Role Playing. Experiences do vary, I might have got stuck with those types of players, I don't know.

Personal opinion, D&D needs a system better than Alignments. It needs a system that would make a player go "What have I done?" after killing a clearly evil looking creature. That could be done by role playing, GM input and setting as a whole; but when the Monster Manual or Bestiary or whatever is telling you an Orc is evil and your character sheet is telling you that you are good and the quest is telling you to kill X number of Orcs, the players usually go "Whatever man, how much xp and loot did we get, tell me about that".

I agree, alignments are kind of an archaic thing. That's why I like World of Darkness's Virtues and Vices. It's a much more real thing that occurs and rewards players when it comes into play.

Edit to add: But that's not perfect either b/c I've seen games where every player has taken the same "safe" virtue b/c they knew it would come up a lot.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:37, Tue 22 July 2014.

Actually, that's part of my reasoning for liking GURPS. WoTC d20 doesn't really tell you how someone's 'evil' manifests. It just says you're evil. GURPS lets you pick from things like Greed and Sadism. Or on the flip side Pacifism (various degrees), Honesty, and Truthfulness.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 55):

In regards to that, it's not up to the system to tell you how you became "evil." That's on the player.

Been there, done that, not really proud of it, but at least I somehow managed to lie my way into that and shoehorn it into the character.

On the topic of GURPS, never really played, never really read anything related to that, which makes me sad but the material kind of looks scary piled together, so I can safely sleep at night with that justification. But that system looks more or less like an improvement on the Alignment idea.

As I said I prefer the 40k system. It doesn't tell you what is evil and what is good, it doesn't even tell you what ramifications and accountability you will face. You just know that getting caught in deals with ruinous powers would be bad for your reputation and health, the rest is up to how good you can lie your way out of it or how good you can justify it. Anything and everything else is left the creativity. You can make deals with clearly insane persons to improve your standing, exterminate planets, backstab allies, send your underlings to their doom and call it a days work with a nice wine and good music and still be the shining hope and beacon for mankind and sleep like a baby, until you fail at the dice roll that will turn you into a bloated bumbling buffoon that is clearly unfit for anything other than target practice.
This message was last edited by the user at 09:06, Tue 22 July 2014.

First, how we define what is good or evil determines whether it is subjective or objective.

I gave an objective definition of good and evil that also explained why people can have different ideas about what is acceptable or unacceptable. (seemed to have been missed though.)

Second, Being lawful does not in anyway mean that we have to follow the written law, regardless of who wrote it. That is a strangely persistent misconception. Likewise, being lawful does not men one has to have no respect for the written law.

Third, the alignment system is messed up, but not that bad. I think the issue here stems from two things, a: poorly written descriptions of what the alignments meant, and b: players bringing their own definitions of not only what is good or evil, but also what do the words good and evil mean.

Steelsmiter has a very different definition of the word "good" then I do, and we both have completely objective definitions for it, and others here have voiced their own subjective definitions for the word good. If we can't use the same definition for the words themselves how can we ever expect to agree, even within a single game, about what actions fall under each each word.

Fourth, words are just symbols. They have no inherent meaning. We learn what they mean by inferring what we believe others to mean by the way others use the word. So truthfully, many words have a different definition for each person because each person infers something different when seeing a word used. Luckily, we talk so much that our personal word definitions tend to become similar, obviously, that isn't always the case (as this discussion shows).

Fifth, I actually like the alignment system based on the psychological motivations (there are a couple wandering around, mine is here, https://sites.google.com/site/...me/rnr-srd/alignment)
This message was last edited by the user at 09:38, Tue 22 July 2014.

This may help.

After extensive discussion, analysis, testing and verification, we
have determined the following classifications:

(Please note, we have considered dining preference irrelevant, these
classifications refer to the vegetables themselves and not those who
eat them.)

Lawful Good: Carrots, Cucumbers, and Asparagus

Neutral Good: Endive, Yams, Cauliflower, Turnips, Corn

Chaotic Good: Lettuce (Romaine and Boston) Spinach, Garbanzos
(Chick Peas)

Lawful Neutral: Celery, Peas and Artichoke.

Neutral: Potatos, Broccoli.

Chaotic Neutral: Cabbage, Lima Beans, Pinto Beans, Raddiccio,
Rhubarb.

Lawful Evil: Brussel Sprouts, Radishes

Neutral Evil: Habanero Peppers, Lettuce (iceberg, Okra.

Chaotic Evil: Scotch Bonnet Peppers, Rabe, Kale, Kidney Beans.

Classification Being Reviewed: Eggplants, Tomatos*, Watercress,
Parsley, Onions, Bell Peppers, Squash.

*While not yet classified, Tomatos clearly cannot be lawful because
of that whole "Is it a fruit or a vegetable" issue. Lawful
vegetables KNOW what they are.

Hopefully some may find this useful.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 58):

When you are looking at an individual, good and evil will always be subjective to that individual.  Talking about objective good and evil (or Natural Law or whatever label you put on it) is only relevant when philosophizing or looking at public opinion, not when talking about individual characters or their motivations.

So the question is whether the alignment labels apply to the individual's subjective viewpoint or society's view of them.

No, that's wrong, an evil act is always an evil act. The only thing that changes is the acceptability of the act, which yes does differ with circumstance, but the act is no more moral for all the reasons in the world.

I think i will disagree with Steelsmiter here.  Who decides what is good and what is evil?  To a certain zealot group blowing yourself up to kill your 'enemy' is a good and honorable thing but to the people getting blown up it is very much a bad thing.

this is why I dont care of the alignment system that DnD has in it (its the only system i know of that uses it) and I would get rid of it in my games except for game mechanics centered around it.

That's probably honorable, but it's wrong and acceptable (er... to his comrades anyway). It's both wrong and unacceptable to us. The morality hasn't changed in this situation, rather the acceptability.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:44, Tue 22 July 2014.

I'm having a hard time coming up with an act that we all would agree to call evil regardless of any circumstances or point of view.

Really easy for me, even though I'm aware most people don't agree with my views on killing always being wrong, and here goes:

Rape. It's always evil.

There are societies and religious groups where types of rape are considered good acts.  If the only bar is "not evil", then it's probably a disturbingly large portion of the planet that condones one type or another.

Alignment is a game system, just like everything else.  It isn't meant to be a 100% accurate model of anything.

That actually misses my point, which is that, regardless of the philosophical value of debating objective or subjective good and evil (or in a larger sense, "morality"), when you are looking at a specific person in a roleplaying or dramtic context, you have to step into that person's shoes, which then makes it subjective to that person's viewpoint, regardless of any objective reality.

No it doesn't it tells you that your point is wrong.


No, no matter what the other person's view point is or motives are, the action is wrong. The only thing that changes is whether it's an acceptable wrong. Dramatic context is irrelevant, unless it changes the acceptability, but it never actually changes the morality. Subjective viewpoints of morality for any reason other than determining that a specific wrong is acceptable are inaccurate.

I still don't think you're quite getting my point, and your ad hominem conclusory statement is not helpful.  I don't necessarily disagree with you on an objective reality scale (except to point out that there are some things that are subjectively wrong (often under the heading of "Positive Law" and some which are objectively wrong (often under the heading "Natural Law")), but those are philosophical, not roleplaying, points.

So let's just agree to disagree.  I think my comments may have helped someone here make a distinguishing comparison, even if you don't appreciate or agree with them.

This message was deleted by the user at 19:55, Tue 22 July 2014.

It must be so nice to live in a world where there is clearly defined universal good and evil. How can some so easily dismiss someone elses set of morals?

For the record, I'm not dismissing them as such, I'm just saying that some wrongs are acceptable but they're still wrong.

Psycho, you have a good point, wrong is wrong. Even acceptable wrongs are considered good things some times. For example government supported assassination. Clearly wrong, but someone thought it was a good idea.

Yes, you are. You refuse to consider that there is no universal definition of good or evil. That good and evil are decided by the person while right and wrong are decided by society and culture. Honestly, your stance on this has killed my interest in this subject so this is my last post on the matter.

No, I'm saying that right and wrong are static, and that what's decided by society is whether a wrongdoing is acceptable.

Regardless of whether right and wrong are static, the behaviors of people to reach the right or wrong ends are often up to interpretation and cultural control, which affects an individual's (and a society's) viewpoint.  Just watch a few Star Trek episodes to see this in action.  For roleplaying purposes, the individual's cultural views on right or wrong would play into this.

For example, if a culture believed that cooking and eating a person's remains helps that person's soul live on, whereas burying it would lock it in a prison forever, that's a cultural practice trying to incorporate "right" and "wrong" as they see it.  Whether it's right or wrong in reality is inconsequential when it comes to roleplaying...or even alignments.  Their heart is in the right place, and that is what is "good" or "evil" in RPGs.

No it isn't. In fact, it's the only thing of any consequence. Otherwise why pick the alignment?


In dungeon crawling type RPGs where you invade the home of a stupid but sentient being, or even an intelligent but fire breathing one, then try to kill it and take its stuff, it's exceedingly rare for a heart to be in the right place. Nobody ever asks the goblins any questions, or the orcs. Granted, if the dragon is red, there rarely is ever any opportunity to. Still, 'adventurers' is often slang for 'home invaders'. On the other hand, a game that is less 'Murder Hobo' suffers no such lack of heart.

Steelsmiter, you are operating by your definition of the words "good" and "evil."

The definitions you use are indeed objective thus static.

But not everyone uses your definitions. Those who use subjective definitions (which is closer to the dictionary definition last I checked) cannot ever distinguish objectively because they don't have an objective definition by which to classify acts.

There is a difference between defining an act as good and defining the word "good" and whether n act can be defined as good depends entirely on the definition of word "good."

For folks such as you, steelsmiter, and myself, we have objective definitions, there we can classify acts objectively, but some people do not have objective definitions and therefore cannot classify acts objectively.

Good and evil are categories. These categories must be defined before we can decide which category an act belongs to, therefore, different definitions of the categories results in different classifications of the acts.

Fair enough I suppose. Can you come up with an instance where causing physical, spiritual, psychological or financial harm to any sentient being is good, rather than merely acceptable (which is more accurately attributed to Lawful), provided that punishments for crime (a category into which I place self and home defense and some wars) are merely acceptable? Or is it these very premises that are the cause of confusion?
This message was last edited by the user at 06:21, Wed 23 July 2014.

In any RPG with an alignment system, those acts are always good. Erradicating the Orcs from the mountain range that have been raiding the nearby villages is both a good and lawful act.

Real world morals have no bearing on the issue here. If killing things was an evil act, no Paladin would have survived past level 1 or running around adventuring with no care was a chaotic act no monk would have survived past level 1 either.

Real world morals come into play when you enter the "Role Playing" bits of the adventuring. When talking with NPC's, when gathering information, when trying to gather more for the quest you accomplished, etc. When you enter real world morals into the "Hack & Slash" of the setting, good luck with that.

Are you going to penalize the Paladin who was trying to trip his opponent to disable him but rolled a critical and killed him instead? Clearly killing is not a morally acceptable concept that is widely considered as evil.

Are you going to penalize the Anti-Paladin that healed his comrade? Because clearly helping those in need or healing the sick are good actions.

Are you going to berrate the Chaotic Neutral character's player that came up with the combo that finally took down the dragon? Because strategy and plans are associated with order and law.

Are you going to argue with the Lawful Good Rogue that would sneak attack? Because he is a good and honorable person, he shouldn't be attacking people from behind and/or ganging up on them.

Or are you going to punish the Good wizards/sorcerer for casting a fireball that also damages his comrades but finishes off a lot of their enemies? Because clearly he just intentionally hurt his friends.

Every round of combat people would be changing alignments, getting punished, some will be thrown out their class, than will be back on it again, and than back off...

Rules are rules for a reason. As said the system is bad, but it is the system. Until we get a better one, this is what we gotta work with. There are many instances where arguments can be made, such as the decision instances for the actions of player characters that the original poster asked. But for everything else, it is clear cut. Evil is Evil, Good is Good, Lawful is Lawful, Chaotic is Chaotic.

For those rare occasions, where alignment, good, evil comes into the equation, it has more or less to do with perceptions than actual moral good/evil.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:54, Wed 23 July 2014.

On what basis? What makes it good to kill a whole village of anyone? Why is it not good for them to kill you? If your answer is anything other than 'it is' then you're being selfish, and you're not good (I'm not saying that as a personal attack, just illustrating a point). And to clarify, if there is a reason for attacking them, and it's valid, then that makes it an acceptable evil, and won't account for any loss of alignment status.


Then why bother with alignments, Let's just call my alignment fluffy since good and evil don't apply.


Yes, I'm saying this is the problem with paladins.


GURPS does it rather well. They don't say good or evil, they give you specific aspects that some ascribe to good or evil. And it is precisely for this reason.


Provided that the circumstances make the act of attacking the opponent an acceptable evil in the first place, it depends whether it's clear the paladin was using less than lethal force and expresses remorse over it. That falls under acceptable evil.


Depends if he has a selfish motive. The same way there's acceptable evils, there's acceptable goods. But the goods and evils are the same nonetheless.


Either I don't understand the question, or you're grasping for straws.


For attacks made on an unaware opponent? Absolutely, He picked the alignment. It's not fair. He's 'better than that'. For outnumbering people, no not really. Otherwise the battle would be over the moment the sides are equally populated. The battle's not over until one side surrenders.


Why is his intent to hurt his friends clear? Accidents are a calculated risk in any battle scenario, but that doesn't make the scenario itself 'good' So why was this battle good in the first place?


GURPS. In every way.


Fixed.


Why?
This message was last edited by the user at 07:45, Wed 23 July 2014.

Lets start from the bottom and work our way upwards randomly shall we?



Good, evil, order, chaos, beautiful, handsome, sour, spicy, ugly, bad, they are all subjective, they either change from person to person, society to society, culture to culture, or time period to time period.

For example, someone said above that rape is always evil. From what we can tell, we owe our races existance to rape because primitive humans did not have the concept of marriage, consent, or language for that matter. So one just could not woo a lady, they clobberred her over the head(cartoon methaphors ftw) and be done with it.

A few century ago, slavery was totally okay worldwide. We can judge them now, but hindsight shouldn't enter to the equation. You can't blame Rome for being stupid and not using nuclear bombs or strategic heavy bombers against the barbarians, same for cultural and social phenomenon. Slavery has been a part of this world far longer than it had established religions. For thousands of years it was a common practice. For us, it is a clearly bad thing. But for people living at that time, it was acceptable, morally right, and funded by several governments even. It wasn't democratically elected officials or hourly waged workers that built the pyramids, it was the slaves.

So we can argue all we want as the saying goes "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", even the concept of a terrorist is subjective and changes from person to person. Are there no universal goods and evils? I'm afraid no, there are none. We might be sitting here saying that genocide is bad, slavery is bad, this and that is bad, how evil those actions are, how that they are crimes against humanity etc. Who knows, in the future, they might hold reality tv programs where people descend upon other people and slaughter them to the entertainment of millions. At that time that thing would be the accepted good, it would also be morally good.

As such, perception of what is and isn't good by a culture, people or the majority of the world determines whether it is good or not.




I'll start by, "It is" and continue. Orc's are evil yes? Yes. Monster Manual and tons of other sources tells us so. Evil creatures, doing evil deeds, upon helpless innocent civilians is a bad thing yes? Stopping that is good yes? Stopping that permenantly is better yes? Yes. Well, there you have it. It is. Much like your weed analogy, but without the whole schrodinger-y in it. It isn't acceptable evil, it is a pure good deed that heroics stories are made of, you can slap a picture of the adventurers on Times and call them the men of the year even.



Real world morals don't apply because we have the hindsight. We have cummilative knowledge that we bring with us to our games. We judge what is presented before us based on that. Lets say we are presented by the setting with two nations. One is rife with political turmoil, distrust for its officials, corruption, fear and ambitious expansionism and the other is a stable wealthy, productive, powerful albeit suffering from internal troubles. Which nation would you say is the better off? I used Andoran(first) and Cheliax(second) as examples from the Pathfinder setting. As clearly seen, once you take out devil worshipping out of the equation, things become much harder to distinguish. But if we add the "Devil worshipping" line to the Cheliax's description, all of us, even those who have no clue about the Pathfinder setting would tell you that Cheliax is evil. How do you know? Maybe the devils in Pathfinder setting is good?

Both RPG's, video games, movies, books and newspapers use this cummilative and accumulated knowledge to their benefits. They use iconography and words to short change information. Instead of spending pages or hours explaning everything they use accepted common knowledge of our day. But on the matter of morals things don't usually stack that way for RPG games. We do not live there. We just read their history, some information, and molded that information with what we know and reached a conclusion. None of us have any idea what it would really be like to live in Cheliax, we just reach the conclusion that it would be bad because we know devil worshipping isn't a good thing.




While that is an improvement it is still a very bad system. Labels cause limitations. If you know straight off that the guy infront of you is evil, doesn't matter the added information, you know he is evil. End of story. The illusion of questioning morals, whether it was ethical or not is gone, poof. The "Detect Evil" spell just told you that the villain was evil. Meaning it just handed you on a silver platter your reason for interfering with him. The rest you can argue and brainstorm to make it acceptable.



Maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing whether it would be acceptable or not. You said yourself morals, ethics and stuff. A Paladin is bound by oaths and codes. His whole being is servitude to a god and the gods cause. While I cannot argue with my judgment, because any argument I arrise without that statement would be made in bad faith.

Personally I don't see a reason for a verdict of "acceptable evil" or "good" here. A Paladin is bound by his oaths. His whole concept and character is to be a shining beacon of his faith. A good player, whether it was considered "Stuff happens move along" or not would take it upon himself to attone for said act.

This is where the real life morals fails us. We, for example, do not have Paladins. I personanly can't play one to save my life. But in order to successfully play one, a player has to forego his own morals and ethics, adopt his characters and act on those.

Passing the Anti-Paladin and CN examples and their replies.



Why? Lawful Good's description might say that "He is a good honorable person" but not all Lawful Good people have to be honorable. You yourself and many others made arguments that Lawful and Good and Chaotic and Evil doesn't have to be what they are. They aren't clear cut and that there are acceptable parts of both in them. There are many ways to play Lawful Good characters. And not all of them have to announce their presence, brandish their weapons, and enter into a fair fight. After all, fighting fair is the stupidest thing once can do, especially as a Rogue from the Role Playing perspective. He is dirty fighting personified regardless of his alignment, represented by the Sneak Attack feature. You cannot mutually exclude act, character and ones outlook on life. In this case a sneak attack (act), made by a rogue (character) who is lawful good(outlook on life). That is what hold the basis for "personal" moral compass.



As far as I know, fireball has no random elements to it other than its damage. It has a range, the caster selects where it is cast, and casts it. As in, the guy picks up the pistol, aims it, and pulls the trigger. That is by our standards constitues intent. By the games standards, he aimed it, he cast it, knew that his friends was in its area of effect. That makes intent. Nothing about the scenario is good, the act of intentional harm to others is considered bad by today's moral standards. Would that also be considered bad in the games standards?



Somewhere up there I reasoned why labels were bad. Consider it copy pasted here.



My argument entirely. Thank you.

You can't say that for a fact. It's not unlikely, but you can't say it for a fact. You can't even say you know for a fact that that's how it works with animals, who debatably have levels of intelligence similar to human precursors


That's what's acceptable, not what's moral.


That's logically fallacious and you know it. They didn't have the ability to use nuclear technology. Every human who is capable of language however has the capability to at least understand that they are causing some form of harm, whether it be any one of the ones I mentioned above. Not stopping the physical, social, and psychological harm that comes from most forms of slavery is something I can indeed blame anyone for if they had the capacity to understand they were the cause.


No, acceptable and right aren't the same thing. Like... not even at all.


Yes, and I'm sure those slaves suffered psychological, physical, and social harm, which is wrong.


Both the terrorist and the freedom fighter are committing evil acts, but they are either acceptable or unacceptable depending on audience. In any case, if the target of an action can be labeled using the word victim or the word casualty, the act is wrong.


No, actually it would not be a moral good, acceptable and moral are not the same thing.

So the actual culture determines the perception of good, yeah, I'll agree with you there, but what is perceived as good isn't always good. In fact as you skillfully depict it's actually frequently evil.


Orcs that are doing those things are an acceptable target yes, but that doesn't mean all orcs are. Almost every source I'm aware of has the word 'usually' in the alignment area. Forgive me if some don't. In any case, those 'unusual' orcs are almost invariably among the targets due to players not really giving the benefit of the doubt.


Nah, the ending of a sentient life is never purely good. Honorable, sure, but that's to do with societal acceptance, and I have never understood and will never understand why certain evils are accepted.


Real world morals do apply no matter what, otherwise we shouldn't call it good/evil, because it's not really that.


Turns out in GURPS you most likely don't know that he's evil, even if you know he's greedy. You know he's probably done very bad things for money. You might even know he's got some redeeming qualities (if he does). GURPS has great verisimilitude like that :D


I actively encourage players to do things like that because then the awful things they're about to do become far more acceptable.




Yep, my whole argument isn't that he's not a shining beacon of something, rather if that thing involves one of the various harms I mentioned before, it's Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good.

Oh right, because with subjective morality we can just ignore what our moral guidelines are at a whim. Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind.

I didn't say anything about announcing one's presence. I was referring to actively being deceitful.


I wouldn't go so far as to say he can't use sneak attack, rather the circumstances he does so have to somewhat fit Lawful Good. It's quite lawful in a lot of places (a lot more in fantasy settings) to lay the smack down on someone who assaults you, whether you've announced your presence or not, but if a guy who happens to be standing in front of you is facing the other way, and he says "I surrender", that's where sneak attack becomes a problem.


Under the circumstances I removed, yes, that would be considered evil, but suprisingly, it's the lesser of two evils. That makes it more acceptable



No, you had exceptions, I removed all of them, and all references to any possible to exception to the phrase "Evil is Evil, Good is Good, Lawful is Lawful, Chaotic is Chaotic." by doing so, I made the opposite statement.
This message was last edited by the user at 10:25, Wed 23 July 2014.

This is a very strange arguement.

I will remind you of "the suspension of disbelief".

In those game settings where Alignments (Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, etc) exist, they exist. The same way as magic exists, pantheons exist, paladins exist. They are a fact of that reality.

In these settings, like the myths of old, Good and Evil are more about the character who has that Alignment than the morality of the action. A Good character who accidentally or deliberately performs an immoral act is not necessarily performing an Evil act. To do so he would have to consider it an Evil act and do it anyway.

This is why we spell it with an E and not an e. Alignment and morality are not the same thing.

In other game settings where Alignments don't exist, this isn't an applicable question.



Patsup: kudos to you about your points on cultural norms.
This message was last edited by the user at 10:44, Wed 23 July 2014.

I can't really shake my disbelief, sorry. And having to on something that important is one of many things that make the game basically worthless.


That's about the only thing I'm getting out of this. If they aren't the same thing, they shouldn't use morality based terms. They should use terms like what some link upthread said.
This message was last edited by the user at 10:44, Wed 23 July 2014.

Don't stomp on a facet of culture, which is where all this stems from.

George slaying the dragon: Good. The witch locking Rapunzel in a tower: Evil. Destroying the temple of the god of the orcs: Good. Defiling Andraste's ashes: Evil.

D&D and PF and such are not supposed to be realistic, they are supposed to be heroic. There are elements in those settings which, if you took them out, would entirely change the tone of the game. Alignment is a defining part of D&D.

You said yourself that you're refusing to suspend disbelief - which is a vital element of ALL fiction. There is really no excuse for doing that.
This message was last edited by the user at 12:27, Wed 23 July 2014.

Let me summarize the entire argument here.

In the past, humans did not consider other humans as humans. This is a fact. This wasn't a thousand year ago occurance either. No one during the 1930's and 40's considered the jews as equals, some didn't even consider them human. Until the cultural revolutions in U.S.A. black people were considered and treated as second class citizens and at worst sub-human by many. These examples were from the last century when we had "evolved". Had science, discovered clever and imaginative ways to kill each other and hell we even went to space and the moon as a species.

Now imagine how it was WAY long past that. You say human beings understood that they were harming other human beings? The whole of Europe lined up to go on Crusades to kill off muslims and plunder the middle east. They were just, they were morally obliged and they were even conviced that they were doing the gods work. You can say all you want what they were doing was morally wrong, THAT is by today's standards. If you were playing a game during the crusades and you argued that it would be wrong to kill muslims, they would burn you at the stake and probably have a BBQ party on the pyre. American pilgrims had no problem killing off indians. They even gave them smallpox to clear themselves land. If we go way past that, the city states of Greece had similar view points. Spartans did not view anyone else as worthy beings, enslaves what they could and killed off whomever they couldn't.

Cultures fought each other, caused genocides just because their religion was different. Things didn't improve much today either.

Each period has their own moral code, ethical code. What is culturally and socially acceptable changes. When you use the moral, ethical, cultural and social standards of today to judge what has happened in the past, you wouldn't even understand why things happened the way they did, let alone learn anything from the mistakes that occurred during that era.

Same with an RPG. You cannot judge the setting and the people living in it by today's standards, even though certain events, happenings and practices are used to give clues to certain things. Cheliax being a devil worshipping state and thus being evil for example.

So TL;DR, If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck; not an "acceptable" duck.

First off, slavery.

The pyramids were not made by slaves. Though slaves probably filled some support roles, all real evidence suggests that free individuals built the pyramids as working on the pyramids was an honor. It as kinda the center of their religion. (Besides would you send someone else, someone you consider inferior, to work on your religious artifacts when you can do it yourself?)

Further, here in America many things are associated with slavery that aren't always correct. In truth slaves were usually well taken care of.

Additionally slavery is almost always in Africa until the British empire came along and started moving slaves around. Africa is the home of slavery. Slavery was was uncommon if not unknown in Europe prior to major trading with Africa.

(not pretending to be an expert, but my mother is a history buff and has made plenty comments on the issue Particularly with the Egyptian stuff.)

So TL;DR, what you've said looks like a Balvarine and quacks like a duck.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 88):

On the subject of slavery, I know you are not an expert(you yourself stated), I'm not trying to one up you, I'm just providing you with evidence to contrary so as to provide a certain extent of information, so you know the truth of the matter.

Quotes from wikipedia... taken in brief, the whole can be found with an easy search.

- 8000 BC, prehistoric graves in lower Egypt sugges that Libyan people enslaved a San-like tribe.

- Code of Hammurabi (1760 BC) prescribed death for anyone who helped a slave to escape or who sheltered a fugitive.

- The Bible mentions slavery as an established institution.

- Slavery was known in almost every ancient civilization, and society, including Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, the Hebrew kingdoms in Palestine, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas. Such institutions included debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.

-  In raid against Lisbon, Portugal in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur took 3,000 female and child captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, Portugal in 1191, took 3,000 Christian slaves.

- In Britain, slavery continued to be practiced following the fall of Rome and sections of Hywel the Good's laws dealt with slaves in medieval Wales. The trade particularly picked up after the Viking invasions, with major markets at Chester and Bristol supplied by Danish, Mercian, and Welsh raiding of one another's borderlands. At the time of the Domesday Book (1086), nearly 10% of the English population were slaves.

-  Slavery in early medieval Europe was so common that the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly prohibited it — or at least the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands was prohibited at e. g. the Council of Koblenz (922), the Council of London (1102), and the Council of Armagh (1171). In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens (antiquated term referring to Muslims), pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery, legitimizing the slave trade as a result of war.

-  Slavery remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household slaves into house serfs.

- Even though slavery is now outlawed in every country, the number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million to 29.8 million. Several estimates of the number of slaves in the world have been provided. According to a broad definition of slavery used by Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves (FTS), an advocacy group linked with Anti-Slavery International, there were 27 million people in slavery in 1999, spread all over the world. In 2005, the International Labour Organization provided an estimate of 12.3 million forced labourers in the world. Siddharth Kara has also provided an estimate of 28.4 million slaves at the end of 2006 divided into the following three categories: bonded labour/debt bondage (18.1 million), forced labour (7.6 million), and trafficked slaves (2.7 million). Kara provides a dynamic model to calculate the number of slaves in the world each year, with an estimated 29.2 million at the end of 2009. According to a report from 2003, by the Human Rights Watch, an estimated 15 million children in India, bonded workers, working in slave-like conditions in order to pay off debts.

Yeah I think thats enough to establish that the whole mess wasn't confined to Africa and it was quite known and common in Europe. Also, clearly shows that while we argue morals, even today there are those without them.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 17:14, Wed 23 July 2014.

In reply to Patsup (msg # 90):

First, I don't consider debt bondage to be slavery. Didn't want to be there then you shouldn't of gotten into debt. This is a case of suffering the consequences of one's decisions, rather something forced upon them for reasons beyond their control.

Second, I merely said Africa was the primary place. Though I was referring mostly to what Americans think of as slavery, which means considering people as slaves based on race. For example black people were quite capable of being free and respected, and even gentlemen outside of Africa and America. (Egypt is a part of Africa btw)

Third, prisoners of war (even civilian ones) are quite questionable on this, as any victor of a battle has to be careful with survivors, lest they cause further harm or try to take revenge or whatever. Granting full rights to a freshly defeated enemy is just asking for an immediate rebellion and continuation of hostilities.

DISCLAIMER I am generally very bad at explaining myself, so there is a decent chance of a misunderstanding.

---
Let us use the definition of certain religious zealots,
Good is defined as whatever their deity says is the right thing to do.

Thus because their deity says that killing people who are not of their religion is the right thing to do, killing such individuals is a good act, not merely acceptable, because of how they define what is "good."

---
OR using my definitions, many acts are actually both good and evil, the balance between the two is where debates about acceptability come into play. However, actual authority is when one individual believes another not only can, but will use effective measures to force an issue if they are disobedient. This nearly always requires an actual demonstration of that willingness. Thus when a sentient person is doing bad stuff for the group as a whole, those in charge doing such things to those who are having a negative impact, is good as it discourages others from being a negative impact on the group.

Ask any gardener, gardens need weeding and plants need pruning. Same thing for societies, except on a society level, weeding means removing very bad people, and pruning means punishing the reasonably rehabilitatable bad people.

The only argument against the death penalty I have found solid is "What if they are were wrongly convicted?" otherwise, keeping convicts alive is generally bad or at least costly. Yeah prisons can turn a profit so they are not obvious burdens on the society, but truth is, they are always a burden. Criminals doing work takes jobs away from people who need jobs, and living murderers and rapists, and other folks who are unlikely to ever be anything other then harmful to the group if they ever get loose will always be ever present threat that needs guarded against, which takes attention and resources away from other things and other threats. Killing them (or in some cases exile, if it is believed they will actually not come back is the best solution as it removes any lasting threat as well as removing a drain on the groups resources (whether financial or other drains, such as job availability.) Granted minor crimes and individuals that have a high chance of rehabilitation can always be given a second chance after a suitable punishment and thus are generally worth the expense.

Alternative examples, too many people putting a drain on too few resources. Trying to support them all equally will end up with a downward spiral of negativity that will put the entire group in danger of destruction, while removing certain individuals or at least focusing on a select group (which means bad things for those outside the select group) means that at least the entire group won't die. (granted that is very generalized, but you can't support a group with too few supplies without killing the group, or at least a large portion of it unless the condition is temporary)

Also when the needs of two groups are mutually exclusive, causing harm will be unavoidable. It should be assumed that whatever theoretically correct course of action will be taken by 95% of people, if it would work, then it is theoretically correct. In this case, the survival of any group is dependent on a group fighting to meet its needs, which means 95% of people taking that action, means people will be harmed, and it will be a good thing (though maybe not for those individuals themselves), as the alternative is have 95% of people forgo their needs which leaves 5% of people, the selfish 5% being the only who gain anything in which case 95% of those involved will suffer harm, just at their own hands instead of at the hands of another.

------
And lastly, harm and suffering are very important, as experiencing small amounts of harm allows one to recover from large amounts of harm. Your immune system needs practice, for if you never get exposed to any sickness, then if you were to encounter so much as a cold, you would die. Martial artists take hits and using conditioning (hitting oneself repeatedly everywhere), so that their body gets used to being hit, making their body more resilient. Etc.

All of these cases are cases of a sentient experiencing harm, but it is good, because everything about people is adaptive, and they adapt to what happens to them, thus experiencing harm makes them more capable of dealing with and recovering from greater harm. So mild harm is often a good thing.

I could no disagree with you more.  It might be a lighter bondage that the slavery of old, but make no mistake that it is slavery.  It seems more polite, but it is almost worse because it is so insidious.  Right now, it is a rampant problem the US in STEM jobs (and the reason wages have been terrible for so long).

Zealotry of this kind is neither good nor acceptable.


Aah but it doesn't actually discourage anything, otherwise at the first death sentence crime would have stopped entirely as long as it was remembered by the people, and we'd only have like one per community every 20-30 years or so. In practice this doesn't happen.


I agree this is an acceptable practice, even when human lives are at cost, but due to the physical harm, it is merely acceptable, not good.


I am very pro death penalty, however I still don't believe it's good, merely acceptable. Very... very... acceptable :D. I would go to my grave falsely convicted in the hopes that someone who was really convicted of a Death Penalty worthy crime would go to their graves as well. Things like going in for a month over rape are very hurtful to me, and only show weakness with our legal system, but outside those few instances of system failures, I'm generally proud of the judicial system.


Indeed, this is one of the forms of that 'financial harm' I mentioned previously. Prisons should go back to the way they were before where prisoners paid their own way, had to rent the cell and so forth. State/Federally funded prison systems are a joke on the citizenry, and worse, a drain on the finances of everyone who pays taxes. They are Evil.

I don't disagree that an action benefitting 95% of the people is correct. I do however disagree that 'correct' and 'moral' are always synonymous. To me, this falls under acceptable evils. Killing one person for the benefit of 20 is evil, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Right. Lesser of two evils, and therefore acceptable, but no less evil in any case.

it's slavery in my book too, but if the slave drivers are humane and don't cause the physical/social/psychological harm typically associated with slavery, I wouldn't call it evil.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 94):

I don't call it slavery because it shouldn't be lumped together with when slaves are made slaves for something outside their control. Debt bondage is something they brought upon themselves.

Additionally, if you really want to call debt bondage slavery, something that came about through the enslaved person's choices, then are getting close to calling anyone with a job a slave, as the only real difference between a job and a debt slave is the ability to quit. Both cases are people doing what they are told and being in that position based on their choices.

Incorrect. This course of action reduces the people who do bad things because fewer will be willing to risk the consequences. But many factors will affect what someone is willing to risk. High risk means fewer people willing to take the risk, low risk means more people willing to take the risk

Discouraging doesn't equate will near absolute results.

Just because something doesn't have near universal results, doesn't mean it doesn't have a significant effect.

You are forgetting that it depends on how good is defined.

Your definition of good does not allow room for any stable society to function without doing things that are not good. At which point one has to wonder why you have defined good in such a way, and whether it intended that there should be an implication that a theoretical society could exist that does only good things.

And yes, the same can be said for my definition, and the "why" for my definition is that my definition focuses on the idea of balance and that no action is ever completely good, not even in fantasy idealism, while also bringing to light how different folks can find idea of what is acceptable without pretending that there is an objective line of acceptability (thus promoting the view of cross-culture acceptance).

I'm not sure I believe the argument for significant results is valid. Maybe if you had numbers from a government that doesn't use the death penalty at all. Mind you, even with that said, I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty, evil as it is.


I'm not forgetting anything. I'm of the opinion that if harm (one of the forms I've previously mentioned) is caused, unduely, there is evil, and if it is caused duely, there's still evil, but it's acceptable.


Aah good, I'm glad you noticed that. I'm a very firm believer that society doesn't function without doing things that are not good. I'm no sure I believe they can't, but at its current state, it will take a lot of convincing for me to believe that it does. Merely all people in political power are required by their mere function to pick between the lesser of multiple evils on a daily basis. I wasn't particularly thinking about that implication, but as I said, I'm not really sure whether it can or not.

Admittedly in my games, that's usually what I'm going for.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:53, Wed 23 July 2014.

Given the following,




One really as to wonder what your definition of "moral" is as well, and why have you decided to make the definitions you now use?

It seems that officially, there is no official idea of what any of these terms mean sufficient for objective classification of actions. At least as far as the english language itself is concerned.

It isn't moral to cause any of types of harm I've mentioned to any entity, whether it be an individual or group. Someone who intends or causes harm on another individual has some level of badness of character. I believe that Paladins and Inquisitors are good at killing heretics, but this does not make them moral. They have fulfilled their roles suitably, but not morally. It is to the benefit or advantage of their reference societies, but the mere fact of causing harm (especially to heretics that might actually be neutral, rather than evil) prevents it from being anything other than an acceptable evil for which they suffer no actual roleplaying penalties provided the evil doesn't outweight the acceptable.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:13, Wed 23 July 2014.

Except this isn't an opinion, it is a definition you have applied to the word "evil." Not everyone uses the same definition.

Your opinion over whether this is what the definition should be is a completely separate thing.

You have defined evil a something that causes harm.
You have the opinion that the above definition is better then others that you know of.

I agree with this, but there are two types of "subjective."

First, there is subjective in the meaning of there being no objective right or wrong.  This a philosophy in and of itself. This is "subjective morality." This appears to be what steelsmitter is referring to.

Second, there is a subjective as to an individual and how an individual perceives and responds to his perception of good or evil.  The individual may also believe in objective good or evil, but individuals are always prisoner to the limits of their own understanding and culture.  This is "subjective to the individual."  I believe this is what you and I are referring to in the context of character and roleplaying.

EDIT: This is also why "alignment" must be based on context of "subjective to the individual."  In other words, a character whose heart is in the right place can be "lawful good" even when doing things other cultures might consider evil or chaotic.  Or even neutral, as in the case of many nature loving characters who believe in natural balance being the ultimate good.

If you define it differently during the game, that's certainly fine as long as everyone playing knows what definition you're working off of.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:16, Wed 23 July 2014.

Does that nice, neat justification include the estimated 15 million children in India, who are in debt bondage mainly due to the actions of others (in many cases, actions which occurred before the kids were even born)?

Not quite. It would need to be an act. More accurately stated, I believe evil is when someone causes harm. My hangup is the part where I seriously disbelieve any actual harm of one of the vairous types previously discussed being caused by an individual is a good thing. You've given two definitions of good, and whereas you consider both of them moral, I consider one of them moral, and the other merely acceptable. We'll just keep going around in circles until you give up, or convince me. I have seen a huge amount of examples of things that are considered moral, but no valid reason why they are actually moral. Provide that, and you'll convince me provided 'I think so' is no less valid than 'society thinks so' when opinions differ, such as slavery, witch hunts, and other things that cause harm. That is to say, there has to be another reason than because society thinks so otherwise morality is useless due to the shortfalls of society.

The saving of souls or redemption and rehabilitation of deviants. These are good acts because in causing some harm now, you spare the person from greater harm. Driving out demons is not an evil act, where doing nothing is unacceptable negligence.

I think you called these necessary or acceptable evils before, but if the purpose of the exercise is to help the person through causing harm, not to cause harm as a punishment or convenience it isn't an evil act.

The forms of rehabilitation that don't cause harm, such as exorcism aren't evil acts. The violent ones, and the ones that cause the financial drain are, but they're acceptable.

In reply to Tileira (msg # 107):

But this goes back to the original subjective implementation of an objective intent argument.  What do you do to save souls?  Some people believe that to save the souls of heathens, the physical body must be destroyed.  Hence, things like burning at the stake to get the devil out.  Is that murder?  Or a good thing?

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 108):

Why are they evil? You're the one challenging us to explain without giving any merit to our points. Why is it better to allow a person to continue on a destructive path with harms them and others, than to apply a measure of force to divert them? If the amount of suffering determines how evil something is, then anything which reduces the amount of evil in the world is an act of good.



In reply to Heath (msg # 109):

I know, but steelsmiter is insisting that morality is not subjective, with no explanation as to why he believes so, and that the nature of an act is not determined by the intent. While he tells us we must justify how an 'evil' act can be 'good' he's not explaining why he believes his definition of 'evil' acts is better than ours.

Okay lets play a game.

Tell me steelsmitter, is injecting a person, any person, with full knowledge and clear intent with highly poisonous materials evil or not?

How far does your definition of evil extend? Pesticide? I don't think it's possible to anything to be defined as good by your scale. Everything is just a matter of greater or lesser evil.

You break someone's arm while saving them from a car? Accidental evil.
You cure a patient with a drug first tested on animals? Necessary evil.
You test a drug on humans without first ensuring its safe through animal testing? Evil.
You eat meat thereby necessitating the slaughter of an animal raised to die? Acceptable evil.
You get a job thereby perpetuating capitalism and the unethical and near immoral behaviours of corporations? Unavoidable evil.
You foster a child and impose your values on them, driving them away from their original beliefs? Deliberate evil.

Evil is like art and porn.  I know it when I see it.

Harmed is harmed, stolen is stolen, raped is raped, dead is dead, driven insane is driven insane.

I didn't say it was better. I'm advocating using the least amount of force to do so. It's always better to harm than to kill. Both are evil, but as I sad above, harmed is harmed, and dead is dead. The least amount of evil is still evil.


No it isn't if it causes harm, it's the lesser of two evils.


Yes, and modern medicine up to and including chemotherapy/radiation/any drug that has any vaguely annoying side effects are evil. As a cancer patient, I've got first hand experience with the evils of the medical profession. I believe the medical profession is the lesser of two evils, but it isn't actually 'not evil'.


Love is good. Sometimes people can love someone and hurt them, but that hurt isn't always harm. if it is harmful, that love is not good, but if it's harm for the sake of trying to pull someone out of a self destructive cycle, it's less evil.


Pretty much yeah. Also, I'm very pro stem cell research. I don't consider it any less evil though.


I've always been fond of barter economy. I see it as the lesser of two evils. Seriously the second someone decided a flat portable object of something pretty or shiny had any value for a reason other than personal consumption, that's where it all started going down hill.

Maybe. If they're actually spiritually harmed in the process. If they're better for it spiritually, then at best you've probably only committed very minor individual evils over a period of years that were probably generally good. Unless your dogma is [insert racial/social group here]-phobic.

In light of all of the above, No one is ever truely good, but most of us, myself included are more or less comfortable with what they've done on the way to being more or less good. Bad experiences are what help us grow. A necessary evil if you will.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:06, Wed 23 July 2014.

This. This quote wins the internet!!! I love it. LMBO

Oh hey, on that subject, Porn is only evil if someone involved experiences psychological (exploitation) social (having a reputation as a certain s word or certain b word that is bothersome to the model) or physical harm. For example the model Asia Carerra has informed various sources that she never had a problem with the industry. Anything listed as extreme, or any use of the word prolapse... evil. What happened to Linda Lovelace, and Marilyn Chambers... evil.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:23, Wed 23 July 2014.

As I see it, the problem with Steelsmiter's definition is one of degree.

If there exists a moral continuum, whether it is objective or subjective, one end of that continuum should be labelled 'Good' and the other end should be labelled 'Evil'.

It seems to me that in Steelsmiter's world, there is no 'Good', only greater or lesser Evil.

Hence I think his definition is skewed.

There are a lot of acts that don't cause any harm, and a lot of accidents that aren't intended to cause harm of one of the various types I mentioned. People are capable of performing unharming acts and thus being good.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 105):

Nope. But can it truly be called debt bondage? Still, as I said, I draw the distinction by whether it was the individual's actions that lead to that result.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 106):



Exactly. YOU are making a classification. You are basing that classification on what you define as being moral.

It is not my intent to make you think that these are moral after all. It is my point to clarify that each of us has different definitions for what is moral, therefore, each of will classify an act based on our definitions.

Your definitions will always lead you where they have.

You simply need to realize that if I claim something is moral and you don't agree, it isn't that one of us is objectively wrong, it is that we are using different definitions of what is moral. We have each defined what is moral, and our definitions do not match.

---
The ability to classify something depends on two factors, understanding of what is being classified, and the definitions of the possible classifications.

This means that to classify an act as either "good" or "evil" we need to define what good and evil are, then we need to understand the act. Only then can we classify an act as either good or evil.

If we use different definitions however, our classifications will be different.

---
Even an objective standard must be defined, and a definition is by its very nature, subjective.

Have you read history? Like, at all? Even a little bit?

I don't 'need to realize' anything. Nothing I said is inaccurate.


Likely more than you, but history talks about countries and when it talks about individuals they're only the ones at the top.

No. An absence of evil is not good, it's an absence of opportunity.

Give us an example of a good (not less evil) act which causes no harm.


Also are you Catholic? Your "evil > EVIL" scale of morality is very depressing. I can't imagine why anyone would bother living if we all shared your definition.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:26, Thu 24 July 2014.

On the contrary, much of what you said is incorrect according to my definition of moral, good, and evil.

You speak as though your definition is the only possible definition, and that is what is false.

Accuracy can only be applied to a defined scope. Change the definition and you change the accuracy.

Why do you think the church redefined the words magic, witch, and sorcery?

As I see it, "good" and "evil" only exist in comparison to each other. Like "sane" and "insane" or "stupid" and "intelligent". The exact definitions will change depending on the individuals discussing it, or the culture, or whatever.

Imagine if there was a society somewhere which had no concept of the things that we normally call "evil". So, no killing/murder, no stealing, no calling people names, no burning their house down. Nothing like that. So everything they do, by our standards, would be considered "good". But to them, who have never even considered the possibility that one person might try to hit another over the head or stab them with a pointy object or whatever, their definition of "evil" might be what we call "less good". Because that's all it is. To them, "evil" might be leaving your rubbish lying around because that's messy and someone might slip on it or something. It's one of those "sliding scale" things, I suppose.

On another note, if killing/harming other life is "evil", then every living thing which has ever existed is evil, because all of it needs to consume organic matter to sustain itself (or at least take it over, in the case of viruses). I don't know if plants have nervous systems (and are thus able to feel pain), but herbivores (and omnivores) are still gonna be killing them in order to survive (except in the cases of those plants whose seeds have evolved to survive passage through a digestive tract and get plopped out the othe end into a nice big pile of fertiliser ;)).

Just because people can generally agree on what is "evil" doesn't mean everyone is "right" about it. I mean, look back in the "olden days" when they still had the death penalty (well, some countries even still use it now, don't they?). Those who made the laws were basically saying "Killing is bad - if you kill people that's a crime, so we're gonna kill you for it...ohh but it's okay if we do it, because we're in charge and we get to make up the rules, including the one which says it's okay for us to kill people", and thereby proving themselves to be about as bad as the people they were executing ;). Anyway, if you want someone to suffer, killing them would be the one thing you wouldn't do to them., wouldn't it?

I'd just like to say I'm sorry. My last post was evil. i did it to illustrate a point. Anyone of any particular belief system has their own perogative to make any choice about it they want. It was the kind of attitude behind the inquisition, witch hunts, and other things that people in this thread have rationalized as 'they thought they were good' or 'they lacked hindsight'. There's no excuse for my last post likewise.


That's not entirely accurate, the absence of evil can be good. It also can be the absence of opportunity. The two aren't mutually exclusive, so it can be either, or, or both.


See, now we're getting somewhere. Up to this point everyone's assumed that there is no good in my definition, rather that the statement "causing one of various types of harms is evil, but here's a bunch of things that are acceptable" is all there is to it. Right. So examples:

Rescuing a cat from a tree
Having consensual sex that is in no way exploitative with someone free of any STDs, who is in relative financial stability, provided both you and they are not in a position to bring psychological damage to a significant other who is not partaking in the act
Donating to charity (or being a philanthropist)
volunteering
Returning a lost item to an individual, without regard for its contents if it is a container such as a wallet

That's not "good" it's just "not evil".


"Rescuing" a cat from a tree is normally a fallacy. It's rare a "rescued" cat is unable to get down on its own, ergo rarely is anything achieved apart from undue stress forced upon the cat: evil.


I assume by "volunteering" you mean working for a charitable cause? Otherwise I volunteer to help finish cake all the time... :P But more seriously, are examples of volunteers using the need of people against them. Is volunteering still a good act when the intention is to use it to facilitate an act of evil?


Even so, by your definition the only way a person can live a "good" life is not to live one at all.

Perhaps something I say will provide one person insight and be helpful.
Perhaps something I say will be disagreeable and rub someone the wrong way.

So is what I have to say good or evil?

Is it a matter of intent?  If I am intending to be helpful or am I just a self righteous, pompous fool trying to coerce others to my way of thinking?

How do you know my intent?  Even if I declare it, I could be lying.

So how can one judge what is evil and what is good?

People are different.  I think it is mostly a matter of personal perception and that perception can vary by situation.

Is killing evil?  A serial nut job shooting up a school vs a policeman killing said nut job?

Is generosity good? Or is it evil because you've now contributed to their dependency on handouts? 

Giving the shirt off your back? Generosity to the point that your own children are hungry?

Someone who has a farm that feeds the hungry could be seen as good.  Building housing to shelter the homeless is seen as good.  Creating business and jobs for people is seen as good.  All these things require land.  Destroying forests, displacing animals.  Extinct and endangered plants and animals.  Evil?

Perhaps every action has an equal and opposite reaction?  Maybe there is no good without evil?

Stress, no matter the circumstance will be inflicted on the cat. By your own definition you used many times above, it is evil.



So spouses who are not in financial stability are evil when they have sex, spouses that carry STD's because of circumstances outside their control(medical personnel) are evil, and conselsual polygamy also becomes evil right there as well. Right on.

So basicly, reproduction of the human race, for most of its circumstances, is evil. Good to know.



So, the charity has no bearing on this. Good to know. Since I can proudly tell the police that clearly while the charity was funding terrorists I as a philanthropist by way of donating to the charity was doing a clearly good thing and thus should be immune from any kind of prosecution.



So, SS officers and troops that volunteered for service to oversee the extermination of Jews during World War II were actually doing a good thing. Shocking news to me.



I'll be sure to remember that when I return the detonator to the suicide bomber.


It seems not you yourself is immune to your own arguments. Any other examples you would care to provide so we can pick your brain for the clear examples of "good"?

All this makes me wonder how you all would answer the big question in "Those who walk away" A story I read in middle school english class. Or was it highschool.... maybe high school.

We can adjust our beliefs to match what we experience or we can adjust our definitions to justify our beliefs despite our experience.

To learn and grow, we must gain understanding. The best way to gain understanding is to question not only our beliefs, but our reasons for believing the things we believe. Another good way to gain understanding is to refine our definitions to maximize clarity and the usefulness of the definitions.

But we must always be aware that what we are doing is manipulating ourselves, or we will fail to notice the reality of the world. If we fail to learn about the reality of the world, then we can not grow beyond ourselves, like a seed that can't escape its shell. If we can't grow beyond ourselves, then we are at the mercy of those who have.

I was going to follow up my 'evil but no good' observation when Steelsmiter made a rebuttal, but others have beaten me to it. As I suspected, it seems very difficult to find a genuinely and wholly 'good' act when faced by his all-encompassing definition of evil.

There is far too much evil in your world, Steelsmiter.

I believe I'm good, but you define most of my thoughts and deeds as 'evil' or, at best, 'acceptably evil'. Does that mean your moral code is itself evil, because it harms my self-esteem by making me feel despicable? ;)

Are your thoughts damaging to your psyche? I'm only responsible for what I say, not what you think. In any case, if your thoughts aren't damaging to your psyche I don't see what makes them evil. In any case, what people aren't getting is that evil that's basically acceptable ends up being more or less neutral. The act itself may not be moral, but the acceptance of the act tends to make it less of an impact.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:37, Thu 24 July 2014.

I can't speak for others, but when I am posting on this thread, I am not posting as to the ultimate good or evil in any metaphysical context, but in classification of persons as "good" or "evil," or "lawful" or "chaotic" in a roleplaying context as to alignment.

A character in an RPG who plays a cleric in a historical witch hunt could actually have a "lawful good" alignment, even though we would classify him differently according to our understanding.  But according to him (and perhaps his deity), he is being lawful and doing good, so there would be no alignment violation there.  (It may really be evil, but that doesn't matter.)

I believe something like that was written about in the Paladin's Guide long ago to justify how a lawful good paladin could still engage in an inquisition or killing others on behalf of his liege.  That kind of thing, but it's been a few years.

Alright, so a post about generalized alignment may be in order then:

Generally speaking if someone limits his harms to those which are acceptable, he's probably not evil. I'm still on the fence whether I'd call him good, it depends on whether he really goes all out with it.

I believe most here are confusing Nature with Evil.  It is the human intent behind some acts which I can regard as Evil as that concept is a human construct and can be found across all cultures in all times.  If you are looking for a Universal Good and Evil I don't believe you will find one.

Examples:

Signing a law - Not Evil.  Signing a law to wipe out people based on color, race, or religion - Evil.

Killing a man threatening your family - Not Evil.  Killing a man just for snoring - Evil.

I could go on but I won't.  It is the purpose and intent which makes an action Evil and it is the same thing with Good.  There are acts committed with the intent to improve another's well-being and those I would consider Good.  Now, both Evil and Good have unintended consequences which may to Good or Evil outcomes but the intent under which those acts were committed, to me, indicate their Good or Evil status.

On a side note: I once had dinner with a family friend who had defended a rather notorious serial killer in court.  He said that this encounter completely changed his views on Evil since he really didn't believe Evil existed.  He recounted how the man calmly, meticulously, and with a smile, recounted the atrocities he had committed on his victims.  The man was not insane and was quite charming and soft-spoken but my friend said you could feel the pleasure this man felt in his recounting.  That convinced him that Evil was real.

As I said before, I know Evil and Good when I see it.  Another's definition means nothing.

Now, as for RPGs, there are, or can be, actual physical embodiments of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos.  In those realms I have no problem laying down a rule system regarding what actions are Good and Evil.  Especially for those classes or roles that revolve around those concepts such as Paladins, Clerics, etc.

If you are creating a definition of morals, you are attempting to influence what I think.

By your definition, my thoughts about wiping the smarmy smile off my tight-fisted boss's face are inherently evil.

So possibly your continuum ranges from evil to neutral?

I am in no way suggesting anyone follow them, that is why the above statement is irrevocably wrong. I don't mean 'not moral' in this case, I mean incorrect. I honestly could care less whether people follow it. I don't follow it. I've merely accepted that I might be good, but I'm more likely neutral. I believe I have caused some measure of psychological or social harm to others, and possibly financial harm to my mother and myself (the degree depends on one's stance on willing contributions I guess, although admittedly some familial contributions have been begrudging).


No, my definition does not include anything other than action. If you act on it, that's inherently evil. Your thoughts don't cause harm to another. They might cause harm to you, and at that point, you are within your rights and ability to let them go. Not doing so is the only evil here.


Only for people who do nothing less evil than causing one of the harms. I'd measure that most adventurers do tend to return possessions to their owners without regards to the actual content of the item, or perhaps rescue kittens from trees, or more heroically, people from burning buildings. Any number of logical extensions of things I included earlier that were good. It's not difficult to extrapolate.

In RPG's, 'good' is whatever the game's GM says it is.

For the definition of 'evil', see the above and extrapolate.

It's a good idea to make sure that you can work with the GM's definitions at the outset.

The trouble with RPG alignments is that they are terribly written and players tend to put their own thoughts and definitions instead of trying to separate their ideas about alignment between the game world and the real world.

To make the issue manageable, the players need to agree on definitions for the alignments that are only for the game and not for the real world.

In reply to Shannara (msg # 139):

This post is the best post in any forum on any topic I've ever seen in my entire life, and maybe some past lives if there was a point from ARPAnet on where I existed, or another universe in which I previously existed that had the equivalent of an internet.

For me.

good, Does it help others? Does it help society?

Evil, Does it hurt others? Does it hurt society?

Lawful, does it maintain order? Does it promote establishment?

Chaotic, Does it dismantle order? Does it mess with establishment?

Neutral, does it concern you and your ideals? Does it even matter?

yes or no, its usually pretty obvious for me and my players.

Yep. that's why for me, Harmful 'goods' are at best, neutral. I realize you didn't say that to further my cause and probably think I'm a bit extreme in it. Still, that's my basis.

Most things are shades of grey and not black and white.  Both good and evil based on the above.

Example: A drug often helps some people but others have side effects worse than the problem the drug is supposed to cure.

Example: Wars are often fought with both sides feeling that a wrong needs to be righted, that winning will make society better.

If the drug improves the quality of life beyond that which it would without, then it is good. If it takes away from it, it is bad. It can be black and white, you have to take the emotional feelings out of it and use just pure logic and judgement.

The same with pulling the plug or inducing morphine overdose on a dying patient, yes your killing them, but if living was torture and you had there express permission then it was a good thing.

War is the result of conflicted ideas or opinions, the inability to cooperate. It is never a necessity until the day comes when there are to many people and not enough planet and the loss of human life is a necessity.

He who casts the 1st stone was being selfish and/or ignorant or hateful all qualities of evil, no matter the self righteous excuse used to justify it, violence isnt the answer. The only time violence is justified by any means of reason is when peaceful resolution is no longer an option and destruction is imminent unless you respond with force to save yourself or those you care about.

This puts you in a unique situation, if you neutralize the offender, you have the opportunity to extend mercy to them, even nurse them back to health to show your humanity, That is a good thing, definitively good.

In reply to Andrew Wilson (msg # 142):

I really hate how you define "lawful" don't why, it just makes me very angry. Particularly when I am trying to play a monk.

The books don't require a belief in law or establishment, and the monk requirement of being lawful is because monks need to be highly disciplined, monks do not need to have a belief in law or establishment, so it irritates me even more when GMs say that I can't be a skilled and disciplined character without believing in, and supporting the local laws. I don't play serious characters in games with such GMs. I don't argue about it, it is their game world, but I do hate it very strongly, for some reason that is unknown to me.

Interesting really, how it can evoke such strong emotions, particularly in someone like me.

does your monk go out of his way to cause mischief and chaos?

if not lol then hes within appropriation

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 143):

Your scale still doesn't have any such thing as an act of good, only acts between EVIL and not evil.


As I said before, the alignments in D&D and the tone of D&D has everything more in common with fairy tales and heroic myths than reality. 21st century opinions of morality don't apply.

It isn't my fault you didn't notice where I posted acts of good.

I saw them. I dispute most of them. You seem to define good as "minimally evil".

No if you think that, you didn't see all of them.

As I understand the DnD definition of "Lawful", it doesn't have to mean obeying actual laws as laid down by an authority figure or whatever - it can mean a personal code of honour or similar possessed only by the individual in question - they have their own rules which they abide by and strictly hold to in all their actions. It doesn't matter what the local king dictates you must do - if your own personal code of conduct says otherwise, then that's what you'll go by.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:18, Sat 26 July 2014.

In reply to Ameena (msg # 152):

You mean I'm not the only one to have read that part? I was thinking my copy of the books must have been special, cause I literally mean it when I say my first group are the only people I have ever heard that recognized that, until you.

Every single other player/GM either ignored it or used the "lawful means following authority" definition.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 153):

I've always knew that as well.

I don't like that definition of lawful, because a character could say, "I will always seek to puzzle, confound, and follow laws and rules and suggestions only if it will benefit me in some way", be absolutely true to that ethos, and apparently be completely chaotic.

Just because they can be true to it, doesn't make it a lawful ethos.

I would call the above a chaotic ethos because it is centered on subjective self benefit.

I would only a personal ethos that is either mostly objective, or is like a personal set of rules even if they don't match the written laws.

A good rule of thumb is whether they could take a common action and argue in either direction for whether it is in keeping with the ethos or not. An acceptable ethos should 95% of the time be absolutely clear as to when it is being violated.

I may allow a slightly more flexible ethos if they have several parts to though.

The ones left alive to teach people they are good

Chaotic good will bring a building down to take out the bad guy, lawful good will try to minimize losses.

chaotic good will justify actions that they saved more by ending the bad guy now, then pursing him in a safer fashion.

Lawful good will appologies for his carelessness, feel guilt, weigh the past consequences in his sleep for life long.

Moral of the story, chaotic often does whatever seems more appropriate at the moment to accomplish its goals, regardless of law. It doesnt actively seek to break the law, it just doesnt prioritize it.

Lawful is the tree in the hurricane that will not bend, nor will it break. Upright is what it was taught what it believes, so upright it shall remain untill it is pulled up by the roots and cast into the storm.

Now this is a interesting question. If you look at it from a evil standpoint. They would consider themselves good. Or at least all the ones I've seen. They are not heroic but they would view themselves differently than others would.

But true good would of course be obvious. But let's take say a king who in his own country is beloved. But in other realms despise and see for the type of person they truly are. A good diplomat for instance might be able to fool the masses.

The best example I could give on this is The Emperor from Star Wars. When he was but a Senator he had them fooled. No one saw him for the Sith Lord he truly was.

In reply to PyraBlack (msg # 159):

However, the Emperor in Star Wars always knew he was evil. He wanted to crush freedom and goodness.

Of more relevance would be a real world dictator such as has been seen in countries like Iraq and North Korea. Their leaders often see themselves as the good guys, fighting the evil forces outside their doors who seek to destroy the values they hold dear. We the outsiders (generalised as 'The West') regard those leaders as oppressive and evil dictators crushing their downtrodden people under their jackboot.

Is it just perspective or are there universal constants that can be applied?

The Emperor in Star Wars didn't see himself as evil, but rather he was unconcerned over such things as morality. He believed it was his right as a Sith Lord to rule, and he did whatever it took to achieve what he believed was rightfully his. To him, the Jedi and rebels were people trying to take away what should be his.

This is why he was telling the truth when he told Anakin the from his perspective the Jedi were evil. The Emperor was using a definition of evil that it is evil to take things from others that is is rightfully theirs. That is also why even after becoming emperor he went through decades of process to finally finish off the senate, even though he could have just dissolved it if he wanted.

This question has been discussed to death. The simple answer? Perspective. When you do something, you do it because from your perspective it's the right thing to do. It's movie and book logic to be intentionally "evil". Even people who are evil in most people's eyes; people like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy come to mind. I don't know anyone who would say these people weren't evil incarnate. Though if you listen to how they speak, they always talk as if it's the victim's fault. They aren't the bad guys in their mind, they're not evil in their head, their perspective is warped to be the good guy. If your perspective isn't warped into thinking the victim WANTS or DESERVES to be brutally attacked, then you'll see them as evil.

Warped implies that it's somehow wrong, but I'd like to say this. I used the term warped because it's not the normal perspective. No normal person thinks what they did is OK. But if you're not normal, if you think what they did is OK, then you would think everyone who saw this as wrong was the warped one. This term just helps explain my position from a perspective I assume we all start out at.

The only universal constant that can be applied is that suffering will happen. Either suffering will come from conflict between entities, or suffering will come from the stagnation that occurs when there is no conflict, which either starts more conflict (the only time it doesn't make conflict is when everyone lays down and dies).

That's why I liked Worm: http://parahumans.wordpress.com/ Just because someone did the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons, they don't automatically get a free pass from guilt.  Bringing down a building, whether it ends the bad guy or not, should bring guilt.  If it doesn't, the character is a total sociopath, chaotic outlook or not.