Prak, the Mad]That's not natural law, that is theological law. Natural law goes something like this:
You're half right. Natural Law is a theological concept.
What you're describing are Secular Humanist Laws, not the Natural Law. The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in wrote:
That's not natural law, that is theological law. Natural law goes something like this:[/quote] You're half right. Natural Law is a theological concept.
What you're describing are Secular Humanist Laws, not the Natural Law. The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in nature.
Commander of Chaos]The emperor on the other hand, was evil for his own power. He had no need for denial, he was evil because it gave him power, and he knew it.
However, you must admit that the Emperor probably wasn't thinking he was doing something he shouldn't be. His behavior was justified as something which gave him in his mind some clear form of benefit and thereby became the right thing to do according to his adopted beliefs. He may have recognized the fact that other's adopted his image as a banner for amorality, but only for a system of morality he did not accept because it did not, in his mind, promote his own livelihood.
The emperor on the other hand, was evil for his own power. He had no need for denial, he was evil because it gave him power, and he knew it.[/quote] However, you must admit that the Emperor probably wasn't thinking he was doing something he shouldn't be. His behavior was justified as something which gave him in his mind some clear form of benefit and thereby became the right thing to do according to his adopted beliefs. He may have recognized the fact that other's adopted his image as a banner for amorality, but only for a system of morality he did not accept because it did not, in his mind, promote his own livelihood.
Commander of Chaos]That's the main difference between true evil, that would be destroyed at all costs, and the evil that requires a different, harder, approach.
I'd say that as all activities are performed at the cost of deliberation before hand there is a reverse deliberation to bring people back to common sense realizations, without the need to kill them, though all bets are off if they build a giant gun and point it at you. In that case it seems expedience is perhaps the most beneficial policy.
That's the main difference between true evil, that would be destroyed at all costs, and the evil that requires a different, harder, approach.[/quote] I'd say that as all activities are performed at the cost of deliberation before hand there is a reverse deliberation to bring people back to common sense realizations, without the need to kill them, though all bets are off if they build a giant gun and point it at you. In that case it seems expedience is perhaps the most beneficial policy.
journeyman777]"In D&D, good and evil alignment are not subjective concepts." "Evil is misunderstood only in real life."
True. However, if we take this opportunity as one to examine alternatives that make more sense and have philosophically sound implications, and to compare and contrast morality in D&D and the real world, this dialogue is elevated from idle to useful.
The D&D alignment system provides a point of origin from which one may set off in the wrong direction. It advertises the practices of cruelty and compassion (by which I intentionally exclude the act of pity) as equal opportunities for success. The problem becomes murkier when they misidentify good by tying in the imagined necessity of atonement and just tossing the better alternative of forgiveness out the window.
Though evil believes it carries its own best interest close to heart it fails to demonstrate it. The principles it attempts to embody are self detrimental. What's worse however is that good in the framework of D&D doesn't help itself either. It becomes reliant on the expression of hostilities towards those who are highly hostile against themselves. It promotes the egregious practice of spiritual materialism. It declares that peace must be forged on the outside rather than the necessity of cultivating inner peace. In these ways D&D's good is just evil with a different coat of paint.
When I first read the Book of Exalted Deeds I mused that if one just exchanged the word Evil with Israeli or Palestinian that the book would likely adorn the personal library of one who claims the opposite allegiance. It is this kind of instinctive revulsion of one side for the other that acts as an adhesive between the two until the flaws imagined of each side become manifested in those who imagined them. In reality one cannot hope to carve out a meaningful existence by doing the opposite against others.
Now this is all well and good in the world of D&D, but there is unfortunately no alignment for those who want to play good in terms of the real world, for those who wish to transfer their thoughts on beneficial behavior into an analogous heroic figure. Perhaps a variant alignment system would incorporate the polarization elements embodied in the current one, but with a forth alignment that just rises above it all, the Tom Bombadill ali wrote:
"In D&D, good and evil alignment are not subjective concepts." "Evil is misunderstood only in real life."[/quote] True. However, if we take this opportunity as one to examine alternatives that make more sense and have philosophically sound implications, and to compare and contrast morality in D&D and the real world, this dialogue is elevated from idle to useful.
The D&D alignment system provides a point of origin from which one may set off in the wrong direction. It advertises the practices of cruelty and compassion (by which I intentionally exclude the act of pity) as equal opportunities for success. The problem becomes murkier when they misidentify good by tying in the imagined necessity of atonement and just tossing the better alternative of forgiveness out the window.
Though evil believes it carries its own best interest close to heart it fails to demonstrate it. The principles it attempts to embody are self detrimental. What's worse however is that good in the framework of D&D doesn't help itself either. It becomes reliant on the expression of hostilities towards those who are highly hostile against themselves. It promotes the egregious practice of spiritual materialism. It declares that peace must be forged on the outside rather than the necessity of cultivating inner peace. In these ways D&D's good is just evil with a different coat of paint.
When I first read the Book of Exalted Deeds I mused that if one just exchanged the word Evil with Israeli or Palestinian that the book would likely adorn the personal library of one who claims the opposite allegiance. It is this kind of instinctive revulsion of one side for the other that acts as an adhesive between the two until the flaws imagined of each side become manifested in those who imagined them. In reality one cannot hope to carve out a meaningful existence by doing the opposite against others.
Now this is all well and good in the world of D&D, but there is unfortunately no alignment for those who want to play good in terms of the real world, for those who wish to transfer their thoughts on beneficial behavior into an analogous heroic figure. Perhaps a variant alignment system would incorporate the polarization elements embodied in the current one, but with a forth alignment that just rises above it all, the Tom Bombadill alignment.
Originally posted by Wickerbull I'd like to point out that you can't logically prove that something doesn't exist.
Anyway, these are all matters of faith. As I said before, matters of morality and religion go hand in hand. And all religions are based on faith.
Dude, do you read what you type? Where exactly did I try to prove that something doesn't exist? I only tried to prove that morality is only a judgment on a person if intent is taken into account. Specifically, I said that to do otherwise would be to expect every creature to know all consequences of every action it takes.
Your argument about matters of faith proves my point; if we take something on faith, no one can be proven right or wrong. Therefore, if we're trying to assign a right and wrong (which I've said repeatedly is stupid, but very well), we must base it on the faith of the one we're judging or be doomed to additional idiocy.
Crandor, you said: "Well, I say you're wrong because Natural Law doesn't exist. How's that for double reverse circular logic?" Granted, you didn't try to prove that Natural Law doesn't exist. You just implied that you could use logic to prove a negative, which can’t be done, using any form of logic, because that breaks the rules of logic.
Anyway, the morality of actions is based on the object, intention, and circumstances of the actions. If intent, object, and circumstances are going to be taken into account, we can have a clearer picture of what's good and what's evil. This is because we as a race have a pretty good idea of which actions are considered evil in and of themselves.
What we don't have a good idea of, and never will have, are the true intentions behind every action, or all the circumstances that warrant certain actions. So, we need to come back to the idea that, yes, in fact, certain actions are just evil, regardless of intentions or circumstances. There's no good reason to murder someone. Murder is specifically the unnecessary killing of another human person. Why should it ever be appropriate to unnecessarily kill a human being, or even any other living thing?
Likewise, there's no good reason to break any of the other Natural Laws. Look at the list. Can any of those be justified? Maybe stealing, except that, oh yeah, we could always ask permission rather than taking what doesn't rightfully belong to us. And if we're turned down, maybe we oughta work so that we earn the right to have stuff that others shouldn't steal. As far as the other things on the list, none of those can be justified as sometimes not being evil. To break one of the Natural Laws is to commit an evil action, and no amount of good intention or circumstances makes them not evil. So, intention and circumstances come into play only when the action itself can't be defined on their own as being evil in and of themselves.
Now, as to faith being an issue: We must have faith that there are intrinsically good and evil actions. That way, we need not always rely on there being a good or evil intention behind every action. Because intention doesn't always matter. And since faith can be defined as confident belief in the truth, faith is a part of every person's life. Unless there are some people who have no idea what to accept as truth, which is somewhat sad and wishy-washy. What we must do then, is all find faith in the right truth. And I'm sure everyone can guess what I'm going to say is the truth.
This point has been made before in this thread, I know.
Wickerbull]The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in nature.
I'm sure that monotheism is naturally in human heart. That said, I'll drop the subject before we get into a theological (religious) debate.
The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in nature.[/quote] I'm sure that monotheism is naturally in human heart. That said, I'll drop the subject before we get into a theological (religious) debate.
Masterful_Norg]Though evil believes it carries its own best interest close to heart it fails to demonstrate it. The principles it attempts to embody are self detrimental. What's worse however is that good in the framework of D&D doesn't help itself either. It becomes reliant on the expression of hostilities towards those who are highly hostile against themselves. It promotes the egregious practice of spiritual materialism. It declares that peace must be forged on the outside rather than the necessity of cultivating inner peace. In these ways D&D's good is just evil with a different coat of paint.
True, this. This is because the alignments are equal and polar opposites. Having heroes who forgive opponents, only to stop them again and again, isn't quite as thrilling as fight to death.
Though evil believes it carries its own best interest close to heart it fails to demonstrate it. The principles it attempts to embody are self detrimental. What's worse however is that good in the framework of D&D doesn't help itself either. It becomes reliant on the expression of hostilities towards those who are highly hostile against themselves. It promotes the egregious practice of spiritual materialism. It declares that peace must be forged on the outside rather than the necessity of cultivating inner peace. In these ways D&D's good is just evil with a different coat of paint.[/quote] True, this. This is because the alignments are equal and polar opposites. Having heroes who forgive opponents, only to stop them again and again, isn't quite as thrilling as fight to death.
Now this is all well and good in the world of D&D, but there is unfortunately no alignment for those who want to play good in terms of the real world, for those who wish to transfer their thoughts on beneficial behavior into an analogous heroic figure.
Good would still be most appropriate.
Crandor]Your argument about matters of faith proves my point wrote:
Your argument about matters of faith proves my point; if we take something on faith, no one can be proven right or wrong. Therefore, if we're trying to assign a right and wrong (which I've said repeatedly is stupid, but very well), we must base it on the faith of the one we're judging or be doomed to additional idiocy.
This is a good point, especially to Wickerbull. We are not discussing good and evil, or lack thereof, in real world, but in D&D. The alignments are defined in PHB (and SRD, for that matter). They don't include any particular religion. Though they are based on strongly western (Christian) worldview.
Gilean]This is a good point, especially to Wickerbull. We are not discussing good and evil, or lack thereof, in real world, but in D&D. The alignments are defined in PHB (and SRD, for that matter). They don't include any particular religion. Though they are based on strongly western (Christian) worldview.
Yeah, I got the point that we were talking about a game.
About the D&D rules for morality being based on strongly Christian worldview (polytheism aside), they are, in theory. In practice, the fact that violence is the main way to solve problems in this game blurs the differences between Good and Evil so that intention is what we have to go on when we determine the morality of an action.
That just doesn't work. The moral codes in the PHB is there to give a reason for a morally based character to adventure wrote:
This is a good point, especially to Wickerbull. We are not discussing good and evil, or lack thereof, in real world, but in D&D. The alignments are defined in PHB (and SRD, for that matter). They don't include any particular religion. Though they are based on strongly western (Christian) worldview.[/quote] Yeah, I got the point that we were talking about a game.
About the D&D rules for morality being based on strongly Christian worldview (polytheism aside), they are, in theory. In practice, the fact that violence is the main way to solve problems in this game blurs the differences between Good and Evil so that intention is what we have to go on when we determine the morality of an action.
That just doesn't work. The moral codes in the PHB is there to give a reason for a morally based character to adventure; they add no actual depth to the game, because they're blanket statements about what Good and Evil are.
We're forced to go outside the game for moral guidance for our characters, and that's what leads to real world moral discussions. Certainly not religious fanatics with nothing better to do. :D
There's an important gulf in D&D between alignment as it works in the Prime Material Plane versus the Outer Planes. I think the two must be dealt with separately, at least at first, even though they are interrelated.
The Outer Planes are polarized, as are their occupants. The thing is, polarized does not necessarily mean "absolute." Yes, yugoloths are very, very evil, and the guardinals are very, very good, but does this mean that either is representative of absolute evil or absolute good? And would any asserted position be acknowledged by all the entangled parties?
I hate to use Plato's corpse as a shield, but the problem is one of World One, World Two: can the pure definition be represented materially? In the terms of the Cave, can the shadow incarnate every detail of the base object?
Given the way D&D metaphysics is set up, I'd say no: even though form, matter, and concept are more intimately bound in the Outer Planes, they still are not unified: thus form does not perfectly mirror concept. The planar exemplars are high-relief representations of different facets of the pure [Platonic World One] definitions of good, evil, neutrality, law, and chaos...well-defined shadows on the cave wall.... The fact, though, that an archon can fall or a devil be redeemed suggests the exemplar identity is not wholly deterministic, just phenomenally ingrained: powerful forces...whether magical or just plain stimulating...though, can alter their nature.
Sentient beings on the Prime Material Plane, by contrast, seem to have free will: their lives, both biological and psychological, are not automatically governed by an inclination toward good or evil, law or chaos [sorry, Meng-tzu] from a spiritual standpoint. Different individuals will experiment with different strategies of moral conduct and arrive at a decision about how to prioritize their desired ends versus those of others as well as the acceptable means to obtain those ends. Over time, environment and socialization standardize moral and ethical systems across individuals, but it still comes down to personal exercise.
However.
The first complication of this dichotomy is the mutual permeability of the Prime and Outer Planes. Prime sentients have been engaged in a diaspora into the Planes for uncounted generations, and outsiders have in turn visited, tinkered with, and habited the Prime Material Plane. Over time, the oil and water of free will and determinism have begun form a colloid...resulting in smeary spectrum of planar inhabitants currently extant in D&D mythology. Alignment issues have become correspondingly blurry: while there is little threat of the planes suddenly depolarizing, the concept of a clear alignment "identity" derived from an Outer Plane has become more complicated.
The second complication is the problem of chicken versus egg...or in this case, separating the chicken and egg portions of a sizable, slightly messy chicken omelet. Does the polarized nature of the Planes generate the alignment conflict on the Prime, or do the moral and ethical dilemmas of Prime sentients manifest themselves as the planar quincrux of Good, Evil, yadda, yadda? If the former...who set up this crazy design in the first place? If the latter...then what or who is defining the operant criterion for the five basic positions? Is it gestalt? A manifestation of the collective unconscious? Jimmy Hoffa?
Wickerbull]Crandor, you said: "Well, I say you're wrong because Natural Law doesn't exist. How's that for double reverse circular logic?" Granted, you didn't try to prove that Natural Law doesn't exist. You just implied that you could use logic to prove a negative, which can’ wrote:
Crandor, you said: "Well, I say you're wrong because Natural Law doesn't exist. How's that for double reverse circular logic?" Granted, you didn't try to prove that Natural Law doesn't exist. You just implied that you could use logic to prove a negative, which can’t be done, using any form of logic, because that breaks the rules of logic.
That was a joke. I was making fun of your illogic in some previous post. I thought the emoticon with the tongue sticking out would have given that away, along with the fact that I humorously named my own breakdown in logic
Wickerbull]Anyway, the morality of actions is based on the object, intention, and circumstances of the actions. If intent, object, and circumstances are going to be taken into account, we can have a clearer picture of what's good and what's evil. This is because we as a race have a pretty good idea of which actions are considered evil in and of themselves.
By taking into account intent and the situation surrounding that intent, you are, in fact, merely trying to get a clear picture of intent. It seems strange that you've dropped consequences from your list of things to be analyzed wrote:
Anyway, the morality of actions is based on the object, intention, and circumstances of the actions. If intent, object, and circumstances are going to be taken into account, we can have a clearer picture of what's good and what's evil. This is because we as a race have a pretty good idea of which actions are considered evil in and of themselves.[/quote] By taking into account intent and the situation surrounding that intent, you are, in fact, merely trying to get a clear picture of intent. It seems strange that you've dropped consequences from your list of things to be analyzed; that was really the source of most of the argument, here. And if we, as a race, know what's good and what's evil, why are we having this argument right now?
Wickerbull]What we don't have a good idea of, and never will have, are the true intentions behind every action, or all the circumstances that warrant certain actions. So, we need to come back to the idea that, yes, in fact, certain actions are just evil, regardless of intentions or circumstances. There's no good reason to murder someone. Murder is specifically the unnecessary killing of another human person. Why should it ever be appropriate to unnecessarily kill a human being, or even any other living thing?
If we can never know the true intentions, as you admit, how do you expect to make a judgment based, even partially, on them? If you don't want to base your judgment at all on intent, why are you calling it morality? That is called practicality. It's interesting to see how such practicality conflicts with your claim that there's never a reason to murder someone (by the way, murder is unlawful killing, not unnecessary). Even if murder were "unnecessary killing," who defines unnecessary? If the person killing didn't think it was necessary, he wouldn't do it, but that killing is extremely unnecessary from the point of view of the victim. Also, there's no way to survive in this world without killing something. Even plants kill each other by blocking out sunlight or fighting for minerals from the ground.
What we don't have a good idea of, and never will have, are the true intentions behind every action, or all the circumstances that warrant certain actions. So, we need to come back to the idea that, yes, in fact, certain actions are just evil, regardless of intentions or circumstances. There's no good reason to murder someone. Murder is specifically the unnecessary killing of another human person. Why should it ever be appropriate to unnecessarily kill a human being, or even any other living thing?[/quote] If we can never know the true intentions, as you admit, how do you expect to make a judgment based, even partially, on them? If you don't want to base your judgment at all on intent, why are you calling it morality? That is called practicality. It's interesting to see how such practicality conflicts with your claim that there's never a reason to murder someone (by the way, murder is unlawful killing, not unnecessary). Even if murder were "unnecessary killing," who defines unnecessary? If the person killing didn't think it was necessary, he wouldn't do it, but that killing is extremely unnecessary from the point of view of the victim. Also, there's no way to survive in this world without killing something. Even plants kill each other by blocking out sunlight or fighting for minerals from the ground.
Wickerbull]Likewise, there's no good reason to break any of the other Natural Laws. Look at the list. Can any of those be justified? Maybe stealing, except that, oh yeah, we could always ask permission rather than taking what doesn't rightfully belong to us. And if we're turned down, maybe we oughta work so that we earn the right to have stuff that others shouldn't steal. As far as the other things on the list, none of those can be justified as sometimes not being evil. To break one of the Natural Laws is to commit an evil action, and no amount of good intention or circumstances makes them not evil. So, intention and circumstances come into play only when the action itself can't be defined on their own as being evil in and of themselves.
I don't have your list right in front of me, but I'd like to ask what higher power decreed that these actions are wrong such that I'm now supposed to justify them? wrote:
Likewise, there's no good reason to break any of the other Natural Laws. Look at the list. Can any of those be justified? Maybe stealing, except that, oh yeah, we could always ask permission rather than taking what doesn't rightfully belong to us. And if we're turned down, maybe we oughta work so that we earn the right to have stuff that others shouldn't steal. As far as the other things on the list, none of those can be justified as sometimes not being evil. To break one of the Natural Laws is to commit an evil action, and no amount of good intention or circumstances makes them not evil. So, intention and circumstances come into play only when the action itself can't be defined on their own as being evil in and of themselves.[/quote] I don't have your list right in front of me, but I'd like to ask what higher power decreed that these actions are wrong such that I'm now supposed to justify them? Also, you seem focused on situations where someone is weighing breaking your as-yet-inadequately-defined Natural Law against...well, I'm not sure what against, exactly, but something to the effect of "not breaking it"; what about times when the "crime" is a completely unintended outcome? They think something's theirs so they take it, but it turns out it was someone else's. There's stealing; was it evil?
Wickerbull]Now, as to faith being an issue: We must have faith that there are intrinsically good and evil actions. That way, we need not always rely on there being a good or evil intention behind every action. Because intention doesn't always matter. And since faith can be defined as confident belief in the truth, faith is a part of every person's life. Unless there are some people who have no idea what to accept as truth, which is somewhat sad and wishy-washy. What we must do then, is all find faith in the right truth. And I'm sure everyone can guess what I'm going to say is the truth.
This point has been made before in this thread, I know.
Well, mostly this last part doesn't say anything. It says, " It's self-evident that I am right" Not exactly convincing wrote:
Now, as to faith being an issue: We must have faith that there are intrinsically good and evil actions. That way, we need not always rely on there being a good or evil intention behind every action. Because intention doesn't always matter. And since faith can be defined as confident belief in the truth, faith is a part of every person's life. Unless there are some people who have no idea what to accept as truth, which is somewhat sad and wishy-washy. What we must do then, is all find faith in the right truth. And I'm sure everyone can guess what I'm going to say is the truth.
This point has been made before in this thread, I know.[/quote] Well, mostly this last part doesn't say anything. It says, " It's self-evident that I am right" Not exactly convincing :P I can assure you that it is not imperative that I believe that good and evil are absolutes. Faith is confident belief in something, but not necessarily the truth. And saying the words "sad and wishy-washy" in no way makes it less correct to reserve judgment at times.
Gilean]Having heroes who forgive opponents, only to stop them again and again, isn't quite as thrilling as fight to death.
That much can be agreed upon.
Having heroes who forgive opponents, only to stop them again and again, isn't quite as thrilling as fight to death.[/quote] That much can be agreed upon.
Gilean]Good would still be most appropriate.
However, those characters would likely feel disinclined to submit to the rulings and actions of others who display the "Good" descriptor as according to the general D&D interpretation, and would also likely debate against both the existence and necessity of fighting so called evil. In fact, they would be inclined to indicate how meting out retribution only contributes to the problem, whereas restoration is far more appealing and productive.
These characters would also feel that evil is to strong a descriptor especially whereas magic is concerned and that if it were taken to mean "emotional retardation" or "acceptance of and action upon false agreements with oneself" then they would likely opt for a "detect hostility" spell as an alternative to the "detect 95 percent of the population" spell. So in many ways these people would be the black sheep of the good alignm wrote:
Good would still be most appropriate.[/quote] However, those characters would likely feel disinclined to submit to the rulings and actions of others who display the "Good" descriptor as according to the general D&D interpretation, and would also likely debate against both the existence and necessity of fighting so called evil. In fact, they would be inclined to indicate how meting out retribution only contributes to the problem, whereas restoration is far more appealing and productive.
These characters would also feel that evil is to strong a descriptor especially whereas magic is concerned and that if it were taken to mean "emotional retardation" or "acceptance of and action upon false agreements with oneself" then they would likely opt for a "detect hostility" spell as an alternative to the "detect 95 percent of the population" spell. So in many ways these people would be the black sheep of the good alignment. :D
Good and evil, right and wrong, morality...call it what you will, but it's a concept that can't be defined or explained very simply.
IIRC from sociology last semester, or maybe my HS sociology class, or both, most sociologists agree (enough to put it in the textbooks) that you cannot define an action as being indisputably good or evil, even after considering circumstance, motivation, intentions, etc. The problem is that what is defined as good or evil varies from culture to culture. As much as I would like natural law to exist, I really don't think it can, though if everyone had the same viewpoint, or at least a large enough majority, something like natural law could happen...but it wouldn't be infallible. And that's the thing that makes natural law so appealing--you absolutely know its right, period. Fact of the matter is though, how good and evil, morality, and the like works doesn't matter as much as how it's applied to DnD.
Here's something to chew on: Take druidsrule's character, laiken. He is most definitely committing evil acts as he attempts to achieve this paradise he wants. He will probably fail, and no good will come of these bad acts. Regardless of his intention since its so grandiose and not really a realistic possibility, he's evil. If he, through some stroke of luck or whatever, succeeds in his dream of paradise, do you now consider him good? Assuming that everyone does get along, there's no conflict, racism, or prejudice of any kind, it's hard to call him evil. Yes, he did, in fact, commit a lot of evil in his day, but it was all for the far greater good.
Another little idea. Who says a villain has to be evil, or be doing something that happens to be evil. The PCs could be working for one good nation/city/state/group/individual against a rival good nation/city/state/group/individual. Likewise, they could be working for an evil force of some sort against another evil force. Just because your good (or evil) doesn't mean that you are necessarily on friendly terms with another good (or evil) person.
It's very interesting to be working for, say, an evil lich to thwart a potential rival's attempt at becoming a lich. Think of the possibilities of betrayal on both the PCs and the lich's part. Also think about what must be running through the LG paladin's head the entire time...
