Let's see, "respect for life" vs. "implies... killing others. Some ... kill without qualms ... killing for sport" Well, clearly I can respect life and still kill. Afterall, I can respect a stag or deer and still kill it for food. Vegetarians aren't the only animal lovers. And quite frankly, if you just say "you're not respecting life if you're willing to kill" then we can't debate anything.
Moving on to the evil side, just because evil implies killing does not mean that killing implies or is necessarily evil. A -> B != B -> A. Simple logic. It goes on to describe ways that evil *can* kill, but does not make any effort to define these ways as being evil.
I think you're being purposely difficult. I've already said that this is not what I meant.
You do not respect life if you're so casual about killing that you kill someone for no good reason (i.e. self-preservation or defense of others). That's what I mean, and that's what you have to address.
What is the death penalty? Basically, it's when a court decides that someones crimes are either too great to allow them to live, or that the danger of letting them live is too great.
Morally not their decision. Legality doesn't come into play.
So if by 'profit' you mean that Society as a whole will be better for the removal of one person, then yeah, I guess you're right, the death penalty *is* for the profit of society.
So you accept my argument but not its logical implication within the rules of the game. Not impressive for someone trying to teach me basic logic.
But moving past the fact that that 'profit' is very different then the one in the text, as the text did not *define* those acts as evil, but as possible examples of evil, then I still don't see how we're getting 'the death penalty can only be evil'.
Because it cannot logically be Good-aligned and Evil alignment has that whole "debasement of life" thing going for it.
I don't see how you can't accept that. You accept the premises, you accept the logic, but the conclusions is like
Conclusion---------------->
You
Why is that? Unless you might be somehow imposing your views on the rules, in which case I don't really feel like discussing this with you anymore (as a rule, when people start projecting, it's time for me to bow out).
Now, I'm sure you've seen this argument before, as you've already said you've argued this before, but since you asked for me to attempt to refute your point, I've done so.
Not a refutation by any definition of the word.
But the simple fact remains: this is a game of heroic fantasy, in which many of the adult stories feature good characters killing evil villains. So even if the text does support your political stance it's my opinion that that is an error of the text and was never the intent.
Hanging a man =/= heroic. Tying a man down and injecting him with poison =/= heroic. Burning a man alive =/= heroic unless done i the heat of battle, in which case it's self-defense.
Do I need to go on?
And quite frankly, the fact that lots of people have interpreted that the text isn't making any sort of statement on the death penalty, and that WotC as a rule avoids making political statements, I really don't think it was their intent to say that the death penalty was evil.
Like I said previously, the fact that someone has an interpretation has no effect on the interpretation's validity. In fact, that is one of the basic logical fallacies (Appeal to belief, to be specific).
I have to say I was rather inspired by the system they used in Mass Effect, which didn't so much use a Good/Evil system as a Paragon/Renegade, which basically boiled down to "doing things by the book" or "doing things the way I want to." While the former was most classically "good" and the latter tended towards evil, both were presented rather fairly. The big thing was that it wasn't Good/Evil but Choice/Consequence, which took out some of the certainty of good/evil and made each decision have much more gravity. It wasn't perfect, of course, but I want to come up with ways to do things like that in games.
Regarding the DnD alignments: I personally believe in moral absolutes, but not all my characters do. Alignment means little to me after character creation, but during creation I think it's a very useful tool, especially with more restricted classes. I believe that creativity is benefited by restriction with some people, such as myself, and figuring out how my character justifies or rationalizes things. Figuring out how my TN Dread Necromancer can justify her powers to good characters helped tremendously define her personality in my mind. On the other hand, my Silver Dragon shaman had her alignment simply because it was necessary, and that was as far as I cared about it.
I think it ultimately boils down to the specific campaign, players, and DM. A Tolkien-esque adventure of heroes versus villains might be better served by an alignment system, while something more akin to H.P. Lovecraftian stories would be less interested in it.
But there's no way to say imperially that its good or not that I can see. 4E seems to use it more as a quick and easy way of giving a general idea of someone's or something's general disposition and way of viewing the world. So perhaps that's its best use, as a simple point of reference rather than a rule.
I have to say I was rather inspired by the system they used in Mass Effect, which didn't so much use a Good/Evil system as a Paragon/Renegade, which basically boiled down to "doing things by the book" or "doing things the way I want to." While the former was most classically "good" and the latter tended towards evil, both were presented rather fairly. The big thing was that it wasn't Good/Evil but Choice/Consequence, which took out some of the certainty of good/evil and made each decision have much more gravity. It wasn't perfect, of course, but I want to come up with ways to do things like that in games.
Regarding the DnD alignments: I personally believe in moral absolutes, but not all my characters do. Alignment means little to me after character creation, but during creation I think it's a very useful tool, especially with more restricted classes. I believe that creativity is benefited by restriction with some people, such as myself, and figuring out how my character justifies or rationalizes things. Figuring out how my TN Dread Necromancer can justify her powers to good characters helped tremendously define her personality in my mind. On the other hand, my Silver Dragon shaman had her alignment simply because it was necessary, and that was as far as I cared about it.
I think it ultimately boils down to the specific campaign, players, and DM. A Tolkien-esque adventure of heroes versus villains might be better served by an alignment system, while something more akin to H.P. Lovecraftian stories would be less interested in it.
But there's no way to say imperially that its good or not that I can see. 4E seems to use it more as a quick and easy way of giving a general idea of someone's or something's general disposition and way of viewing the world. So perhaps that's its best use, as a simple point of reference rather than a rule.
It's posts like this hat make me feel dumb. Jump in, tell people your opinion, don't get sucked into the raging s***storm that always seems to be only one step away.
I think you're being purposely difficult. I've already said that this is not what I meant.
Well, if thats not the basis for your "death penalty is always evil" argument, then would you please restate it as I must have missed it or misunderstood it somewhere along the line. I will refrain from responding to the rest of your post for the moment to avoid confusing things further.
Awesomedude, you still haven't proven your point. Instead, it appears that you are imposing your own personal morals on the game. RAW does not state that the death penalty is evil. It also does not state that the death penalty is good. So it boils down to how you interpret things like value/debasement of life, which tends to revert back to people's own personal beliefs. Since these are your own personal beliefs, not any subjective principal the world runs on, you cannot prove them to be more true than anyone else's personal morals.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Well, if thats not the basis for your "death penalty is always evil" argument, then would you please restate it as I must have missed it or misunderstood it somewhere along the line. I will refrain from responding to the rest of your post for the moment to avoid confusing things further.
Remember the Evil reasons for killing?
SRD]"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Through examination, those reasons incidentally leave only self-preservation and defense of others as non-Evil reasons to kill. Neither of those reasons work without an immediate threat being present.
Which brings us to the text on where Evil debases life (death penalty being debasement, given that it stems directly from the decision that a man's life is less important than a number of things, not all of which are other human lives), which you don't seem to have denied. Which pulls the death penalty away from the Neutral alignment, and not in the right direction.
Then there's the "respect for life," the defining trait of the Good alignment. It's not even disputable that if you decide that someone deserves to die, that you have respect for life itself, unless you've been pushed to far by that particular person (everybody has their limit, and not being 100% Good doesn't make you 0% Good). And even then, ritualized execution goes against the concept of heroic fantasy, and fails to meet the criteria for self-preservation and defense of others. Completely excludes the death penalty from the Good alignment.
There. I've given my answer. It is fully explained, as long as you understand all the terms being used (a while back, somebody failed to understand the concept of self-defense, for example). This is not my responsibility (Wikipedia time!), and any further inquiries will simply result in the answer being restated unless a logical contradiction is pointed out that I didn't see, in which case I will either provide a clarification or mend my wrote:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.[/quote] Through examination, those reasons incidentally leave only self-preservation and defense of others as non-Evil reasons to kill. Neither of those reasons work without an immediate threat being present.
Which brings us to the text on where Evil debases life (death penalty being debasement, given that it stems directly from the decision that a man's life is less important than a number of things, not all of which are other human lives), which you don't seem to have denied. Which pulls the death penalty away from the Neutral alignment, and not in the right direction.
Then there's the "respect for life," the defining trait of the Good alignment. It's not even disputable that if you decide that someone deserves to die, that you have respect for life itself, unless you've been pushed to far by that particular person (everybody has their limit, and not being 100% Good doesn't make you 0% Good). And even then, ritualized execution goes against the concept of heroic fantasy, and fails to meet the criteria for self-preservation and defense of others. Completely excludes the death penalty from the Good alignment.
There. I've given my answer. It is fully explained, as long as you understand all the terms being used (a while back, somebody failed to understand the concept of self-defense, for example). This is not my responsibility (Wikipedia time!), and any further inquiries will simply result in the answer being restated unless a logical contradiction is pointed out that I didn't see, in which case I will either provide a clarification or mend my answer.
RAW does not state that the death penalty is evil.
It does. It doesn't need to be clearly written for it to be implied. We are allowed to draw logical conclusions from the written text (do I need to explain why?). This is a logical conclusion drawn from the written text for your viewing pleasure.
Also, to those who are accusing me of imposing my views on the system: Stop it. You know absolutely nothing about my views and many of you are, in fact, projecting. Disagreeing with me is fine, discussing said disagreement, fine. Drawing conclusions about my ethics and questioning my motives, not fine. It doesn't further the discussion and it's insulting.
By the Core rules, the death penalty is automatically and inherently Evil (a point that I've supported on innumerable occasions in this very thread and incidentally has never been debunked).
It's never been debunked because you've never supported it. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are not discussing D&D rules. You are discussing philosophy and projecting it onto D&D rules.
Until you decide to move this discussion out of the realm of abstract ethical philosophy and into the realm of D&D rules, I'm going to continue to butt out of the philosophical discussion and continue to point out that that's exactly what you're doing (having a philosophical discussion rather than a rules discussion).
And before you say it, by saying this I am in no way making any assumptions about your personal views on morality. I never have and I'll continue not to. That has nothing to do with the fact that you simply are not discussing D&D rules, as you erroneously claim to be doing.
Thanks for posting your argument again, this allows us to get to the point much easier. Thank you.
Awesome_Dude wrote:
Through examination, those reasons incidentally leave only self-preservation and defense of others as non-Evil reasons to kill. Neither of those reasons work without an immediate threat being present.
Then there's the "respect for life," the defining trait of the Good alignment. It's not even disputable that if you decide that someone deserves to die, that you have respect for life itself, unless you've been pushed to far by that particular person (everybody has their limit, and not being 100% Good doesn't make you 0% Good). And even then, ritualized execution goes against the concept of heroic fantasy, and fails to meet the criteria for self-preservation and defense of others. Completely excludes the death penalty from the Good alignment.
d20SRD]"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
M'kay, going back to the text again. It says that evil implies killing others, and that some reasons for evil to kill are convenience, sport, and sometimes duty. It does not say that evil always kills, or that those reasons for killing are always evil. They have been associated with evil though, so if someone is killing for those reasons it does bear another look to see if they're always engaging in an evil act. But that doesn't mean that those acts are *always* evil.
Second, the respect for life bit. I really don't understand your argument where you say "It's not even disputable that if you decide that someone deserves to die, that you have respect for life itself". Why does passing judgement on a person mean that you don't have respect for life? You can respect a concept or organization while still not liking or respecting every part of it. In this case, you're respecting that life has some inherent value that needs to be preserved, and the best way to do so is to remove one small part.
For a few quick metaphors: Sometimes to save a person, you need to amputate a limb. To save a plant you may have to cut off some branches. Heck, even forests can get healthier (as a whole) when subjected to some seasonal forest fires. Does the fact that a doctor is willing to cut off a limb to save the patient mean he doesn't respect the patient (or their life)? Does the botanist care for and respect a plant any less because they cut off a disased limb? And so on.
So please, elaborate on this point.
Next, death penalty and fantasy. Even if we don't' talk about 'death penalty' as in hanging, burning at the stake, beheading and so-on, a writ to go kill some criminal is still a death penalty with the hero as the executor. Off the top of my head, the best example is actually Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz (book, not movie). Still the death penalty, but delivered via hero.
Now, I'm not saying that (in the context of D&D) the death penalty is necessarily good, just that it isn't necessarily evil wrote:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.[/quote] M'kay, going back to the text again. It says that evil implies killing others, and that some reasons for evil to kill are convenience, sport, and sometimes duty. It does not say that evil always kills, or that those reasons for killing are always evil. They have been associated with evil though, so if someone is killing for those reasons it does bear another look to see if they're always engaging in an evil act. But that doesn't mean that those acts are *always* evil.
Second, the respect for life bit. I really don't understand your argument where you say "It's not even disputable that if you decide that someone deserves to die, that you have respect for life itself". Why does passing judgement on a person mean that you don't have respect for life? You can respect a concept or organization while still not liking or respecting every part of it. In this case, you're respecting that life has some inherent value that needs to be preserved, and the best way to do so is to remove one small part.
For a few quick metaphors: Sometimes to save a person, you need to amputate a limb. To save a plant you may have to cut off some branches. Heck, even forests can get healthier (as a whole) when subjected to some seasonal forest fires. Does the fact that a doctor is willing to cut off a limb to save the patient mean he doesn't respect the patient (or their life)? Does the botanist care for and respect a plant any less because they cut off a disased limb? And so on.
So please, elaborate on this point.
Next, death penalty and fantasy. Even if we don't' talk about 'death penalty' as in hanging, burning at the stake, beheading and so-on, a writ to go kill some criminal is still a death penalty with the hero as the executor. Off the top of my head, the best example is actually Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz (book, not movie). Still the death penalty, but delivered via hero.
Now, I'm not saying that (in the context of D&D) the death penalty is necessarily good, just that it isn't necessarily evil either.
