* Good - those who are guilty of no wrong; all non-good being "guilty" of something
* Guileless - those who are simple and honest
* "Collateral damage" - those who had no part in the arguement/fight

EscherEnigma wrote:

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.

It's described as behavior that Evil creatures typicially engage in. You know, Evil-like behavior.

I also noticed something. Evil creatures kill for convenience. What is more convenient to solve a problem than to kill it?

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?

This isn't passing judgement on a person. This is placing a value on a person's life (and not a high value at that, a couple of gold pieces at most).

You can respect a concept or organization while still not liking or respecting every part of it.

I don't, but you sure can.

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.

Except alignment isn't utilitarian. An Evil act is an Evil act, no matter the consequences.

For a few quick metaphors: Sometimes to save a person, you need to amputate a limb.  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)?

This here article applies directly to this part of your post.

It's also a false analogy (the limb is not a person, etc.). But to answer your question, if the patient doesn't want to, then the doctor is not within his rights to amputate the 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 botanist care for and respect a plant any less because they cut off a disased limb?  And so on.

Even less so here because of plants' regenerative abilities.

So please, elaborate on this point.

Already have.

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.

If the person is engaged in threatening the lives of others and attacks the characters, fine. If he surrenders, tough ****. Carrying out the execution would be Evil.

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.

And I'm saying that it is necessarily Evil. I hope you understand that Evil behavior is not exclusive to Evil people.

Nom wrote:

AD is taking one statement and importing about six pages of personal interpretation on top of it and claiming the result as obvious and necessary.

It's a rules argument. I can go as deep as I want to. The most fundamentalist interpretation wins the argument, after all.

"Human life is precious.  Killing another human should attract most severe punishment."

The instant you inflict the death penalty, you become a hypocrite.

"Human life is precious.  We should not kill another human, even if they have done terrible things."

This is more like it.

The problem is, both those conclusions follow reasonably from the premise.

Nyet. One leads to hypocrisy and Evil. The other leads to consistency and justice.

You can show "respect for human life" by demanding equal reckoning from those who destroy it.

No. "Respect for life" implies "respect for life," not "respect for most life" or "respect for some people."

You can also show "respect for human life" by attempting to preserve it at whatever cost.

Sure. Just note that dragging a man down to the town square, tying him up and hanging him by the neck doesn't preserve a thing.

Also, there's an inherent assumption here that respecting life is the highest good.

Never said that. I said respect for life is the defining feature of the Good alignment. Everything is either caused or clarified by it.

The (3.5) rulebooks do not say that, even though they do say that disregard for life is not good.

It comes on a little stronger than "not good."

It's entirely consistent with (say) a strong LG mindset that life is most respected when it is ordered according to some divine principles, and that those who act to destroy or tear down the principles or the order they provide are both acting outside morality and disrespecting the very basis for life.

As soon as they start ritually murdering people, they no longer qualify for "respects life."

You say "that's tyranny!".  They say "Only because you have a debased view of life!".

You're pushing moral relativism now. Alignment is objective.

Note what I am and am not saying:  The above world-view could be consistent with LG as presented in the PH.  It is not the only way to image LG, nor is it necessarily the best or most attractive to Western readers (who tend to put a very high virtue on freedom vs societal order).

If they support the death penalty, that's one feature of the Good alignment that doesn't apply to them.

What I am saying: anything about alignment in the PH needs to be read in the context of a game that is primarily about a violent adventuring lifestyle.  "Good guys saving the common folk from the bad guys (by killing them and ending their threat)" is the classic D&D story structure.  Arguing for a default alignment stance that forces the entire game premise into a difficult moral quandry (without the base rules in any way hinting that this is a design goal or even something the DM should consider) strikes me as silly.

Saving commoners from villains is perfectly compatible with not ritually murdering others.

calronmoonflower wrote:

Actually is condradicts you interpretation of the core rules and not the rules themselves. By the General Vs. specific rule on page 5 of the Rules Compendium the Book of Exalted Deeds wins unless there is a direct statement other to the contrary.

DOES NOT APPLY

You are misusing the rule.

Nothing in the alignment rules suggests an exception for any reason what so ever.

I'm sorry you didn't read the whole quote. I'm not responsible for your laziness.

Now you just using one part of the Rules As Written and ignoring qualifiers place on it. From the 3.5 SRD
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

You want me to dig up the dictionary definition for "innocent"? One of those definitions is "not causing physical or moral injury; harmless."

You know, like a prisoner who has voluntarily surrendered or been rendered helpless.

The basic premises of this argument are not back by the Rules As Written.

No, but they are backed by them.

Also consider that in 3.5 at least it would be practically impossible to jail even a few high level creatures. It would simply be more than any but the richest kingdom could afford.

It's true that you can't jail high level Evil creatures. If only there was some excuse to kill them. Like if they somehow put everyone into a position where it's either the innocent people or the dragon who is going to die.

Oh right. Evil creatures do that all the time. It's the reason they're Evil.

Ok.

You used this From the 3.5 SRD
“ x ;Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others if I recall properly to show that killing it evil.

Implied means a logical outgrowth from so lets try it with something else.

Being a cat implies four legs, fur, and a tail.
Dogs have four legs, fur, and a tail.
Therefor
A dog is a cat.

This is affirming the consequent and thus invalid. You must get enough traits to not only define evil, but separate is from good. Foe example killing in self defense would fall under killing and harm. Preventing the free exercise of evil religions would fall under oppression.

MISQUOTE INAPPLICABLE