Morality in PnP

[Dark_Raven]

Even though what brought this up was in NWN2 I think it applies to PnP in general.

 

NWN2 in the orc caves you are faced with a situation. There are wounded orcs there that you can let go, they are too badly injured to fight or you can kill them. My two good aligned npcs say let them go. A paladin who I thought was their duty to smite evil suggested this. An option was to kill them, why let them live when they can heal and fight on another day. Khelgar says no it looks like they will not last the night. I ended up killing them, gained 9 evil points for the dialogue options I chose and lose influence with the two good aligned npcs. So this act is evil?

 

Khelgar said they would not last the night, so by killing them, this would be a mercy killing. Why allow them to suffer a slow death when you can speed it along. This is not evil.

 

Mr paladin I thought it was their duty to smite evil where ever it was regardless in what state the enemy was in. This is not evil, you are upholding your end by eliminating evil.

 

The strange thing is the dialogue choices were not obviously evil in nature which I did not understand. Now if the options of:

I'm going to enjoy gutting these weaklings!

No, let them live, they will die a slow suffering death.

 

Now those are evil options. What the game provided didn't seem evil. I wish I remembered them word for word.

 

If a situation like this happened in a PnP game, would it be evil or not?

[Darque]

Would killing a child be evil?

 

How about someone so old they can barely move?

 

It comes down to context.

 

In this context the orcs are to weak to fight or defend themselves (much like a child or an extremely old person), so it's effectively murder.

 

Righteous murder depending on point of view, but still.

 

 

 

as a side note: Thanks for the tip on how to get a lot of evil points, my warlock is sliding toward good again. :ph34r:

[Dark_Raven]

In the orc world strength is valued weakness is frowned on. By removing their weak links I'm sure they won't take it personal.

 

Why allow an enemy to live to fight and kill another day when you can take them out right now? They live, they heal, they go out and massacre a village, how will that rest on your conscience? You could have eliminated this from happening but compassion got in the way and now more innocents are dead.

 

Any way back to the game, the dialogue options I chose, I thought were pretty neutral in the way they were worded, not evil.

 

But my NE character needed the evil points since she gained some good points earlier on.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Dark_Raven

[Darque]

Your character isn't an orc though.

 

It also depends on context.

 

For "civilized" people it'd be evil.

 

But for the Drow (for example) or a harsh barbarian culture, it'd be acceptable. (but still seen as "evil" by the civilized lands )

 

One definite failing of the Alignment system.

[Pop]

It seems obvious to me that the NWN2 orc cave situation was devised from a Kantian perspective. That the orcs were going to die anyway or that they were suffering was not considerable. Killing in the name of mercy would still be killing them when they posed no threat to anyone, and killing is not prima facae a good act in any case, especially when done arbitrarily, as in the example.

 

In PnP, it falls to the DM to decide whether an act is considered right or not. But it's always assumed that altruism is good and egoism is evil. the personal philosophies of characters are pretty much laid out. Kantians are generally LG. Lockeans are good. Utilitarians are generally good but tend towards neutrality in many cases. Teleology is generally neutral, as is thomism. Egoism is almost universally evil (Ayn Rand's version pretty much defines evil), nihilism is always CE.

 

Your character isn't an orc though.

 

It also depends on context.

 

For "civilized" people it'd be evil.

 

But for the Drow (for example) or a harsh barbarian culture, it'd be acceptable. (but still seen as "evil" by the civilized lands  )

 

One definite failing of the Alignment system. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is where we get to the retarded stepchild of ethics, relativism. Remember that this is D&D we're talking about. Relativism cannot reasonably exist in the D&D universe. The central claim of relativism is that there is no objective right or wrong, good or evil, that it's all dependent on context. The very existence of the alignment system makes that claim blatantly untrue. To a relativist, the only measuring tool one has for the morality of an action is the dictum of the society in which the actor lives, thus no action is always right or wrong. But we've got this handy dandy system of alignment that governs D&D, so that relativist assumption is rendered false.

 

Furthermore, one of the arguments for relativism in the real world is that there are no tangible "good" or "evil" objects, and thus the objective existence of such concepts cannot be proven, but that is not the case in D&D, as good and evil are manifested physically in angels & demons, the upper & lower planes. It's ludicrous to suggest that demons are evil only in context.

 

Thus, your conclusion is hollow. If anything, the D&D universe was concieved to avoid contextual right & wrong.

 

The White Wolf games, however, are another matter entirely. What "preserving your humanity" means would be diametrically different between DMs who take egoist and altruistic views of what being human entails. A subjectivist DM could effectively remove the entire concept of humanity from the game. What fun would that be? Morality serves an even greater purpose in that universe.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Pop

[Walsingham]

If I can condense Pop's post a little, I think he's saying that in an absolutist 'I wear my alignment on my head like amotel sign' universe (D&D) you should be whacking the evil people, no matter what state they're in. Otherwise, what happens when you are in the process of beating a bad guy and just before he is going to die he surrenders?

 

On a more sophisticated note I'd say the problem isn't so much aligment as paladins. Paladins don't think about smiting evil. They just get punching. Or to misquote a train passenger and an honest cossack:

 

"But what if the monk is innocent?"

"*Shrugs* This is Russia. We've got lots of innocent monks."

[Sand]

Would killing a child be evil?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually that is a moral question that is coming up in my PnP game. You see this priest, a very not evil priest, got a vision from his god, a good deity, that children born with a rune, either on the hand or on their face, will rise in power and destroy the city. The leader of these children will be is unborn child.

 

The PCs, not knowing the prophecy, have saved the lives of two children. Well, not exactly. They stopped one assassination and while the other became a very powerful undead but still has the mind of an innocent child which they rescued. Now if they learn of the prophecy I am wondering if they will side with the priest and kill these runebearers or stand against him knowing that they endanger the lives of thousands of people.

[alanschu]

Mr paladin I thought it was their duty to smite evil where ever it was regardless in what state the enemy was in.

 

I don't recall ever thinking this about Paladins.

[Darque]

Lawful good is about Justice, not offing evil at every turn.

[Dark_Raven]

Justice shall be swift and final! Sad when I remember quotes from BG.

 

It is the duty of LG to exterminate evil where ever it is in whatever state its in. I guess I would make an unbending and zealous LG character.

[Darque]

Nah.

 

Zeloutry is more Lawful Neutral.

 

Word of the law over the spirit of the law.

[alanschu]

Vhailor would seem to validate that point of view, at least in CRPGs.

 

He was absolutely gung-ho about justice, and he was Lawful Neutral. He was so in for justice that he didn't care about the ramifications of good nor evil. Hence, he slaughters Trias the Betrayer after he repents for his actions and plans on trying to make things right (which was one of the coolest parts in recent video gaming memory).

[Jorian Drake]

Your character isn't an orc though.

 

It also depends on context.

 

For "civilized" people it'd be evil.

 

But for the Drow (for example) or a harsh barbarian culture, it'd be acceptable. (but still seen as "evil" by the civilized lands  )

 

One definite failing of the Alignment system. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even a Chaotic Good could agree with killing them.

[Blank]

Euthanasia FTW!

[Jorian Drake]

Euthanasia FTW!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And even a LG if his laws allow it

[Maria Caliban]

Dark Raven:

" I ended up killing them, gained 9 evil points for the dialogue options I chose and lose influence with the two good aligned npcs. So this act is evil?"

 

Well, yes. The last time I checked, murder is considered evil.

 

" Khelgar said they would not last the night, so by killing them, this would be a mercy killing. Why allow them to suffer a slow death when you can speed it along. This is not evil."

 

Is Khelgar a physician? Does Khelgar *know* that *every* one of them is going to die? Do you?

 

Here's a situation: Dark Raven has fallen down the stairs and broken her back when Maria and Darque come upon her. Darque says, "DR is in so much pain and it's obvious she's going to die," so Maria lops DR's head off. There are a number of problems here; first off, Darque does not know the future, secondly, and more importantly, Maria did not check with DR to see if DR was fine with having her head chopped off. Maria simply assumed she knew what was best for DR and DR's opinion of what was best mattered jack all.

 

On the other hand, there's someone in the game who says that they are suffering horribly and so asks you to kill them. When you do so, you get good points.

[Maria Caliban]

Walsingham:

" If I can condense Pop's post a little, I think he's saying that in an absolutist 'I wear my alignment on my head like amotel sign' universe (D&D) you should be whacking the evil people, no matter what state they're in. Otherwise, what happens when you are in the process of beating a bad guy and just before he is going to die he surrenders?"

 

I don't think that's what he was saying.

 

Besides, in NWN, if someone surrenders while you're beating them up and you kill them then you get evil points. Remember the fight with the orc?

[Tigranes]

Maria is right with DR's original situation. It's exactly like the Euthanasia question - if you can ask them if they want death or not, why wouldn't you? In fact, the Orcs in that cave aren't exactly bound, they could kill themselves if they wanted to. Since they didn't, why are you suddenly the do-gooder / arbitrator?

 

Pop's assertions are interesting because I (like any good postmodern generation person that has interest in philosophy/ethics ) have relativist leanings and often struggle to see if they should be 'implemented' in my D&D personality or if I should leave it out. Remember that relativism or simply counterpoints have been widely popular in especially CRPGs and some D&D novels - i.e. the standard "Orc but not evil". While of course the question of hereditary evil (heh, bhaalspawn prophecy) is not the same as the relativist argument, it would be prudent to accept the presence of relativist perspectives in D&D now, by users or by creators.

 

Remember the fight with the orc?

 

I think there's always been an implication with many plots that to be Good involves a certain level of unrealistic idealisation, and to be ruthlessly pragmatic is to be Evil. I killed Yaisog Bonegnasher because I knew that the chance of him reporting his findings to his superiors could not be taken (not in terms of the game, in terms of roleplaying). In a way that's my gripe with being Good in D&D - you are expected to do the Greater Good while saving puppies and children, and pardoning villains and rebuilding collapsed toilets on the way. Then when your good actions push yourself into an inescapable situation, you either heroically pull something out of your arse or die heroically and tragically. Which is why I nearly always end up just playing CG and bend the rules a bit.

[Gorth]

Here's a situation: Dark Raven has fallen down the stairs and broken her back when Maria and Darque come upon her. Darque says, "DR is in so much pain and it's obvious she's going to die," so Maria lops DR's head off. There are a number of problems here; first off, Darque does not know the future, secondly, and more importantly, Maria did not check with DR to see if DR was fine with having her head chopped off. Maria simply assumed she knew what was best for DR and DR's opinion of what was best mattered jack all.

That is based on the assumption that Dark Raven isn't a raping, pillaging, child molesting miscreant.

 

If Dark Raven is a know menace to the innocent and you know based on her nature that she will kill innocents if she manages to get up and move around again, is the choice then really that simple. Buy not acting, don't you become an accomplice to a possible future evil act by not preventing it (and chopping of Dark Ravens head given half the chance, never mind the nature of the chance) ?

[Pop]

Dark Raven:

" I ended up killing them, gained 9 evil points for the dialogue options I chose and lose influence with the two good aligned npcs. So this act is evil?"

 

Well, yes. The last time I checked, murder is considered evil.

 

" Khelgar said they would not last the night, so by killing them, this would be a mercy killing. Why allow them to suffer a slow death when you can speed it along. This is not evil."

 

Is Khelgar a physician? Does Khelgar *know* that *every* one of them is going to die? Do you?

 

Here's a situation: Dark Raven has fallen down the stairs and broken her back when Maria and Darque come upon her. Darque says, "DR is in so much pain and it's obvious she's going to die," so Maria lops DR's head off. There are a number of problems here; first off, Darque does not know the future, secondly, and more importantly, Maria did not check with DR to see if DR was fine with having her head chopped off. Maria simply assumed she knew what was best for DR and DR's opinion of what was best mattered jack all.

 

On the other hand, there's someone in the game who says that they are suffering horribly and so asks you to kill them. When you do so, you get good points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody ever knows the future in advance (in D&D, some high-level spells could very well make this untrue) but that's not a good enough reason to advocate not killing DR.

 

Since we're going down an anti-consequentialist path, suppose this counter-example: Maria runs through Darque's yard, in through the front door and out through the back, and Pop comes into the yard shortly thereafter, dripping with fresh blood, donning a leather mask and wielding a large, bloody chainsaw. Pop then asks Darque where Maria went.

 

Obviously, Pop means Maria harm. But we can't know the future, perhaps Pop simply wants to return Maria's bloody chainsaw to her. And if murder is prima facae wrong we can reasonably assume that lying is also prima facae wrong. Therefore, we must conclude that Darque must tell Pop the truth, and in so doing, probably condemn Maria to a horrible death.

 

I see something seriously wrong with this reasoning. Of course, one cannot tell the future, but we can reasonably assume what the future will hold, given our actions.

 

The argument that DR didn't sign off on her own death is sound, given that we accept one's supreme right over themselves. However, if DR is in a persistent vegetative state (remember that?) or some other comatose condition from which she will never emerge and thus can never decide for herself what she wants, the concept of "rights" becomes hopelessly confused, and we can discard it. It then comes down to sanctity of life vs. prevention of pain arguments.

 

  Walsingham:

" If I can condense Pop's post a little, I think he's saying that in an absolutist 'I wear my alignment on my head like amotel sign' universe (D&D) you should be whacking the evil people, no matter what state they're in. Otherwise, what happens when you are in the process of beating a bad guy and just before he is going to die he surrenders?"

 

I don't think that's what he was saying.

 

Besides, in NWN, if someone surrenders while you're beating them up and you kill them then you get evil points. Remember the fight with the orc?

What I was trying to convery is that in the D&D universe killing is seen as an act that is not good under any circumstances. An ideally good person does not kill at all. But the fact of the matter is that evil has no such limitations. Thus those who fight against evil, if they are good, do so reluctantly. A paladin would rather not have to take up his sword and fight, he would rather there were peace. But there isn't, so he fights to make it possible, and he is remorseful for the lives he takes, even those lives that are the blackest of the evil, because a good person cannot celebrate killing (he can, however, celebrate the prevention of additional, needless deaths). Killing may be necessary, but it's always the last resort, and it is never the right thing to do.

[Gorth]

What I was trying to convery is that in the D&D universe killing is seen as an act that is not good under any circumstances. An ideally good person does not kill at all.

Tell that to Kheldorn when he lopped off Viconias head >_

 

And that was a Lawful Good paladin :D

[Maria Caliban]

Tigranes:

" I think there's always been an implication with many plots that to be Good involves a certain level of unrealistic idealisation, and to be ruthlessly pragmatic is to be Evil. I killed Yaisog Bonegnasher because I knew that the chance of him reporting his findings to his superiors could not be taken (not in terms of the game, in terms of roleplaying). In a way that's my gripe with being Good in D&D - you are expected to do the Greater Good while saving puppies and children, and pardoning villains and rebuilding collapsed toilets on the way. Then when your good actions push yourself into an inescapable situation, you either heroically pull something out of your arse or die heroically and tragically. Which is why I nearly always end up just playing CG and bend the rules a bit."

 

In the real world, holding to idealism can be just as harmful as selfishness. I think that D&D is simply a product of it's genre. In the majority of fantasy novels, and in fact most popular fiction, people who act in whatever way is defined as morally correct are rarely punished for it. And if they are, it's nothing but another obstacle to overcome before the climax in which good conquers all.

 

I think another problem is that you're rarely allowed to be truly evil in WotC games. Evil isn't being pragmatic, it's being hurtful and selfish to the point where others cease to matter to you - they stop being an end in themselves. The majority of evil options available are merely rude or greedy, which is one of the reasons being neutral usually means switching back and forth between good and evil options.

 

 

Gorth:

" If Dark Raven is a know menace to the innocent and you know based on her nature that she will kill innocents if she manages to get up and move around again, is the choice then really that simple. Buy not acting, don't you become an accomplice to a possible future evil act by not preventing it (and chopping of Dark Ravens head given half the chance, never mind the nature of the chance) ?"

 

I was objecting to calling the killing of the orcs a mercy killing. If you're killing them because they're a danger to society, it's no longer a mercy killing.

 

As for the situation you present, I wouldn't agree that I'm an accomplice. That would mean I'm morally responsible for another actions, something I'm never going to agree with unless you're talking about a child I'm raising.

 

I will agree, however, that I may have an obligation to my society, especially if we're in a time and place like the Forgotten Realms where there are large areas of lawless wilderness. This band of orcs is at war with a city-state I represent so I may have a duty to kill them whether they are well at this moment or not. Also, if I happen to come upon a known murderer or rapist, I might also have a duty to kill them given the chance. In D&D terms, however, I see both of these as being lawful actions, not good ones. I can agree that killing the orcs would be a lawful neutral act but not a lawful good one.

 

As for Dark Raven, I would simply take her to a hospital and inform the police. As her back is broken, it's unlikely she'll be harming anyone for some time and as a citizen of a modern country, I have the luxury of not having to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Maria Caliban

[Maria Caliban]

It baffled me when Kheldorn attacked Viconia as they had spent months together in game, fighting hordes evil hordes side by side. Yeah, she said a few nasty things but in *my* game, she never actually does anything evil. Kheldorn comes off as being a bit psychotic.

[Pop]

What I was trying to convery is that in the D&D universe killing is seen as an act that is not good under any circumstances. An ideally good person does not kill at all.

Tell that to Kheldorn when he lopped off Viconias head "

 

And that was a Lawful Good paladin :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh, she was pretty evil. I can't remember how many times she suggested torturing people. And besides, Keldorn is prefectly willing to let Viconia live, just not in his general vicinity he tells you to kick her out of the group. His hand was obviously forced ^_^

 

Pop's assertions are interesting because I (like any good postmodern generation person that has interest in philosophy/ethics tongue.gif) have relativist leanings and often struggle to see if they should be 'implemented' in my D&D personality or if I should leave it out. Remember that relativism or simply counterpoints have been widely popular in especially CRPGs and some D&D novels - i.e. the standard "Orc but not evil". While of course the question of hereditary evil (heh, bhaalspawn prophecy) is not the same as the relativist argument, it would be prudent to accept the presence of relativist perspectives in D&D now, by users or by creators.

Well, descriptive relativism works just fine, it always does, but normative relativism is where all the problems arise. Even without the cosmology and the alignment system, the conclusion that there is no objective morality does not follow from the argument that different people have different moral standards.

 

A D&D character could be a relativist, but he wouldn't do very well. A drow who considers murder to be right because drow culture is permissive of such things will become evil no matter what his alignment is. Good characters know murder to be wrong, and neutral characters tend to have the self-interest and sense to discourage the acceptance of murder. But it all rests on the DM and whether or not he/she wants to follow the moral guidelines of the universe. All I can say is that he's going to have a hell of a time discarding it. Even a relatively nihilistic universe like Fallout has some semblance of universal ethics.

[Maria Caliban]

Pop:

" Since we're going down an anti-consequentialist path