Morality in PnP

[213374U]

That's like saying being crushed by heavy things is human nature, whether by a big rock or by a flying pig launched by a Cambodian intercontinental artillery unit.

You can't get used to being crushed by a flying pig, nor can you excel at it with practice. There is no instinct that may suddenly drive you to put yourself in the trajectory of said pig, either.

[Tigranes]

You can't get used to being crushed by a flying pig, nor can you excel at it with practice.

 

The example sorta clunks here because it was a passive one, but are you then suggesting that anything we can get used to, is within our nature?

 

You can gradually increase the temperature of the bathwater to kill humans without realising, you know. I suppose that's in their nature too - to die from insidious, slow-heating bathwater.

 

As for the instinct, is that instinct an instinct to kill, or something even more base that simply manifests in killing? Is it the instinct of self-defence, or of physically lashing out at those it hates / fears, even physical reflexes?

[213374U]

The example sorta clunks here because it was a passive one, but are you then suggesting that anything we can get used to, is within our nature?

Well, I guess not just anything, but something as simple, easy and natural as violence, yes. The human being is a predator, you know. There can be no predator without dead prey.

 

 

You can gradually increase the temperature of the bathwater to kill humans without realising, you know. I suppose that's in their nature too - to die from insidious, slow-heating bathwater.

Can you? Well, that's news. Anyway, you can't get used to getting killed, nor can you improve at dying with practice. While many living beings are great at causing death, you'll be hard pressed to find one that excels at dying.

 

 

As for the instinct, is that instinct an instinct to kill, or something even more base that simply manifests in killing? Is it the instinct of self-defence, or of physically lashing out at those it hates / fears, even physical reflexes?

Killing is the byproduct and ultimate end of violence. Maybe killing in and of itself isn't in our nature, but violence certainly is. Be it protection, feeding, or other reasons. When it comes to the instinct of lashing out physically, the intent is to kill or injure, so as to disable the target. "Killing is evil" is a human notion, and as such is a part of our rational, conscious self that is disconnected from (and sometimes overriden by) our base instincts.

[kirottu]

The example sorta clunks here because it was a passive one, but are you then suggesting that anything we can get used to, is within our nature?

Well, I guess not just anything, but something as simple, easy and natural as violence, yes. The human being is a predator, you know. There can be no predator without dead prey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, human being isn

[213374U]

Actually, human being isn

[kirottu]

Actually, human being isn

[metadigital]

You cannot kill evil.

 

Evil is the absence of good. Nothing more.

 

It cannot be perfected.

 

Good can be perfected = God.

 

Killing people is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mmhmm.

 

Lovely fairytale.

 

I'd say Idi Amin or Pol Pot, to name just TWO from the last few decades, are pretty good examples of EVIL.

[Darque]

Killing is human nature whether you just crushed a bug or killed one of your own.  :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree.

 

Humans can kill, but I wouldn't call it their nature.

[Darque]

Basicly, I was disagreeing with Dark Raven bacause she made it sound like it

[kirottu]

Basicly, I was disagreeing with Dark Raven bacause she made it sound like it

[DeathScepter]

The truth is there are many ninjas that are in the shadows of this site.

[metadigital]

Ninja ... or pirate?

[Dark_Raven]

[Darque]

No, DR, you meant

 

:ph34r:

 

[Jorian Drake]

yeah morality is definitely dependant on WHY you do things, not what you do.  if you accept a noble heroic quest to rescue someone, but you do it because you want a reward, fame, etc, and want to ransom whoever you rescue, that would be evil to me. 

I'd only say your last example is potentially evil. It's not necessarily evil to expect fame or a reward. Selfish, practical or mercenary-like, yes - but not automatically evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

greedy, definetly greedy

 

 

 

evil it would be if you kidnaped that someone to rescue her later and get the reward

[Jorian Drake]

No, DR, you meant

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Colrom]

You cannot kill evil.

 

Evil is the absence of good. Nothing more.

 

It cannot be perfected.

 

Good can be perfected = God.

 

Killing people is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mmhmm.

 

Lovely fairytale.

 

I'd say Idi Amin or Pol Pot, to name just TWO from the last few decades, are pretty good examples of EVIL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certainly they did what we would all call "evil".

 

One of the more fundamental issue is about how many gods you want to have.

 

If evil can be perfected then it is reasonable to suppose there is an evil creator which reflects that perfection and provides a source for evil events.

 

This gives rise to the ever popular two God system - God vs Satan - with each having armies and waging holy war.

 

Certainly this is convenient in some regards because then the good God is absolved of all responsibility for the unpleasant and ugly events in the world.

 

But Jews, Christians, and Muslims are supposed to believe in just one God responsible for it all - the good the bad and the ugly.

 

On a more generalized basis I have not yet heard of a "evil" person who has not also done something that folks would consider good.

 

If you kill them you lose it all. A whole lot of evil and a little bit of good (See how I begin to assign values so that I can use utility theory in the subsequent rationalization.) I guess you could claim that killing them is beneficial on the balance. (Just plug the numbers in and turn the future projected outcome calculation over.) The outcome is even better I imagine if you use their healthy organs to save the lives of several decent people! (Just kidding!)

 

Another fundamental question is whether you can diminish the "quantity of evil" by murder/execution/killing. Doesn't seem to be working so far.

 

I'll trade you my fairy tale for yours! :D

 

In D&D it is not much of a problem - except in how we blend it with our personal beliefs - since the system pretends that perfect evil exists as well as perfect good (and perfect law and perfect chaos) - although there is only Ao.

 

By the way, I don't want to hijack this thread.

 

I am interested in what other folks think about the original topic and related - just in the context of D&D - without getting too sidetracked by these other considerations. Unless folks want to go there.

 

We could start a separate thread about possible new morality/ethics systems for RPGs.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Colrom

[metadigital]

First up, the Abrahamic religions don't place "Satan" as a god; they are monotheistic religions. Satan is just an archangel; as such (s)he was created by god.

 

What you are thinking of is more along the lines of the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism (although this is still a hollywood-type religion, because it has a happy ending), where the believers hold that the universe is made up of differing ratios of good and evil matter.

 

But this has nothing to do with the definition of evil. Even if a thoroughly evil person manages to do some good (even accidentally), that doesn't mean they aren't evil. (Arguing that evil is the absence of good is just semantics.)

 

It is true that life is complex: out of great evil can come some great good. Smaller, warring, neighbouring countries can make an alliance to fight a common enemy, for example.

 

Stating that "you cannot kill evil" and, by implication, fail to try is just defeatism of the worst sort. "Life is a journey," the Abrahamic Judgment Day, the Dao, even Confucian "Humaneness" (r

[Colrom]

First up, the Abrahamic religions don't place "Satan" as a god; they are monotheistic religions. Satan is just an archangel; as such (s)he was created by god.

 

What you are thinking of is more along the lines of the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism (although this is still a hollywood-type religion, because it has a happy ending), where the believers hold that the universe is made up of differing ratios of good and evil matter.

 

But this has nothing to do with the definition of evil. Even if a thoroughly evil person manages to do some good (even accidentally), that doesn't mean they aren't evil. (Arguing that evil is the absence of good is just semantics.)

 

It is true that life is complex: out of great evil can come some great good. Smaller, warring, neighbouring countries can make an alliance to fight a common enemy, for example.

 

Stating that "you cannot kill evil" and, by implication, fail to try is just defeatism of the worst sort. "Life is a journey," the Abrahamic Judgment Day, the Dao, even Confucian "Humaneness" (r

[alanschu]

But actually, the old heresy seems to be alive and well and quite popular. People just don't profess it openly - they pretend. So far as I can tell most people don't believe in the religions they claim to believe in. Sometimes I don't either.

 

If they don't profess it openly, how can we be certain it's so popular?

[Colrom]

But actually, the old heresy seems to be alive and well and quite popular. People just don't profess it openly - they pretend. So far as I can tell most people don't believe in the religions they claim to believe in. Sometimes I don't either.

 

If they don't profess it openly, how can we be certain it's so popular?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can't be sure about folks believing the two god heresy. But there is alot of talk about ridding the world of evil here and there and questions about whether a war was worth it with an implied good vs. bad calculation or calculus of some kind.

 

It is a matter of interpretation.

 

Some of the Christian fundamentalists defintely have a story that suggests a two god version of events - although they deny it when pressed - but seem to go back to it when not pressed.

 

I'm not sure folks really believe the heresy either. My experience though is that if I attack its' logical underpinnings the uproar is ferocious.

 

I almost think that people have more confidence in evil than in good.

 

Perhaps you have a better interpretation or different experience.

 

Maybe utility theory rules. But that requires belief in a value scheme. Where does that come from? Is it all positive or both positive and negative. I don't see much emphasis on positive values though. Maybe it is all negative? Yikes, the Cathars are among us again!

 

Happy New Year.

 

Peace.

[Istima Loke]

Hello,

 

I have read some of the things you have written so please forgive me if I say something irrelevant to the current conversation or something that has already been said.

 

I won't talk about the existence of evil or it's definition because it's rather complex and has a lot to do with free will, so I will only speak about the alignment in the games (specifically DnD).

 

 

The alignment in DnD is actually a game mechanic, it's a way of achievement and a means of measurement. To explain this I will use an example. If alignments didn't exist in the game then a paladin could destroy a temple of the god of justice and still be a paladin. Also it's a way to measure the deeds of the PCs and it is used to give access to some classes and prestige classes. It has no other meaning in the game whatsoever. Good and evil in alignment are defined by the players as what they consider as an act of good or an act of evil. Therefore it is well defined and there is no question if something is evil or not.

 

On the other hand in the world of the game there are a lot of civilizations and societies with different perspective of good and evil. If in a city there is a guilt of thieves that doesn't accept good people because they are afraid that they may betray them then even if you are evil aligned, if, inside the city, you pretend to be good they won't accept you. So if you kill someone who is going to die from a disease then if you have in your party a warrior from the northern lands who considers killing the diseased one as an act of mercy then he will consider you a good guy but if you have a healer with you that has grown in the houses of healing and his father, who was a great therapist, always said to him that one should never give up when trying to save someone then he will consider you evil (except, maybe, if he has a certain hate for this being).

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.:

 

evil it would be if you kidnaped that someone to rescue her later and get the reward 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We have done that, but we kidnapped someone's kid and saved it in order for him to trust us... (we are a pretty naughty party)

[metadigital]

First up, the Abrahamic religions don't place "Satan" as a god; they are monotheistic religions. Satan is just an archangel; as such (s)he was created by god.

 

What you are thinking of is more along the lines of the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism (although this is still a hollywood-type religion, because it has a happy ending), where the believers hold that the universe is made up of differing ratios of good and evil matter.

 

But this has nothing to do with the definition of evil. Even if a thoroughly evil person manages to do some good (even accidentally), that doesn't mean they aren't evil. (Arguing that evil is the absence of good is just semantics.)

 

It is true that life is complex: out of great evil can come some great good. Smaller, warring, neighbouring countries can make an alliance to fight a common enemy, for example.

 

Stating that "you cannot kill evil" and, by implication, fail to try is just defeatism of the worst sort. "Life is a journey," the Abrahamic Judgment Day, the Dao, even Confucian "Humaneness" (r

[Walsingham]

Found this I wrote a long while ago while looking for something else.

 

"If you stick your own purely personal code of ethics buyt try to benefit the weak and helpless? My grandad mike was reknowned for the fact that whenever he saw a fight he would work out who was going to lose, and jump in on their side. Was he good, or just drunk? Family history indicates the latter. Should we have a new refinement? Drunk Good.?

 

Hoboes might qualify as Drunk Neutral. Wifebeaters as drunk evil."

[Dark_Raven]

party Drunks = teh c00l

 

So walshy say that the best thing to do is chose the side that is winning eh? awesome logic!