Alignment in 5E still causes arguments

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:22 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:It's made even more complex because people (whether in reality or D&D) aren't 'pure' anything. People that we consider good have evil aspects, and vice versa.

We can still talk about people being good or evil, because it's a matter of how they're inclined overall. In traditional D&D, many types of creatures are biased towards one type of behavior or another. That doesn't mean that they're pure examples of that sort of behavior, and it doesn't mean that there are no exceptions.

Red Dragons are cruel and vicious creatures that are not only willing to make others suffer for their own benefit, but often enjoy that suffering for its own sake and inflict it for amusement. They're evil things. Modrons are highly ordered, consistent, and obedient entities that are inherently Lawful to an extraordinary degree. Doesn't mean they're utterly and perfectly Lawful, or that there isn't the occasional Nordom.

Entities in D&D can have ethical alignments as part of their basic nature. Now, you might find this disturbing. Tolkien himself found the idea that orcs were so uniformly evil to be disturbing, and tried to find explanations for it. (Basically the species was bred to enjoy chaos and pain, and then was possessed by the bodiless power of a fallen archangel, and any remaining traces of virtue are extinguished their culture. So.)

Nevertheless, it's how the game works. And it's almost inevitable that it will work that way. When you need easy villains that can be slain without guilt, you find them. Would the Indiana Jones movies have been as awesome if Spielburg didn't have all those Nazi soldiers as evil evildoors of evil who could be killed in entertaining ways without us feeling bad about it? Same deal with orcs and stuff.

In the entirety of your rant about DnD just "IS" that way and will be "inevitably" have you not, at all, been able to consider the fact that there is no reason to have it work that way? Tolkien regretted what he wrote maybe but he couldn't change what he wrote, is there any reason you can come up with that makes having a truly evil sapient, material plane, creature be evil down to their roots?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:22 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:See, this is why you don't want to judge good/evil by action, and rather by thoughts. A good person forced to steal would think something like: "Well I really hate to take stuff, but stealing this food isn't going to hurt them that badly and I really need it. I wish there was another way, but right now this is the best I can do."

Yeah, you can totally see how much Alladin hates stealing and doesn't enjoy it at all...

Cyberzombie wrote:Where as an evil person is going to be totally guilt-less about the entire thing, actually enjoying the whole act of stealing, and probably trashing the guy's house too that he's robbing, just because he can.

Yes, Judges are always more lenient when the theft isn't followed by wanton destruction that serves no purpose but increases the chance of getting caught. Because that is how we in the legal profession tell the nice criminals who are forced by circumstance from the guys who totally have 9-5 jobs and just rob people in their spare time.

Protip, you are describing literally zero people ever when you talk about the people who guiltlessly steal and destroy because they enjoy the act of hurting other people.

Cyberzombie wrote:The easiest one I can come up with is that good people care about the well-being of others while evil people care only about their own well-being.

So if someone enjoys the act of repeatedly shooting Justices Scalia and Thomas in the face, because they are thinking about how much it will benefit other people (while they are dead, because they were executed) that would be someone you describe as "good."

But if they were the type of person who had strong emotional feelings for another human being such as their child, and took a bullet for them because they would rather be dead than be alive in world where their only child is dead, that would be an example of someone who is "evil."

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:25 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:Religious debates are kind of pointless because like all things religion, there's multiple ways of interpreting it. I don't think I've encountered a single thing in religion that everyone agrees on. Religions have been reinterpreting the bible for centuries. It's all about what gets them the most power and followers.

Oh fuck off. First of all, The Doctrine of Original Sin is a bit more precise than "religion" and the Catholic Church has this tendency to codify and explain things to the point that I absolutely can claim that Original Sin is about each person's inherent nature rather than punishing people for their ancestors' actions which, I'll remind you, was your initial claim.

Secondly, you had an initial claim. Falling back on "oh it's subjective and you can't say anything meaningful about it anyway" when your supposedly objective and meaningful claim is refuted but maintaining that you're allowed to make those claims is Shitmuffin levels of hypocrisy and you should feel bad.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:26 pm

MGuy wrote:In the entirety of your rant about DnD just "IS" that way and will be "inevitably" have you not, at all, been able to consider the fact that there is no reason to have it work that way? Tolkien regretted what he wrote maybe but he couldn't change what he wrote, is there any reason you can come up with that makes having a truly evil sapient, material plane, creature be evil down to their roots?

It seems people want that to be part of their game of make-believe.

I can disapprove of their Bad Wrong Fun, but I can't claim that they're wrong, just possibly not to my taste.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:27 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:
Kaelik wrote: And there is definitely no way at all that circumstances can change they way people think. So like, Aladdin is evil, because he steals.
See, this is why you don't want to judge good/evil by action, and rather by thoughts. A good person forced to steal would think something like: "Well I really hate to take stuff, but stealing this food isn't going to hurt them that badly and I really need it. I wish there was another way, but right now this is the best I can do."

Where as an evil person is going to be totally guilt-less about the entire thing, actually enjoying the whole act of stealing, and probably trashing the guy's house too that he's robbing, just because he can.

So yeah, the thought process is a lot more important than the act itself.

Wow.

Apparently if you murder a pawnbroker with an axe, but feel sufficiently disturbed by it, you were good all along.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:34 pm

Original sin only inherently means that everyone is somewhat tainted as an initial condition. It does not mean anything else.

Many other beliefs complement that, but none of them are inherently tied to original sin.

It's not really that hard.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:50 pm

fectin wrote:Original sin only inherently means that everyone is somewhat tainted as an initial condition. It does not mean anything else.

Many other beliefs complement that, but none of them are inherently tied to original sin.

It's not really that hard.

If there is a generic use of the term "original sin" that is different from the specific Roman Catholic doctrine, I was previously unaware of it. Thank you for letting me know.

From what you've said there, though, it sounds like it still applies just fine as a metaphor for orcs and is still very possibly disgusting. I'm not claiming that as strongly, though, because I'm just going off the definition you posted there.

I maintain that Cyberzombie's "I get to use this for my position but when you argue it it's subjective and unarguable" is bullshit, for the record. New definitions of original sin (guess it doesn't need to be capitalized) don't change that.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:55 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:
Kaelik wrote: And there is definitely no way at all that circumstances can change they way people think. So like, Aladdin is evil, because he steals.
See, this is why you don't want to judge good/evil by action, and rather by thoughts. A good person forced to steal would think something like: "Well I really hate to take stuff, but stealing this food isn't going to hurt them that badly and I really need it. I wish there was another way, but right now this is the best I can do."

Where as an evil person is going to be totally guilt-less about the entire thing, actually enjoying the whole act of stealing, and probably trashing the guy's house too that he's robbing, just because he can.

You know, I really hate to inconvenience people who put money in an insured bank, but I just... I need money so I can get my own place and fix my car. I certainly wouldn't enjoy a major heist like that, I'm just doing it to survive. Clearly, robbing a bank would be a good act.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:05 am

Prak you are evil for thinking about committing a crime. You might commit a crime and are thus nothing but a ticking time bomb. Shame on you.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 am

momothefiddler wrote:
fectin wrote:Original sin only inherently means that everyone is somewhat tainted as an initial condition. It does not mean anything else.

Many other beliefs complement that, but none of them are inherently tied to original sin.

It's not really that hard.
If there is a generic use of the term "original sin" that is different from the specific Roman Catholic doctrine, I was previously unaware of it. Thank you for letting me know.

From what you've said there, though, it sounds like it still applies just fine as a metaphor for orcs and is still very possibly disgusting. I'm not claiming that as strongly, though, because I'm just going off the definition you posted there.

I maintain that Cyberzombie's "I get to use this for my position but when you argue it it's subjective and unarguable" is bullshit, for the record. New definitions of original sin (guess it doesn't need to be capitalized) don't change that.

The Roman Catholic position aligns with my summary. Separately, Catholics also believe other things, many of which complement or rely on original sin, but those are distinct.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:38 am

So all the stuff with Saint Augustine and church councils and Thomas Aquinas and so on are completely separate, extra bits and don't matter and the only thing that "original sin" is ever used to mean is "people come with some sort of undefined thing wrong with them"?

'Cuz that's new to me.

sarcasmoverdose · Post by **sarcasmoverdose** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:50 am

See, this is why you don't want to judge good/evil by action, and rather by thoughts. A good person forced to steal would think something like: "Well I really hate to take stuff, but stealing this food isn't going to hurt them that badly and I really need it. I wish there was another way, but right now this is the best I can do."

Where as an evil person is going to be totally guilt-less about the entire thing, actually enjoying the whole act of stealing, and probably trashing the guy's house too that he's robbing, just because he can.

Whether stealing is moral or not depends on circumstance, not intent. Stealing a nuke from terrorists, stealing food from orphans, and stealing pens from your bosses desk are not morally on the same level, regardless of the thief's intent.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:34 am

Occluded Sun wrote:
MGuy wrote:In the entirety of your rant about DnD just "IS" that way and will be "inevitably" have you not, at all, been able to consider the fact that there is no reason to have it work that way? Tolkien regretted what he wrote maybe but he couldn't change what he wrote, is there any reason you can come up with that makes having a truly evil sapient, material plane, creature be evil down to their roots?
It seems people want that to be part of their game of make-believe.

I can disapprove of their Bad Wrong Fun, but I can't claim that they're wrong, just possibly not to my taste.

You can completely and directly tell people why and how playing that way may cause ethical issues. I mean they do it all the time in children's stories all the time. We're past the time where we have to twiddle our thumbs because "that's just the way things are" but you're going above and beyond that though. You're apologizing for the racism inherent in games. Now if you were on the side of "let people do whatever" then be that but what you're actually trying to jump through these weird mental hoops in order to "ok" the behavior. It isn't "ok" for the reasons listed. There is no benefit to keeping things like that and every reason to change it.

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:51 am

sarcasmoverdose wrote: Whether stealing is moral or not depends on circumstance, not intent. Stealing a nuke from terrorists, stealing food from orphans, and stealing pens from your bosses desk are not morally on the same level, regardless of the thief's intent.

Intent absolutely matters. If you're stealing the nuke from terrorists so you can use it yourself, then that's something an evil person would do. If you're stealing food from orphans because the food has been tainted in some way and you don't want them to die from it, then that's something a good person would do.

Keep in mind here that we're not analyzing actions themselves as being good or evil, but individuals as being good or evil. Evil people can perform actions beneficial to people for the wrong reasons, and good people can sometimes do actions that are harmful to others for the right reasons. That's why the intent matters so much.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:56 am

momothefiddler wrote:So all the stuff with Saint Augustine and church councils and Thomas Aquinas and so on are completely separate [citation needed], extra bits and don't matter[citation needed] and the only thing that "original sin" is ever used to mean is "people come with some sort of undefined[citation needed] thing wrong with them"?

No, I meant the things I actually said.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:59 am

Oh, for fucks sake. Jack the Ripper killing hookers to bring 'England closer to God' or whatever theory you want to wank to, does not mean he is a good purpose because his intent was 'good'*. Same with any number of atrocities or just plain crimes.

Arguing intent opens the door to all sorts of pure horribleness, including every monstrous act performed by religious nutters, nationalist fanatics and just plain crazy people. The fact that you're fine with that speaks volumes about you..

*according to people who like that sort of thing.

sarcasmoverdose · Post by **sarcasmoverdose** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:14 am

^What voss said.

Cyberzombie wrote:Keep in mind here that we're not analyzing actions themselves as being good or evil, but individuals as being good or evil. Evil people can perform actions beneficial to people for the wrong reasons, and good people can sometimes do actions that are harmful to others for the right reasons. That's why the intent matters so much.

So, explain in your system of morality, why Hitler is evil.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:21 am

fectin wrote:
momothefiddler wrote:So all the stuff with Saint Augustine and church councils and Thomas Aquinas and so on are completely separate [citation needed], extra bits and don't matter[citation needed] and the only thing that "original sin" is ever used to mean is "people come with some sort of undefined[citation needed] thing wrong with them"?
No, I meant the things I actually said.

You said that it "does not mean anything else" and that "the Roman Catholic position aligns with" that, and that the other things they believe are not "inherently tied to original sin".

It sounds to me like you're claiming that the Church would be totally cool with going "everyone is somewhat tainted as an initial condition" and not needing to elaborate or qualify that, and the various extended arguments and discussions of it seem to contradict that claim.

I also think it's unlikely that if you asked a Roman Catholic "what's the Doctrine of Original Sin?" that they wouldn't discuss damnation or salvation or... anything other than "people in general are kind of shit, really, until you teach them not to be". Which, incidentally, is something I'd be far more likely to accept.

Also, to be fair, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue and if/how it fits into the original discussion so that might be part of what I'm missing. EDIT: and it doesn't have to. I'm just trying to fit it into what Cyberzombie was saying and that could be my issue.

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:52 am

Voss wrote:Oh, for fucks sake. Jack the Ripper killing hookers to bring 'England closer to God' or whatever theory you want to wank to, does not mean he is a good purpose because his intent was 'good'*. Same with any number of atrocities or just plain crimes.

Arguing intent opens the door to all sorts of pure horribleness, including every monstrous act performed by religious nutters, nationalist fanatics and just plain crazy people. The fact that you're fine with that speaks volumes about you..

Way to go into hyperbolic strawman arguments there and put words in my mouth, then proceed to draw conclusions from the words you put in my mouth.

As for Jack the Ripper, I can't say anything about his motivations since he wasn't actually caught and hasn't told anyone what his motivations might have been. But apparently since you're okay with putting words in my mouth, you're okay with putting words in Jack's mouth too. Any other unsolved crimes you want to cast some light on?

If you're talking about people with true delusions that cause them to commit crimes, moral debate isn't all that important anymore. At that point, they're not a good/evil person, they're just a crazy person. Their actions are so out of touch with reality that they can no longer even actively make sound moral decisions and regardless of if they're good or evil in intent, they're definitely dangerous, and dangerous people need to be locked up or executed for the good of everyone.

There may well be instances where good people are struck with delusions and do terrible misguided things where they believe they're doing the moral thing. Mental illness can be a tragic thing. Of course, that doesn't mean we should let them remain free to hurt people.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:49 am

momothefiddler wrote:So all the stuff with Saint Augustine and church councils and Thomas Aquinas and so on are completely separate, extra bits and don't matter and the only thing that "original sin" is ever used to mean is "people come with some sort of undefined thing wrong with them"?

'Cuz that's new to me.

I'm sure all that crap matters a lot to Catholics, but there are a lot of religious movements that are not beholden to the pope, but still have a doctrine of original sin. The important part is that you get some sort of punishment allotted to you from birth because of some wickedness far in the past. The specifics of hereditary evil vary wildly from religion to religion, and I honestly don't care.

The very idea that any punishment for a child could possibly be just based on their ancestry alone is disgusting. And that is what original sin is all about. The specifics of whether you're being punished for Eve's sin or Adam's, or whether the punishment in question is mortality or a hellish afterlife are all trivial details that do not define the term 'original sin' when speaking generally.

-Username17

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:11 am

Lord Mistborn wrote:
Stinktopus wrote:Welcome to The Gaming Den. Being called "evil" or "racist" here is equivalent to having someone with severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder complain that your hands are dirty.
I don't think anyone has called anyone "evil" in thread so far, heck we haven't even call anyone racist outright just subtly implied it. (Occluded Sun is totally a racist but that's neither here nor there)

I'm pretty shure Cyberzombie called everone (himself included) evil in this thread.
At least I'm clearly evil by his definition.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:49 am

Because this fire clearly needs some gasoline to add the right zing:

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:58 am

Lord Mistborn wrote:
Stinktopus wrote:Welcome to The Gaming Den. Being called "evil" or "racist" here is equivalent to having someone with severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder complain that your hands are dirty.
I don't think anyone has called anyone "evil" in thread so far, heck we haven't even call anyone racist outright just subtly implied it. (Occluded Sun is totally a racist but that's neither here nor there)

Stinktopus has been trolling since page 4. He offered up an obvious false dichotomy, I mocked him for it, and everything since then has been inflammatory strawmen. Butthurt shitposting is just his way of giving me the middle finger. Personally, I put him on ignore, but even if you're more patient than I you shouldn't respond to him here. He's had his bullshit explained to him at length and he doesn't care, because he's not here to be a part of the argument, just to shitpost. Sort of like PR would do when he hated a thread, except less funny and more persistent.

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:01 am

I have always been under the impression that original sin, in christian religions worked like this. Sex is a sin, humans are created through sex ergo humans are born of sin and therefore inherently sinful. I believe the understanding is that before Adam and Eve's sin humans didn't need to have sex to reproduce. Now how you get saved in such traditions varies, if your catholic you're saved by giving the church your money, if you're a Calvinist you get saved... by being part of a predetermined list that never changes and only do good in the world to show how great the god is. Religion is weird sometimes. Anyway, I don't know how it works in other traditions.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:22 am

Kaelik wrote:Protip, you are describing literally zero people ever when you talk about the people who guiltlessly steal and destroy because they enjoy the act of hurting other people.

wut