AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

No doubt there have been topics like this one but I can't see them. From my time here I can't help but think the line between what is good and what is evil is a very fine one. What is it that makes and act evil and what makes it good.

There are some that are obvious, but others not so much. Like the killing of a child is no doubt and evil act, but if that child was sacrificed to save the lives of many others would it still be an evil act? If a person commited a very good act for the most sinister of purposes, is it still a good act. The art of torture in my eyes is an evil act, but if it was done to extract information that might save others, is it still evil? Where is the line drawn?

I think your actions weight far less than your reasons. If you saved ten thousand people only to make them trust you blindly in order to facilitate scamming money from them, you'd be evil in my books.

In short...I'd have to say an "Evil" act is a selfish one, for self gratification, or gaining pleasure from torturing someone or riches at someone elses expense. "Good", on the other hand, I would see as a selfless act, doing for the greater benefit of those around them, earning riches to feed the poor, torturing someone simply to gain information that will save innocent lives.

They're are -plenty- of scenarios in which this takes place and this is by no means a complete list, but I'd see it as a basic guide to go on when playing a toon of either of these alignments. I'm sure some can come up with scenario's to test this basic guideline, lol but as I said it -is- just that, basic.

Uhhh.. Torture's a grey area....

There's an IC text at least on one perspective of 'Good' at it's most fundamental, though that's one perspective and the whole of it isn't complete , just contemplations towards it with some factual considerations.

(And I sense somehow someone's going to bring up moral relativism which is going to make me bang my head and ask them to explain Devils and Angels)

I agree with the selfish thing, which is why love can exist in evil. Because love for those who are evil is entirely selfish in nature. Its love because you like the feeling, because you want the other person near you. You make them happy because in turn, they make you happy. That's selfish. What you don't do is make the person feel better about themselves because you care about how they feel. You don't comfort them because your concerned about the, you comfort them because it makes you feel good.

And all these things come down to being percieved as the same from outward apperances. I played a Drow which to all outward appearances should have been good of alignment. He never changed to good alignment however, because no matter how good his actions seemed, inherently, they were totally self serving, evil, and without any concern for the other beings around him.

Tortures not a grey area. If you torture someone, you are not good. The reasons behind it don't matter. You have physically harmed a person for your own desires. You have broken the moral boundry. You have commited an evil act, an act of violance to gain information. Even if that information is required to save others, torturing another is an act of evil in nature.

It doesn't mean your characters evil, but it does mean they have commited an evil act, no matter the reasoning behind it.

Edit: To note. In the world of Forgotten Realms, and Amia, evil and good acts are inherently defined. You commit an evil act, you commit an evil act. There is no blurry boundry. The act is evil, and thats how it is. You commit a good act, you commit a good act. Its a good act and thats how it is. What is to remember is that commiting an evil act does not make one evil, just likes commiting a good act doesn't make one good. It moves them towards either end of the spectrum, close to that part. But its not inherent because you did one evil or good thing. They are just defined by their alignment. They are good acts, and they are evil acts.

This shouldn't effect how your character thinks. Your character can think the line is blurry, they can think that they are evil or good. They can completely ignore the alignments for all they care. But in terms of mechanics and lore. In the world of Amia. Things are static. They are good, or they are evil. The individual who doesn't adhere to either sense in the majority is neutral.

Personally I find it easier to ignore alignment when it comes to a character personality and choices. Rather I like to focus on the action. Would Calin be adverse to killing a thief for a petty crime? Yes. Would he still do it? Yes. Why? Because he thinks its justiable. In the grand scheme, it still moves him along towards evil. But later another act, one in which he provides coin, food and shelter for a homeless person, will shift him back towards good. But that doesn't matter, the act might be inherent, but in Calins mind, he doesn't see it that way. The inherent act is beyond him, and doesn't matter because his eyes see differently, and do not see the cosmos, the balance act it plays, and such.

I disagree. If my friends/loved one are being held somewhere, and you are willfully withholding that information from me, I do not think it is an evil act to beat it out of you. Only proves that morality is subjective however, you won't get a definitive answer in this thread, only personal opinions. There ~isn't~ a definitive answer.

Last edited by JoeSkinner on Wed, Feb 08 2012, 6:22 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Greyweaver wrote:

In short...I'd have to say an "Evil" act is a selfish one, for self gratification, or gaining pleasure from torturing someone or riches at someone elses expense. "Good", on the other hand, I would see as a selfless act, doing for the greater benefit of those around them, earning riches to feed the poor, torturing someone simply to gain information that will save innocent lives.

They're are -plenty- of scenarios in which this takes place and this is by no means a complete list, but I'd see it as a basic guide to go on when playing a toon of either of these alignments. I'm sure some can come up with scenario's to test this basic guideline, lol but as I said it -is- just that, basic.

You forget though, that many, many people are at the mercy of their own self interest.

Would you consider it evil then, if someone mainly did good deeds and saved the lives of others because it gave them that 'special feeling' or that they may be doing their god's favor so they may 'rejoice in the after life'?

Even so, we are all at the mercy of our emotions either way. Good, evil, whatever. You wouldn't save a child from a burning building if you had no emotion to guide you. And why would you save him? Otherwise, it would make YOU feel horrible, guilty, saddened, depressed. Give YOU thoughts of YOUR own children or children YOU know. It will remind YOU OF YOURSELF. Selfishness doesn't always mean bad, it is simply who we are. Good, but selfish.

I believe the only way to truly be selfless is to have Total empathy - to put yourself COMPLETELY in the other person's shoes. To try and feel what they feel, to set your own emotions aside and try to gain a foothold into the other person's desires and needs. This, of course, can also lead to the wrong direction heh.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

I disagree. If my friends/loved one are being held somewhere, and you are willfully withholding that information from me, I do not think it is an evil act to beat it out of you. Only proves that morality is subjective however, you won't get a definitive answer in this thread, only personal opinions. There ~isn't~ a definitive answer.

You might not think that. But in terms of the realm, the planes and how it works on Amia. The cosmos judges your actions defintively good, or evil. Your character may not see it as such, but the greater planes see it as such. Some place in the planes sits a field of scales, and someone just put a few drops of water on the evil side of your characters scale.

An act of definitive undeniable evil, such as mass genocide, would be less like a few drops, more like someone tipped the whole damned pan onto the evil side xD

Selvec Darkon wrote:

An act of definitive undeniable evil, such as mass genocide, would be less like a few drops, more like someone tipped the whole damned pan onto the evil side xD

everyone on Amia commits mass genocide about every day, goblins,kobolds,giants,lizardmen,beastmen.... basicly anything in a zone thats not a town...

Selvec Darkon wrote:

NinjaClarinet wrote:

I disagree. If my friends/loved one are being held somewhere, and you are willfully withholding that information from me, I do not think it is an evil act to beat it out of you. Only proves that morality is subjective however, you won't get a definitive answer in this thread, only personal opinions. There ~isn't~ a definitive answer.

You might not think that. But in terms of the realm, the planes and how it works on Amia. The cosmos judges your actions defintively good, or evil. Your character may not see it as such, but the greater planes see it as such. Some place in the planes sits a field of scales, and someone just put a few drops of water on the evil side of your characters scale.

An act of definitive undeniable evil, such as mass genocide, would be less like a few drops, more like someone tipped the whole damned pan onto the evil side xD

True dat, selv! FR is cut and dry when it comes to alignments. Static, definite, no overlapping.

But is alignment dictated by actions or intent?

NinjaClarinet wrote:

But is alignment dictated by actions or intent?

That depends if FR deities can read your mind.. which I have no idea.
Good question! lol

corypx wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

An act of definitive undeniable evil, such as mass genocide, would be less like a few drops, more like someone tipped the whole damned pan onto the evil side xD

everyone on Amia commits mass genocide about every day, goblins,kobolds,giants,lizardmen,beastmen.... basicly anything in a zone thats not a town...

Genocide means the complete destruction of a race. As they are never truely destroyed, they aren't commiting mass genocide technically. Since you wanted to get technical.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

But is alignment dictated by actions or intent?

Actions. Because intent depends to much on what the player says. Its not definitive enough, actions are.

JoeSkinner wrote:

NinjaClarinet wrote:

But is alignment dictated by actions or intent?

That depends if FR deities can read your mind.. which I have no idea.
Good question! lol

Actions.

Intent counts for something, but the proper answer would be both to some degree.

Selfish/selfless is a bad way to describe motivations for good and evil. It's more an issue of empathy. You can engage in mass-murder for completely unselfish reasons, and you can save lives for completely selfish ones. In terms of empathy however it lines up a bit better. Evil tends to not care about what harm they do to others in pursuit of their goals, they're often unempathetic or sociopathic etc. Good either takes it into account, or makes it their entire focus (and you get evil people who do want to help others but will do horrible things to different sets of people to do it). And you get neutrals which fall in less-extreme areas of all categories.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

I agree with the selfish thing, which is why love can exist in evil. Because love for those who are evil is entirely selfish in nature. Its love because you like the feeling, because you want the other person near you. You make them happy because in turn, they make you happy. That's selfish. What you don't do is make the person feel better about themselves because you care about how they feel. You don't comfort them because your concerned about the, you comfort them because it makes you feel good.

Uh, you can be evil and still genuinely love someone in ways other than what you describe. Being evil doesn't mean you're forced into being all self-serving, all black, all heartless.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Genocide means the complete destruction of a race. As they are never truely destroyed, they aren't commiting mass genocide technically. Since you wanted to get technical.

... No it doesn't. It is actually literally defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". This is kind of where FR diverges from real world morality, and it gets complicated. But you can justify it as not an attempt to destroy the race, just to stem the tide of their raiding.

As for intent vs action... actions speak louder than words, but intent is a factor. I'm pretty sure the cosmos "consider" the individual's reasons and give them some weight, but it still ends up mattering less than actions. At best it can mitigate it, so that if you're really close to evil but your heart's in the right place, you're likely to plop into neutral. Of course, there are actions that speak loud (murder) and actions that speak in the language of breaking eardrums (mass murder). I'm not exactly sure how the cosmos factor it all in, I think it just gets encoded in your soul or whatever.

I'd say intent count for more than actions. Reason being that you can make your actions look like pretty much whatever you want them to.. intent is what hides the truth behind the actions.

As for torture, I'd say it depends on the situation, but it's by no means a "good" action.. I'd say it leans between neutral and evil, depending on your reasons for it. I still remember those nights in the EO temple :3 Especially the time my elven EO cleric got to question some UD drow. :mrgreen:

Reason I say intent counts for more, is because it can drive you to do actions simply as a subterfuge. I know I've had many of my chars do that in the past, with nobody being any the wiser. All part of the plot as it were. It's probably why nobody knew who my actual evil mastermind was, until I stopped playing. Deciet and subterfuge by apparent honest actions, goofy behavior and manipulation.

And in my mind that's "better" evil than the kind that chases down random PC's and PvP them. Why?
Because it opens up for the whole cat and mouse game, focusing more on both parties RP and smarts, rather than brute power.

Good: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-etJphb9Qijs/T ... /nate1.jpg

Evil: http://universitychic.com/files/CHUCKED ... 82208.jpeg

It's a fascinating subject, isn't it?

I find that it's much more disagreed upon how to implement the differences in Good and Evil than it is to even define them. I wonder if this topic will get anywhere constructive.

serbiris wrote:

Selfish/selfless is a bad way to describe motivations for good and evil. It's more an issue of empathy. You can engage in mass-murder for completely unselfish reasons, and you can save lives for completely selfish ones. In terms of empathy however it lines up a bit better. Evil tends to not care about what harm they do to others in pursuit of their goals, they're often unempathetic or sociopathic etc. Good either takes it into account, or makes it their entire focus (and you get evil people who do want to help others but will do horrible things to different sets of people to do it). And you get neutrals which fall in less-extreme areas of all categories.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

I agree with the selfish thing, which is why love can exist in evil. Because love for those who are evil is entirely selfish in nature. Its love because you like the feeling, because you want the other person near you. You make them happy because in turn, they make you happy. That's selfish. What you don't do is make the person feel better about themselves because you care about how they feel. You don't comfort them because your concerned about the, you comfort them because it makes you feel good.

Uh, you can be evil and still genuinely love someone in ways other than what you describe. Being evil doesn't mean you're forced into being all self-serving, all black, all heartless.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Genocide means the complete destruction of a race. As they are never truely destroyed, they aren't commiting mass genocide technically. Since you wanted to get technical.

... No it doesn't. It is actually literally defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". This is kind of where FR diverges from real world morality, and it gets complicated. But you can justify it as not an attempt to destroy the race, just to stem the tide of their raiding.

As for intent vs action... actions speak louder than words, but intent is a factor. I'm pretty sure the cosmos "consider" the individual's reasons and give them some weight, but it still ends up mattering less than actions. At best it can mitigate it, so that if you're really close to evil but your heart's in the right place, you're likely to plop into neutral. Of course, there are actions that speak loud (murder) and actions that speak in the language of breaking eardrums (mass murder). I'm not exactly sure how the cosmos factor it all in, I think it just gets encoded in your soul or whatever.

In answer to your last part. No. DM's have made that pretty clear in the past when people have tried to pull the old "Oh I ignored the palemaster in my party because my paladin's intent was good", or "The gold I stole from my party members was taken because my paladin intends to use it to feed orphans", that intent isn't good enough. Actions speak, actions tell. Intent is to vague, and often can fool the very person doing something. Intent is easily munipulated also. The gods in FR are falliable, they can make mistakes, they can be fooled, because of that, intent is to vague for a falliable being to judge upon. Actions on the other hand are solid and obvious.

Genocide thing. Fair enough, if thats what it means, its what it means. Still, you ignore that in D&D otherwise you might as well go play a social game.

Oh and the love part. I disagree. I do not feel that those who "truely" selflessly, love someone, can be evil. Because of one word. Selfless. To do evil is to think of self, to be evil is to think of yourself. You cannot be evil, and save the masses, or give your life for another. It is a redeeming action.

...You're missing my point. Intent is still a factor. It's not utterly meaningless. If you're evil at heart and evil in action, then that's kind of worth more evil points than trying to do good but inevitably doing evil. Yes, the action outweighs the intent. I said that. But that doesn't mean the intent is weightless. Good/evil acts aren't absolute, they're all relative and gradeable. And when all is said and done, alignment is a tally of those scores. Someone who strives for good but still inevitably commits evil is going to get both good and evil points over their life - the exact amount and where their alignment falls depends on what the sum total is.

The points construct is kind of a simplification but it does seem to explain the system well.

I wouldn't think so. Heck if someone was evil in action and good of intent I'd see the reaction is much more dramatic, and the effect of their action, more dramatic also.

Edit: I get what your saying. But the factor has nothing to do with the gods, or whatever else judges good/evil. The factor is entirely personal, and down the the character. Being more evil because your already evil when you kill someone doesn't work. The acts are just this, evil and good. There isnt' a depth of evil or good, just evil or good for deciding what an action is.

But as I said above. This all doesn't matter. Because quite frankely no character should be thinking this way. They should be looking through their own eyes. Coming up with their own definition. The gods may punish and decide based on their static qualities of whats good, and whats evil. But to a person, good and evil are what they see. In terms of the game, the character may be evil. But to the character, they are only doing what they believe is good.

No character, in my mind, should be played based on this worldly view of exactly what acts are considered good, and what is considered evil. Which is why I never will write up a list defining such. You act as your character acts yes? Your character wouldn't see the world as the gods or whatever else does. It see's it based on how it see's it.

Sorry if this sounds confusing, its hard to explain.

Last edited by serbiris on Wed, Feb 08 2012, 8:41 AM, edited 1 time in total.

It certainly can be. Some characters do get extremely twisted up by the difference between how they see themselves, and what they do.

But, there are genuinely good characters who sometimes slip into evil while desperately trying to do the right thing, and when viewed in the context their actions are understandable and sympathetic. Still wrong, but less wrong than wholehearted evil. It's hard to come up with good examples though, and come to think of it intent might be impractically difficult to police on Amia; a DM can judge actions, but intent is harder to show. I guess a player could try and explain the wider context to dull the blow but I don't know how well that would work, and it would probably not be an efficient use of time.

Edit:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Edit: I get what your saying. But the factor has nothing to do with the gods, or whatever else judges good/evil. The factor is entirely personal, and down the the character. Being more evil because your already evil when you kill someone doesn't work. The acts are just this, evil and good. There isnt' a depth of evil or good, just evil or good for deciding what an action is.

What I mean about depth is say, the evil of robbing someone versus killing someone and desecrating their corpse. But not just on the level of the action's intensity, but including the context in which it occurs. Torture for fun, versus torture to gain information that saves lives. I'll agree that they're both evil, but I submit that the latter act is less evil because it doesn't demonstrate a base motivation so much as pragmatism. But I suppose this sort of intent would show itself in the alignment value: the sadist will probably do more evil things, the pragmatist might not, and the difference will be plain to the cosmos.

serbiris wrote:

It certainly can be. Some characters do get extremely twisted up by the difference between how they see themselves, and what they do.

But, there are genuinely good characters who sometimes slip into evil while desperately trying to do the right thing, and when viewed in the context their actions are understandable and sympathetic. Still wrong, but less wrong than wholehearted evil. It's hard to come up with good examples though, and come to think of it intent might be impractically difficult to police on Amia; a DM can judge actions, but intent is harder to show. I guess a player could try and explain the wider context to dull the blow but I don't know how well that would work, and it would probably not be an efficient use of time.

Quote:

It's hard to come up with good examples though, and come to think of it intent might be impractically difficult to police on Amia; a DM can judge actions, but intent is harder to show.

Thats how the gods think. Think of the gods as DM's, and FR as Amia the server. The gods police that and judge actions. Intent is hard to show. Actions are easy to decide based upon. Thus, actions are what they would judge on.

As I said, gods of FR are not like god as we think. They aren't infallible, they are near omnipotent, but they have flaws and failings and they decide and give favor on their opinions. They have personalities and issues. They aren't perfect beings, and judging based on intent isn't probably going to be something they do, least they be fooled. Like DM's with players. But actions, thats much easier to judge upon. Thus why your actions decide if your evil or good. Your intent is how your character may see themselves. Because they gods are subject to fate also, and intent is so very very vague.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

But is alignment dictated by actions or intent?

Thats the catch no matter the action it's the intent behind it that I think shows the true nature of the act.

Selfish=Evil
Selfless=Good

IMHO..

Good: The original philosophy of christianity - Jesus Christ. That's as good as one can get. That's absolute good. Everything else is shaded by evil and selfishness. Oh.. yes, you may not be good for heaven ticket. If you expect any reward from your deeds, its not pure good. Want to hear something even more radical? You may not "feel good" becouse of a good deed, for its a reward of a sort.

Take that alignment system!

Dead wrote:

IMHO..

Good: The original philosophy of christianity - Jesus Christ. That's as good as one can get. That's absolute good. Everything else is shaded by evil and selfishness. Oh.. yes, you may not be good for heaven ticket. If you expect any reward from your deeds, its not pure good. Want to hear something even more radical? You may not "feel good" becouse of a good deed, for its a reward of a sort.

Take that alignment system!

I see your Jesus, and I'll raise you a scientist.

'Good' in my mind means you go about helping people, maybe as work you get paid for, sure, but you do your bit to make people happier, healthier and capable of sustaining that happiness and healthiness.

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eropdxA_ ... ure=fvwrel

Err...

What defines good and evil are actions. You can consider leaving a soldier behind but you don't, that doesn't make you evil for considering it.

Moth wrote:

I see your Jesus, and I'll raise you a scientist.

Whatcha mean?

evil acts according to the book of vile darkness, i have divided them into two groups but this is just my personal oppion of the degree of evil.

(the next 5 I call minor evils)
Lying(though this one is basically also said can be not evil, but often it is evil)
Cheating
Theft
Using others for personal gain
greed
Tempting others(though this one is basically also said can be not evil, but often is used by evil)

(these are the big ones according to myself)
Betrayal
Murder (please note that this does not include those that slay to defend innocents or to defeat evil)
Vengeance
Worshipping evil gods and devils/demons
Animating dead or creating undead.
casting evil spells.
damming or harming souls
Consorting with Fiends
Creating evil beings
Bullying or cowing innocents
Bringing Despair

I have to disagree very much so here...action are neither good nor evil They are simply actions. They have no moral or ethical quality...none.

Just a a knife, club, gun, fire, rock or any other inanimate object is not good or evil, it just is.

Good or Evil is simply the way humans process something. Its our innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. Good is always right, Evil is always wrong.

No action is good or evil until we name it and make it so.

So torture can be either. Killing a child can be either. Taking any life can be either. (etc)

It will be argued that there are certain, universally accepted evils and goods. I again, disagree. There is not one thing anyone can name that 100% of the humans currently living on this planet will think are good or evil because, you can always find someone willing to do those actions and they don't see them as evil or can't.

Good and Evil are concepts...ideas...thoughts...in short, morals for lack of a better term.

What is acceptable in one case may not be acceptable in another.

If we are talking personal belief...then yes, there certainly are good and evil. They are clear cut to me and there is no grey area. It either is a good act or evil act. The degree is all you have which is often said to be a "grey" area. Meaning its not really that good or that evil.

For example...telling a lie is evil. Lies have no color. So a 'white lie' is still a lie and thus evil. Its just not that evil. Just as giving money to a beggar on the street is good but, not that good as you could be supporting a drinking problem, drug problem or buying into a scam.

But the action itself has no morality. It simply is. It exists.

Where we get our sense of good and evil is our perceptions being processed on our own values of morality.

Having sex with a 13 year old (male or female) is still acceptable many places in the world and 100-150 years ago, was the normal way to do things. By 15-16 you had a family, were working and were on with life because you probably weren't making it past 30-40 if that.

Now that will get you jailed (at least here in the US) almost always and even if it doesn't people will still look very poorly on you at the best. These same people's great grandparents might have conceived their grandparents at that age.

So while I have a very clear and defined idea of what is good and evil...its my yardstick.

IG, the same can be said. A Paladin killing a demon possessed child is still murdering the child but, the justification is that unless he does, a greater number of people will suffer or die. A Banite can fall deeply and passionately in love, be a doting parent, and the exact opposite of the cruel tyrant their religious teachings would say and then turn around and have their child in the room as they brand a Cyristic a heratic after brutally torturing them, all the while the child is watching.

And in the mind of the Banite (or whatever evil you want to put), its normal and acceptable.

Do you think chromatic dragons are not protective of their offspring the same as metallic?

At least this is my take. Your well almost certainly be different.

Simeron wrote:

EVERYTHING SIMERON WROTE

Read. This. :idea:

He wrote too much, and all of it in his weird style. :cry:

That said, I very much like the list that Kraniumbrud did, as it objectively sorts out what is evil, and while not exhaustive, it's better than all this silliness about perspectives, or theology, or intent, or circumstance.

Can't look at the 9 alignments on a individual PC's personal set of morals. Otherwise, you enter the infinite. Kraniumbud has a decent list.

Last edited by Dead on Wed, Feb 08 2012, 15:06 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Her argument is invalid. If you define murder as evil, there's absolutely no exeptions. Defeat evil, defend innocents = Defeat good, gain power. There's absolutely no difference. Murderer is a murderer regardless of a circumstance. There's no difference between a necromancer killing a paladin and a paladin killing a necromancer.

Quote:

Murder (please note that this does not include those that slay to defend innocents or to defeat evil)

You're right. Any kind of murder is evil. I don't care if you're a paladin. What you just described is masked as "battle" or "war."

Needled247 wrote:

You're right. Any kind of murder is evil. I don't care if you're a paladin. What you just described is masked as "battle" or "war."

Hipocrisy is the word we are looking for.

Simeron wrote:

I have to disagree very much so here...action are neither good nor evil They are simply actions. They have no moral or ethical quality...none.

Just a a knife, club, gun, fire, rock or any other inanimate object is not good or evil, it just is.

Good or Evil is simply the way humans process something. Its our innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. Good is always right, Evil is always wrong.

No action is good or evil until we name it and make it so.

So torture can be either. Killing a child can be either. Taking any life can be either. (etc)

It will be argued that there are certain, universally accepted evils and goods. I again, disagree. There is not one thing anyone can name that 100% of the humans currently living on this planet will think are good or evil because, you can always find someone willing to do those actions and they don't see them as evil or can't.

Good and Evil are concepts...ideas...thoughts...in short, morals for lack of a better term.

What is acceptable in one case may not be acceptable in another.

If we are talking personal belief...then yes, there certainly are good and evil. They are clear cut to me and there is no grey area. It either is a good act or evil act. The degree is all you have which is often said to be a "grey" area. Meaning its not really that good or that evil.

For example...telling a lie is evil. Lies have no color. So a 'white lie' is still a lie and thus evil. Its just not that evil. Just as giving money to a beggar on the street is good but, not that good as you could be supporting a drinking problem, drug problem or buying into a scam.

But the action itself has no morality. It simply is. It exists.

Where we get our sense of good and evil is our perceptions being processed on our own values of morality.

Having sex with a 13 year old (male or female) is still acceptable many places in the world and 100-150 years ago, was the normal way to do things. By 15-16 you had a family, were working and were on with life because you probably weren't making it past 30-40 if that.

Now that will get you jailed (at least here in the US) almost always and even if it doesn't people will still look very poorly on you at the best. These same people's great grandparents might have conceived their grandparents at that age.

So while I have a very clear and defined idea of what is good and evil...its my yardstick.

IG, the same can be said. A Paladin killing a demon possessed child is still murdering the child but, the justification is that unless he does, a greater number of people will suffer or die. A Banite can fall deeply and passionately in love, be a doting parent, and the exact opposite of the cruel tyrant their religious teachings would say and then turn around and have their child in the room as they brand a Cyristic a heratic after brutally torturing them, all the while the child is watching.

And in the mind of the Banite (or whatever evil you want to put), its normal and acceptable.

Do you think chromatic dragons are not protective of their offspring the same as metallic?

At least this is my take. Your well almost certainly be different.

In d20 you can detect evil, there are defiant evils and defiant goods...
I agree fully in the real world, but this is not a real world

PS the defiant evil races, demons devils and chromatic dragons are defiantly very very evil, the rules leave no interpetations for that

good and evil isnt a philosophical thing in faerun, it is a very real and very determined thing, that can be shown with magic and other things.

PSS regarding the murder thing, I am merely qouting the book of vile darkness and while i agree in the real world with your ´views on murders i do NOT agree with them in fearun, i do not mix to the morality of the real world with a fictatius world, i work with what i see as a very clear morality of faerun, something supported by books, and no "murdering" evil beings in defense of light isnt evil, or all paladins would fall, which is not the case QED

Dead wrote:

Needled247 wrote:

You're right. Any kind of murder is evil. I don't care if you're a paladin. What you just described is masked as "battle" or "war."

Hipocrisy is the word we are looking for.

It is not Hippocratic it is good rp, following guidelines and ideas set down by the writers of faerun, we are set in faerun not the 21th century Europe.
CAnt deal with that, take it up with the gods, cause honerstly in this setting it makes no sense to call all murder evil, since there are defiant evils beyond any doubt, evils the gods DEMAND thier paladins and such to destroy

Needled247 wrote:

You're right. Any kind of murder is evil. I don't care if you're a paladin. What you just described is masked as "battle" or "war."

frankly I dont appriciate being called a bad rper, by being "evil" by your rl standards, when i play my paladin, keep rl out of the game thank you.

Last edited by Dead on Wed, Feb 08 2012, 15:30 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

...evils the gods DEMAND thier paladins and such to destroy

> paladin gods are evil.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Needled247 wrote:

You're right. Any kind of murder is evil. I don't care if you're a paladin. What you just described is masked as "battle" or "war."

frankly I dont appriciate being called a bad rper, by being "evil" by your rl standards, when i play my paladin, keep rl out of the game thank you.

She can RP RL IG and thus your paladin can be called evil, whether you are a bad RPer or not.

Dead wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

...evils the gods DEMAND thier paladins and such to destroy

> paladin gods are evil.

by your rl standards perhaps, but this is not rl

Keep your rl morality out of this discussion as it has little to no bearing on the faerun campaign setting.
This was a question asked concerning the ic world not your views in the real world.

I have the right to represent my RL views IG. Thus I do not have to leave them aside.

PS. OP does not speak of faerun or d20. Maybe he is having a RL dilemma.

you do, but you have no freaking right to lecture me on my rp in this thread, take it up ic if you have a problem but good and evil is defined in the setting, and what my paladin does is not evil when she butchers a banite, its sticking to the campaign setting we play in, complain all you want ic, call me evil ic, but call me evil ooc and ill get bitchy because by the rules of the setting i am most defiantly not evil, you should keep this in mind before you start lecturing people oocly.

PS OP DOES speak of FAerun, because this is the General discussion not off topic

^hit it on the head because you have to remember that this is a setting where Good is Good and Evil is Evil. It's not hard to define it on a cosmological scale.

Also, everything Selvec said.

Now, if this is a RL view type thing, we should move this to Off Topic so people are not confused XD

Lecture you? I am sorry but nobody even mentioned your RP. It was you who frist said that you are a bad RPer. Neither me or Needled said this. It is your fault that you are hurt by our words. Good and evil are not defined nor they ever could be. Maybe it is all a big scheme of Beshaba or Cyric who are actually controling detect alignment spells, trolling us all, so a citizen who is "detected as good" may be evil instead. Bottom line, conceal alignment, fake alignment and similar spells exist so you can never actually use detect alignment as firm argument.

If your Lathanderite butchers a Banite, it is no different than a Banite butcheres your Lathanderite.

General Discussion (Stuff that belongs in General Discussion.)
I still don't see d20 or faerun or FR mentioned. Sorry. And better just quit this argument, since nobody even mentioned your IG characters or IC, or I'll just continue inventing ad hoc arguments for every argument you make about murder being good if the banite is murdered.

Though he doesn't cite Faerun specifically, Kranium's right, the OP posting here and not in the OOC forum intends on discussing Faerun (where, much to people's Chagrin the concepts of morality do have some measure of absolutes to them, because Good and Evil are with little arguement manifest forces in the world.)

That post was more or less a joke. Main thing was said:

Quote:

I have the right to represent my RL views IG. Thus I do not have to leave them aside.

..with IC consequences of course. Such is why my paladin/monk ended up in a jail for refusing to PvP.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Thats how the gods think. Think of the gods as DM's, and FR as Amia the server. The gods police that and judge actions. Intent is hard to show. Actions are easy to decide based upon. Thus, actions are what they would judge on.As I said, gods of FR are not like god as we think. They aren't infallible, they are near omnipotent, but they have flaws and failings and they decide and give favor on their opinions. They have personalities and issues. They aren't perfect beings, and judging based on intent isn't probably going to be something they do, least they be fooled. Like DM's with players. But actions, thats much easier to judge upon. Thus why your actions decide if your evil or good. Your intent is how your character may see themselves. Because they gods are subject to fate also, and intent is so very very vague.

I totally agree with this from a roleplay standpoint. To me intent is the motivational factor, at least to me in a real life setting since ones intent weighs on ones soul. However, were talking about a rp setting and actions judge and determine an individuals alignment and what kind of alignment they are heading for by the gods decree. Way to seperate the two Selvec, good catch.

Dead wrote:

If your Lathanderite butchers a Banite, it is no different than a Banite butcheres your Lathanderite.

Even by Real Life morality this is blatantly idiotic, You need a lecture in the real world, when you have done that, and seen what suffering that has been commited around the world, when you have talked to soldiers that was told to stand by and not act when Serbian soldiers marched in on Srebrenitza, and then see a man broken completely by guilt because of it, then you can speak of the bloody merits of not fighting evils in the real world.
Then you might understand how good it s to be able to stop such horrors and if your logic is that banites dont hurt anyone, then you dont know anything about that god and need to stop writing and read the books before handing out lecturing.

And once again dont lecture me oocly

Good and Evil

Who is online