AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - The RP Police

FA_Frey_XC wrote:

That's something I never understand on Amia.. why more clerics don't do such ... yet of course I know why, because the Gods never respond, atleast not like they would in a normal FR Campaign setting. And no, I don't mean just the clerical spells they get normally... I mean invoking their Gods name for aid, at the face of impossible odds.

Because it possibly opens the door for the occasional deus ex machina which ruins everybody's day.

Jaqueline wrote:

FA_Frey_XC wrote:

That's something I never understand on Amia.. why more clerics don't do such ... yet of course I know why, because the Gods never respond, atleast not like they would in a normal FR Campaign setting. And no, I don't mean just the clerical spells they get normally... I mean invoking their Gods name for aid, at the face of impossible odds.

Because it possibly opens the door for the occasional deus ex machina which ruins everybody's day.

For once, Jaq and I are in agreement.

Additionally; I can guarantee 99.99% of the playerbase would consider it 'divine favouritism'.

Not if the "Divine Favoritism" was player prompted.

Example: At Ne'sek , one of the key elements to the final solution was the calling of an aide from the Pantheon of Mulhorand to aid in opposing the machinations of Zan'thum. It wasn't the sole solution, we still had to work, BUT we had backup working with us.

If I ever throw truly impossible odds at you as a DM, I'll allow you to barter with your patron deity for a little divine aid.

I'm in the habit of giving players seemingly insurmountable odds, but not impossible. Ask for a god's influence to hold your hand when you're crossing the street and you don't deserve that holy miter.

Grymia's example of Nes'ek is the deity that exists in the controlled environment of the story, not "yo bane i died in pvp and ned a raise lol thx dude"

*nodnods* Precisely why I chose it.

And yeah, any time you DO ask your deity's help, expect to be asked for something in return.

Yossarin wrote:

Grymia's example of Nes'ek is the deity that exists in the controlled environment of the story, not "yo bane i died in pvp and ned a raise lol thx dude"

That's ridiculous, in regards to the Banite thing..in that situation I'd fully expect for any DM, as I know I would, to smite said character, as said Banite asking Bane for a raise after a PvP match is the most petty use and said Lord of Tyranny and Fear would fuck him up.

No, I'm talking about those HUGE conflagulations, just like the attack on Kohlingen long ago. Or the example given by Grymia... or defense of any temple by a large force.

I mean, an Avatar of the Gods appeared in that plot because the Defenders were getting their asses handed to them by the Undead, and called for aid.

It took over two months of IG RP to set all that up, yet all of that work is bested by a Avatar...

AS IT SHOULD BE.

Grymia wrote:

*nodnods* Precisely why I chose it.

And yeah, any time you DO ask your deity's help, expect to be asked for something in return.

Another thing that is used by the DMs - having the Churchs top tier cleric receive a divine order for X, or requiring X for Z. Always.

Regards,

Last edited by FA_Frey_XC on Wed, Aug 05 2009, 9:28 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Jaqueline wrote:

FA_Frey_XC wrote:

That's something I never understand on Amia.. why more clerics don't do such ... yet of course I know why, because the Gods never respond, atleast not like they would in a normal FR Campaign setting. And no, I don't mean just the clerical spells they get normally... I mean invoking their Gods name for aid, at the face of impossible odds.

Because it possibly opens the door for the occasional deus ex machina which ruins everybody's day.

Okay....and Hi Jaq

A deus ex machina (pronounced /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkinə/ or /ˈdiː.əs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/,[1] literally "god from the machine") is a plot device in which a person or thing appears "out of the blue" to help a character to overcome a seemingly insolvable difficulty.

It seems to me this would be the responsibility of the DM's who RP the Gods listening to prevent this.

So the DM makes the "wrong" choice and everyone's day gets ruined?

Because PC's can't RP Gods, or orders from Gods without DM's permission, right?

So the only one that would be able to determine if the request was granted was the .. Referree of the game, the Game Master?

Seems like that's as it should be, and if in any case, if a situation of deus ex machina arises, it'd be the fault of the DM not being consistant or realistic.. not the individual making said request for a instant out.

I'm not criticising the DM's in this, simply debating the point. I've always seen our DM's as being willing to look at the situation and then make a realistic and.. more importantly... consistant decision in the manner.

Regards,

Personally I think Deus Ex Machina is fine as long as its done well, has a clear purpose in terms of the overall story, and doesn't happen too often.

Its one of the tools in every DM's box and they have every right to use it if the story or circumstance calls for their direct intervention.

For the people who benefit from it, it can be a glorious and triumphant moment as their god rewards them in a dramatic and direct way.

I can see how people who are punished by the deus ex machina would get bitter, I think that's totally natural, but I think if you let that 'ruin' your day or start making accusations of favoritism, its a problem with you, not the DM.

However, if it occurs too much, players will start to feel like they can have no meaningful impact on the world without being swatted down by a DM, which is baaaad *nodnod*

I don't like Deus ex Machina, but getting divine intervention doesn't really count because the gods are part of the plot.

I want to see Shaundakul slap some people around with travel delays.

Not to get further into it, but I want to answer Yurell:

How you define an "act" is completely arbitrary. You can look at it very closely or from a wide perspective. You could say "Going to town" is a single act, but you could also seperate "Crossing the street" and "Moving your foot approximately a meter forwards" as individual acts within the larger act. You can judge the whole, or a smaller part of the whole (which is just part of another whole, itself).

In this case, some might think the "act" whose alignment is to be judged is the entire situation, including the intentions and religious devotion of the PC, the tools he chooses to achieve his goal, and the outcome. Another might treat "raising undead" and "saving a child" as seperate acts, but in this case they're inevitably interconnected. As such, it is perfectly justified to view them as one whole act. If you choose Frey's solution of calling divine aid, you "break the rules" of the example: this is a theoretical situation in which you have no other choice but the two options presented. Alternately, you could look at it even more closely: there is no such act as casting the spell, there are only gestures, words and unconnected thoughts that result in the spell. Is a particular word or wave of the finger Evil, if it's part of an Evil spell?

In the end, though, it all amounts to what you said: a "net gain" of alignment points. Many difficult moral dilemmas include both Evil and Good factors, so you must look at the net gain to see whether the act as a whole is Evil or Good. Nothing that appears in mortal reality (or even among gods) can be purely Good or purely Evil, because they're impersonal ideals. You cannot point out a single example of tangible Evil or Good in reality, only actions that reflect the alignments and lean more to one side or the other.

That's why I think it's fruitless to focus on a single aspect of a larger action. Killing a deer may be objectively Evil in the fantasy realm (it probably is), but feeding your family is Good. Therefore, a hunter who feeds his family isn't said to do Evil, even if one minor part of the act (of hunting as a profession) is indeed evil. The same can be said of soldiers killing or, indeed, mages raising undead. Whether a person is Good or Evil is just the sum of his actions and intentions (emphasis on the latter rather than the former, IMO), so you should always look at the infamous Big Picture. Whether your action as a whole involves sub-actions that are undeniably Evil, the net gain can still be Good.

I honestly don't buy this irrational tendency to treat this specific example (of undead) somehow different from the general mechanics of alignment. I've never seen a sound rational case made to defend it. Yes, a spell can be evil, just like a magical sword, the act of taking a life or the act of enjoying more wealth than someone else can be evil. Probably, all of those examples are Evil in our game world. They're just tiny factors of being a mage, being a soldier, or being wealthy, though. There is no reason for them to hold any more weight than the action as a whole (which ultimately, from the widest perspective, is synonymous to the subject's life and therefore, alignment) that is a sum of its parts.

And I'd still like to point your attention to the fallacy that you simply assume to be true: If we assume Spell X is Evil (which is part of the spell descriptor of certain necromantic spells), that does not in and of itself lead to the conclusion that casting Spell X is Evil. I'm not saying it probably isn't, but it's another important semantic difference one should pay attention to. This problem, too, can be solved with the "net gain" model and looking at an "action" from a different distance.

Iron, thing is in D&D there are absolutes of what is good and evil. If it says stealing is evil than stealing is evil no matter what. Same thing with spells, if the spell has the [evil] description, than guess what no matter how hard you try to justify it, using spell X is Evil. It doesn't matter what you do, if you use that spell then you are doing an evil act.

I do assume that I can be LG, if I sacrifice to bane, raise an army of undead or summon an army of devils, establish peace, law, and order, reduce crime, and protect the people of the area. Sure I may do things, like torturer, raise undead or summon demons, and sacrifice to bane, but my good points will out way my evil ones thus making me a good guy right?

I would like to state in the end though, that even if good and evil are absolutes in D&D, Our characters do not know the game mechanics. Thus they can view things differently.

Last edited by IronAngel on Wed, Aug 05 2009, 14:45 PM, edited 1 time in total.

You are outright wrong, Herkles. Read my post, because I disprove most things you said in there.

This is such a rookie mistake that I can't believe people still make it all the time: the existance of absolute Good and absolute Evil says nothing about whether phenomena are "gray" or simple and clear-cut. There is no connection. I've shown this enough times, I'd like someone to try prove otherwise. Good and Evil are absolute, objective, metaphysical, but they are ideals. They don't manifest purely in actions or people, or even gods. There's no deity who embodies Good 100% and no deity who embodies Evil 100%. Nothing is Good/Evil "no matter what" apart from Good and Evil itself. It's basic ethical theory to make the distinction between motive, action and consequence. I specifically addressed this problem above, with the "perspective" point: stealing doesn't have to be viewed as the action you must appraise, that action could very well be "feeding your family through unlawful means" or "taking an item from another person's pocket." Nothing is ever detached from context.

Kant is a good real-world example of such a gray zone problem: he believes in absolute moral duty which free will imposes upon itself. Let's assume Kant has discovered the following rules: "Always strive to preserve your life" and "Never kill." Both are absolutely "good" and unquestionable universal maxims. Still, it is possible for Kant to end up in a situation in which he must choose to either lose his life or kill another person (for example, in self-defence). In this case, there is no choice to be made that doesn't violate an absolute commandment. This is the "Gray zone" that exists, not despite of absolute Good, but specifically because of it. If everything was relativistic, there would be no Gray zone, because there wouldn't be Black and White either.

As for your example, such a person might, at the end of the day, turn out to be a good guy. More likely, he would be neutral. He could even be evil; it really depends on unique specifics. I think Evil things have geater impact on your person than Good things, though, so it's easier to be Evil who does Good than Good who does Evil. Both are, of course, possible.

That's a silly example. And there's different rules regarding Allignment in D&D, the 'Variant Approach' as it's stated in The Book of Vile Darkness, or the Objective Approach (Absolutes). Personally I think the Objective Approach makes more sense in D&D, and the allignment point system gives us mere mortals the fun of either falling or finding redemption.

The system itself makes perfect sense, people just grossly misunderstand it.

Who dares to say they know the will of the gods!

Have to agree with Iron. As much as D&D has a clear cut alignment system, it doesn't make action X evil automatically. Let's assume raising Undead is a purely evil act. Now what about a guy who lost his beloved and he just can't cope with that?

It's pretty classic. He goes into the situation and acts out of the pain of loss. He tries to make a situation BETTER. You could say it's evil and selfish and meddles with the cycle of life, but does he know that? Does he FEEL more evil after having done it? Will his future morals be skewed towards evil because he did it? The only evil that I see here is evil unknown to the man. Possibly "Karma" or the angry thumb of Kelemvor that will come down and squeeze him. But probably not, because gods aren't that restrictive.

Now let's assume on the other hand that there is the same guy, but he is an ordinary man with a latent and slumbering desire for personal gain. He raises an Undead for the first time and makes it do his bidding. He makes it kill his former master who didn't want to part with certain Arcane secrets because he saw that his student was greedy. What he did will sting him, because he used to be a law-abiding citizen, and now he's making his own laws. He knows that it's "wrong".

It's all about intentions, for me. Theoretically, someone could have his intentions so fucked up that he does the entirely wrong thing and will feel great about having done it for the rest of his life. Where do Gods draw the line, that is the question. There are enough examples of ill-intentioned priests who nevertheless retain the power of their respective Gods. Up to a certain point, anyways. Will the God say, when the mortal finally dies "Oh, that guy. Yeah, he was pretty devout during his lifetime and I let him have some of my Manna, but he's not coming to me now because I think he's kind of a creep. Send him to Cyric." ?

I thought in the case of the former where he raises his love as a zombie, he drops a few points towards evil? He probably still thinks himself a saint but in his "character sheet" he shifts a few points towards evil.

Perhaps, if he uses "undead honey" to save an orphanage, he gets a few points towards good but yea, always thought raising the dead itself was evil. The resultant effect could be neutral or even good dependent on the DM i suppose, seeing if he wants to award more "good points" for the noble act of saving an orphanage with a zombie.

You're all failing in this thread by attempting to define specific details that are subject to change based upon the whim of the gods, thus rendering them absolute only in terms of ambiguity. You may commit the exact same Act twice, but due to circumstances beyond both your knowledge and your control (two things Amia's players are often loathe to relinquish, as evidenced here), the results, if any, may be dramatically different.

Well, what makes it problematic for a DM is that alignments clearly aren't dependant on gods. If we ignore the silly "Ao" line of thought, we're left with a pretty difficult question: if Good and Evil are forces beyond the understanding and reach of all beings, gods included, then what the hell do they entail? If gods knew pure Good or pure Evil, they would all be identical or, at most, there would be two clashing factions of identical gods who embody this pure ideal. "Good" by the definition of the word is something to strive for, after all.

In the end, it falls to the DM to determine when an act is Good or Evil, but we clearly don't have the understanding to grasp these concepts fully: if we truly could understand what absolute Good meant, even in a game world, we'd surely know and exercise it in life too.

That's why I think the closest you should ever get to handling the alignments is giving some PC alignment shifts based on how their actions reflect general ideals, acknowledging it's still quite subjective and everything they do is a combination of the polar opposite forces. Or something.

I dont agree at all that raising the dead is an automatic 'evil' act. I pulled this following from the rules & lore section of the forum

Necromancy: The School of Magic that manipulates life energy. Unlike what many would have you believe, Necromancy isn't the warlord of undead school. It is true that Nercomancers may imbue a corpse with energy so that it may rise in the semblance of life, but that in and of itself is not evil. A Necromancer that brings up the bodies of the fallen Orc horde to fight against the second wave of Orcs invading the town should be hailed as a hero, albeit a Eccentric hero. Necromancers may also force Positive energy into the area, destroying many Undead within the instant. Necromancers, can reverse this, and draw life energy from their foes, or push it out entirely. While this might be considered evil to some, it's no more evil than say, Throwing a fireball. It can be at an evil villain, or the town orphanage, where it hits, and intent of the caster is largely the true decision of whether a spell is evil or not.

It's not the spell that's evil, it's the way it's being used. I will agree that certain deities do not like undead, and demand their worshipers destroy undead whenever encountered. However, the above still applies, just because a deity doesnt like what your doing, does not make you automatically inherently evil, or the act of summoning undead automatically inherently evil.

If it has the evil description then it is evil plain and simple.

However I would like to point out that our characters do not know this. If your character hates necromancy then they do. You should not try to state oocly "but necromancy can be used for good" to try and prove your point to characters. Take my character Fariha, she despises undead, all undead, she does not know what a bealnorn is and would try to smite it or get assistance in smiting it. Amareth, not only is she an elf, but a classically trained elf from evermeet so she knows about bealnorns.

The alignment system is not meant to dictate your character actions but be a reflection of it. You should not try and live your life off what it says on the sheet but live and let live.

herkles wrote:

If it has the evil description then it is evil plain and simple.

No spell in nwn is given an alignment description. I dont have a d&d 3.5 sourcebook to check, but none of the nwn spells have a descriptor of good or evil. I do know that there are evil aligned weapons and such, so it would stand to reason certain spells are thought of as evil as well. However, I still maintain that spells and the people that cast them are two seperate things. If a knight picks up the evil aligned bastard sword to cut off the evil mages head, that does not automatically make the knight or his act 'evil'. He would not get an alignment shift towards the evil spectrum for it. Neither would a wizard who in my above post raises the corpses of the orcs to defend the town against the second wave of attack be shifted towards evil for wielding an evil aligned spell.

So i say again, it's not the spell that makes someone evil, it's how the spell is used. You do not get automatic evil points for grabbing an evil weapon, or an evil spell.

Sorry but creating, summoning, using and such of undeath is really defined as evil.

Other necromancy however is just a tool and evil only when used for evil. Many of the greatest undead-hunters are white necromancers.

Silvarus wrote:

Sorry but creating, summoning, using and such of undeath is really defined as evil.

That was one of the points in my post above. The spell itself can have the evil descriptor, but the spell and the person using it are two different things. I'm not contesting that a spell can be considered evil, your actually agreeing with me. If you reread my post, what your not explaining is how the spell automatically makes the above example an evil person

This is where I tend to put lawful evil as. You can be evil due to using evil spells and due to the realms alignment thing you will be considered evil. But because you are using these evil disgusting spells to protect people, you will probably be considered honourable and lawful. A champion of people, but no the gods.

I'd say using necromantic spells that maniuplate the dead is evil. But the actions you use the spells for may be good. The old "The means justify the ends" thing.

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

Silvarus wrote:

Sorry but creating, summoning, using and such of undeath is really defined as evil.

That was one of the points in my post above. The spell itself can have the evil descriptor, but the spell and the person using it are two different things. I'm not contesting that a spell can be considered evil, your actually agreeing with me. If you reread my post, what your not explaining is how the spell automatically makes the above example an evil person

I see it as a case of the age old paladin trap in the style of: "Would you murder and eat one child to save a thousand?"

Silvarus wrote:

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

Silvarus wrote:

Sorry but creating, summoning, using and such of undeath is really defined as evil.

That was one of the points in my post above. The spell itself can have the evil descriptor, but the spell and the person using it are two different things. I'm not contesting that a spell can be considered evil, your actually agreeing with me. If you reread my post, what your not explaining is how the spell automatically makes the above example an evil person

I see it as a case of the age old paladin trap in the style of: "Would you murder and eat one child to save a thousand?"

If you were lawful i would say no. The ends does not justify the means to a lawful character. If your chaotic yes, it would be considered the lesser of two evils and a chaotic good character would absolutly consider murdering the one child to save a thousand. Individual experiences can influence this however, characters are not 'set' into their alignments and they do act outside of them

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

If you were lawful i would say no. The ends does not justify the means to a lawful character. If your chaotic yes, it would be considered the lesser of two evils and a chaotic good character would absolutly consider murdering the one child to save a thousand. Individual experiences can influence this however, characters are not 'set' into their alignments and they do act outside of them

I see the end justifies the means more of a LN or LE idea, and it is often what makes paladins fall.

Silvarus wrote:

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

If you were lawful i would say no. The ends does not justify the means to a lawful character. If your chaotic yes, it would be considered the lesser of two evils and a chaotic good character would absolutly consider murdering the one child to save a thousand. Individual experiences can influence this however, characters are not 'set' into their alignments and they do act outside of them

I see the end justifies the means more of a LN or LE idea, and it is often what makes paladins fall.

paladins can fall from the lawful/chaotic axis as well as the good/evil axis. Following the letter of the law but not necessarily the spirit is lawful alignment. Following the spirit of the law but not necessarily the letter of it is chaotic. Robin hood is a good example of chaotic good, stealing from corrupt nobles and giving it to the poor. The zealous paladin following the letter of his gods commands regardless of the potential damage that can be done by not assessing each individual situation is a good example of lawful good. The paladin might say stealing is stealing and is always wrong, but robin hood says the end justifies the means.

Edit: i agree murder of an innocent child would be an evil act however, and would shift someones align, probably towards towards LE. They are murdering, but it's for a purpose, it's not some random act of violence. A lawful good character following the letter of the law wouldn't consider it, but a chaotic good who does not follow 'law' might consider it. Whether they do it or not depends on teh character. But i don't agree with your comparison that murdering a child is the same dillema as using a necromantic spell. Murder is ending a life, changing the life of another sentient being in a very horrible way. Throwing some energy into a dead body so that it moves the way you tell it to is not altering or dominating a sentient creature against their will. Necromancy does not call back the soul of the dead as has already been ruled on. The act of murder is an act against another sentient creature, necromancy is not, there's no sentience behind the animated body, and therefor not subject to the same moral dillemas.

Edit Edit for my horrible spelling

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

Edit: i agree murder of an innocent child would be an evil act however, and would shift someones align, probably towards towards LE. They are murdering, but it's for a purpose, it's not some random act of violence. But i don't agree with your point that murdering a child is the same dillema as using a necromantic spell. Murder is ending a life, changing the life of another sentient being in a very horrible way. Throwing some energy into a dead body so that it moves the way you tell it to is not altering or dominating a sentient creature against their will. Necromancy does not call back the soul of the dead as has already been ruled on. The act of murder is an act against another sentient creature, necromancy is not, there's no sentience behind the animated body, and therefor not subject to the same moral dillemas.

Aha, now we are talking business.

My point in its entirely is that evil (descriptor) is not just a word, but just that, evil. Necromancy as something that is entirely imaginary can be hard to picture in the same sense as murder or other non-imaginary evil, but that makes it only hard to role play well, not a lesser kind of act. It would thus be entirely same dilemma, despite the scale of the evil. It is the same end justifies the means problem be it just violence, torture, one life, thousand lives, necromancy, theft or anything. A LG character that draws the line of what is acceptable for him on something, say 23 deaths or just one broken limb, is is going to have his morals questioned sooner or later. Of course, all mortals will draw that line somewhere, which is why paladins are so interesting.

My Kelemvorite actually treats raising the dead as worse than murder.

EDIT: The history of the whole pulling souls thing is rather hilarious actually. Years ago I was directed to entirely non-appropriate sources when writing a book on undeath for the module, the book is and was inserted, and I was corrected only years later. Such a small misunderstanding has created quite a bit of RP flavour in the debate.

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

It's not the spell that's evil, it's the way it's being used.

Actually, it is the spell that' evil.

Silvarus wrote:

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

If you were lawful i would say no. The ends does not justify the means to a lawful character. If your chaotic yes, it would be considered the lesser of two evils and a chaotic good character would absolutly consider murdering the one child to save a thousand. Individual experiences can influence this however, characters are not 'set' into their alignments and they do act outside of them

I see the end justifies the means more of a LN or LE idea, and it is often what makes paladins fall.

The end justifies the means is more of a Chaotic ideal (e.g. Robin Hood).

At any rate, my reasoning goes like this:
The spell s irrefutably evil (from an OOC standpoint, not an IC one).
Deliberately committing an evil at is evil.
Doing good with it is then a good act.
Depending on these acts, there my be a net gain of good or evil, or none.

The saying "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions" is a good one at this point. An example of why things may not necessarily be based on intent:
I massacre a village to save the world.
Is this good or evil?
I massacre a village to save the world ... but it turns out that the world wasn't really in danger.
Is this a good or evil act?

In both of them the intention of ultimate good was the same, and it's this that makes a Fallen hero so pitiable - to quote Star Wars:
"It is such a quiet thing to fall, but far more terrible to admit it."

That said, intentions do matter some - did you murder the tyrant to save the people? Good act (not Lawful, though). Did you do it to take over his power? Evil act.
The main part of that point is that in D&D 'killing' is not an inherently evil act - it's what the game is about. Killing is neutral, who you kill and why are what is important.

This differs from raising undead in that the spell itself is evil, and by casting it you are deliberately doing something that is evil - it's not like you're a good character tricked into pulling a lever to raise undead - you are deliberately committing an evil act. It may not be your intention to do something that is evil ultimately, but in knowing what he effects would be you still decided to do it.

That last paragraph sounded better in my head, so letme know if it was incoherent.

At any rate Iron, I still disagree (like I think I did last time we had this discussion

) - the wilfully doing something that is evil is committing an evil act.

There are two types of Evil in D&D. The Objective Approach and the Relative Approach. "From [the Objective Approach] evil can be judged objectively. The evil nature of a creature, act, or item isn't relative to the person observing it; it just is evil or it isn't". "In the relative approach, evil is not something that your character can point a finger at; it's relative to each individual."*

Most DM's run their games on the objective approach, but the relative approach is just as valid a form of gameplay in the D&D universe (even if it is more complicated).

I, personally, like to take a look at things from the relative point of view when dealing with what is and isn't an evil act. Let's use an example from above. A town is under siege from an army of orcs. After the first wave someone raises the fallen orcs to help defend the city against their still living brethren. To the humans in the town, this could be seen as a good act.... but what if your PC is one of the orcs? The same act would be seen as pretty evil. Same act, different view points, different ideas of what it is.

It can get really complicated when applied to all aspects of good and evil in the game, but when dealing purely with acts and motives it works pretty well.

*taken from the Vile Book of Darkness p. 4-5

From a character's IC point of view good and evil can be subjective. However, to the universe as a whole it's objective.
The latter can be defended by the facts there are spells that can detect it, planes that embody it, abilities that require it etc.

It's also important that we don't get Good and Evil (the 'elemental' traits) mixed with good and evil (right and wrong). The subjective definition with the orcs employs the latter rather than the former.

If the world of Faerun had insubstantial theorized gods(like ours) then the argument that Good and Evil exist there as independent Elemental forces may have a footing. As it stands the concepts of Good and Evil exist, even as elemental power, only as a result of the conflicting actions and motivations of sentient beings.

Gods in Faerun cannot be seen as an objective force. They are sentient beings who, just like 'your' PC, regard their motivations as their own 'good'. The fact that they have a vested interest in persuading mortals to believe in them only highlights this further.

Evil planes and the like exist as 'evil' planes because they are ruled or created by beings who the 'majority' of the population regard as evil. If the majority of the population converted en masse to Bane, then Baneites would no longer be evil on the prime material plane. Maybe in Celestia they would but that is a battle that the majority of the population are not engaged in.

As it stands that mass conversion will never happen and as such Bane will always be evil. This evil will remain utterly subjective, utterly relative and utterly constant. So, there are no evil spells, only immutable circumstances that result in them being regarded as evil. No one wants Sauron to win after all.

It's really a bit like a dog chasing its tail.

The Incognitos wrote:

If the world of Faerun had insubstantial theorized gods(like ours) then the argument that Good and Evil exist there as independent Elemental forces may have a footing. As it stands the concepts of Good and Evil exist, even as elemental power, only as a result of the conflicting actions and motivations of sentient beings.

Gods in Faerun cannot be seen as an objective force. They are sentient beings who, just like 'your' PC, regard their motivations as their own 'good'. The fact that they have a vested interest in persuading mortals to believe in them only highlights this further.

The gods aren't objective but the Universe itself is. It specifically states that Good and Evil are 'elemental' forces in the PHB.

The Incognitos wrote:

Evil planes and the like exist as 'evil' planes because they are ruled or created by beings who the 'majority' of the population regard as evil. If the majority of the population converted en masse to Bane, then Baneites would no longer be evil on the prime material plane. Maybe in Celestia they would but that is a battle that the majority of the population are not engaged in.

And the reason the Planes do damage to those of 'good' alignment simply by being there with no other object on the plane touching them, and not to people with the evil descriptor, for example?

Actually no, the planes are absolute and the planar creatures and to a lesser extent the gods are created and defined by the planes that represent moral absolutes, NOT the other way around as you assume. Meaning the gods indeed are like mortals when it comes to alignment, but the absoluteness of moral extremes is not created by gods on the cosmology.

Then where do morals and their 'absolutes' come from? If they are not given form through consciousness then they have no value and as such cannot be said to exist or not exist as a force.

Furthermore, if morals are elemental then consciousness of morality has no intrinsic value at all, the potential force of one moral absolute over another becomes infinite. This is a paradox however as morality requires subjective balance to give it any value, it requires judgment.

So, if morality logically requires conscious judgmental how can it also be an elemental force?

EDIT: I would accept 'magic' as a legitimate reason. I didn't write the module.

Last edited by Yurell on Thu, Aug 06 2009, 12:55 PM, edited 1 time in total.

It does seem odd, but Good and Evil seem to just coincide conveniently with morality on most occasions - they are just another force of nature in the Universe, just like the elemental planes you have good and evil ones.

"Good ad evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."

That's from the PHB, and I think it sums up the argument best.
Morality is subjective interpretation of these forces.

While I have enjoyed this arguement for 2 pages it seems this arguement can be solved pretty easily and quickly. Besides everyone's views be it IC or OC can anyone provide information based on source material? Is the spell or act of creating undead or summoning undead evil? Does focusing your character in necromancy require you to have an evil alignment? If not we are talking about acts which must be viewed in context.

Last edited by Silvarus on Thu, Aug 06 2009, 12:59 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Grapeshot wrote:

Is the spell or act of creating undead or summoning undead evil?

Yes. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createundead.htm

Grapeshot wrote:

Does focusing your character in necromancy require you to have an evil alignment?.

No, unless you start using necromancy for undeath, when you will start falling towards evil.

Grapeshot wrote:

While I have enjoyed this arguement for 2 pages it seems this arguement can be solved pretty easily and quickly. Besides everyone's views be it IC or OC can anyone provide information based on source material? Is the spell or act of creating undead or summoning undead evil? Does focusing your character in necromancy require you to have an evil alignment? If not we are talking about acts which must be viewed in context.

"Create Undead
Necromancy [Evil]"
(PHB pg. 215)

This debate has basically moved past that, though, and we're discussing broader stuff, such as what the affects of casting an evil spell are, requiring a definition of evil, so subjectivity and objectivity are major issues to resolve before one can firmly state exactly what happens.

Not all Necromancers focus on raising the dead, infact one can be both a necromancer and a Kelemvorite. Some of the best undead killing spells are necromancy, undeath to death for one

There are other Necromancers besides the evil ones.

Silvarus wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Does focusing your character in necromancy require you to have an evil alignment?.

No, unless you start using necromancy for undeath, when you will start falling towards evil.

As Silvarus says - no. The school of Necromancy is not inherently evil (there are man spells that destroy undead too), nor does a solitary evil act make you evil.

Silvarus wrote:

My Kelemvorite actually treats raising the dead as worse than murder.

I'm curious about this, I know it's mostly off topic however but... why? I thought Kelemvorites strived for natural deaths, and removing entities that cause people to die before their given time. So surely bringing someone back to die at their alotted time would be Kelemvors will?

Or did you mean to animate the dead?

I believe he means animating.
The terminology is, unfortunately in this instance, interchangeable in English.

The problem with labelling any act Evil or Good lies within the fact that every act is unique. It can never be replicated. Therefore, proving that Act X (which may be labelled "stealing", "murder" or "raising undead") is indeed Evil, does not prove that Act Y, which has the same label but is not the same act, is also Evil.

That's why any universal labels fail. Individual acts are never identical, they are only labelled and categorized based on their percieved similarities. There is no metaphysical entity known as "murder" or "raising undead", it is just a name people give to a collection of seemingly similar events so as to better understand the world. The borders between categories are always gradual, not absolute: it's impossible to point out the exact difference between murder and rightful slaying, for example. Moreover, the borders are also arbitrary and completely dependant on our definitions. An act in itself can never be "stealing," it is only stealing if there is a conscious being that calls it "stealing."

What does all this have to do with alignment? It's very simple: you cannot say "Act X is always Evil" because Act X can only ever manifest once. It is a mistaken interpretation of the objectivity of Good and Evil to believe that this leads to broad, general statements of right and wrong (which, unlike Yurell, I believe must be identical to Good and Evil, or the concepts have no meaning or usability in the game).

So, to finally answer Grapeshot:

Quote:

Is the spell or act of creating undead or summoning undead evil?

Yes, the spell is. But no, the act is not necessarily evil by definition. This is the third time I'm pointing this out, and no one has yet disproven me: the sentences "Spell X is Evil" and "Casting Spell X is Evil" are not identical, one is not an analytic outcome of the other. You cannot use the evilness of a spell to prove the evilness of casting the spell, without more outside evidence. But yes, most of the time (if I was the DM) the act would also give you Evil points, though they might be negated by a larger sum of Good points that you might gain if it was for the right reasons and a good outcome. In my DMing, choosing it voluntarily as a tool would usually taint the goodness of your otherwise exalted action. But again, I cannot be 100% sure because every situation is unique and must not be judged beforehand, on general principles.

Quote:

Does focusing your character in necromancy require you to have an evil alignment?

No, even if you focused on the undead (- creation, summoning and use thereof). In every example I can imagine, it would probably make you fall from the Good alignment, but Neutral necromancers are both possible and common, and there is no evident slide towards Evil.

IronAngel wrote:

This is the third time I'm pointing this out, and no one has yet disproven me: the sentences "Spell X is Evil" and "Casting Spell X is Evil" are not identical, one is not an analytic outcome of the other.

There's nothing to disprove - the two sentences are not the same.

However, my reasoning goes:
The spell is evil.
Deliberately causing something that is evil is evil.
Therefore casting the spell is evil.

Just like murdering an innocent woman is evil, so hiring someone else to do the murder is also evil.

I use the terms right and wrong vs good and evil to separate the subjective from the objective - we are told that good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D & D universe, they are 'physical' forces. They exist independent of interpretation, but still require sentience (since otherwise you're stuck with neutral).

IronAngel wrote:

I cannot be 100% sure because every situation is unique and must not be judged beforehand, on general principles.

That I do agree with.

Iron I think I understand what you are saying. Here is a much easier example I think. Also counter point to Yurell.

Person A slams a sword through Person B Gut. The physical act on sticking a sharp piece of metal into another person causing their death is evil.

If person A turns out to a be a holy paladin and Person B is a evil orc bent on pillage and murder in the local village it doesn't change the physical act of sticking a sharp piece of metal in another person. Which would be defined as an evil act.

So no the reasoning of

The act of of killing is evil
Deliberatley causing a killing is evil
Therefore all who kill are evil.

it is not the act that makes most things evil it is the context in which it is applied

killing in D&D is not evil

The RP Police - Undead

Who is online