From: [b--ad--s] at [concentric.net] (Bradd W. Szonye)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: A simpler Good?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 20:25:19 GMT
Message-ID: <[s l rn 966 nan p 9 bradds] at [ogre.localdomain]>

Peter Seebach <[s--e--s] at [plethora.net]> wrote:
>I'm pretty sure my version of the system works fine.  The thing is, my
>system bothers you, and yours bothers mine.  Mine allows actions to be
>"Good" that you think are unacceptable.  Yours *doesn't* allow actions
>to be "Good" that I think should be counted.  (At least, should
>*sometimes* be counted.)

I'm coming to the opinion that the reason why we disagree is that we've
all been reading too much into the alignment rules, putting too fine a
point on it and splitting hairs. I think the actual D&D alignment system
is a lot simpler that we've been making it out, and that Good and Evil
are all about how you treat "innocent life." (Not how you treat people,
or animals, or irredeemably evil critters, but the *innocent*.) Look at
the definitions (paraphrased here):

    Good people selflessly protect innocent life.
    Evil people debase and destroy innocent life.
    Neutral people lack the "commitment" to do either.

The other aspects of Good that we've been upholding as "ideals" are
portrayed, in the PHB, more as implications of the above. Good people
are altruistic, because selfless personal sacrifice is altruistic. They
respect life and dignity because Good people are not Evil -- indeed,
they typically abhor Evil -- and, by avoiding and preventing the
destruction of innocent life, you show respect for it.

By this, there *is* an absolute system, but a very grainy and simplistic
one -- but grainy and simplistic is a good description of D&D rules in
general, so that's in keeping with the overall tenor of the game. To
judge where an action falls, you can ask a few simple questions:

    1. Does the act have any bearing on innocent life[*]?
       Yes: It is a moral decision. Go on to question 2.
       No: The act is irrelevant for purposes of alignment.

    2. Are you protecting the innocent or helping others? It's enough
       that you believe, in good faith, that the beneficiary is an
       innocent.
       Yes: You may be acting in a Good manner. Go on to question 3.
       No: You are not acting in a Good manner. Go to question 5.

    3. Are you making a personal sacrifice for the benefit of others?
       (Include small sacrifices, such as giving your time when there
       are "better" things you could be doing.)
       Yes: You may be acting in a Good manner. Go on to question 4.
       No: You are not acting in a Good manner. Go to question 5.

    4. Does your sacrifice go beyond mere personal relationships? That
       is, is it "selfless"? If you act *solely* because the beneficiary
       is a family member or countryman, the answer is "no."
       Yes: You are acting in a Good manner. Go to question 5.
       No: You are not acting in a Good manner. Go to question 5.

    5. Do you intend to debase or destroy another being's life?
       Yes: You may be acting in an Evil manner. Go on to question 6.
       No: You are not acting in an Evil manner. Unless you answered
       "yes" to question 4, you are acting in a Neutral manner. Stop.

    6. Do you believe that life to be innocent, in good faith?
       Yes: You are acting in a willfully Evil manner. Stop.
       No: Go on to question 7.

    7. Is that life in fact innocent, despite your belief?
       Yes: You are unintentionally acting in an Evil manner. Stop.
       No: You are not acting in an Evil manner. Unless you answered
       "yes" to question 4, you are acting in a Neutral manner. Stop.

    [*] Where these questions consider "innocence," you should consider
    a pretty broad meaning of "innocent": consider innocence both as in
    "not wicked" and as "not a willing participant." (For an example of
    the latter, a professional soldier is a willing participant in war,
    with an understanding of the risks involved. Therefore, killing him
    is not necessarily destruction of innocent life.) Also, you should
    consider innocence at the same level of significance as the act;
    while a thief is not totally "innocent," he *is* innocent at the
    scale of moral judgments that considers things like mass killing.
    Therefore, if you're considering killing the thief and his whole
    family, you should probably treat the thief as "innocent" on that
    scale.

A couple of notes: You might notice that it's possible to act in a way
which is both Good and Evil, according to the above questions. For
example, if you intentionally kill one innocent to save another, you may
be making a selfless sacrifice to protect the innocent (which is
unambiguously Good), but you are *also* wilfully destroying an innocent
life (which is unambiguously Evil). Thus, the action is a net Neutral,
but of the "balanced" sort rather than the "apathetic" sort. It's even
possible that the action is a net Good, which is fine for barbarians and
rogues, but *not* for paladins or some clerics, because the Evil still
exists.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether a "yes" answer to question 7
would result in a loss of paladinhood. It's willful, but it's also
clearly "making a mistake." I would suggest that a paladin who
mistakenly (in good faith) takes an innocent life *should* lose his
paladinhood, but not irrevocably. I don't know whether that's what the
rules intend, however. An easy fix would be to make such a violation of
the paladin's code.

Is this agreeable to everyone? It is absolute and it allows for more
than one interpretation of Good. Some philosophical characters might
argue that there's more to Good than just this, and they might even be
right: there might exist moral systems "more Good" than the basic D&D
one, but it's the "simple" system that determines how _detect good_ and
_unholy word_ work. (As I imply above, there's also a lot of room for
interpretation of "innocence," and Good people should probably use a
very broad definition so that they don't inadvertently cause Evil.)
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye                         Work:  [b--a--d] at [cup.hp.com]
Software Design Engineer                Home:  [b--ad--s] at [concentric.net]
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL     Phone: 408-447-4832


From: [b--ad--s] at [concentric.net] (Bradd W. Szonye)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Innocence; when do animals "count" for alignment purposes?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 21:47:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[s l rn 966 s 5 d p 9 bradds] at [ogre.localdomain]>

Peter Seebach <[s--e--s] at [plethora.net]> wrote:
>The philosophy of 1E and 2E is *totally irrelevant*.  3E is a new game.
>We are discussing this one game, and no other.  That said, I'd still
>like to see a page number citation for why alignment is "only other
>persons".  I believe that this is a new rule you *invented* from whole
>cloth, because you needed it to allow hunters to exist and preserve the
>"killing is wrong" rule.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, sometimes, animals
*don't* count for alignment purposes. Roughly, the argument centers on
the idea that Good and Evil appear to be all about "innocence" in D&D.

The rules are pretty clear that debasing or destroying innocent life is
Evil, by definition. That's what Evil does. Therefore, when an animal is
"innocent life," it certainly "counts" for alignment purposes. How do we
define innocence? From www.m-w.com:

        in•no•cent
        Pronunciation: 'i-n&-s&nt
        Function: adjective
        Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin
        innocent-, innocens, from in- + nocent-, nocens wicked, from
        present participle of nocEre to harm -- more at NOXIOUS
        Date: 14th century

        1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of
        knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless
        in effect or intention <searching for a hidden motive in even
        the most innocent conversation -- Leonard Wibberley>; also :
        CANDID <gave me an innocent gaze> c : free from legal guilt or
        fault; also : LAWFUL <a wholly innocent transaction>

        2 a : lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or
        self-consciousness : ARTLESS, INGENUOUS b : IGNORANT <almost
        entirely innocent of Latin -- C. L. Wrenn>; also : UNAWARE
        <perfectly innocent of the confusion he had created -- B. R.
        Haydon>

        3 : lacking or deprived of something <her face innocent of
        cosmetics -- Marcia Davenport>
        - innocent noun
        - in•no•cent•ly adverb 

I think that the first and second definition are most relevant to
discussions of alignment. In particular, some of the synonyms look very
much in the right spirit: blameless, lawful, artless, ingenuous,
ignorant, unaware. I'm not sure whether we want to consider innocence in
the lawful sense; I'll ignore it as being too thorny to tackle at this
time. The etymology is also revealing: the word comes roughly from roots
meaning "not wicked."

That leaves two general senses of innocence: not wicked (innocence from
guilt) and unaware of the consequences (an innocent bystander). Both of
those seem like the kinds of people that Good would want to protect and
Evil would want to destroy.

How do animals play into this? Being incapable of moral thought, they
certainly aren't wicked. That leaves us to consider their status as a
willing or "knowledgeable" participant in the killing. Animals are
certainly innocent (in sense 2a) of things like torture, maiming, and
killing for pleasure. Therefore, torturing an animal to death is
*certainly* Evil. Animals do count when it comes to torture, which
agrees with the Sage's ruling.

However, what about killing animals for food? This is an ordinary part
of nature, and while animals are generally amoral, they do understand
the whole "eat or be eaten" concept. Animals are both "guilty" of eating
other living things, and they are not unaware of how the food chain
works on its most basic level. Thus, animals are not "innocent" when it
comes to food, and they *don't* count for this basic aspect of
sustaining life. Some people disagree with this; they believe that
animals *are* innocent, regardless of the circumstances. For such a
person, it would be Evil to kill an animal, even for food, because
they'd be acting with the intent to destroy innocent life. However, the
majority of people who consider eating meat a normal and natural thing
to do are justified in their belief, and for them it's not Evil to kill
for food.

Likewise, it's generally not Evil to kill an animal that poses a direct
threat to people. This is the same argument, but with the roles
reversed: it's perfectly normal and natural to avoid becoming a meal
yourself. We're all willing participants in the food chain, and it's a
natural and *unaligned* thing to kill for food or to kill to avoid
becoming food.

In the middle, there's a gray area: is it Evil or unaligned to hunt for
sport? On the one hand, most animals have little concept of sport, so
it's easy to say that they are innocent regarding such things. On the
other hand, some animals *do* hunt as a form of play or "practice," so
it's not completely outside the realm of natural, unaligned behavior.
The best I can come up with is that this is something like killing for
food: if you believe it's wrong, it's Evil to do it, but it's reasonable
to believe that it's not wrong. One note, however: there's a difference
between hunting "for the hunt" and hunting "for the kill," and the
latter is less ambiguous in its Evil. Another way to say it: hunting as
practice for getting food is unaligned, but hunting for the joy of
ending a life is Evil.
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye                         Work:  [b--a--d] at [cup.hp.com]
Software Design Engineer                Home:  [b--ad--s] at [concentric.net]
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL     Phone: 408-447-4832