Evil--What's your take?

[Thief Of Navarre]

But see, that's just it. Ao didn't give any explicit definitions toward morality. Morality is man-made. Mortals looked at Selune and Shar and arrived at their own conclusions about which was right and which was wrong. Gods did the same.

Ao created opposites, and the labels that mortals imposed onto those opposites created a loosely defined spectrum of morality. Ao did not say which of the opposites was good and which was evil, and in fact, through his actions, implied that such labels were irrelevant. I think there's still tons of subjectivity.

And, being that there's no definition for alignment asserted by Ao or any non-mortal (most gods were/are mortal) entity, a Paladin's detection of evil is relative. He isn't detecting true, actual, defined evil. He's detecting evil as relative to how his pantheon feels about what that word means.

Exactly, thats my problem with the D&D morality scale!

[Kangleton]

Why? Relative morality is what we have in modern ethics. It's a good thing that we have it IG, imo. Realism. More complex.

[Shedboy]

kittens, now they are the face of diabolical evil. They torture, and the patting is all one way, unless they want food. They all think they are assassins too. They follow cyric because they believe they are the center of the universe.

Myrkiltes are like dogs, they like their bones and bury tyhem dig them up etc, have them dance for their pleasure etc.


also all characters can be classified into either ducks or chickens in their mannerisms, particularly the female ones. The chickens are evil because they are foul.

[roguethree]

And, being that there's no definition for alignment asserted by Ao or any non-mortal (most gods were/are mortal) entity, a Paladin's detection of evil is relative. He isn't detecting true, actual, defined evil. He's detecting evil as relative to how his pantheon feels about what that word means.

Detect Evil (Sp)

At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell.

Detect Evil

Divination

Level: Clr 1 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft. Area: Cone-shaped emanation Duration: Concentration, up to 10 min./ level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

The game has extensive mechanics built around the objectivity of good and evil. The spell isn't "you detect the presence of evil as you define it, or as intricate value systems might variably interpret various actions." Philosophize to your heart's content, but it's pretty cut-and-dry.

[Gamling]

I will take the time to write that in the core books it says that the game is up to interpretation of who's playing it. And authors who've written books about FR take it into their own view as well.

Keep in mind that there's such a thing as opinions R3, and lots of people have them.

[Kaybrie]

Kangleton still has a strong point, because Good and Evil are just the names defaulted to the two sides of the alignment spectrum in rulebooks, they could have just as easily been named red and blue. Just the same as a Holy Avenger is only holy to the person wielding it, to another person's religion, it's blasphemy, and unholy. Good and Evil are the names the books use by default to recognize two different sets of moral values, the same way as Chaotic and Lawful.

Most bad guys, think they're legitimately doing the right thing, if they thought they were doing the wrong thing, then why would they do it?

[glaes]

@kasso .... For selfish or self serving reasons?

Also, clearly paladins are the bad guys for detecting the 'evil' in the world.

Why pick an evil alignment if you folks don't believe in the good/evil system?

[OnyxTigress]

I hate these alignment arguments. Blah blah good, blah blah evil. No one ever wins.

[Gamling]

I hate these alignment arguments. Blah blah good, blah blah evil. No one ever wins.

Seconded.

[Lothoir]

Seriously though, I agree completely with roguethree. Alignment is laid out very clearly in the sourcebooks. You may not like it, and that's fine. Many players however enjoy the Forgotten Realms alignment system and actually play by the rules as they are written, because that's kind of the whole point of rules.

I love characters that have personal dilemmas about their own alignment (when they give it thought), and I think that an evil character that thinks he's doing the right thing, but eventually has to confront his own wickedness (by being told of the dark taint on his soul by a paladin) would be an extremely interesting story. In a way, Redjack has done this with his Myrkulite that serves the Black Hand not because of any personal convictions, but because of obligations.

The important thing is that, as a player, you recognize whether your character's actions or fundamentally good or fundamentally evil. In this made up world there is a moral good and a moral evil. You may not like it, but they exist, and pretending they don't is a very elitist stance that makes clear you don't care what the rules say, because your roleplay concept is more valid than someone that's working within the rules as presented rather than ignore them.

[Kangleton]

R3, I know that the word "evil" is clearly used. It still isn't clearly defined, though. It says you detect evil, but doesn't say what evil actually is - it doesn't give definition. Whatever it is, you detect it. That's it.

But what is it? Look to the dictionary. Evil is more or less defined as something immoral, where immoral is defined as something not moral. Again, we come back to evil being a word defined only by comparison to the opposite, which itself is defined through comparison. To know what is immoral, you need to know what is moral. Still subjective.

[Kaybrie]

People are free to play their characters and role play the way they want. If a Paladin wants to hold up that chart to my bad guys who believe what they're doing is right, they'll sucker punch them through the paper every time.

[OnyxTigress]

I really always dislike the morality talk. Morality is such a convoluted thing that differs from person to person.

BUT

As stated, in the Forgotten Realms setting, the deities and such have a pretty good guideline of things that they consider moral, or good and evil and such.

BUT

It also is something that will differ from dm to dm, and from player to player.

SO NO ONE WINS.

But really, what Lothoir said was good.

[Intrepid42]

In my opinion, to debate whether good and evil "truly exist" or are just subjective labels in standard DnD or FR is a little bit like debating gravity. It seems to be just generally assumed.

First up, in any campaign, what the DM says goes. If the custom setting involves subjective alignment, then alignment is subjective. Any of us can use the Search function and view previous admin/DM comments on the subject.

But since we seem to be discussing standard DnD...

3.5e Player's Handbook p103

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

The full excerpt

In the temple of Pelor is an ancient tome. When the temple recruits adventurers for its most sensitive and important quests, each one who wants to participate must kiss the book. Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power, and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned. Only those who are good can kiss the tome without harm and are trusted with the temple’s most important work. Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.

Devils in human guise stalk the land, tempting people toward evil. Holy clerics use the power of good to protect worshipers. Devotees of evil gods bring ruin on innocents to win the favor of their deities, while trusting that rewards await them in the afterlife. Crusading paladins fearlessly confront evildoers, knowing that this short life is nothing worth clinging to. Warlords turn to whichever supernatural power will help them conquer, and proxies for good and evil gods promise rewards in return for the warlords’ oaths of obedience.

In terms of the original creator's vision, this is the Ed Greenwood quote I could find on a quick search that comes closest to addressing the issue, without stating things with legal precision.

http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.as...1&whichpage=59

For the Realms to be a place we like to escape to or game in, it has to have some shining allure, some good things: moments of heroism and beauty and noble behaviour for us to cherish.

Now the above quotes leave at least some room for debate about semantics. However, my opinion is that alignment in standard DnD is either objective, or so close to it that it makes no practical difference.

If one can argue that it's a subjective decision for deities or the cosmos, it's most definitely not a subjective thing at the level of mere mortals. It is an objective reality for all intents and purposes. To defy or try to escape from those strictures is to challenge the gods. This can and has been done successfully in Realms history, of course. It is not an option open to most. But the Evil-doers can at least dream of a shot at it.

[wangxiuming]

I think if our characters had this discussion, it would be far more interesting.

... not to say that it's not interesting now.