Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    I'm going to combine a few of these posts and try to cut down a bit on the total
    number of messages being sent out. :)

    DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:

    > Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still "elven". So why not humans?
    >
    > Point 2) Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
    > kill humans?

    I think these are good points. The elves might very well associate the evil
    awnsheghlien with humanity in way that they do not with their own people. There
    is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that humans become
    awnsheghlien more often than do elves. How many elven awnsheghlien are there?
    Just a few, isn't it? There are many more awnsheghlien that sprang from humans.

    This is, however, something of a racist argument. I don't have any sort of
    population statistics, but the number of awnsheghlien running around can't be much
    more than a few hundred. That's in the 0.01% or so of the population. Even if
    humans do become awnsheghlien more frequently than elves they'd still have to go
    to the far right column of the abacus to do that calculation.

    DK, is also right in that the awnsheghlien do use human troops very often. The
    gorgon, however, does also use dwarven and goblin troops. Shouldn't that earn the
    dwarves a little bit of enmity from the elves?

    > Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves as just
    > elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?

    They might very well see all human nationalities as the same. Again, I think this
    is a racist kind of argument, though isn't it? Shouldn't they know better? The
    elves fought on the side of the Vos against all the other races of humanity at the
    beginning of D-Day and then switched to the human side. Even the elves that
    stayed on Azrai's side (those who would probably be more likely to be in the
    Gheallie Sidhe) would notice that some humans are different from other humans,
    wouldn't they?

    > Point 4) The Tuar Annwn example still stands. Those humans were NOT awnshegh
    > controlled.
    >
    > Point 5) More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
    > attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
    > other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!
    >
    > Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans aren't
    > and neither are elves.
    >
    > As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
    > already assembled army, and the other is a _potential_ army. Get real. The
    > GS will fight the battles it can win.

    I think part of the differences between the people making arguments about the
    alignment of elves here is the different interpretation of their motivations.
    That is, some folks think that the motives of the elves offset the evil of their
    actions, while others think their motives don't matter a lick. I'm of the latter
    group. I think Gheallie Sidhe can have all kinds of arguments that justify their
    behavior, but that doesn't vitiate the evil of their actions.

    The Olesens wrote:

    > I'd like to emphasize on a point that has been stated several times but some
    > haven't
    > noticed it:
    > Very few elven generations have passed between Diesmaar and 551 MR.
    >
    > IMO-Elven time is the same in terms of minutes, seconds, etc. Even days are the
    > same.
    > But to elves, a human year is (as far as memories, physical growth, etc. go)
    > more like a
    > month or even a week. So going with a week, humans managed to take most of the
    > elven
    > lands in 500 elven weeks or about 10 elven years. In ten years (elven years
    > that is) the
    > elven population in Cerillia dropped from (my guess) the high millions to the
    > high
    > thousands. Then about 31 years later humans write the date 551 MR on thier
    > calenders. So
    > to the elves, humans kept encroacing on them until about 25 years ago. These
    > figures may
    > seem odd so I am also open to the idea that 1 human year=2 elven weeks which
    > would double all figures.

    I think it would be better to put this in terms of generations rather than years.

    How often do elves reproduce? They are mature around 100-130 aren't they?
    (PHB/33.) That would make an elven "generation" be about every 150-200 years.
    Let's call it 250. That's ten times the standard human generation. Since
    Deismaar, that's six generations. Granted, elves live indefinitely, but how long
    are even immortals going to live before they get killed fighting, or just fall out
    of the a tree or slip in the bathtub, for that matter?

    We're about seven or eight generations out of the civil war. To continue the KKK
    analogy I made the other day, wouldn't that be pretty similar?

    Binagran wrote:

    > If you can refer to a John Wayne film, the least I can do is refer to a comic.
    >
    > I would recommend for all those who have been reading these postings to do with
    > alignment/morality etc. to read the very excellent graphic novel "Watchmen" by
    > Allan
    > Moore and Dave Gibbons.
    > This debate reignited my interest in it, and rereading it, it seems that almost
    > every
    > argument posted here is present in "Watchmen" in some form or another.
    > Depending on
    > your POV (there's that word again), the character of Rohrsharc (sp?), could
    > either be
    > seen as a LG character (forgive the use of alignments) or a NE character.
    > "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon"
    > Admittedly, he was slightly around the bend, but his heart was in the right
    > place (or
    > was it?)
    >
    > Anyone got any comments to make about it?

    The Watchmen rocked! Anyway, I think Rorschach was Lawful Neutral. He was
    totally dedicated to the truth even if it meant global war, he persecuted law
    breakers relentlessly, and never gave any thought to the difference between good
    or evil.

    Ryan Freire wrote:

    > A large problem i see is with people saying is that the elves are trying
    > to commit genocide, they aren't, what the elves are trying to do is
    > drive the humans from cerilia by any means possible, they arent planning
    > on marching to aduria and wiping out all humans there either, they
    > simply want their ancestral lands back.

    Well, I don't know that that is true. Given the number of humans on Cerilia, the
    difference between genocide and the type of pogrom required to get their ancestral
    lands back is pretty slim isn't it? Besides, to me it doesn't matter if there is
    a difference between an out and out genocide and the kind of "retaking of
    ancestral lands" that you describe. Both amount to the same kind of behavior. I
    mean, the elves pretty much controlled all of Cerilia before humans came (except
    for those lands controlled by dwarves or humanoids) so that means they are going
    to have to wipe out the lot in order to get those lands back. Population
    estimates of Cerilia have ranged from five to ten million humans....

    > Off to another point someone made a few posts back with referring to the
    > elves living on plains and whatnot and so not necessarily defending the
    > forests alone. A great deal of plainsland and hills in areas like
    > anuire and vosgaard WAS forest before the humans came. Five hundred
    > years of clearcutting and farming pretty much would decimate all the
    > tree life there.

    This is true. There were substantially more forests, though we don't really know
    how much more for sure. There are several hints, but I don't think we have a
    pre-human map or anything.

    > A major argument for the GS not being evil is in the fact that they dont
    > persecute people like dwarves and halflings. They pretty much keep
    > their emnity for the "enemy", humans. I guess the biggest flaw in the
    > whole alignment argument is that its entirely possible for an elf to
    > behave in a chaotic evil fashion to humanity and its works, yet behave
    > and think in a completely chaotic good manner with other races (ie:
    > elves dwarves, halflings). Is a being who would slaughter and kill
    > innocent people for whatever reason completely good? on the other hand
    > is someone who would lay down their life to ensure that the children of
    > their race will have a place to call home and a decent life completely
    > evil?

    I really don't see the that elves don't persecute dwarves and halflings as being a
    big argument in their favor. A neutral attitude towards one race doesn't make
    evil actions against another less evil....

    Gary

  2. #62
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    | people consult their dentists more often than they consult their morals.
    But,
    | hey, we can't really complain about the immorality of so many people in our
    | society.

    Why can't we complain about it? If an act is wrong, must we accept it? Even
    though all among us have done wrong, can we not still say what is right and
    what is wrong? Must we be perfect to cast judgement?

    | After all, we elected them.... :)

    Did we? This nation is pathetic. For the sake of God, we live in one of the
    only nations in the world where we can choose our leaders and our laws, and no
    one cares enough to go do it. No wonder the elitists think we can't live our
    own lives, no one cares enough to.

    Tim Nutting

  3. #63
    DKEvermore@aol.co
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    In a message dated 10/9/98 7:04:41 PM, galwylin@airnet.net writes:

    >I think the only way to prove the gheallie Sidhe is not evil is to prove
    >
    >its at least noble in the eyes of the elves. I can understand the view
    >of
    >
    >a potential threat but couldn't accept that an attack on a village is noble
    >
    >because its a fight they can win. There should be battles fought that
    >they
    >
    >can't win.
    >
    >
    >
    >This has been a Galwylin® Production

    Actually, I wasn't trying to prove any kind of morality of the GS. I was just
    stating what I thought likely based on their past behavior. After all, War IS
    evil (i.e. running about attempting to kill your neighbors and what not).

    - -DKE

  4. #64
    DKEvermore@aol.co
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    In a message dated 10/9/98 8:07:53 PM, GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

    >> Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves
    >as just
    >> elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?
    >
    >They might very well see all human nationalities as the same. Again, I
    >think this
    >is a racist kind of argument, though isn't it? Shouldn't they know better?
    > The
    >

    The elves are racist, of course. Just look at their history. How many years
    did they keep entire Cerilian races enslaved? 1000 years is the answer. It
    took 200 years of war for the unfortunate Kobolds and Goblins to escape their
    masters. And what's that on page seven of the BR RB? "Unfortunately, elves
    are to mindful of their superiority and treat outsiders with coldness or
    condescension." They are *supposed* to be racist.

    I'm not making a statement about a "racial alignment" here. Don't use
    alignment in my game. But take it as you will.

    Dustin "the elves are toast, but gosh they is kewl" Evermore

  5. #65
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    Tim Nutting wrote:

    > | people consult their dentists more often than they consult their morals. But,
    > | hey, we can't really complain about the immorality of so many people in our
    > | society.
    >
    > Why can't we complain about it? If an act is wrong, must we accept it? Even
    > though all among us have done wrong, can we not still say what is right and
    > what is wrong? Must we be perfect to cast judgement?
    >
    > | After all, we elected them.... :)
    >
    > Did we? This nation is pathetic. For the sake of God, we live in one of the
    > only nations in the world where we can choose our leaders and our laws, and no
    > one cares enough to go do it. No wonder the elitists think we can't live our
    > own lives, no one cares enough to.
    >
    > Tim Nutting

    That was a joke, my friend. Sorry, I couldn't include a rimshot along with the
    message, but we are somewhat limited by the text....

    > | I think you are making sense, but I think you are being more sympathetic to
    > the
    > | elven point of view or overcompensating against the human one.... If you are
    > | going to use a moral standard of the kind I was talking about, I don't think
    > there
    > | is a double standard. A human who kills non-combatants is evil. An elf who
    > does
    > | so is too. So is a goblin. It really doesn't matter if those non-combatants
    > are
    > | elves, humans or goblins.
    >
    > I, however, do have a problem with this statement. Killing is evil, be the
    > victim a combatant or a non-combatant, the act of taking the life of a sentient
    > being is evil. Let us not apply situational ethics to any situation, as that
    > is the same as having no ethics at all. To be bluntly honest, there is no such
    > thing as an extenuating circumstance.

    I know many people who share this sentiment. (I went to a college founded by
    Quakers, after all....) However, I have to disagree. I don't think situational
    ethics inevitably lead to no ethics. There are many different extenuating
    circumstances that I think justify killing. Self-defense is a perfectly good
    one. To defend the lives of civilians is another reason, which is why police
    officers can carry guns. Killing on the battlefield in a just war is one too. (A
    just war is hard to find, but I could list some examples that I think most people
    would agree with.) In fact, I think killing on the battlefield in a morally
    questionable war does not stain the individual soldier's soul nearly as much as
    his leaders. I don't believe the execution of a lawfully condemned prisoner who
    has committed horrific crimes damns the executioner's soul either. (I'm against
    the death penalty, but my objection is a functional rather than philosophical
    one. That is, because of the way I see it applied in the U.S. rather than a moral
    objection to life being taken by the state.)

    > Any being that ruthlessly slaughters another being is evil, at that moment. If
    > it depended on the circumstances, then consider this fictional series of
    > events:

    Actually, in the context of the scenario you describe, I do not see the vigilante
    husband as being evil. Oh, I find it difficult to believe that such an avenger
    would be properly described as "gleefully" going about his work, but that is not
    really the problem. The scene of "ultraviolence" portrayed in Clockwork Orange
    that you borrowed was permitted by the absence of the rule of law, and the "evils"
    that resulted. (That's the theme of the movie, in fact, stated nicely by the bum
    early in the film who delivers a speech beginning "It's a stinkin' world because
    there's no law and order any more!" etc.) In my view, the inexistence of proper
    authorities does justify a certain amount of individual action, even action as
    unpleasant as you describe.

    Now, the person in your scenario commits morally questionable acts in that he
    plants an explosive which might injure innocent bystanders, and slits the gang
    member's throats rather than a more humane method of execution, but a civilian has
    limited access to the tools of the Justice trade, (like arrest warrants and lethal
    injections) so you could make a case (and I would) for him being one man seeking
    justice against the odds and that justifies his methods.

    It is important to stress, however, that the SITUATIONAL context of your example
    that I think makes it morally OK is the absence of the rule of law. Should a
    person do what you describe when he could just as easily (more easily, really) go
    to the police and court system for justice, then he would be committing an immoral
    act by taking the law into his own hands.

    > This, I see, as a demonstrably damagin situation with RPGs, especially AD&D.
    > This statement indicates that a society has absolutely nothing to do with the
    > final outcome of a citizen. Even if there were a genetic predisposition for a
    > goblin to be a self-serving coniving, back-stabbing bastard, that does not
    > excuse the senseless slaughter of the species. Further, if alignment were
    > subject to genetic predisposition would mean that a character can never change
    > his alignment, because it is not subject to change, his genetic code will not
    > allow it.

    I don't think anybody is really advocating the senseless slaughter of any
    species.... In fact, I think the argument has been leading towards the opposite.
    That is, no one can senselessly slaughter anyone and be morally justified.

    As for alignment and genetic destiny... I think that's a bit of an overstatement
    of what goes on in AD&D and in the original example. The statement I made was
    that "...races tend to follow various alignments much more prevalently than is
    reflected in real life. In AD&D terms, it isn't racist to say goblins are evil.
    With very rare exceptions, they ARE evil! Elves tend towards neutrality and
    chaos. Dwarves tend towards law and good. Etc, etc, etc." That very clearly
    notes that racial alignments are merely "tendencies" rather than genetic coding.
    Can a goblin change? Sure. Can an elf? Sure. Can a human? Sure.

    In the game, however, good and evil exist more clearly than they do in real life.
    Goblins are short hand for evil, thematically speaking. While I don't want my
    characters to think it is OK for them to kill goblin non-combatants, I also don't
    want them stopping to question every goblin soldier to discover if he is good or
    evil. That would bog down play, and I'm much rather let goblins be stereotypical
    goblins, I'm afraid. If that makes me a racist, small minded, anti-goblinite...
    well, I suppose I'll just have to turn me in to the CCLU. (Cerilian Civil
    Liberties Union.)

    > I am sorry, but I will never, ever, condone the killing of any sentient being,
    > and label the act "good" in any way, shape, or form. That killing is sometimes
    > necessary is a fact. War happens because of the base natures of sentients.
    > The actions of the United States in World War II were not in any way good, but
    > they were necessary. It was inevitable that conflict would occur for several
    > reasons.

    Despite the fact that I disagree with you, I'd like to say I have a lot of respect
    for the opinions you express. Pacifism can be a particularly difficult philosophy
    to live, and some of the bravest folks I have met in my life have been pacifists.
    I find myself on the other side of the fence from them on many occasions, but that
    doesn't lessen my appreciation for the importance of their opinions.

    > Morality, by definition, is not circumstantial, it is absolute. If it were
    > circumstantial, then personal choice and view is allowed to enter the
    > situation. Morality is a code of ethical behavior that defines right and
    > wrong. A person's view on it does not change it one bit.

    Well, I think there is an absolute morality AND I think there is a situational
    one. I don't really think these are mutually exclusive possibilities either. In
    fact, I think they both must exist for either of them to exist. You cannot have
    the poles of good/evil without the area in between them, what I described before
    as the "vast and vague gray area."

    Gary

  6. #66
    Daniel McSorley
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    From: DKEvermore@aol.com
    >Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
    >kill humans?
    >
    Because that's generalization, and not logically supportable.

    >More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
    >attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
    >other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!
    >
    That's not a valid argument, because there are more human nations than
    all the other demi-human or humanoid nations combined. You just described
    scale.

    >Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans
    aren't
    >and neither are elves.
    >
    What's that have to do with whether the GS are evil or not?

    >As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
    >already assembled army, and the other is a _potential_ army. Get real.
    The
    >GS will fight the battles it can win.
    >
    Sure they will, but they are still evil for doing it. I'm not saying
    that their actions are totally unrealistic, or even unjustified, but the
    original question, way back when, was "is the GS evil?" Yes!

    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

  7. #67
    James Ray
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    - ----------
    > From: Daniel McSorley
    > >Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans
    aren't and neither are elves.
    > >
    > What's that have to do with whether the GS are evil or not?

    Is the Elven Hunt Good or Evil? As long as THAT is the starting point for
    this string, then there are two possible answers:

    1) GOOD, because it prevents any further encroachment on the part of the
    Humans against the Elven Forests (or what remains of them)

    2) EVIL, because its members measure their success by the number of human
    corpses they produce per patrol.

    Keep in mind, Elves are (by nature) Chaotic. EACH Elf, then, is able to
    follow his/her own conscience in their pursuit of "the Hunt". From its
    name alone, one gets the impression that the Elven Hunt seeks to keep
    Humans OUT of what remains of the Elven lands.

    James

  8. #68
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    > That was a joke, my friend. Sorry, I couldn't include a rimshot along with
    the
    > message, but we are somewhat limited by the text....

    Sorry for the over-reaction on my part, Gary. It's just a rather sore subject
    and I guess I let it get to far.

    > I know many people who share this sentiment. (I went to a college founded by
    > Quakers, after all....) However, I have to disagree. I don't think
    situational
    > ethics inevitably lead to no ethics. There are many different extenuating
    > circumstances that I think justify killing. Self-defense is a perfectly good
    > one. To defend the lives of civilians is another reason, which is why police
    > officers can carry guns. Killing on the battlefield in a just war is one
    too. (A
    > just war is hard to find, but I could list some examples that I think most
    people
    > would agree with.) In fact, I think killing on the battlefield in a morally
    > questionable war does not stain the individual soldier's soul nearly as much
    as
    > his leaders. I don't believe the execution of a lawfully condemned prisoner
    who
    > has committed horrific crimes damns the executioner's soul either. (I'm
    against
    > the death penalty, but my objection is a functional rather than philosophical
    > one. That is, because of the way I see it applied in the U.S. rather than a
    moral
    > objection to life being taken by the state.)

    I understand the concept here, and believe it or not, I mostly agree with you.
    But in any of the cases you mentioned, is the act Good. At best (and I mean
    the very best) these actions are Neutral. The executioner was carrying out a
    function of man that has been ordained by the law of the land or church
    involved. The soldier is another case.

    Is a soldier responsible for the morality of his actions? I would say that
    yes, he is. If he is not, then the excuse at Nuremberg (sp) "I was just
    following my orders" should excuse every Nazi concentration camp functionary.
    Especially in the United States, if we as citizens believe that our government
    has become a tyranny, then it is our moral obligation to rebel (Declaration of
    Independence). The same can be extended to a soldier in the field. Following
    orders and blaming it on the authority above you is the easy way out of
    personal responsibility and personal morality.

    > It is important to stress, however, that the SITUATIONAL context of your
    example
    > that I think makes it morally OK is the absence of the rule of law. Should a
    > person do what you describe when he could just as easily (more easily,
    really) go
    > to the police and court system for justice, then he would be committing an
    immoral
    > act by taking the law into his own hands.

    Alright, here I can understand where you are coming from. In point of fact, as
    I wrote the fictional situation, I found that I could not condemn my
    protagonist to death, however a stay in an institution until he was ready to
    rejoin society would have been in order. Understand, however, that Law and
    Morality are not always on the same side, especially in a society where Law
    favors criminals, as it does in the US.

    In my example, my protagonist did some very evil things, I would still say that
    they were wrong. However, to him, they were necessary. In the absence of the
    rule of law, as I set up, the criminals would have raped and killed again.
    Necessity often dictates that we cannot do the good thing, but must take
    actions that are morally and ethically reprehensible, and hope that somewhere,
    someone will forgive us.

    > I don't think anybody is really advocating the senseless slaughter of any
    > species.... In fact, I think the argument has been leading towards the
    opposite.
    > That is, no one can senselessly slaughter anyone and be morally justified.

    This was responding to the sentiment that the dwarf engage in senseless
    slaughter of halflings.

    > ...chaos. Dwarves tend towards law and good. Etc, etc, etc." That very
    clearly
    > notes that racial alignments are merely "tendencies" rather than genetic
    coding.
    > Can a goblin change? Sure. Can an elf? Sure. Can a human? Sure.

    Oh, I was not saying that Alignment was genetically coded. I used that point
    out the fallacy in the concept that ALL goblins are evil, etc. etc.

    > In the game, however, good and evil exist more clearly than they do in real
    life.
    > Goblins are short hand for evil, thematically speaking. While I don't want
    my
    > characters to think it is OK for them to kill goblin non-combatants, I also
    don't
    > want them stopping to question every goblin soldier to discover if he is good
    or
    > evil. That would bog down play, and I'm much rather let goblins be
    stereotypical
    > goblins, I'm afraid. If that makes me a racist, small minded,
    anti-goblinite...
    > well, I suppose I'll just have to turn me in to the CCLU. (Cerilian Civil
    > Liberties Union.)

    Again, the difference between Good and Necessary. Is it Good for people to go
    and hunt down goblins?

    Let me put it this way. Goblins, Orogs, Gnolls, etc. represent a VERY real
    threat to life and limb in Cerilia. The societies that they come from are
    replete with Evil. Deities that glorify slaughter and domination through
    might, etc. To suggest that peaceful relations is possible between Goblins and
    their human neighbors is ludicrous. These nations WILL seek to expand their
    dominance of the world by might, which means the slaughter of people in the
    surrounding lands. Warriors in those lands must, then, choose to go forth and
    defend the lands against the goblins. Otherwise, they do evil by doing
    nothing, thereby allowing evil to happen when they could stop it. (Kind of
    like giving that genocidal lunatic in Bosnia 2 weeks to "clean it up")

    > Despite the fact that I disagree with you, I'd like to say I have a lot of
    respect
    > for the opinions you express. Pacifism can be a particularly difficult
    philosophy
    > to live, and some of the bravest folks I have met in my life have been
    pacifists.
    > I find myself on the other side of the fence from them on many occasions, but
    that
    > doesn't lessen my appreciation for the importance of their opinions.

    I am not a pacifist. Thank you though, for the compliment. However, I
    personally feel that peace is really just a dream that will only be found after
    death. Hienlein was right in stating that naked force has solved more issues
    in history than any other means. We resort to war readily. That absolute
    peace is unachievable does not mean it is not a worthwhile goal, merely a
    futile one, and I am nothing if not a sucker for a lost cause.

    > > Morality, by definition, is not circumstantial, it is absolute. If it were
    > > circumstantial, then personal choice and view is allowed to enter the
    > > situation. Morality is a code of ethical behavior that defines right and
    > > wrong. A person's view on it does not change it one bit.
    >
    > Well, I think there is an absolute morality AND I think there is a
    situational
    > one. I don't really think these are mutually exclusive possibilities either.
    In
    > fact, I think they both must exist for either of them to exist. You cannot
    have
    > the poles of good/evil without the area in between them, what I described
    before
    > as the "vast and vague gray area."

    Situational Ethics does not mesh with absolute morality. I do not accept the
    "shading" concept at all. An act is either Evil or it is Good. That we
    contradict ourselves from moment to moment does not change the nature of our
    deeds. Yes, there are times when the situation surrounding an event can
    justify it, as the law makes provisions for, but that does not change the
    morality of the deed one whit. Killing is still evil, even if done in self
    defense, but that killing was necessitated. The defender had no choice if he
    were to consider his own life important in the least, and he would not have
    been forced to perform the killing if his assailant had not attacked him. But
    he still took another human's life.

    Tim Nutting

  9. #69
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Alignment (Again?!)

    Tim Nutting wrote:

    > Sorry for the over-reaction on my part, Gary. It's just a rather sore subject
    > and I guess I let it get to far.

    Hey, no prob. This is kind of a heavy topic and some emotions have run high from
    time to time.... (I've probably deleted as many messages as I've sent on this
    topic for the sake of not flaming anybody or getting too wrapped up in my own
    opinions.) It's hard to convey irony in text too, so sometimes these things get
    confusing.

    > Is a soldier responsible for the morality of his actions? I would say that
    > yes, he is. If he is not, then the excuse at Nuremberg (sp) "I was just
    > following my orders" should excuse every Nazi concentration camp functionary.
    > Especially in the United States, if we as citizens believe that our government
    > has become a tyranny, then it is our moral obligation to rebel (Declaration of
    > Independence). The same can be extended to a soldier in the field. Following
    > orders and blaming it on the authority above you is the easy way out of
    > personal responsibility and personal morality.

    I'm with you on this one for the most part. The situational context of soldiers
    fighting in an unjust war that I would say mitigates some of their responsibility
    is that a soldier who disobeys orders, even immoral ones, is often subject to court
    martial. In many cases, this can be of the seldom talked about in the O-club
    "summary judgment" kind that results in a bullet in the head on the battlefield to
    make an example out of the soldier with a crisis of conscious.

    In fact, the "following orders" argument did work for many people who fought in
    WWII. The majority of convictions for war crimes at Nuremburg involved leaders of
    military units and those enlisted personnel who performed their "duties" with more
    zeal than the phrase "just following orders" could justify.

    There is an exception to the immorality of murder when one's own life is
    threatened. The classic example of which is if someone puts a gun to your head and
    tells you to kill the person standing in front of you or you'll be killed
    yourself. It's not an immoral act to kill when under such immediate duress. In
    effect, the person holding the gun to your head is committing the murders.
    Soldiers face a similar situation when confronting their officers/leaders on the
    battlefield.

    > Again, the difference between Good and Necessary. Is it Good for people to go
    > and hunt down goblins?
    >
    > Let me put it this way. Goblins, Orogs, Gnolls, etc. represent a VERY real
    > threat to life and limb in Cerilia. The societies that they come from are
    > replete with Evil. Deities that glorify slaughter and domination through
    > might, etc. To suggest that peaceful relations is possible between Goblins and
    > their human neighbors is ludicrous. These nations WILL seek to expand their
    > dominance of the world by might, which means the slaughter of people in the
    > surrounding lands. Warriors in those lands must, then, choose to go forth and
    > defend the lands against the goblins. Otherwise, they do evil by doing
    > nothing, thereby allowing evil to happen when they could stop it. (Kind of
    > like giving that genocidal lunatic in Bosnia 2 weeks to "clean it up")

    I think what would the behavior of a good aligned nation in the above scenario
    would have to be respond/react at least initially before they could launch a
    pre-emptive assault on such a nation. That is, there would have to be an offensive
    by one nation before a good aligned nation could justify invading.

    In the context of Cerilia, however, a history has already been written for the
    players. They don't necessarily have to wait for a goblin invasion before
    launching at attack upon the Five Peaks, for instance. They can recognize that
    such attacks are inevitable and seek to limit them by attacking before attacking
    them. Similarly, the baron of Ghoere might make it clear that he intends to attack
    his neighbors and justify them attacking him, or Diemed might announce that it was
    no longer recognizing the sovereignty of Medoere and begin building up for an
    invasion.

    I think pre-emptive actions in cases like that are dicey morally, one has to be
    pretty positive one is going to be invaded before one can launch such an attack,
    but probably not definatevily evil.

    > Situational Ethics does not mesh with absolute morality. I do not accept the
    > "shading" concept at all. An act is either Evil or it is Good. That we
    > contradict ourselves from moment to moment does not change the nature of our
    > deeds. Yes, there are times when the situation surrounding an event can
    > justify it, as the law makes provisions for, but that does not change the
    > morality of the deed one whit. Killing is still evil, even if done in self
    > defense, but that killing was necessitated. The defender had no choice if he
    > were to consider his own life important in the least, and he would not have
    > been forced to perform the killing if his assailant had not attacked him. But
    > he still took another human's life.

    The combination of situational and absolute works pretty good for me! Zen again,
    who knows? :)

    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Any Alignment
    By BRadmin in forum Category
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 11:59 PM
  2. Alignment
    By hobbychest@pcsia.co in forum Main
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 08:06 AM
  3. Alignment
    By Sorontar in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-11-2007, 03:27 AM
  4. Alignment (SRD)
    By Arjan in forum Category
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2007, 08:26 PM
  5. Clergy Alignment vs. God Alignment
    By Azrai in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-02-2002, 10:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.