Alignments, what do they truly stand for?

[Nick mage]

Let me try to put the good vs evil debate this way
Take mercykilling for instance. In some countries it is legal and in others it is not. For example you have a relative who is involved in a car accident. She/he is now a vegetable. She/he is pratically brain dead and cannot control her senses or move in anyway and have to be fed from a tube and will live like that forever. If you kill her what act is that? Her is what people will think according to their alignment

Good (Lawful, neutral, chaotic): How could you do that! That's murder, you have no right to take her life away.

Lawful neutral: That's against the law! (If it is outlawed)

Neutral (True and chaotic) : Why not kill her as she is not living her life and also she is suffering the misery of not being able to do anything and being absolutely bored. Might as well relieve her of her pain and suffering and kill her.

Evil (All) : Her cash when she is dead will come in handy! To hell with her!

So with stance will you take?

[Strahd Von Zarovich]

Nota: these are not 100% typical but to illustrate, possible aliments)


Yes evil is not an absoulut but A Serial killer is Chaotic Evil (per Ad&d rules, by thelimits it imposes), maybe his or her life was screwed but until afew years ago everybody belived only men could be serial killers. But A serial killer works outside the law and dosen't do it for the money(or prestige). In there own twisted mind they kill and most of the time they will appear normal when in public but in a position of power, The killer and a lone unecpected victim they draw on the fact they killed. Chaotic Evil.

A Hitman, Kills for the monney he works outside the law (some maybe twisted, to a higher degree), But usualy you could cross a mob hitman in a street alone and if your not his target (or din't see him shoot a target) he'll leave you alone. Neutral Evil

That Druid, One I took from the book of villains, it's the extream of Chaotic goodness. The Good of the many is more important that the good of the few.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Strahd Von Zarovich: That Druid, One I took from the book of villains, it's the extream of Chaotic goodness. The Good of the many is more important that the good of the few.

Not to the few! The few view it as evil! Thus it is as I said the lesser of two evils Strahd. The definition of good and evil within an action lies in the effect of that action, not the motive. A person with 'good intentions' can commit horrendous evil. A serial killer by definition commits unspeakable evils against those he kills no matter what shape his brain health is in.

Humans are ALL capable of good, and yet all commit evil every day. A roleplaying game alignment, is representative of the majority of precedented choices that character would have made thus far, so that further choices can be made 'in character'.

How I'd define 'wrong' Lethnael is if it 'wrongs' or hurts someone - be that another individual, oneself, or if religious, ones God.

Did anyone read my definition in my previous post BTW?

------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Accord]

Originally posted by Yorick: Did anyone read my definition in my previous post BTW?

Yeah, I saw it.....btw, nice "egg"!

------------------
Long live H22A1!!!!!

[Strahd Von Zarovich]

Yeah, But I was anwering with the tight consepts of Ad&d aliments and giving them real-life application and seriously no one can make a true mold each person's personality. Thecnicly a Paladin attacking a thief would be seen as evil by the thief. We could go in endless discusion on theorises and Philisophical discutions on whetter this and that exist or if this and that exist. It could make for intresting converstion on the general board Through.

[Jasonexus]

I think the best definition of evil is "the lack of empathy for whomever your actions affect."

If everyone truly felt the suffering that they caused to others, there would be very little evil.

[250]

Originally posted by Jasonexus: I think the best definition of evil is "the lack of empathy for whomever your actions affect." If everyone truly felt the suffering that they caused to others, there would be very little evil.

it is hard to define evil... hell, it is hard to define anything in this world,

you think you know, but you not know. and when you thought you know, you find what you knew is not what you knew... so says Bruenor Battlehammer

there are so many evil kinds out there: selfish, prejudice, dis-compassion, greed, power-hunger, lying for personal gain... but you see, the problem is, you can find all those things in one person, but he can still have good qualities. i hate to be mainstream, but the world is a place of gray, when you truely look into a character's heart, dug into even the darkest corner where sunlight cannot breach through, and you will find soil of the life of goodness. it is so hard to define an evil person


P.S. welcome to the board!


[This message has been edited by 250 (edited 04-02-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 250: it is hard to define evil... hell, it is hard to define anything in this world, [This message has been edited by 250 (edited 04-02-2001).]

Sometimes. Othertimes not. To define, simplify, break something down to it's simplest element. Has anyone read my definition BTW??????? I don't find it hard defining good and evil!



------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Strahd Von Zarovich: Yeah, But I was anwering with the tight consepts of Ad&d aliments and giving them real-life application and seriously no one can make a true mold each person's personality. Thecnicly a Paladin attacking a thief would be seen as evil by the thief. We could go in endless discusion on theorises and Philisophical discutions on whetter this and that exist or if this and that exist. It could make for intresting converstion on the general board Through.

Aha but this is my point. A properly roleplayed Palladin would not attack a thief, and if they had to they would use restraing violence and capture the thief because taking life is evil and usually unecessary.

The truly good mage of the earlier hypothesis would not kill the Druid but find a way to incapacitate the Druid or not commit any evil. The mage that kills the druid is acting OUT OF ALIGNMENT and with "good intentions" but it remains an evil act, a necessary evil? Still evil.

Thanks Accord

What is required to understand the defenition is a subtle change in perception of what evil is. It is not this terribly destructive force that demolishes everything - that is EVIL TAKE TO THE EXTREME. Mother Theresa is GOOD TAKEN TO THE EXTREME.

At it's dividing line you have my definition.

Evil is following your own agenda at expense of the benefit of others
Good is benefiting others at the expense of your own agenda.

Some actions could be in theory neutral, if your own agenda has no consequence on anothers benefit.


------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

Personaly I think that good/evil is determined by the intentions of the one who is performing the act not by the act it's self.

------------------

My website http://hesperex.8k.com
Hesperex Freth: 1st son of Matron Mother Shi'nayne Freth, 1st house of Ched'Nesad. Weapon master and patron of house Freth.