Dicefreaks d20 Community

bluemage55 wrote:

Omegalith wrote:That doesn't mean a Solar can suddenly decide "Hey, statistically speaking, I'm incredibly unlikely to commit a serious evil act, that means I can do whatever the hell I want as long as the net result is a cosmos with a higher percentage of good!" Seriously, that is what you seem to be suggesting here.

That's not what I argued. I suggested that the exemplars would logically cleanse the world of any beings that are less Good than they, in order to make the world perfectly Good. They would not, however, cleanse themselves, as they are as close to perfect Good as possible.

Nope, still looks like your saying the Solar can brutally slaughter farmers and peasants and keep his alignment as long as the universes average value of good increases.

Since when did logic have anything to do with good and evil in the first place? Only entities with emotions give a damn about the concepts in the first place.

Let me try this from another angle: The Demons could win the Blood War right now if they organised themselves into orderly regiments with a unified command and strategy, but in doing so they would betray everything they represent. The same applies for hordes of crazed celestials cutting down anyone who doesn't match their standards of purity.

All of the above (barring animals, in which you are in part wrong, killing for territory is in all ways an action to survive, since territory includes getting food) is things I have already countered or agree with.

Andtalath wrote:Take a class in children's and adolescent psychology. Indoctrinating a child in any religious tradition doesn't prod them towards that religion. It makes them apart of it, and ingrains it so deeply that they will probably never waver in their faith.

I'm aware of just how strongly it gets ingrained, however, it is not removal of choice, it's prodding them into Good choices.

Omegalith wrote:Nope, still looks like your saying the Solar can brutally slaughter farmers and peasants and keep his alignment as long as the universes average value of good increases.

And that has nothing to do with the principle that solars usually do no wrong.

Omegalith wrote:Since when did logic have anything to do with good and evil in the first place? Only entities with emotions give a damn about the concepts in the first place.

I'm talking about we Dicefreaks people using logic to infer what the celestials would do when they triumph over Evil.

Omegalith wrote:Let me try this from another angle: The Demons could win the Blood War right now if they organised themselves into orderly regiments with a unified command and strategy, but in doing so they would betray everything they represent. The same applies for hordes of crazed celestials cutting down anyone who doesn't match their standards of purity.

Have I suggested that celestials should be crazed hordes? Weak straw man aside, I've discussed what happens when the celestials actually win the war. What they do until they win, is exactly what they do now.

Andtalath wrote:All of the above (barring animals, in which you are in part wrong, killing for territory is in all ways an action to survive, since territory includes getting food) is things I have already countered or agree with.

You've countered nothing. You've only insisted that I am wrong, and that you are right. You haven't laid out logical arguments for why the forces of Good would do as you believe, only insisted that it's simply "not Good".

With regards to animals, killing for territory is not necessarily part of survival. Territorial animals try to carve out the largest territory they can effectively use, even if they could survive with much less.

Andtalath wrote:I'm aware of just how strongly it gets ingrained, however, it is not removal of choice, it's prodding them into Good choices.

You're missing the point. The children have absolutely no way to be anything other than what you teach them to be. A child indoctrinated into the Catholic Church from birth will overwhelmingly wind up Catholic. It's far more than prodding, when upwards of 95% of children stick with the vaules they are taught long before they have any ability to comprehend the logic of those values.

bluemage55 wrote:And that has nothing to do with the principle that solars usually do no wrong.

Then why did you bring it up?

I'm talking about we Dicefreaks people using logic to infer what the celestials would do when they triumph over Evil.

They'll continue to act in a manner consistent with the epitome of the good alignment, rather than abandoning their principle of protecting innocents in order to destroy them untill only saints remain.

Have I suggested that celestials should be crazed hordes?

You have a way of wiping out billions of mortals that doesn't require getting their hands dirty?

Weak straw man aside, I've discussed what happens when the celestials actually win the war. What they do until they win, is exactly what they do now.

If you really saw that as a strawman we're having more communication problems here than I initially thought.

bluemage55 wrote:You've countered nothing. You've only insisted that I am wrong, and that you are right. You haven't laid out logical arguments for why the forces of Good would do as you believe, only insisted that it's simply "not Good".

No, I haven't, I can repeat them however since you seem to lack them.
The rules on alignment clearly state that Good individuals act in Good ways, and that they see a distinct value in sentient life, thus negating seeing it as some sort of data to be processed on the way to 100% Good deeds done.
Also, the moral system has time and time again shown that all moral in dnd is deonthological, meaning that consequences is not a part of the equation, thus, since it is in no way a consequential system, the angels will fall if they act deonthologically wrong.
One way to act deonthologically wrong is to disrespect sentients, one way to do such is to slaughter them for your own benefit.
An exception to this is that it's a good deed to slaughter evil beings, this is because of the fact that evil beings are motivated by evil and will definitely continue to do evil, therefore, as long as you don't have the luxury of time, killing them is a service to all other beings.
This brings about no conclusions however, you take an ad-hoc point from this, namely that evil deeds is a bad thing, and warp it to make that any being who can commit a bad deed is an evil entity, therefore not apart of the respect for sentient life.
So, in short, no, it's not acceptable to kill a being who isn't evil for a Good being unless you've got motivations enough for it, also, even then, it's a neutral act making it a not preferred act by an incarnation of good.

With regards to animals, killing for territory is not necessarily part of survival. Territorial animals try to carve out the largest territory they can effectively use, even if they could survive with much less.

While kinda true, they essentially do it out of a sense of survival, their motivation is always either survival or procreation (which in a way is the same thing).

You're missing the point. The children have absolutely no way to be anything other than what you teach them to be. A child indoctrinated into the Catholic Church from birth will overwhelmingly wind up Catholic. It's far more than prodding, when upwards of 95% of children stick with the vaules they are taught long before they have any ability to comprehend the logic of those values.

Yes and no, I agree on most part, including the 95% part, however, comparing a sense of respect for sentients, caring for others and all other general beliefs Good promots with Catolicism is flawed since, well, Good is simply so much broader.
Also, with mind wash, it would be 99.99% and no individual thought would be allowed.

Omegalith wrote:Then why did you bring it up?

It was in reply as to the statement that celestials should fall on their own swords after wiping out mortals.

Omegalith wrote:They'll continue to act in a manner consistent with the epitome of the good alignment, rather than abandoning their principle of protecting innocents in order to destroy them untill only saints remain.

Define innocents. The standards would shift in a drastically different ideal Good world.

Omegalith wrote:You have a way of wiping out billions of mortals that doesn't require getting their hands dirty?

No part of doing so has anything to do with craziness or hordes. More like a systematic purge.

Omegalith wrote:If you really saw that as a strawman we're having more communication problems here than I initially thought.

It's possible you're missing my point entirely.

I'm referring to what happens after Good has arisen into dominance, not what Good does now. The fact that Good focuses its efforts on destroying Evil and not Neutrality is intrinsically tied to the fact that Evil currently exists and is a greater threat.

bluemage55 wrote:I'm referring to what happens after Good has arisen into dominance, not what Good does now. The fact that Good focuses its efforts on destroying Evil and not Neutrality is intrinsically tied to the fact that Evil currently exists and is a greater threat.

Yes. It also happens to be complete bunk. Unless you expect demons and devils in a world with no Good to suddenly start handing out flowers and candy to Neutral people, it doesn't make any internal sense for celestials to decide that all lesser Good must die. Good's primary tenet is not the eradication of evil, first off, and second off, it has no provisions at all for the eradication of Neutrality and lesser Good through bloodshed.

There is absolutely no evidence or rules support for your stance. Everything in Dungeons and Dragons suggests that celestials who employ the Purge as their method of choice soon become Fallen.

Does this bizarro idea of yours hold true for any other alignment? Do Lawful fundamentals suddenly start tearing down rules and regulations once Chaos is beaten? Or do they turn into bloodthirsty murderers like your celestials, since only the strife against Chaos holds them back from wiping each and every last mortal off the Coil?

Do non-fundamentals carry this snapping point in their hearts too? Does murder burn in the soul of every Good aligned person in a society where no Evil exists? Do they wait for the slightest screw up of their neighbor so they can pounce?

You aren't even describing a Good alignment anymore. You've focused solely on the eradication of Evil, which is your first mistake. From there, you've incorrectly assumed that the eradication of Neutrality through force is also within Good. And finally, again wrongly, you've decided that once those ultimate missions of Good are complete, that the only thing left to do is perfect the world by wiping out mortals. And that this can all be accomplished without introducing Evil right back into the world.

Within the context of any official DnD flavor, this is an intellectually bankrupt position to take. While I could see making a case that this would happen because Evil must exist (and thus its absence would eventually come full circle with the celestials taking up the role of evil-doers), you are suggesting that it happens within the context of the Good alignment, despite not having anything to do with Good. You're wrong.

Andtalath wrote:No, I haven't, I can repeat them however since you seem to lack them.
The rules on alignment clearly state that Good individuals act in Good ways, and that they see a distinct value in sentient life, thus negating seeing it as some sort of data to be processed on the way to 100% Good deeds done.

And at the same time, it is also clear that Good regularly destroys Evil sentient beings and that doing so is considered an act of Good when it is done with the intention of making the world a better place.

Andtalath wrote:Also, the moral system has time and time again shown that all moral in dnd is deonthological, meaning that consequences is not a part of the equation, thus, since it is in no way a consequential system, the angels will fall if they act deonthologically wrong.
One way to act deonthologically wrong is to disrespect sentients, one way to do such is to slaughter them for your own benefit.

It is deonthologically Good to destroy evil beings for the purpose of making the world a better place.

Andtalath wrote:An exception to this is that it's a good deed to slaughter evil beings, this is because of the fact that evil beings are motivated by evil and will definitely continue to do evil, therefore, as long as you don't have the luxury of time, killing them is a service to all other beings.

This isn't an exception. It's a core part of being Good. Opposing and preventing Evil is a primary part of being Good. Destroying evil beings is merely a way to fulfill that goal (although other means exist). However, none of those means are wrong in any way.

Andtalath wrote:This brings about no conclusions however, you take an ad-hoc point from this, namely that evil deeds is a bad thing, and warp it to make that any being who can commit a bad deed is an evil entity, therefore not apart of the respect for sentient life.

I didn't say that the capacity to commit Evil makes a being Evil. Neutral beings are capable of committing Evil, but are not Evil.

However, it is completely appropriate for Good to prevent Evil, as this is part of the core principle of opposing Evil. In the contemporary D&D world, this means fighting against devils and demons. When Evil is gone, the best way to utilize resources to prevent Evil acts is to devote them towards dealing with Neutral creatures.

Andtalath wrote:So, in short, no, it's not acceptable to kill a being who isn't evil for a Good being unless you've got motivations enough for it, also, even then, it's a neutral act making it a not preferred act by an incarnation of good.

Obviously what I'm suggesting is that there are sufficient motivations for doing so: to bring more Good into the world and/or to prevent Evil. While I would admit that killing isn't the only possibility, those Neutral creatures that refuse to convert, and are difficult to restrain/imprison, will be dealt with using violence. If the Center-of-All steadfastedly clings to his right to commit Evil as well as Good acts (and he will), the forces of Good will consider him the greatest threat after Evil has been dealt with.

Andtalath wrote:While kinda true, they essentially do it out of a sense of survival, their motivation is always either survival or procreation (which in a way is the same thing).

The point I'm making is that animals do cause harm to other animals (even members of their own species) more than they absolutely need to. I agree it's a biological instinct, but it's motivated not towards mere survival, but flourishing. There are many animals that will readily kill another member of their own species not because they reallly need to, but because it's still beneficial.

Andtalath wrote:Yes and no, I agree on most part, including the 95% part, however, comparing a sense of respect for sentients, caring for others and all other general beliefs Good promots with Catolicism is flawed since, well, Good is simply so much broader.
Also, with mind wash, it would be 99.99% and no individual thought would be allowed.

The fact that Good is broad doesn't prevent it from being ingrained in the same way. And I can assure you that when you indoctrinate a child in Good, no opposing individual thought is allowed. If a child being raised by angels ponders whether it's okay to murder their peers, do you think the angels will give them the choice to do so? Or to believe such? Hell no.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Yes. It also happens to be complete bunk. Unless you expect demons and devils in a world with no Good to suddenly start handing out flowers and candy to Neutral people, it doesn't make any internal sense for celestials to decide that all lesser Good must die. Good's primary tenet is not the eradication of evil, first off, and second off, it has no provisions at all for the eradication of Neutrality and lesser Good through bloodshed.

I expect Evil to eradicate Neutrality and eventually turn on itself. Destroying Good is a fundamental part of Evil just as destroying Evil is a fundamental part of Good.

Good's primary tenet is indirectly, the eradication of Evil. Good acts and Evil acts are diametrically opposite and opposed, and preventing an act of Evil is one of the most important acts of Good. And yes, there are clearly provisions to destroy other beings in order to prevent acts of Evil. While the majority of these beings are Evil in nature, Neutral creatures have been persecuted as well.

Kain Darkwind wrote:There is absolutely no evidence or rules support for your stance. Everything in Dungeons and Dragons suggests that celestials who employ the Purge as their method of choice soon become Fallen.

The Purge is a bad idea now. I'm fairly certain you understand that I'm suggesting it's what will happen in the future of the perfect Good world, not in the present.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Does this bizarro idea of yours hold true for any other alignment? Do Lawful fundamentals suddenly start tearing down rules and regulations once Chaos is beaten? Or do they turn into bloodthirsty murderers like your celestials, since only the strife against Chaos holds them back from wiping each and every last mortal off the Coil?

As above, I think you missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that exemplars flip around on their ideals. I'm saying that the purification of the world is part of their ideals. When any alignment comes to dominance, it will ensure that the world will increasingly be filled with members of that alignment and only that alignment. When Law comes into power, they will make sure that everyone is Lawful. When Chaos comes into power, they will make sure that everything is Chaotic. Same goes for Good. You're only giving Good a special exception because what I've suggested conflicts with what you believe Good should be, not what D&D suggests it is.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Do non-fundamentals carry this snapping point in their hearts too? Does murder burn in the soul of every Good aligned person in a society where no Evil exists? Do they wait for the slightest screw up of their neighbor so they can pounce?

It's not a snapping point. In a society where no Evil exists, Good will try to deal with Neutrality. While we have laws protecting Good Samaritans from legal action, but not requiring them to do anything, a Good society will require it's members to help others whether they want to or not.

Kain Darkwind wrote:You aren't even describing a Good alignment anymore. You've focused solely on the eradication of Evil, which is your first mistake. From there, you've incorrectly assumed that the eradication of Neutrality through force is also within Good. And finally, again wrongly, you've decided that once those ultimate missions of Good are complete, that the only thing left to do is perfect the world by wiping out mortals. And that this can all be accomplished without introducing Evil right back into the world.

The destruction of Evil beings is not a purpose for Good. It's the mechanic by which a purpose is fulfilled. It is only a technique used by which Good can further it's real agenda, which is to bring more Good into the world and prevent Evil. Good destroys Evil not for the sake of destroying it, but because doing so makes the world better.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Within the context of any official DnD flavor, this is an intellectually bankrupt position to take. While I could see making a case that this would happen because Evil must exist (and thus its absence would eventually come full circle with the celestials taking up the role of evil-doers), you are suggesting that it happens within the context of the Good alignment, despite not having anything to do with Good. You're wrong.

I advise you to look at Dragonlance novels, and see what happened during the time of the Kingpriest. I'm not talking about his hubris. I'm talking about how the empire of Istar became the dominant power on the planet, and as a result, Evil was stamped out everywhere, and slowly, Neutral gods became forbidden.

I also recommend that you look at the philosophy of Neutral exemplars, and why they seek to prevent any side from taking dominance, including Good. The chief tenet of Balance philosophy is that if the multiverse is thrown out of balance through the ascension of any one alignment, the results are horrific for all.

bluemage55 wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:Yes. It also happens to be complete bunk. Unless you expect demons and devils in a world with no Good to suddenly start handing out flowers and candy to Neutral people, it doesn't make any internal sense for celestials to decide that all lesser Good must die. Good's primary tenet is not the eradication of evil, first off, and second off, it has no provisions at all for the eradication of Neutrality and lesser Good through bloodshed.

I expect Evil to eradicate Neutrality and eventually turn on itself. Destroying Good is a fundamental part of Evil just as destroying Evil is a fundamental part of Good.

Good's primary tenet is indirectly, the eradication of Evil. Good acts and Evil acts are diametrically opposite and opposed, and preventing an act of Evil is one of the most important acts of Good. And yes, there are clearly provisions to destroy other beings in order to prevent acts of Evil. While the majority of these beings are Evil in nature, Neutral creatures have been persecuted as well.

Yes. Your entire argument hinges on us accepting that this indirect tenet as the only remaining motivating factor in a celestial's worldview. Preventing acts of Evil is fine, using Evil means to do so is not.

The Purge is a bad idea now. I'm fairly certain you understand that I'm suggesting it's what will happen in the future of the perfect Good world, not in the present.

The Purge is always a bad idea. Because it is Evil. The fact that you are suggesting somehow that the Purge is only ok if there aren't any Evil creatures to purge only further reinforces the ludicrous nature of this line of thought.

As above, I think you missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that exemplars flip around on their ideals. I'm saying that the purification of the world is part of their ideals. When any alignment comes to dominance, it will ensure that the world will increasingly be filled with members of that alignment and only that alignment. When Law comes into power, they will make sure that everyone is Lawful. When Chaos comes into power, they will make sure that everything is Chaotic. Same goes for Good. You're only giving Good a special exception because what I've suggested conflicts with what you believe Good should be, not what D&D suggests it is.

You are the one giving Good the exception, not me. You are suggesting that it doesn't need to continue to remain true to its ideals once its diametric opposite is gone. Extermination of non-good entities is not part of Good. That isn't my belief, that is Good's descriptive text.

It's not a snapping point. In a society where no Evil exists, Good will try to deal with Neutrality. While we have laws protecting Good Samaritans from legal action, but not requiring them to do anything, a Good society will require it's members to help others whether they want to or not.

First off, you are talking about a Lawful Good society, not a Chaotic Good one, nor a Neutral Good one. Second off, while I agree that Good will try to deal with Neutrality, I disagree that it will do so with murder, violence and the Gulag.

The destruction of Evil beings is not a purpose for Good. It's the mechanic by which a purpose is fulfilled. It is only a technique used by which Good can further it's real agenda, which is to bring more Good into the world and prevent Evil. Good destroys Evil not for the sake of destroying it, but because doing so makes the world better.

Which would suggest to the rational being that when destroying Evil doesn't make the world more Good, it isn't employed. And also that there is no part in there that suggests those that fail to register on detect evil can be destroyed for the same purpose. Much less those that actually register on detect good.

I advise you to look at Dragonlance novels, and see what happened during the time of the Kingpriest. I'm not talking about his hubris. I'm talking about how the empire of Istar became the dominant power on the planet, and as a result, Evil was stamped out everywhere, and slowly, Neutral gods became forbidden.

I'm quite familiar with them. I'm also familiar with the fact that the Good god smashed the Kingpriest into a sticky paste. That an intended LG society run by mortals began turning on those not like them isn't indicative of actual Good, and certainly not of immortal Good. Just because you worship a good god doesn't make you good. Just because you work for Good ideals and try to advance that cause doesn't make you Good. The Kingpriest and his cronies weren't Good aligned anymore after they began their pogroms.

I also recommend that you look at the philosophy of Neutral exemplars, and why they seek to prevent any side from taking dominance, including Good. The chief tenet of Balance philosophy is that if the multiverse is thrown out of balance through the ascension of any one alignment, the results are horrific for all.

And if Neutral exemplars were the final word on what is right, rather than what is right for Neutrality, I might be inclined to buy into that ideal. But they serve their own agenda, just as the celestials and fiends serve theirs. Their propaganda is no more based in hard fact than that of their contemporaries.
And nowhere does Balance philosophy suggest that angels will turn into merciless killers of all and still retain their Good alignments.

Kain Darkwind wrote:[Yes. Your entire argument hinges on us accepting that this indirect tenet as the only remaining motivating factor in a celestial's worldview. Preventing acts of Evil is fine, using Evil means to do so is not.

Killing is morally neutral in D&D. As are imprisonment and brainwashing. What matters is why they were done.

Kain Darkwind wrote:The Purge is always a bad idea. Because it is Evil. The fact that you are suggesting somehow that the Purge is only ok if there aren't any Evil creatures to purge only further reinforces the ludicrous nature of this line of thought.

Could you possibly direct me to some source material on the Purge?

Kain Darkwind wrote:You are the one giving Good the exception, not me. You are suggesting that it doesn't need to continue to remain true to its ideals once its diametric opposite is gone. Extermination of non-good entities is not part of Good. That isn't my belief, that is Good's descriptive text.

I'm suggesting that preventing Evil actions is being true to Good's beliefs. I'm further arguing that extermination of beings that are likely to commit Evil acts is a Good act, not an Evil one.

Kain Darkwind wrote:First off, you are talking about a Lawful Good society, not a Chaotic Good one, nor a Neutral Good one. Second off, while I agree that Good will try to deal with Neutrality, I disagree that it will do so with murder, violence and the Gulag. [/Qupte]

Good will deal with Neutrality with any means possible, the same as it deals with Evil. Non-violent means are of course preferred, but as with Evil beings that cannot be converted or imprisoned, destruction is on the table.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Which would suggest to the rational being that when destroying Evil doesn't make the world more Good, it isn't employed. And also that there is no part in there that suggests those that fail to register on detect evil can be destroyed for the same purpose. Much less those that actually register on detect good.

I've already argued that Good and Evil are not black-and-white categories. They are merely different ends of a continuum. Good deals with all beings the same way; any being that is a grave threat to Good is dealt with however it may be necessary.

Kain Darkwind wrote:I'm quite familiar with them. I'm also familiar with the fact that the Good god smashed the Kingpriest into a sticky paste. That an intended LG society run by mortals began turning on those not like them isn't indicative of actual Good, and certainly not of immortal Good. Just because you worship a good god doesn't make you good. Just because you work for Good ideals and try to advance that cause doesn't make you Good. The Kingpriest and his cronies weren't Good aligned anymore after they began their pogroms.

I told you I wasn't talking about the Kingpriest's hubris. He got smashed in the face because he demanded that he be made a deity. Not for bringing about a reign of untold Good in the world.

Kain Darkwind wrote:And if Neutral exemplars were the final word on what is right, rather than what is right for Neutrality, I might be inclined to buy into that ideal. But they serve their own agenda, just as the celestials and fiends serve theirs. Their propaganda is no more based in hard fact than that of their contemporaries.
And nowhere does Balance philosophy suggest that angels will turn into merciless killers of all and still retain their Good alignments.

I'm not talking about propoganda. I'm talking about philosophy. Neutrality fears the ascendance of any alignment because such an event would be catastrophic for the entire multiverse.

And at the same time, it is also clear that Good regularly destroys Evil sentient beings and that doing so is considered an act of Good when it is done with the intention of making the world a better place.

This is one of your missteps, it is not because it's making the world a better place that it's Good to kill Evil, it's simply because they are evil beings thus they are known to do Evil things and will without almost any doubt commit more evil.

It is deonthologically Good to destroy evil beings for the purpose of making the world a better place.

Yes, though you do not need the "making the world a better place" clause, also, it is terribly irrelevant.

This isn't an exception. It's a core part of being Good. Opposing and preventing Evil is a primary part of being Good. Destroying evil beings is merely a way to fulfill that goal (although other means exist). However, none of those means are wrong in any way.

If you actually read what I wrote you would've noticed that this was the exception to respecting sentients.
Try again, and do it relevant this time.

I didn't say that the capacity to commit Evil makes a being Evil. Neutral beings are capable of committing Evil, but are not Evil.

Good, then you obviously agree that it's not a Good act to kill Neutrals, making your entire point moot.

However, it is completely appropriate for Good to prevent Evil, as this is part of the core principle of opposing Evil. In the contemporary D&D world, this means fighting against devils and demons. When Evil is gone, the best way to utilize resources to prevent Evil acts is to devote them towards dealing with Neutral creatures.

Actually, no, their best way to do it is to focus on spreading Good and opposing evil acts.
No more, no less.

Obviously what I'm suggesting is that there are sufficient motivations for doing so: to bring more Good into the world and/or to prevent Evil. While I would admit that killing isn't the only possibility, those Neutral creatures that refuse to convert, and are difficult to restrain/imprison, will be dealt with using violence. If the Center-of-All steadfastedly clings to his right to commit Evil as well as Good acts (and he will), the forces of Good will consider him the greatest threat after Evil has been dealt with.

Sorry, but if someone demands their right to exploit others, I see nothing wrong with them being incarcerated to prevent them from doing such things if they are likely to actually do it.

The point I'm making is that animals do cause harm to other animals (even members of their own species) more than they absolutely need to. I agree it's a biological instinct, but it's motivated not towards mere survival, but flourishing. There are many animals that will readily kill another member of their own species not because they reallly need to, but because it's still beneficial.

Well, I disagree, but let's leave this unncecessary side-track since, well, it's irrelevant since we both know dnd animals are amoral rather than NN.

The fact that Good is broad doesn't prevent it from being ingrained in the same way. And I can assure you that when you indoctrinate a child in Good, no opposing individual thought is allowed. If a child being raised by angels ponders whether it's okay to murder their peers, do you think the angels will give them the choice to do so? Or to believe such? Hell no.

Angels will not allow people to exert abuse of others no.
However, I can see them allowing people NOT to be altruistic, as long as they aren't actively seeking to abuse others for personal gain.
Also, a LG would definitely fail them in moral class should the choose not to partake in Good wisdom, while a CG would accept the opinion.

Yeah, I'm dropping out here. It's not that I concede the point, I just can't be bothered going over these huge walls of text anymore.

You're missing the point. The children have absolutely no way to be anything other than what you teach them to be. A child indoctrinated into the Catholic Church from birth will overwhelmingly wind up Catholic. It's far more than prodding, when upwards of 95% of children stick with the vaules they are taught long before they have any ability to comprehend the logic of those values

Does this not prove how much more effective indoctrination(which by the way, is in line with LG) is to mass slaughter every time a farmer beats his animals for no better reason than to relieve his anger? Going from the logical point of view, theres no reason why they should kill any neutral for committing any but the most heinous of acts, most of which require some level of temporary insanity to induce.

Keeping in mind that Neutral people typically commit small acts of evil, with proportionately smaller suffering, than evil people.Thus, containing them, making them rectify these lesser evils, and throughly brainwashing them(which is not evil as of itself) and their descendants will, within the insignificant span of cosmic time that is a mortal generation, produce 95% Good mortals, and proceed to repeat the process with the 5% left and Their descendants.

How they do it is as important as Why, and killing beings who have not committed sufficient acts of depravity to balance the lesser evil of the act of killing(the designated level of need for killing a sentient) is not How Good works.

Omegalith wrote:Yeah, I'm dropping out here. It's not that I concede the point, I just can't be bothered going over these huge walls of text anymore.

Don't you hate it when someone ruins a perfectly good debate by having to say too much? I know I do.

bluemage is wrong and that is all there is to it. It's easy to see why he has such a negative view of Good, since he doesn't seem to understand it at all.

No offense intended, bluemage, you're just really really incorrect on this one.

KingCrazyGenius wrote:bluemage is wrong and that is all there is to it. It's easy to see why he has such a negative view of Good, since he doesn't seem to understand it at all.

No offense intended, bluemage, you're just really really incorrect on this one.

And I could say the same about you, and the debate would not have moved an inch. Rather than simply insisting that I'm wrong, it would be far better for you to present logical arguments, as others have done.

I don't have a negative view of Good, and you would understand this if you actually took the time to read my arguments. I have a negative view of Good taken to an extreme.

veekie wrote:Does this not prove how much more effective indoctrination(which by the way, is in line with LG) is to mass slaughter every time a farmer beats his animals for no better reason than to relieve his anger? Going from the logical point of view, theres no reason why they should kill any neutral for committing any but the most heinous of acts, most of which require some level of temporary insanity to induce.

Mass extermination isn't on the table. Mischaracteriziing my arguments gets us nowhere. I'm not suggesting that celestials kill Evil beings to sate their anger.

However, the point I am making is that when Good has successfully come to dominance in the world, it will not stop in its mission to make the world more Good. While it would certainly be less violent in the way that it deals with Neutral beings, the end result will still be Good forcing others to be more Good, or face coercion to do so. In the end, beings won't even be allowed to choose to be Neutral, and failing to commit self-sacrifice to help others will be a crime.

veekie wrote:Keeping in mind that Neutral people typically commit small acts of evil, with proportionately smaller suffering, than evil people.Thus, containing them, making them rectify these lesser evils, and throughly brainwashing them(which is not evil as of itself) and their descendants will, within the insignificant span of cosmic time that is a mortal generation, produce 95% Good mortals, and proceed to repeat the process with the 5% left and Their descendants.

As argued, people are not simply Neutral or simply Evil. People exist on a gradual scale that with Good and Evil at each extreme. An individual who is just slightly more Evil than Neutral will show up as Evil on the detect-o-meter, but they aren't that different from someone slightly less Evil/slightly more Good.

Regardless of the alignment of any individual, Good does not destroy them for what their alignment is. Good doesn't even destroy demons because they are Evil. Good uses violence against Evil beings because they are likely to cause Evil acts.

Keep in mind also that killing is morally neutral. It is the purpose of the killing that matters. There is no moral difference from an angel killing a rilmani and an angel killing a demon, as long it is done because as they are posing a threat to Good.

veekie wrote:How they do it is as important as Why, and killing beings who have not committed sufficient acts of depravity to balance the lesser evil of the act of killing(the designated level of need for killing a sentient) is not How Good works.

Killing is not evil in D&D. Period. All that matters is the reason the act is carried out.

It is also not evil to kill a being that has not yet committed Evil acts as long as it is done so to prevent future Evil acts. A paladin killing a newborn evil dragon is not considered an act of Evil, because it is likely to commit many Evil acts throughout its lifetime.

Andtalath wrote:This is one of your missteps, it is not because it's making the world a better place that it's Good to kill Evil, it's simply because they are evil beings thus they are known to do Evil things and will without almost any doubt commit more evil.

It doesn't have to be killing. Conversion, imprisonment, etc. are all on the table, and will be used as first choices before killing.

However, the point is that Good will get its way somehow, and if other options fail, killing is the solution.

Andtalath wrote:Yes, though you do not need the "making the world a better place" clause, also, it is terribly irrelevant.

You're wrong. Killing an Evil being is not automatically a Good act. It is the purpose and intentions that count.

When a demon kills another demon, it is not an act of Good. It is an Evil act of selfishness.

Andtalath wrote:If you actually read what I wrote you would've noticed that this was the exception to respecting sentients.
Try again, and do it relevant this time.

There is no exception. You're just wrong about this.

Andtalath wrote:Good, then you obviously agree that it's not a Good act to kill Neutrals, making your entire point moot.

Nope. I do not agree at all. You're making up your own alignment rules here, insisting that killing is okay only when used on Evil beings. To the contrary, D&D alignment considers the purpose and intention of such an act. A devil who destroys every other devil in order to become the new ruler of Hell is not committing massive acts of Good.

quote="Andtalath"]Actually, no, their best way to do it is to focus on spreading Good and opposing evil acts.
No more, no less. [/Quote]

And opposing Evil acts means doing whatever you can to prevent it. It's for this reason that depriving sentient beings of their rights is an act of Good when it is done to prevent Evil.

If you have a being about to murder an innocent, stopping that being through violence is Good regardless of whether that being is Evil, Neutral or Good.

Andtalath wrote:Sorry, but if someone demands their right to exploit others, I see nothing wrong with them being incarcerated to prevent them from doing such things if they are likely to actually do it.

Well that's your opinion. I'm sure many people will disagree that it's appropriate to imprison every CEO because they make a living by maximizing their exploitation of customers in order to achieve maximum profit.

Andtalath wrote:Angels will not allow people to exert abuse of others no.
However, I can see them allowing people NOT to be altruistic, as long as they aren't actively seeking to abuse others for personal gain.
Also, a LG would definitely fail them in moral class should the choose not to partake in Good wisdom, while a CG would accept the opinion.

I disagree that Good will allow people to not be altruistic. While Good will tolerate it in the current world where they have bigger problems to worry about it, they nevertheless frown upon it and would take appropriate steps if their resources were not tied down elsewhere.

bluemage55 wrote:Killing is not evil in D&D. Period. All that matters is the reason the act is carried out.

No, you are wrong. The actual circumstances, methods, motivations and everything else are taken into consideration. Note that Miko was struck down by the gods after she incorrectly killed an old man in order to better preserve Law and Good.

It is also not evil to kill a being that has not yet committed Evil acts as long as it is done so to prevent future Evil acts. A paladin killing a newborn evil dragon is not considered an act of Evil, because it is likely to commit many Evil acts throughout its lifetime.

No, you are wrong. Making these assumptions is what leads to fallen paladins and angels. And these assumptions are why everything else you have said is wrong to some degree or another.

Not to mention that there are more ways than merely coercion and punishment and slaughter to get people to do good. Like reward and early indoctrination.

To begin with, I can see why Omegalith and KCG is growing bored, cause I sure as hell am, most posts are just re-iterations of things which have been said from the start.
Still, I'm not quite done yet.

bluemage55 wrote:It doesn't have to be killing. Conversion, imprisonment, etc. are all on the table, and will be used as first choices before killing.

However, the point is that Good will get its way somehow, and if other options fail, killing is the solution.[/quote
Actually, with strong multiversal control, creating a prison of the magnitude of an entire world where "not quite evil-doers, but still enough of a treat to Good people not to deserve to live with them" can live is fully possible.
And yes, that would mean a class society based on some sort of likelyhood on how not Good these people where.

You're wrong. Killing an Evil being is not automatically a Good act. It is the purpose and intentions that count.

When a demon kills another demon, it is not an act of Good. It is an Evil act of selfishness.

Here, I want to agree with you, but I've always heard the opposite.
However, motivations are not everything, if you're deranged, proud or any other set of things you can act in a non-Good, even Evil way from a lack of perspective (like Miko for instance, I didn't want to drag her into this, but Kain already did, and she is the perfect example for what you're saying).

There is no exception. You're just wrong about this.

How about giving me a reason why it's so instead of saying that I'm wrong?

Nope. I do not agree at all. You're making up your own alignment rules here, insisting that killing is okay only when used on Evil beings. To the contrary, D&D alignment considers the purpose and intention of such an act. A devil who destroys every other devil in order to become the new ruler of Hell is not committing massive acts of Good.

No, I said that it was Good only when used on Evil beings (not always then either, for example, torturing a rakshasa until death is never a Good act, even if your intent is to procure information that would save billions of God souls).
It does consider it, however, it also balances against strong absolut values however.

And opposing Evil acts means doing whatever you can to prevent it. It's for this reason that depriving sentient beings of their rights is an act of Good when it is done to prevent Evil.

No, it means doing it while keeping with Good methods, including a respect for the sanctity of sentients life and not killing people when a nice solution could've worked just as well.

If you have a being about to murder an innocent, stopping that being through violence is Good regardless of whether that being is Evil, Neutral or Good.

Correct, the first step would be to neutralize the person with, say, hold person.
If such restrictive ways weren't used, I expect a lot of Celestials to have been trained in dealing subdual damage instead of normal damage since that is a very effective police-force thing to do.

Well that's your opinion. I'm sure many people will disagree that it's appropriate to imprison every CEO because they make a living by maximizing their exploitation of customers in order to achieve maximum profit.

Which is not the same thing at all, since maximizing profits has definite other benefits than the CEO getting rich.
All the people in the company getting paid for one, stimulating the economy for another.
So, he's not doing evil explotation (like he would if he kept slaves and treated them brutally, in which instance I assume that it's pretty ok to lock him up), he's doing a neutral act, which Good doesn't punish since it's only something they themself want to avoid, they can even do it themselves and still be fully Good if they do it for the right reasons (which I know is you're point with the entire argument, it's just that everyone except you considers it to be evil in the context of the rules and reasonable thinking performing the act killing to suit your own purposes without consideration for the individual).

I disagree that Good will allow people to not be altruistic. While Good will tolerate it in the current world where they have bigger problems to worry about it, they nevertheless frown upon it and would take appropriate steps if their resources were not tied down elsewhere.

They will try to convince the person that he's wrong, and they will use every Good way to so.
However, I can't see how physically forcing a person to be Good is a Good act, and, barring a single template in BoED it's always been considered an evil act to force an alignment to my knowledge.
And, well, BoED is a pretty questionable source of how Good entities should act.

Kain Darkwind wrote:No, you are wrong. The actual circumstances, methods, motivations and everything else are taken into consideration. Note that Miko was struck down by the gods after she incorrectly killed an old man in order to better preserve Law and Good.

Miko?

Kain Darkwind wrote:No, you are wrong. Making these assumptions is what leads to fallen paladins and angels. And these assumptions are why everything else you have said is wrong to some degree or another.

Would you like to clarify as to why I am wrong? As far as I'm aware, paladins have long fought against evil creatures with the intention of preventing Evil acts, rather than exacting retribution.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Not to mention that there are more ways than merely coercion and punishment and slaughter to get people to do good. Like reward and early indoctrination.

When someone helps others for material gain, it's not exactly self-sacrifice, so it wouldn't actually inspire Good to reward people. Early indoctrination is available, but not for those who are already adults.

bluemage55 wrote:Miko?

A Monk/Paladin in Order of the Stick.

bluemage55 wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:Not to mention that there are more ways than merely coercion and punishment and slaughter to get people to do good. Like reward and early indoctrination.

When someone helps others for material gain, it's not exactly self-sacrifice, so it wouldn't actually inspire Good to reward people. Early indoctrination is available, but not for those who are already adults.

Yes, it does inspire Good to reward people-because unless someone is already inclined towards dishonesty and taking advantage of others, generally if you put people into a system where 'mutual reward' exists, they'll at least try and rise to the situation (however imperfectly), and at least attempt to treat others well.

bluemage55 wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:No, you are wrong. Making these assumptions is what leads to fallen paladins and angels. And these assumptions are why everything else you have said is wrong to some degree or another.

Would you like to clarify as to why I am wrong? As far as I'm aware, paladins have long fought against evil creatures with the intention of preventing Evil acts, rather than exacting retribution.

You are wrong that fighting neutral creatures with the intention of preventing Evil acts will lead to more Good, since the evil created by your so called solution is enough to render anything Good from it null and void. You are wrong to think that doing Evil to accomplish Good is in a Good aligned agenda. You are wrong to think that you can kill a newborn living creature prior to it doing anything evil and still hold moral high ground or claim Good. You are wrong to keep referring to your ideals on "Good" as merely Good when they clearly are aimed at explaining Lawful Good, although they are still flawed and wrong to be labeled LG.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Not to mention that there are more ways than merely coercion and punishment and slaughter to get people to do good. Like reward and early indoctrination.

When someone helps others for material gain, it's not exactly self-sacrifice, so it wouldn't actually inspire Good to reward people. Early indoctrination is available, but not for those who are already adults.

It doesn't matter if it is for material gain. You encourage a pattern of Good acts, leading to people doing Good acts. And those who are already adults? Are you seriously telling me that after the eons long battle against evil, the celestial hosts won't be capable of waiting for one measly generation of mortals to die off, rather than putting them all to the sword?

No, your entire idea lacks solidity. You are tenacious and fair at debate, but tiring people out because they can't penetrate your obstinateness is not at all the same as being right. You've clung to a single tenet of Good that has been pointed out time after time to not be the sole tenet, which means things have to be considered in a larger context. Then, you've applied direct falsehoods or gross misinterpretations ("All that matters is the reason the act (killing) is carried out") to further your idea that Good, while still being Good, can exterminate Neutrality and imperfect Good through violence and force. And to make it even more divorced from reality, you've insisted that those will be the methods they employ, rather than multiple alternatives such as teaching, reward, guidance etc. To top it off, you've failed to show any reason for the celestials to strive this hard against their ideals for a Mortal Coil devoid of mortal life. Without mortals repopulating both the Coil and the Outer Planes when they die, Good (or any other alignment) cannot grow and expand.