Refusing to heal the overtly evil is evil?

[lonnarin]

In reference to the pending case here...

http://forums.layonara.com/disputes-...d-pending.html

I post here seperately as to not interfere with the flow of the debate and logs and documentation from the people who were actually there, though wanted to address the morality behind the situation.

When is it an evil act to kill an evil dark elf who is currently in the process of torturing somebody? This dark elf was actively whipping Iradril's friends he was sworn to protect. Maybe if Iradil had stopped by the body to torture it in return I would see that as evil, but he simply refused to give her aid. Goodly clerics are SUPPOSED to do this when they come across goodly people of other faiths heretical to their gods, Toranites and Lucindites aren't likely to raise eachother or even bless eachother. A Lucindite of good faith is likely to leave a Corathite to bleed to death in a ditch, good riddance. Would a Prunillite really go out of their way to heal a dying Pyrtechite who had a history of setting their barn on fire? Deity opposition and religious oaths aside, and simply a moral measure... would it really be so wrong to not heal somebody who was killed in self defense?

Say you were walking your girlfriend home and a mugger hopped out of the bushes, drew a blade and started threatening to rape and murder her with it. If you or your GF then grabbed the knife from his hand and stabbed him in the neck with it, causing a mortal wound, and you knew that he was a member of a local gang who called this area their turf, who would gladly slaughter you and she both in response were lurking nearby, are you really going to stop and apply first aid? NO! You get the heck out of there and protect the person you love first and foremost! If that guy didnt deserve a knife in his neck, he wouldnt have ben waving it at you in the first place! For a good person, heck for all people, the primary concern is with the ones you love, family and friends.

Now dark elves are at a level of evil above and beyond most serial murderers. This is pounded into our heads again and again, they are eeevil, killed on sight in the goodly city, and we are in a perpetual state of war with them. So when you have the Layonaran equivalent of a Richard Ramirez eater of babies dark elf in the process of trying to torture or kill one of your allies, I have trouble seeing simply not healing them as anything more than a neutral act, possibly good. Does Indiana Jones get evil points when he shoots the nazi who is torturing his father, or grinds up the Kali worshipping slavedriver who was beating Short Round? Do Hempstead guards get evil points when they obey the law that says "kill dark elves on sight, regardless of temperment or reason for being there?" Think about it, Iradril is deemed as acting evil in this case for simply not healing a dark elf which tortured his friends that was nearly killed in self defense. What does this speak for the guards who it is their sworn duty to kill on sight every dark elf they spot? Does that make all Hempsteadians "evil" for not standing up, drawing their weapons and facing down the guards to protect the dark elf? If you do nothing while you see a guard kill somebody on sight who you've seen do nothing wrong, its not considered evil, and yet if you simply dont heal somebody who was just seen by you torturing your friend and who had a city of like-minded dark elves nearby who would kill you and your friends for sheer pleasure, is it really evil just to simply do nothing and let them die?

Furthermore, they were on a somewhat clandenstine operation. In order to save their country and possibly the free world, they need to infiltrate this place. What about the FBI man who wears a wire and witnesses a mob shooting? He could either try to do his job gathering evidence and take down this murdering mob boss and his entire organization so they wont be able to kill again, or he could blow his cover and immediately start performing first aid on the informant they just shot. How long do you think he would live after that? Will he suffer a loss of his soul in simply not getting himself killed for the ill-concieved sake of kneejerk emotional morality? Does this make every protaganist in a John Woo film... evil?

These people were on a mission trying to save lives and potentially the world. An evil evil dark elf who we are told constantly should be killed on sight for all that is good got killed only after showing her obvious foul temperment and intent to cause suffering to perfect strangers. If refusing to heal this dark elf was an evil act, then I would charge much of the same to every Lucindite who refuses to raise or heal a Toranite, and every Voraxian who would refuse to heal a Grandite from near death. The only possible way I could see Iradril as being evil in this instance were if he was unsatisfied with simply letting the evil, vile, abusive dark elf die, and were to heal her back simply to torture her for hours on end, or at least defile her body. If he simply took no action, and didnt even try to finish the job, then he acted in this case with more compassion and mercy than the Hempstead guards or any member of the Mistonian Military would have done. Are the latter two groups then officially... "evil"?

In my opinion, only a VERY diehard fanatic follower of Azatta or Aeriden would see evil here, and they are the absolute extremes of good to the point of martyrdom. When clergy of LG Vorax would gladly "put her out of her misery", a Lucindite would shrug and move on, and Captain Trent, the bastion of goodness with a heart of gold (or so his description says) would do far worse, then I would compare all of these to Iradril and conclude that this was no evil act. It was the act of a person with above a 6 intelligence score who didnt want to blow his whole mission and get his entire party killed out of fanatical moralist protest. Now if there was something in his emote like he laughed coldy or kicked the body as it bled to death, that is evil RP. I didnt see any of that in the logs.

Now I know evil. Gloom would have bound her up, healed her and sold her to Kartharian pleasure slavers or made her join a deep dwarven city's chain gang mining salt for the next 800 years... or if he took it personally would have tortured her until she begged Sulterio for mercy then laughed "Mercy? Sulterio has no mercy!" and killed her anyway with a terrifyied expression on her face. Grovel would have cut off her arms and legs, eaten them, fed the rest back to her so she could taste how yummy dark elves were, and tortured her over the course of several years to teach him elven while she was chained to a wall in some remote cavern, feeding her little more than tube grubs and moldy water for sustainance. THATS evil. Bjorn would have probably just shrugged and let her be, Earl would have probably finished the job and punted her head over the walls to send a message to the rest, Kor would have probably eaten her, but more out of hunger and practicality than out of spite, and Farros would have probably healed her back, but only to ransom her to the highest bidder. Dark elves are evil, pity them not. They seriously are the kinds of people that will slaughter a surfacer's baby in the crib just because their bored, and murder their own parents in order to advance in political stature. If they weren't then their alignments wouldnt be so restricted when making them!

[ycleption]

I'm not expressing any opinion on the incident in question, but just making the comment that "good" and "evil" as alignments are game terms, and they are objectively measured (in other words, the character's perception of their own actions, and motives for acting have nothing to do with it).

It is perfectly possible to do an act that most people would agree is good from an everyday use of the term, but is evil (or at least neutral) in D&D, and vice versa. That's not a contradiction, it's just game mechanics. Call it something other than good and evil if it helps you distinguish.

[darkstorme]

I prefer to distinguish between good (something beneficial) and Good (the alignment) by the judicious use of capitalization, myself.

[Black Cat]

As I understood it, it was not just the "don't blow up the mission" or "Not wanting to heal her" (I was on the quest, though not in that part of the mission). but rather the almost total lack of a single emote from those "Good" characters.

Not a shiver.. or a *averts his eyes from the grisly sight" nothing. No emotions at cold blood murder.

Even if you're FBI agent undercover witness a bloodbath but is unable to do anything or it will blow his cover.. do you really think he will not shivers, have no nightmares, no cold sweat? Even trained soldiers can't always bear the horror of war (and some of them, war I mean, are supposed to be fought for the greater Good).

Sure dark elves are evil and only deserve death. But to take a RL example, even the most fanatical Nazis in WWII, as evil as they were, should/would not be/have been murdered in cold blood... but judged for their crimes... or killed as soldiers on the battlefield. Murdering them in cold blood would just make/have made you as evil as them... or worse for you were or should have been good in the first place. The higher you are... the harder you fall. Hence the fact that those Neutral did not get the evil points.

Just my 2cents...

[Weeblie]

I think you have missed the point of the evaluation of that event altogther, mixed with a misunderstanding of how it unfold. No torture was involved what so ever. And the examples you give are somewhat exaggerated. It is as though I would give an example of:

"A child runs towards you with a food-knife and tries to stab it into your leg. You feel threatened as you sit there while drinking your jar of ale, and lashes out with your longsword at his throat. Unfortunately, you do not kill him directly, but instead he is left bleeding on the ground. You do not as much as give him a second glance, but rather continue your drink while it's still cold."

The alignment system is not rigid and neither is it black or white. Being neutral is also a fundamentally important aspect of it.

Generalising it or to make up rigid guidelines is extraordinary difficult... in fact, I would say it's not even feasible nor desireable, as it would then be far too easy to "walk the line".

So, in the end, it boils down to a judgement call. Only in the most extreme cases can any action truly have a universal agreement on what is good and what is evil.

ps. Yes... using a child in an example is somewhat as a kick under the belt, heh.

[lonnarin]

Well, the anology is somewhat lost because you just substituted the most terrifying race in the world whose cruelty is reknowned thrice-over with an innoculous little kid. The little kid possibly might not be old enough to know right from wrong, the dark elf adult certainly does. People dont tuck in their children at night warning them to avoid angry little kids with knives, they do warn them about dark elves. It's like substituting a baby kitten for Rancor.

The examples given are in no way exaggerated. Dark elves are the epitome of evil. Worse than murderous muggers, worse than nazis. From the log it appears as though she was whipping one of the party members, with a whip, which are for pain and not for effective killing, hence torture. if I walk towards somebody with a whip, the implication isnt that I'm going to give them a cupcake here... especially when I start whipping somebody before anybody else attacked me. Attack somebody and expect to die. This is basic survival instinct, just as intrinsic to good as it is to evil.

But re-reading the log, it appears that at the root of the topic is that there was a assumption as to somebody's intent and moral disposition on no other basis than their facial expression at the time they were being observed by the enemy. This is wholley confusing the *emote* with the *emotion*.

An emote is an expression of freely observable behavior to all in the vicinity, while emotion is the internal psychological reaction itself which is undetectable to all in the vicinity who do not actively have psychic powers.

So what if he didn't sigh or cry? This means absolutely nothing that you can determine by looking. He might have even been purposely forcing the expression just so he wouldnt obviously look like a goody goody who'd get pegged for weakness and slaughtered by other dark elves, as is their way. But we assumed that he felt something based on his expression alone.

This is like assuming that every car dealer is your friend, every politician has your best interests at heart, every CSR and clerk honestly enjoys your company or that every puppy with a droopy face is clinically depressed. One cannot read minds from facial expression alone, one cannot determine intent or disposition from an emote. Indeed, it is told to us again and again that we are not to include our actual thoughts or anything other than what is outright seen immediately by those around us in our emotes. To make a judgement call as to what somebody's internalized emotional reaction was solely because they didn't overtly emote that they were saddened for all to hear is to essentially enforce metagaming as a rule.

The only way one can determine the emotion of a character is *asking the player of the character*. This was actually done in the log. He even expressly stated post-quest in the log that he was actively masking his emotions and did so since an early age to survive in the underdark, explaining that his emote was not his emotion. He was asked what he felt, he explained, and still the subjective, third-party interpretation of the facial emote in the heat of the moment was taken above his explaination of his own character's internalized reaction.

What we have here, with the evil point because he didnt openly show his emotion, was a forced emotion. His character's morality was impacted not because of what he felt, believed or thought, but what others could determine from a glance. That would be stereotyping, by definition. So what if he didn't fall to his knees crying, or healing the dying dark elf? If he did, the dark elves would kill him and his entire group of friends, possibly. But don't immediately assume that you know what's going on in the character's head, especially after when he was asked about it later and he explained that it wasn't. This isn't even about the good vs evil debate, but moreso that this character was being docked for feeling emotions that never existed in the first place. It's just the same as if I walked up to you in Hempstead and went...

A: Hi there, how's it going?
B: oh sorry, I'm in a hurry. I'll talk to you later.
A: *nods to the obviously rude and evil man*
B: hey! I'm not evil! Why'd I get an evil point?
A: well, good people would smile and stay and talk. Now you're more neutral.

Exact same issue. Forcing emotes, forcing emotions, metagaming. Ask the player. If the player says they felt this at so and so time, then unless there is some enchantment spell on them, or that the one ring is tainting their soul, then their explaination stands. If one is to warrant good and evil points, then let it at least be for OPENLY evil and good acts. Stab a baby? evil. Give CPR to a lepor? Good. Try to maintain a poker face while in the heart of the lion's den and trying your hardest not to give away that you're good? A facial expression alone doesn't tell us a thing. Ask.

Is Spock an evil man because he doesn't cry when the redshirt dies by stepping on landmine? Of course not, he is actively hiding his emotions. He is however a pacifist vegetarian who will try to risk his life to save anybody who needs help that he can, even sacrificing his very life to save the entire ship from a warp core meltdown. Even though he tries to suppress his emotions, he still does have them. He is more than just the sum of his facial expressions. He is a complex individual with a character development and a psychology not immediately read int he lines of his face.

Edit: the very fact that this log shows the dark elf woman whipped Alantha no less than 14 times without exploding into a hellball by her hands shows that perhaps she should have gotten good points for her *saintly* restraint. That's obvious torture; she was whipping somebody for obedience. Angela only dealt the mortal blow when the dark elf woman reached for her rapier, they only struck back when it was a matter of self preservation. That is Good, capital G. After this point it is even admitted in the postlog that showing compassion or overt goodness would have definitely caused problems. That's self preservation. Letting her die was the only way to survive without having to fight and kill even more dark elves than they had to. And honestly, after somebody whips one of my friends multiple times, and then attempts to murder them, it does not make me a bad person to simply not openly weep if they die. Most people if this had been your friend or wife, admit it, you would have not minded their deaths in the least. This was beyond thinking "the only good dark elf is a dead dark elf" mentality, or "cold blooded murder". This is seeing somebody who just tortured your friend with a whip and then tried to use a rapier to kill them getting killed in self defense. I wouldn't be crying over their deaths either, or even sighing sadly.

[Weeblie]

Unless you are someone who truly knows all the weak spots of your target (i.e. you are assassin/rogue like), then a dagger in your hands is more to inflict a slow and painful death, and hence by your reasoning torture. If you want someone dead, then you should really only use a "real" weapon. Staffs? Definitely falling into the same category (slowly crushing every bone in your opponents body?). And because of this light definition of torture, you have really dropped a lot of people into the category of evil (torture is with no doubt an evil act).

The dark elf was obviously not "torturing" anyone. She was after killing one of them for the disobidience. As simple as that.

If one is to warrant good and evil points, then let it at least be for OPENLY evil and good acts.

Um... no?

That's as though saying "a PC should never die unless the player wants the PC to die" or "a quest should never fail unless the participants actively request that the quest should fail".

Open acts are okay, but they shouldn't be the sole factor to define a character's alignment, if not for the fact that it would be far too "cheap", then for the fact that many of the LE characters would be auto-turned into good ones. The whole point of many shady characters is that they do not OPENLY perform evil acts.

I see that you are still of the thinking that "if you are not good, then you are evil". But as I said earlier, that's not the case. Nor is it the case that most characters are good. In fact, the majority of the population is neither good nor evil, but rather neutral. Strong signs of self preservation... oh... isn't that one of those clear signs of being of a neutral alignment? Or perhaps even an evil one?

General tendencies for a neutral character seem to be leaning towards good, when it is not a too much danger to be so. Seeing someone trip on the street? Sure, why not give them a hand to come back up? Perhaps someone else in the future would do just the same if the helper was the one tripping? That is how a good society looks like, but a good society does not mean that its inhabitants are an exclusive bunch of a good aligned flower-lovers.

Someone smacks you on the cheek and you walk forth to embrace them? The act of "showing compassion to your enemies"? That's what I would consider an undisputable act of good... stupid and crazy, certainily. But good nonless. Likely not anything that warrants a shift, but then, the situation is so trivial so whatever you do (unless outright killing the offender) would not really warrant shifts of any kind.

The lone act of "defending those you love"? Good action? Erh... no? Defending those that you care about is something that happens all across all the alignments and hence the act itself is really an alignment-free action (note: neutral != alignment-free).

Circumstances is of course what's ultimately deciding for which side has the heavier weight. No risk and you, as a good character, performs some small act of good? That's expected of you. Huge risk and you as a good character performs some act of good? That might even be justifeable to warrant a good point award.

A thief with a knife is rushing towards your family and you happen to have a gun in your hand? That sounds like a circumstance that would not really change your alignment.

A thief with a gun is rushing towards your family and you happen to be unarmed? Hmmm... now we are talking... but because it's your family that's threatened, only a minor shift would be in order, I think. Must really have more info before one can decide.

A thief with a gun is rushing towards some strangers and you happen to be unarmed? Aaah... now, that sounds like a heavily unselfish and strongly good act, if you were to intervene.

Dark elven societies are evil-based ones and it was already clearly said outright that going in might change things. In fact, that's likely why there were so many who choosed to stay behind like Grohin; they recognised the "spiritual danger" they would put themselves into.

More than ample of opportunities were given to change the neutral shift towards a "no shift". From what I saw, there was only two reasons for why things happened as they did (or didn't happen):

1. The affected players did not recognise the alignment danger they were in and therefore did nothing to prevent it.

2. The affected players did recognise the alignment danger they were in but choosed to do nothing to prevent it.

3. Either of the above but also added that they perhaps did not think alignment shifts would ever be handed out for these sort of things.

Once again, in the end, it is a judgement call. In this case, it was simply decided that all the events leading up to this and the reactions afterwards did not warrant a dismissal of not handing out a single point of neutral, as watching someone take minutes or even an hour to bleed to death without any sort of reactions, regardless if the victim is a dark elf or not, is just something not in the spirit of being good.

Not much reaction was needed, and neither did the reactions have to be obvious for the bypassers. Angela's actions were more than enough to "deflect" the alignment shift, but ironically, she was not touched by the neutral shift anyway (due to her already neutral alignment on the good/evil axis).

Edit: Oh, and... another extraordinary important aspect. Alignments are not defined by what others think about you, or what you think of yourself. While being an IC matter, alignments are defined in an OOC fashion. No "you are not my friend, and therefore you are evil" or "because I don't know of all the acrocities you have done, you are evil in my eyes".

[Hellblazer]

Originally Posted by Weeblie

Unless you are someone who truly knows all the weak spots of your target (i.e. you are assassin/rogue like), then a dagger in your hands is more to inflict a slow and painful death, and hence by your reasoning torture.

I have to disagree with this. Any one that has trained with a blade, knows the weak spots. It's not because its a broad sword that it can't be used to slash a throat in a swift pass, to move faster to an other opponent. Even longsword hit on a kidney would leave the opponent bleeding to death slowly. So it's not only assassins and rogues that would know that. The difference in the classes, skills and feats appart, is in the way it will be done. Fighter will go up front unless they need to be silent about it (which would be harder for them as they don't train in that way most of the time. While assassins and rogues will use the shadows and things to hide their approach to attack from the back or in ways that they wouldn't be seen.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by Hellblazer

I have to disagree with this. Any one that has trained with a blade, knows the weak spots. It's not because its a broad sword that it can't be used to slash a throat in a swift pass, to move faster to an other opponent. Even longsword hit on a kidney would leave the opponent bleeding to death slowly. So it's not only assassins and rogues that would know that. The difference in the classes, skills and feats appart, is in the way it will be done. Fighter will go up front unless they need to be silent about it (which would be harder for them as they don't train in that way most of the time. While assassins and rogues will use the shadows and things to hide their approach to attack from the back or in ways that they wouldn't be seen.

The ways Sneak Attack and Death Attack are described are based on that they have special "one hit, one kill" training while other normal people do not have the same knowledge.

Closest you can come to that is probably weapon masters, in order to increase the critical threat range which is essentially also to hit "critical areas".

The difference lays in that a crit is really only about striking against a "no-brainer" area. Aim whatever weapon you had against your opponents head? If you hit, of course it will hurt a lot. Practicing that is a good idea to get combat over quickly (and an option to lessen the "torture" of your victim).

But to get training in that "four centimeters from the center of his chest, you will find a small gap between his ribs, easily allowing you to slip in and hit vital organs, in order to implement the said one hit, one kill policy"... that's something, per game definitions, reserved for sneaks.

Training in the use of a weapon and training to use it in an assassination "kill directly" fashion are not the same. Combat is of course almost always about killing your opponent as fast as possible anyway and your arguments about learning about how to easier kill some creatures is also very valid. It's just that there are very few exclusive bunch of classes that are specialized in the "super rapid killing"-method.

But it doesn't matter overly much for this particular discussion, as you mentioned the exact point I wanted to get through with:

Even longsword hit on a kidney would leave the opponent bleeding to death slowly.

Which effectively means that hitting someone else with a weapon, regardless of type of weapon, cannot be the sole grounds to define "torture".

[jrizz]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

Sure dark elves are evil and only deserve death. But to take a RL example, even the most fanatical Nazis in WWII, as evil as they were, should/would not be/have been murdered in cold blood... but judged for their crimes... or killed as soldiers on the battlefield. Murdering them in cold blood would just make/have made you as evil as them... or worse for you were or should have been good in the first place. The higher you are... the harder you fall. Hence the fact that those Neutral did not get the evil points.

The US solders that liberated Dachau summarily executed the SS officers they found there. General Patton pardoned them.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

And evil act for a good reason (killing the Joker in cold blood, for example) is still an evil act... But the good act of saving those lives tends to balance it out.

I think this conversation should steer away from the specific instance mentioned, as, in that instance, it was a clear case of DM's Discretion, and we're ALL familiar with Rule 0.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by jrizz

The US solders that liberated Dachau summarily executed the SS officers they found there. General Patton pardoned them.

RL historical events are somewhat tricky to use as examples as it is really the winner that decides what's okay and what is not.

If, for example, the Japanese suddenly had won the war against the US, I'm sure all the commanders for the US fleet of Strategic Bombers would have been trialed and found guilty (likely executed), along with all those who ordered the use of the two nuclear weapons.

Karl Donitz was trialed and found guilty due to the use of unrestricted submarine warfare... which is not much different from what the US used on the pacific side (interestingily even stated so by the famous admiral Nimitz).

In real life wars, everyone tend to lose, and there are no true "good" and "evil" side - everything is instead mixed in different shades of gray.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Zuckerman

And evil act for a good reason (killing the Joker in cold blood, for example) is still an evil act... But the good act of saving those lives tends to balance it out.

Indeed!

But then, you are walking a very, very fine line. Any sort of miss-step and the evil might as well outweight the good.