Is intentionally maiming an enemy an inherently evil act, if

Depends. If you do it solely as retributive punishment, where you derive pleasure, or at least a personal feeling of vindication, from their pain, then I can't think of a case in which it isn't evil.

If you, for example, shoot someone nonlethally, even though their wounds will be severe, so that they can live to stand trial, that's lawful neutral or LG.

Alignment is mainly about motive, not outcome, so few acts are inherently aligned at all.

>>51230358
There's probably not much defense for shooting someone in the dick if you're just trying to take them out of the fight for later prosecution. I mean, you could shoot them in the arm, or the knee, but the dick I can't imagine as anything other than a "I like it when they scream" action.

>>51230358
>Depends. If you do it solely as retributive punishment, where you derive pleasure, or at least a personal feeling of vindication, from their pain, then I can't think of a case in which it isn't evil.

Gygax himself said an eye for an eye is lawful good.

File: 1465621749429.jpg (81KB, 459x597px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 459x597px

>>51230438
Gygax was a fucking weirdo.

>>51230281

I just go with the blanket of violence being an inherently evil act. This does not prohibit its use or invalidate its necessity or justification in light of what the enemy might do if not otherwise acted upon with violence. Nor does is it suddenly on the same level as the evil the enemy may have, is, or will commit considering their motivations, stated intentions, or other obvious indicators of intent. Still, it doesn't have to be an either/or equation, as both can be despicable actors in their own right; one attempting to do great evil while the other cruelly incapacitating him. After the fact, we fit the actors into categories like hero, anti-hero, and villain, or categorize their personality or actions as good, evil, lawful, etc...

>>51230358
There is no such thing as shooting someone nonlethally. There is surviving being shot, but you always shoot to kill or incapacitate, which if not treated will likely kill or permanently disable the target. Bean bag rounds and rubber bullets are not classified as non-lethal, but sub-lethal, as they are still capable of killing what is shot at. Shooting someone in the leg is a very poor way to disable and is more likely to kill them than shooting in the chest, as in the legs are a major artery that if ruptured will cause one to bleed to death.

Of course, I an very tired and some details of this post are likely not 100% correct, such as terminology used, but this is to clear up any misconceptions anyone has, and generally doesn't need to be 100% accurate for the informational porposes of this post.

>>51230281
If you break a bone so he can't keep fighting, then that's probably good.

If you capture an army and poke out the eyes of 99 out of a hundred men and leave the hundredth with one eye to lead them back to their villages, thus effectively crippling the people for years by forcing them to expend resources caring for the blind and feeble men you sent back that they wouldn't have had to spend had you simply killed them, then it's probably closer to evil.

>>51230281
As with all things, intent matters.

If you maim them so that they can no longer pose a threat to you, while still leaving them alive, it is not evil because you harm them only enough to prevent them from fighting back.

If you do it because you like it, it's evil.

>>51230553
That's way meaner than shooting the entirety of the enemy army in the dick.

>>51230535
I mean, yeah, that's the case in reality, but there's more wiggle room in RPGs. (Depending on the setting, of course.)

>>51230281
No, otherwise getting a pokemons HP as close as possible to 1 without making it faint so you can use a pokeball to catch it would be wrong.

>>51230603
And it (possibly) actually happened!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kleidion

>>51230470
Eye for an Eye is lawful good. It's just and appropriate. (Most people also forget that "an eyw for an eye" is a dramatic improvement over the previous system of "I will murder you startig a blood feud that lasts 10 generations and claims many lives until one of our extended families is dead, for an eye"

It all depends on why you did it.
If a particularity upset warrior refuses to surrender after being disarmed he may have to be... disarmed.
However if you're just doing it because you want to then that's a different story.

>>51230698
That seems like Lawful Neutral more than anything, but then, every society has its own definition of "good". Mine, for example, has been shaped by Christian standards, as has much of Western society. So I view traits like forgiveness and mercy as being good.

>>51230644
Well, the whole thing about capturing maybe-sapient creatures and goading them to fight each other always seemed just a tiny bit ethically ambiguous anyway.

>>51230783
In-universe, they seem to enjoy the challenge of battling, but the fact that there are neglectful and cruel trainers (e.g. the guy who owned Ash's Charmander) and that they get used for fights that aren't playful definitely casts some aspersions on the activity's moral integrity.

>>51230470
He was the best of us.

Hush now.

>>51230438
>>51230470
If showing mercy is against the paladin's code, I'd rather fall.

>>51230698
This is something I've thought about a few times, but does anyone who says "An eye for a eye leaves the whole world blind" not realise how justice works? You take my eye, I take yours and then we both stop. You don't then get to take my other eye, I've not committed a wrong.

>>51231699
Well, first of all, most idioms are less stable if you examine them literally.

But suppose everyone wrongs one other person once. That means they are, in turn, wronged by one other person. If we replace "doing wrong" with the figurative "taking an eye", then if everyone took the eye of the person who took theirs, it would indeed leave everyone blind. They lose one eye when they are wronged, and lose the other following retribution from the person they wronged.

>>51231600
I would say a paladin's order is subjective as fuck. If you have a paladin who is in a corrupt order, would him being evil technically be following the code and be seen as just?

>>51231918
Is that how paladins worked in the Gygax era? I thought it was just "must abide by Gary Gygax's idea of Lawful Good."

File: image.jpg (208KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1024x768px

>>51231918
>>51231600
Well that depends on the code. One's personal code is not the same as alignment. Look at the oath of devotion and the oath vengeance.

It's is entirely possible for two lawful good paladins to not see eye to eye, even come to blows because their ideals of justice differ, with out either having to act of out alinement.

>>51232164
The debate is specifically about 1e and 2e paladins, since those were the editions where Gygax was personally involved, since it's kind of about Gygax's weird morals. It's much easier with the 4e and 5e systems, obviously.

>>51231980
I wasn't a part of that era sadly.
>>51232164
I fucking love alignment arguments. I had my paladin pc have to decide to kill a necromancer (whom didn't know it was necromancy) or to spare her. Shit was fucking awesome.

>>51230281
Is intentionally memeing an enemy an inherently evil act, if the alternative is just killing them outright?

>>51232250
YES

>>51232207
Hard to say, he didn't really expand on what is or isn't considered an 'evil act', I f you want to go by what was actually written in the manuals rather than 'shit Gary told me at a Con once'.

It's no secret he personally didn't care much for moral relativism, either as a philosophical outlook or as an out for character alignments in his game. But your alignment is not the same thing as your beliefs.

File: marc-blucas-1.jpg (14KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x300px

>>51230281
This guy looks like Marc Blucas

>>51230438
DnD morality =/= real morality
The only one who can decide what's moral in real life is you.

>>51230281
>inherently evil act
Depends on the system. Either there's no such thing, or your system sucks and you're a goon by association.

>>51230772
>every society has its own definition of "good"
Well, underlying every moral system is a set of prosocial instincts that are relatively similar between just about all humans. The definition isn't infinitely flexible on a societal level.

>>51230438
He said personal pleasure or vindication.
Eye for an eye is when you do it because it's fair.
Learn hoe to read, hoe.

>>51231882
Instead we leave assholes to take the eyes of every honest person, who choses not to fight back.
Then they take the other eye, and you still don't fight back.
Now you CAN fight back because everyone good is blind.

Congratulations on achieving the wonders of slave morality.

>>51237618
Can't* fight back

>>51230281
Depends on how severe it is. Intentionally cutting off someone's arms, legs, tongue and eyes in retribution is decidedly somewhere south of good, for example.

>>51235167
Cool story, bro. You want to actually contribute something to the thread now?