So, I made a D&D character who believed that the natural elements (air, earth, water, fire) were sacred and not to be controlled, manipulated, or weaponized. But then she had to fight a troll. Trolls have a regeneration ability that allows them to recover from any injury, unless they're harmed by acid or fire. And my D&D character didn't have any access to acid. Basically, she was put between her principles and her survival. To survive the fight, she had to use fire as a weapon, which went against her beliefs. And it got me thinking about whether or not it's important to stick to one's principles and under what circumstances.
Naturally, the immediate response is that one should always live (and, if necessary, die) by their principles. But this D&D character had an ally who had been knocked out and who would also die if my character didn't use fire. Sure, one should be willing to sacrifice their own life for their beliefs, but what about the lives of others? How many innocent people should a person be willing to sacrifice before sacrificing their principles?
And does it matter at all that this character's principles are, frankly, a bit insane? Does it really make any sense to treat the classic, primal elements with that kind of respect? I understand respecting plants and animals, but elements like fire aren't actually alive. Using fire as a weapon is not akin to practicing slavery, as my character falsely believed. Yet, beliefs vary. Some believe that abortion is harmless; others believe that it's murder. Some believe that it's fine and often important to extinguish fires; at least one fictional person believes it to be similar to murder. Should my D&D character have been pressured to abandon her principles, just because others think that her beliefs are strange and wrong? Should a person stand by their principles, even when their principles don't make any sense, at least not to others?
In the end, she decided to use fire to save her life and the life of her friend. And when the battle was over, she let the fire burn freely until it burned itself out, and she mourned the short, sad life of the fire she created. And I'm still weirdly conflicted by this. Did she make the right moral choice? By her own morals, maybe not. By my morals, human lives matter infinitely more than fire's "enslavement," so yes, she made the right choice. But she went against her principles. To save her life and the life of a friend, she did something that she felt was morally wrong. Was it wrong of her to do that? It's fine for me to say that human lives a more valuable than the freedom of non-living chemical reactions, but she might argue that the primal elements of nature are owed far more respect than any mortal creatures.
In the end, I think I think she should have stuck to her principles, even if it meant her death and the death of her friend. I asked myself, "Is it okay for someone to do something that is normally okay, but that they think is evil?" and I would have to say "No." People shouldn't do things that they believe is wrong. This D&D character believed that it was wrong to manipulate the elements, so she shouldn't have done it, even though I think it's perfectly fine to light a fire, use it, and even snuff it out. But still, it's a puzzling moral question. I'd love to hear what you think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment