How "mean" can Good be?

[Melville's Book]

Good as an alignment doesn't require you to be polite, encouraging, or even at all "nice". In fact, a Good person, especially a non-Lawful one, can still be a pretty big jerk while staying within the bounds of his alignment. However, I figure there's only so far that can go.

If you are vicious, belittling, and verbally display hatred for a person who has not committed a wrongdoing, does that violate the "respect for life and dignity" of Good such that it might give a Good alignment pause? Assuming Good actions in every other regard, is verbal racism/sexism/the destruction of someone's self-esteem Evil enough to cause, oh, a Paladin to fall?

Assuming no deception and the like, just how verbally horrible can a person who is action-wise completely Good get before it becomes Evil and threatens his alignment?

[Slipperychicken]

I'd consider drawing the line somewhere around genuine malice. You need to consider how and why this person is acting the way he/she is. If someone feels serious, enduring hatred (I'm talking on the span of years), but is otherwise in compliance with principles of good alignment, you might want to consider switching that person to Neutral.

As far as paladins go, I don't think disrespect alone is fall-worthy (assuming it isn't part of another evil act), but I think it could help shift a Paladin toward neutrality.

[HaikenEdge]

It really depends on the DM; if the DM subscribes to the "sticks and stones" school of thought, then you can probably get away with saying a lot of stuff, but if your DM goes with the "words are weapons" school, then I imagine verbal abuse, badgering, and bullying can be interpreted towards evil.

[Telonius]

I'd imagine something like the Church of Garl Glittergold would have an extensive theology worked out, as to how far a person can take a joke before it's too far. (Clerics of Kurtulmak would likely have something to say on the subject, as well).

[BWR]

Check with your DM to make sure.
Personally, I allow a bit of leeway here and there. You are generally perfectly within your rights to be as LG as they come and verbally lamabst an Evil opponent in manner to make sailors blush. If your character has some sort of requirement to be polite and well-mannered even to the worst BBEG imaginable, then you're looking at an alignment violation.

Bullying is rarely acceptable for Good people. Using Intimidate to temporarily coerce baddies to avoid doing bad stuff is perfectly acceptable ("I don't want to have to come back here and find out you've been beating people up again"). Using it as a long-term solution to a problem is not ("hello again. you haven't been a bad boy while I was away, have you? Huh? You know I would have to be pretty unpleasant to you if you have, and that makes me sad, and you wouldn't want to make me sad, right?")

[Curmudgeon]

{Scrubbed}

[Gwaednerth]

It depends on three factors as I see it.
1) intent- whether or not the comment is actually intended to cause harm and not just grumpiness/habit
2) the recipient- is the abuse justifiable? Are you belittling Baron Evil of Wickedshire or innocent peasant no. 3?
3) the result- does the recipient break down under the abuse? If you accidentally belittled someone who was depressed and they committed suicide, damn straight its an evil act. If it just slides right off, it really depends on the other two.

[BWR]

I could certainly argue that, but I fear we would be violating baord rules. Suffice to say in a setting where you (presumably) have an objective morality, as D&D is generally assumed to have, you should have the details clear so characters don't accidentally violate their alignment because of miscommunication between DM and player. If the DM rules that allowing people to suffer horrible pain because pain is close to good, then allowing suffering is good. If the DM rules that refusing to soothe pain for whatever bull**** reason is evil, then it's evil.

[Slipperychicken]

3) the result- does the recipient break down under the abuse? If you accidentally belittled someone who was depressed and they committed suicide, damn straight its an evil act. If it just slides right off, it really depends on the other two.

I don't buy that. You can't be evil by accident -even the nicest people say the wrong thing now and then.

[Manly Man]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax (http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Esmerelda_Weatherwax). The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.

[Dr.Gara]

It depends on three factors as I see it.
1) intent- whether or not the comment is actually intended to cause harm and not just grumpiness/habit
2) the recipient- is the abuse justifiable? Are you belittling Baron Evil of Wickedshire or innocent peasant no. 3?
3) the result- does the recipient break down under the abuse? If you accidentally belittled someone who was depressed and they committed suicide, damn straight its an evil act. If it just slides right off, it really depends on the other two.

I'm not sure the result of the abuse matters so much as the fact that there is abuse. If you break them into suicide, while it's horrible, it's not an evil action in of itself, unless that was the end you were looking for. Intention and recipient matter more then the result. Trying to drive anyone, even Baron Evil of Wickedshire, into offing himself is an Evil action. If you, without any kind of malice, drive someone into killing themselves... then it's not totally your fault. You should feel guilty, but it's not an Evil action.

[Mongrel]

You're right that good doesn't necessarily mean nice; it's perfectly possible to have a good aligned villain (the villain in Watchmen comes to mind). A chaotic good forest dwelling elf might go on a murderous rampage against a group of human loggers cutting down his forest. A lawful good paladin might persecute a group of people for failing to abide by a relatively minor and unconsequential law. Keep in mind, too, that being good doesn't free you from vices. A neutral good banker who is greedy might be coerced into helping some less than moral characters with the promise of money. Of course he's unlikely to support something truly evil (like demon summoning or blatant murder of a paladin/other obviously good character), but thievery? Extortion? Power plays? That would probably be fair game.

[Seto]

I'd imagine something like the Church of Garl Glittergold would have an extensive theology worked out, as to how far a person can take a joke before it's too far. (Clerics of Kurtulmak would likely have something to say on the subject, as well).

Well... Garl Glittergold's clerics like to pull pranks on people to teach them humility and remind them not to take themselves too seriously. If they did it to hurt people's feelings just for the heck of it, that would clearly have a hint of Evil to it.

In the case of OP, I'd say it depends on the reason. If you're doing it just because you're a complete d*** and you like to make people mad/suffer, and you do it on a regular basis/all the time, I don't think you can be Good. If you're doing it because, to you, Good implies being stern, and being nice gets in the way of the task, or you like to remind people that they themselves should be humble and suffer to achieve spiritual awakening/ fulfill their duty (I could see a Paladin doing that), then it wouldn't impact your alignment.

[BWR]

You're right that good doesn't necessarily mean nice; it's perfectly possible to have a good aligned villain (the villain in Watchmen comes to mind). A chaotic good forest dwelling elf might go on a murderous rampage against a group of human loggers cutting down his forest. A lawful good paladin might persecute a group of people for failing to abide by a relatively minor and unconsequential law. Keep in mind, too, that being good doesn't free you from vices. A neutral good banker who is greedy might be coerced into helping some less than moral characters with the promise of money. Of course he's unlikely to support something truly evil (like demon summoning or blatant murder of a paladin/other obviously good character), but thievery? Extortion? Power plays? That would probably be fair game.


Sorry, but Ozymandias was not good. You know what they say about good intentions? Sure he wanted to save the world from nuclear war, but in no way was killing off half of New York anything but an evil act. Even if you assume (and I don't) that it was necessary and the only way to save the world it was a necessary evil. If you start doing evil stuff, you will quickly end up evil. A paladin persecuting people for minor stuff will quickly require an atonement and need to do some serious thinking about his actions if he wishes to become a paladin again. People have faults, yes, but good intentions do not excuse evil actions.

[jedipilot24]

The trope for this is "Good is not Nice." (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice)

Consider a literary example:
James Potter, from the Harry Potter novels, was generally a good person, risking his own life to fight against evil and eventually sacrificing his life for his family. But he was also, in his youth, a bully.
Arguably perhaps, a bully hunter (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BullyHunter), but also arguably crossing the line.

A more D&D-like example, and just as controversial, is the Kingpriest of Istar in Dragonlance. According to Paladine (who is an Expy of Bahamut), the Kingpriest was a good person, but he nonetheless did a lot of mean things and still retained his spellcasting.

[Segev]

There is a certain truth to the ancient golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you are Good, you generally adhere to this. This may not necessarily mean you are nice to everybody, but you probably should be as nice to them as you would want them to be to you.

Additionally, Good people tend to have a certain level of empathy and caring for others. They may not be sweetness and hugs for everybody, but they're never cruel or malicious. If they're callous, it's because they don't have anything nice to say and are not going to say anything at all. If they're harsh, it's because they honestly believe what they're saying will help the person to whom they're being harsh...or is warranted to help others.

Jesus Christ, rather regarded by at least one of the largest religious groups in the world as the epitome of not just what a Good-aligned mortal should be, but The perfect example of how a Good person would behave, was harsh and hard with certain things. When He threw the moneylenders out of His Father's temple, He did so with a scourge.

Paladins - the D&D iconic epitome of Good (and Law) - are holy warriors who will beat the evil right out of somebody in order to protect the innocent from their depredations.

Good can and often will engage in Tough Love. "Cruelty" in that they might induce short-term suffering, but only for the overall good of those for whom they care. They may also enact and enforce harsh punishments for wrong-doing, if only to discourage others from doing wrong to the innocent. A halmark of good versus evil, here, is the severity of the punishment relative to the crime, and particularly the level of forgiveness for genuine repentance. It is also telling whether the one exacting the punishment enjoys the suffering it induces. Good people don't tend to take pleasure in others' pain, and generally only ACT indifferent (often to shield themselves from that empathy earlier mentioned).

The meanest and most sadistic genuinely Good people might get is a smug smirk at the mild suffering of somebody who brought it on themselves, because they know that this minor suffering is a key to avoiding worse (or achieving greater joy) later if they learn from it.

[Particle_Man]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax (http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Esmerelda_Weatherwax). The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.

The first time, I agree with you. But if it became a character trait to be thoughtless about how one's words hurt others, and one does nothing to try to correct that behaviour, then that would be going down the road to evil.

[HaikenEdge]

What's that they say, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions"?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Getting back to the original topic and not flagrantly violating board rules prohibiting the discussion of real world religion (or trying to apply D&D morality to Watchmen, of all the damn things), it's a matter of both degree and intent.

Being a jerk is not Evil, or even really grounds for not being Good.

Being verbally abusive with the intent of causing psychological or emotional harm is something entirely different, and something I'd rate about on par with physical violence. In D&D, that means that whether or not it's Evil depends on how and why it is used. A soldier emotionally berating his subordinates R. Lee Ermey style isn't particularly Good, but it isn't enough to make someone non-Good either. A misanthrope who piles abuse on others in order to be left alone but doesn't bother anyone who doesn't bother them isn't definitely non-Good either. However, some person who verbally attacks others out of spite or prejudice or just wanting to hurt them, and makes a particular habit out of this for no other reason than "I don't like them" is acting in a non-Good manner. Whether it's Evil or Neutral probably depends on the GM, but bullying someone just for the sake of bullying them is not the behavior of a Good character.

[hamishspence]

In FC2 "humiliating an underling" is a 1 point Corrupt act, on a par with casting an [Evil] spell, but less evil than "stealing from the needy" or "betraying a friend/ally for personal gain"

"Bullying" is also on the BoVD Evil list.

Now, doing Evil deeds doesn't always mean one has an Evil alignment - but it's a step in the wrong direction.

[TypoNinja]

As far as paladins go, I don't think disrespect alone is fall-worthy (assuming it isn't part of another evil act), but I think it could help shift a Paladin toward neutrality.

Well Paladins have the additional burden of their Code to uphold, not just their Goodness, so the line can get kind of blurry for acceptable vs Good behaviour. A Paladin Code based on Samurai for example would consider polite conduct a very important aspect.

Assuming it doesn't conflict with their Code though, nothing about Good must be inherently nice, indeed at the most basic level Good is at war with Evil. War is not nice.

[Starbuck_II]

In FC2 "humiliating an underling" is a 1 point Corrupt act, on a par with casting an [Evil] spell, but less evil than "stealing from the needy" or "betraying a friend/ally for personal gain"

"Bullying" is also on the BoVD Evil list.

Now, doing Evil deeds doesn't always mean one has an Evil alignment - but it's a step in the wrong direction.
Ah, but underlings are those who work for you. So doing it to a stranger is okay, but not your butler.

[Knaight]

The trope for this is "Good is not Nice." (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice)

Consider a literary example:
James Potter, from the Harry Potter novels, was generally a good person, risking his own life to fight against evil and eventually sacrificing his life for his family. But he was also, in his youth, a bully.
Arguably perhaps, a bully hunter (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BullyHunter), but also arguably crossing the line.
That's not really an example of a good person who is also a bully. It's an example of a good person who used to be a bully. James Potter, the student at Hogwarts, was hardly a moral exemplar.


Well, let's take an historical example: Mother Teresa. The "treatment" for the inmates at her hospices such as the flagship (Home for the Dying in Calcutta) was almost all Catholic moral teaching; while food and shelter were provided, medicine was principally restricted to aspirin. She extolled suffering as bringing the dying closer to God.

Unless you're willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not Good, that seems pretty mean to me.
I'm willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not good.

[hamishspence]

Ah, but underlings are those who work for you. So doing it to a stranger is okay, but not your butler.
Might depend on the DM.

"Stealing from the needy" is the specific form of stealing called out - that doesn't mean stealing from the "non-needy" is never evil.

Same probably applies to humiliating people. Its particularly bad toward an underling - because those in power have a responsibility to those below them.

But "humiliating an equal" could be Evil too.

I figure that what happened to Carrie White in the Carrie movie probably qualifies - though her response - massacre - was something of an overreaction.

[Talya]

Unless you're willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not Good, that seems pretty mean to me.

Penn & Teller would like a word with you.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Ah, but underlings are those who work for you. So doing it to a stranger is okay, but not your butler.

I think the general intent there is to show professionalism and respect in your dealing with social inferiors, e.g the people who literally cannot defend themselves from you. Assuming a generic quasi-medieval fantasy setting, then just by dint of owning expensive weapons or a spellbook, a PC is elevated above the average commoner to a certain degree. That gets even more apparent as PCs reach higher levels. A 20th level character harrassing and insulting a town aldorman who's maybe a 5th-level Expert is not just being harsh, he's definitely being a bully and inflicting abuse on someone who cannot protect themselves. I would regard poor treatment of servants, menials, commoners in genera by a more powerful PC to be a (minor) evil act, especially if the character is someone supposed to be a moral authority and example such as a knight, paladin or cleric of a good deity.

E: I once got into a long argument with a player who wanted to go around starting bar brawls with his 10th-level fighter, regardless of the fact that he was essentially picking fights with the knowledge that he had an enormous advantage, which I considered an "evil act" while he insisted it was "harmless fun." So this can vary depending on how seriously you take your game, essentially.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax (http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Esmerelda_Weatherwax). The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.
Or Batman. Batman works pretty nicely for this.

I'm with Nerd-o-rama on this one-- "meanness" becomes evil when it crosses the line from ***holery to psychologically damaging abuse. The complexity isn't so much in where you draw the line as in the fact that the line is in a different place for everyone.

[Socratov]

to weigh in on the question: how much of a jerk can you be and still remain good? Well that's up to the DM. Some let short term acts decide your alignment, some even let consequences factor in (the let's-make-the-paladin-fall-by-putting-him-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place gambits). If it were up to me actions and alignment are bound to each other by a rope: your alignment changes according to actions, however, actions should roughly correspond to your alignment (so no changing from LG to CE).

However, being a jerk is not necessarily through actions. One can have a bad demeanour (snarky attitude, or crass demeanour) while still doing good stuff. As mentioned earlier: good is not always nice. In fictional media, yes beware the nice ones, but the not nice good ones are usually more effective at what they do. One might even call them efficient in doing good. Do they seem good? Not necessarily. Do they perform good actions? Almost assuredly. It actually reminds me of the movie Hancock with Will Smith. Yes, he is a hero and does good deeds, yes he has bad PR. People hate him because of the collateral damage even though he performs good acts all around.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not good.
That's a problem here; as this forum has rules against discussing real-world religion and real-world politics, I'm not going to discuss even historical religion/politics. My reference was limited to her hospice services, which AFAIK were the result of her personal decisions with regard to how to allocate scarce resources, not any religious or political doctrine.

[Phelix-Mu]

A good person should be charitable, and forgive someone their flaws and the like, since one shouldn't throw stones in the proverbial glass house. However, even the virtuous have flaws; if a character's flaw is that they fly off the handle and curse a lot, then that is probably not the end of the world if that is all it is.

The problem with small evil acts is that they can cause unintended consequences (I curse because I don't give a damn and want to say what I'm feeling...therefore I might not notice the pain my cursing or insults can cause), and can snowball into increasingly evil behavior (I start to enjoy cursing, even if it causes pain). Thus, a truly virtuous person must be vigilant against small flaws that leave the door open to temptation and corruption.

Luckily for fun and variety, there are few out there that are "truly virtuous"; though many may be "good," many fewer are ardently so. Actually, the game usually notes most people as somewhere in the neutral zone, and there is plenty of room on the good side of neutral, so to speak. A person can have plenty of good habits and work hard to defend the cause of good, and have a few flaws tacked on, and end up either minorly good of neutral(good tendencies).

[atemu1234]

As mean as you can roleplay. Remember- good is not nice. Good is not soft. Good doesn't have to be kind either. Remember that just because you're good doesn't mean you're a goody-goody. A good character can easily have an ends-justify-the-means point of view. A good character can torture another being to death if they believe that it'll help good win. It may not get you any exalted feats and you definitely wouldn't make it as a paladin, but it doesn't threaten your alignment, provided you believe it'll help good.

[Phelix-Mu]

As mean as you can roleplay. Remember- good is not nice. Good is not soft. Good doesn't have to be kind either. Remember that just because you're good doesn't mean you're a goody-goody. A good character can easily have an ends-justify-the-means point of view. A good character can torture another being to death if they believe that it'll help good win. It may not get you any exalted feats and you definitely wouldn't make it as a paladin, but it doesn't threaten your alignment, provided you believe it'll help good.

So, if my character uses Diplomacy to convince the king to murder everyone in [random town] and convince him that it will be good, then the king is just fine, alignment-wise if he proceeds to do so?

Wrong. Being good means you have to think things through and make good choices. You may prevent evil by torturing someone, you may even cause a good result. But, in the meantime, you have subjected a sentient being to pain for no real reason other than being convenient to your own goal (which is clearly a devaluation of them as a living creature, treating them like a tool). Plenty of other, better methods are available for learning the truth. Find one. Or find a way to act without knowing everything. Take a risk. Find a better way.

There is really no point in being good if you just take the lower common denominator and look to the end result. That's pragmatically neutral at best, and if you are torturing people, you better be atoning like crazy, or you can't call yourself good.

[Tengu_temp]

The more good your other traits and actions are, the meaner you can be while still retaining good alignment. But generally, simply being mean doesn't count as an evil act; being mean in order to intentionally cause harm to other people does. And often it's a mildly evil act at best.

[Knaight]

That's a problem here; as this forum has rules against discussing real-world religion and real-world politics, I'm not going to discuss even historical religion/politics. My reference was limited to her hospice services, which AFAIK were the result of her personal decisions with regard to how to allocate scarce resources, not any religious or political doctrine.

I'd also limit that to how she chose to use her hospice services. In any case, it's not an example particularly conducive to discussion here.

[Icewraith]

Good usually isn't "mean" at all- Granny Weatherwax for instance is only "mean" to characters she thinks can do better (Magrat), characters committing evil acts, and people who don't treat witches with respect.

Even then, she tends to inflict psychological damage on minor offenders instead of turning them into toads at the drop of a hat.

Someone who is unpleasant for the sake of being unpleasant probably isn't good. If Granny is unpleasant with you, you either did something to deserve it or you owe her for the general healing services she provides to the community at large. It's much simpler for her if people regularly provide her with goods and services she'd otherwise have to spend time making herself, and if the people of the community fear her they'll only come asking for help when it's IMPORTANT. In exchange, she's always on call for such important things, and she never asks for more resources than the patient is able to give. The rest of the time she can devote to maintaining her dwelling and flexing her magical muscles as subtly as possible so she's ready to go when she needs it.

Similarly, being good doesn't mean you need to offer quarter or show mercy against an opponent powerful or depraved enough to not care. If the normal approaches are clearly not going to work, a good character is well within their rights to END their opponent using as much immediate force as possible.

[A Tad Insane]

If you're a chaotic good and a neutral evil noble got out of prison for being a noble even though he tortured peasants for the lulz, you have every right to freaking stab him and throw his body in a river.

If you're lawful good, you have are totally fine condemning an entire race to death if the only one alive is completely and irredeemably evil and the only way for the species to survive is for another species, which has more members in it, to die, especially if the dying species doomed themselves

A cookie if you get the second, three if you get the first.

[squiggit]

Cruelty for its own sake isn't Good, but all this stuff about "finding a better way", while nice, isn't necessarily good.

It's not even a law-chaos thing. You can play all nine as mean or nice as you want, just provided you don't drift from the core tenants of the alignment.

[Phelix-Mu]

One of the core tenants of being good is believing that it's possible to be good. One of the great consolations of the evil is that they often believe that those that are good are delusional.

"Finding a better way" is simply a way of referring to good being an option. And the good believe that it's always an option, that there is always a choice. I don't know how to get anymore fundamentally good than that.

It is, as I said before, perfectly fine for people to be mean and/or not nice. Being good doesn't preclude having a personality. But, the more extremely good one tries to be, the harder it is to have personality traits that can cause harm to others. And, make no mistake, even words and insults can inflict pain on others. That is part of the premise behind word-based magic; words change reality, even if the changes are too small to be seen (or happen inside the hearts and minds of other people).

[Mongrel]

Sorry, but Ozymandias was not good. You know what they say about good intentions? Sure he wanted to save the world from nuclear war, but in no way was killing off half of New York anything but an evil act. Even if you assume (and I don't) that it was necessary and the only way to save the world it was a necessary evil. If you start doing evil stuff, you will quickly end up evil. A paladin persecuting people for minor stuff will quickly require an atonement and need to do some serious thinking about his actions if he wishes to become a paladin again. People have faults, yes, but good intentions do not excuse evil actions.

I'd argue he is good. The atrocities he committed were horrible, yes, but he did them to save the human race from destroying itself completely. You say that you don't assume that it was necessary, that there must have been a better way, but remember, Ozymandias was literally the smartest person in the world at the time, even smarter than Dr. Manhattan. If he couldn't think of a better solution, who could? He talked about how much it pained him that he had to do it too, and he didn't really have reason to lie at the time.

Anyway, this is probably a topic for another thread. Back on topic, I'd say that being good in general is more about your intentions than your actions. Being evil is more about pursuit of personal power one way or another and at the expense of others. Being good is about working for the common good.

[RedMage125]

Good as an alignment doesn't require you to be polite, encouraging, or even at all "nice". In fact, a Good person, especially a non-Lawful one, can still be a pretty big jerk while staying within the bounds of his alignment. However, I figure there's only so far that can go.

If you are vicious, belittling, and verbally display hatred for a person who has not committed a wrongdoing, does that violate the "respect for life and dignity" of Good such that it might give a Good alignment pause? Assuming Good actions in every other regard, is verbal racism/sexism/the destruction of someone's self-esteem Evil enough to cause, oh, a Paladin to fall?

Assuming no deception and the like, just how verbally horrible can a person who is action-wise completely Good get before it becomes Evil and threatens his alignment?
Methodology is not necessarily reflective of alignment. If it were you could not have Lawful-aligned "scoundrel" characters. Sometimes one's methods (as long as they are not clearly Evil) can be shady, while that person remains Good, even Lawful Good.

Best example: The 3.5e book Complete Scoundrel states that Batman is Lawful Good.

I'm well aware of the whole "batman is all alignments" meme, but remember that it is a fallacy to try and cram every action a person takes into their alignment. The PHB says a LG person can be greedy, or have a bad temper, for example.

Batman's a scoundrel by his methodology, but LG by his ideology. And, as we all should know, as far as good guys go, Batman is MEAN.

[hamishspence]

Methodology is not necessarily reflective of alignment. If it were you could not have Lawful-aligned "scoundrel" characters. Sometimes one's methods (as long as they are not clearly Evil) can be shady, while that person remains Good, even Lawful Good.

Ozymandias would be "Means - Mass Murder, Ends - Prevent Global Mass Extinction"

So - Neutral at best.

[Mongrel]

Why is preventing the global mass extinction of your race neutral and not good?

Ozymandias is a good example of a utilitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) villain. I really have a hard time calling his actions evil when you consider the alternative. What should he have done exactly, let humanity wipe itself out? What was the "good" response?

[hamishspence]

Why is preventing the global mass extinction of your race neutral and not good?

The End was Good, the Means was Evil - result - a Neutral alignment. Going by Heroes of Horror at least - sometimes, going by Champions of Ruin - the result can be an Evil alignment.

[RedMage125]

I'd argue he is good. The atrocities he committed were horrible, yes, but he did them to save the human race from destroying itself completely. You say that you don't assume that it was necessary, that there must have been a better way, but remember, Ozymandias was literally the smartest person in the world at the time, even smarter than Dr. Manhattan. If he couldn't think of a better solution, who could? He talked about how much it pained him that he had to do it too, and he didn't really have reason to lie at the time.
That's more of a distinction of "what is right?" and "what is just?". Which is exactly why I've always maintained that there is thin line between Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good. Ozymandias was disciplined, methodical, and calculating. He dispassionately killed millions in order to save billions. The end result of his actions was an outbreak of peace between nations on the brink of mutual destruction. Was the act of murdering millions evil? Absolutely, Ozy even admitted it. But ask yourself "what kind of person coldly examines the wholesale slaughter of millions as 'worth' the goal of peace?". I would say Ozy was Lawful Neutral. But like I said, LN and NG have very fine distinctions betwen the two. That being does one care more about what is "right" or what is "just"? Given that Ozy himself acknowledged that was he did was mass-murder, but justified by the ends, I do not think he could be Good. His goal, however, was not selfish. He did not seek to create world peace with himself as a ruler. He did not want credit for what was done. He wanted to end the threat of nuclear war, and then retreat into self-exile to wallow in remorse for what he was going to do to achieve it, allowing the world to otherwise run itself as per normal...so not Evil, either. His methods, schemes, plots-within-plots, and overall level of organization and planning lead me to Lawful.



Anyway, this is probably a topic for another thread. Back on topic, I'd say that being good in general is more about your intentions than your actions. Being evil is more about pursuit of personal power one way or another and at the expense of others. Being good is about working for the common good.
Alignment is both, really. One's alignment is a gross oversimplification of one's overall outlooks and beliefs, but shown through and highlighted by one's actions. Action can be a slippery slope, leading to believing that since one act was "acceptable", another "isn't much different".
Example:
In a discussion with my wife regarding legalization of marijuana (which I disagreed with, btw), which is now legal in my state), she had an amazing insight. I had said that I agreed that MJ is a gateway drug. I smoked it when I was younger, and occasionally tried other stuff, stuff that I only ever was even exposed to because I smoked. She made a great point, though: MJ is a gateway drug because it's illegal. Many people can cite the beneficial or "harmless" traits of that drug, but if you have to get it form criminals, you are associating with criminals, and you know you are participating in an activity which-although "harmless"-is criminal. After finding that acceptable, other, equally small steps seem like they're not much different from what you are doing now.
This is just to highlight how actions can alter intentions. The "slippery slope" if you will. Alignment changes when one's outlooks change. But taking Evil actions repeatedly -even if for Good intentions- can "numb" one to what it means to commit an evil act, and make one lose sight of the Good.

Edit: spoiler blocks only work when you spell "spoiler" correctly. :smalltongue:

[Mongrel]

Well, what would a good character have done in that situation? This character was smart enough to know that humanity would wipe itself out if nothing was done. That is a considerable atrocity, greater than anything else that has happened in known history. The only solution that they, the smartest person on earth, could come up was was the one plan he ended up putting into action, and he expresses remorse for its necessity. If he were a good character, what would have he done different?

[hamishspence]

Well, what would a good character have done in that situation?

Everything their imagination could come up with, that wasn't overtly Evil.

He thinks he's "the smartest man on earth" - doesn't mean he knows it.

[Segev]

I'd argue he is good. The atrocities he committed were horrible, yes, but he did them to save the human race from destroying itself completely. You say that you don't assume that it was necessary, that there must have been a better way, but remember, Ozymandias was literally the smartest person in the world at the time, even smarter than Dr. Manhattan. If he couldn't think of a better solution, who could? He talked about how much it pained him that he had to do it too, and he didn't really have reason to lie at the time.

Ozymandius is not God; he is not Omniscient. And he didn't even have the decency to sacrifice himself.

In the end, he was a self-aggrandizing, arrogant man who wanted to rule the world without admitting he was doing so, and who set up a way to manipulate everybody into letting him do so.

[Segev]

Well, what would a good character have done in that situation? This character was smart enough to know that humanity would wipe itself out if nothing was done. That is a considerable atrocity, greater than anything else that has happened in known history. The only solution that they, the smartest person on earth, could come up was was the one plan he ended up putting into action, and he expresses remorse for its necessity. If he were a good character, what would have he done different?


Everything their imagination could come up with, that wasn't overtly Evil.

He thinks he's "the smartest man on earth" - doesn't mean he knows it.

If mankind will destroy themselves, that is ultimately their choice. A good man would provide a haven and a place to escape this destruction for those who also see it coming, or who, when it comes, are not participating in making it happen.

If he's really the smartest person in the world, he can set up such a place. He demonstrated he could persuade Dr. Manhattan that what he was doing was not worth stopping when it was utterly horrible. His plan hinged on that.

He could have persuaded Dr. Manhattan to help him build a refuge, and turned his brilliance to letting people know about it as a grand new project. And then screened out the elements that would bring this destruction with them. Put it on Mars, with only DR. MAnhanttan to get them there, and he could have ensured that the destruction of EArth by its own people couldn't reach MArs.

It becomes no more a "Greater atrocity" to allow that destruction; those who are destroyed largely chose it themselves. Moreover, he is not the one pulling the trigger, and he's given people a choice, a way out.

[hobbes1020]

What's that they say, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions"?

Couldn't agree more. Alignment is so subjective.

[Manly Man]

Or Batman. Batman works pretty nicely for this.

Pretty much. That guy's an exemplar of how being good and being nice are far less reciprocal than most people think.

[Cirrylius]

Good usually isn't "mean" at all- Granny Weatherwax for instance is only "mean" to characters she thinks can do better (Magrat), characters committing evil acts, and people who don't treat witches with respect.

This isn't quite right. Granny Weatherwax is irritable, bitter, uncompromising, prudish, waspish, sulky, proud, domineering, bullying, intolerant, opinionated, dismissive, and (albeit decreasingly) xenophobic. To just about everybody. She's pretty mean, often to purposefully drive others away. Magrat was able to survive a near-lethal attack on her ego once, because Granny's company had toughened her to withstand that kind of mental abuse.

Fortunately for her, she doesn't focus these tendencies very often. She's not deliberately cruel, she just spends most of her bile bitching, complaining, and harangueing others in extremely minor acts of social unpleasantness at people who can (typically) soak it up. She's so vile tempered, at least partly, because she's a bad witch by nature, but a good witch by inclination.

[TypoNinja]

Pretty much. That guy's an exemplar of how being good and being nice are far less reciprocal than most people think.

Batman is a pretty perfect example of how poorly the alignment system represents actual people rather than abstracts.

What alignment do we give the Bats? Lawful? Chaotic? Neutral?

He's a vigilante, he's deliberately eschewed the Law, he doesn't trust it to be effective. Then again, he's very methodical, has rules he operates by. Very Lawful behavior there. On the flipside hes the very definition of Chaotic, operating outside societies rules, and doing what HE thinks is best, the rest of the world be damned.

Good? Neutral? Evil?

He fights criminals, that makes his Good right? Not really, Devils and Demons fight all the time, neither is good. Opposing evil is not enough to qualify as good.

He's brutal, without mercy, assaults suspects, hes the very definition of excessive force, despite his no killing rule. He's willing to expose minors to life threatening(ending!) peril to further his cause.

Are we sure hes not Lawful Evil? His status as a Good Guy kind of only holds up in comic book morality.

[Averis Vol]

Or Batman. Batman works pretty nicely for this.


I was hoping someone would bring him up. Coincidentally I completely agree. He does really bad things for really good reasons. I mean, he dropped a guy off a building and shattered his legs to get information.

I've always had a problem with alignments, because I realized that most of my characters are good when the game starts; they have a strong set of ideals that would probably be good for the world, but as they get higher leveled and actually have the power to actually do something about the world as a whole, its a quick descent into evil territory.

An example from my most recent game, I had a crusader that was a loving family man, did volunteer work for the church of Pelor as well as helped with the reconstruction of his city (he's a carpenter/blacksmith in a post apocalyptic world, so he has a lot of work to do). So all around he seems good, except for last week he tore a gold dragons head off and cast it down a mountain, because he believes that no matter the color or supposed alignment, dragons are evil. They hoard gold, and thats their best quality. in a worst case scenario, they are tyrannical dictators who steal wealth from the people lord over, in the best case they sit away on a mountain of wealth, more then they could ever need (and they are never going to use it, because they are consumed by greed) and watch as the people they supposedly protect die off from famine and hunger. Even a twentieth of the dragons wealth could pay for necessary services for the common folk, but they would prefer to do nothing about it.

So Thalos and the gang took the gear they needed from the hoard and gave the rest to the townsfolk, and I'm pretty sure when we next return to that village, life will be a lot better. Now our bard sat out of that fight, because he considered it way to evil to kill a supposedly lawful good creature, while I argued that he was passively sitting by and watching the people die, which is as bad as killing them himself.

We're stuck at this crossroad in game, I think Thalos maintains his LG alignment, while the bard thinks he shouldn't have it.

TL;DR, good is incredibly subjective, and theres no right or wrong answer to the question of "what is too much for X alignment." It all comes down to how far you're willing to go.

[hemming]

Being good doesn't mean you have to like everyone or be nice about everything.

Everyone has known that person that thinks "brutal honesty" is a virtue...

Or that takes favors for granted...

Or is a jerk to people they don't like without intending to hurt, oppress or do them harm....

What about the Cleric or Paladin who has a moral superiority complex? He may be a self-righteous jerk to neutral NPCs or those who practice other religions, but he is not evil (not attempting to harm or oppress them)

[Benthesquid]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax (http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Esmerelda_Weatherwax). The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.

Granny Weatherwax is certainly Right, but I'd argue that the jury is ultimately still out on her being Good1.


Probably because the jury knows what's good for it, and that delivering a verdict one way or the other on Granny Weatherwax falls firmly in the other category.

[hamishspence]

So all around he seems good, except for last week he tore a gold dragons head off and cast it down a mountain, because he believes that no matter the color or supposed alignment, dragons are evil. They hoard gold, and thats their best quality. in a worst case scenario, they are tyrannical dictators who steal wealth from the people lord over, in the best case they sit away on a mountain of wealth, more then they could ever need (and they are never going to use it, because they are consumed by greed) and watch as the people they supposedly protect die off from famine and hunger.

Going by Draconomicon, most metallic dragons wander the world doing good deeds, and don't spend all that much time "at home". Their hoards aren't always gold, either - some hoard other things.

That said - dragon greediness is odd in "Always Good" creatures - which may be why 4E gave all metallic dragons Neutral alignments by default - with Good or Evil ones being exceptions (some types having higher proportions of Good specimens than others though).

[BWR]

That said - dragon greediness is odd in "Always Good" creatures - which may be why 4E gave all metallic dragons Neutral alignments by default - with Good or Evil ones being exceptions (some types having higher proportions of Good specimens than others though).

Come, on. Greed is good, donchaknow?
You can be greedy and still be good. I don't recall any stipulation that you have to give away most of your wealth in order to be good. Sure, good people tend to do so more than non-good, but good dragons can easily be greedy in the sense that they like lots of worldy goods, work hard for their stuff and are loathe to part with it. I can't see them exploiting others for personal gain.

[hamishspence]

You can be greedy and still be good.

The PHB does mention in the "Alignments Are Not Straitjackets" bit that Tordek is both Good and "a little greedy"

Though in this case, his greed means "he may be tempted to steal if he can justify it to himself".

[SowZ]

Check with your DM to make sure.
Personally, I allow a bit of leeway here and there. You are generally perfectly within your rights to be as LG as they come and verbally lamabst an Evil opponent in manner to make sailors blush. If your character has some sort of requirement to be polite and well-mannered even to the worst BBEG imaginable, then you're looking at an alignment violation.

That isn't true. Being polite and well mannered is one hundred percent personality and has nothing to do with alignment. Just as an Affably Evil villain can be the worst kind of Evil yet still sincerely care about being hospitable to his guests and respecting his enemies, a Good hero can carry himself in such a way that he is always respectful and polite to people, even in the middle of killing them with fire. Demeanor is not alignment.

[Socratov]

I see examples being thrown up illustrate the point. Which, if you pardon my word, I find useless. Why? Simple: in the cases of Batman and Granny Weatherwax, people are going to compare an almost organic being and fully fleshed out character to an abstract concept like morality and alignment. The only productive thing you are going to get out of htis is that people are going to make their minds up about their definitions of 'mean' and 'good'.

[Twilightwyrm]

While you've likely seen the archetype remade in various Spagetti westerns, (most notably the direct remakes), but a compelling case could be made that the nameless Samurai from Yojimbo and Sanjuro being a case of a rather mean, still good aligned character. I have yet to see A Fistfull of Dollars (which I admit I must soon rectify), I would imagine the nameless gunslinger in that movie would closely parallel the nameless Samurai from those films.
Hell, there's a whole Trope devoted to this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice

[SowZ]

While you've likely seen the archetype remade in various Spagetti westerns, (most notably the direct remakes), but a compelling case could be made that the nameless Samurai from Yojimbo and Sanjuro being a case of a rather mean, still good aligned character. I have yet to see A Fistfull of Dollars (which I admit I must soon rectify), I would imagine the nameless gunslinger in that movie would closely parallel the nameless Samurai from those films.
Hell, there's a whole Trope devoted to this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice

The spaghetti westerns do take a lot from the Samurai movies, but almost all of Clint Eastwoods characters are strongly neutral and not even really leaning Good, though typically not leaning Evil, either. They are selfish people willing to kill for what they want and set one gang against another for their goals. Though commit great enough an injustice and you will disgust him and he'll decide to kill you because he isn't without his own code.

[jedipotter]

Assuming no deception and the like, just how verbally horrible can a person who is action-wise completely Good get before it becomes Evil and threatens his alignment?

Pretty close to no limit, as long as they belive and mean what they say. Good does not have to be nice.

[SowZ]

Pretty close to no limit, as long as they belive and mean what they say. Good does not have to be nice.

If he goes out of his way to destroy people by dissecting their lives verbally and actually makes their lives worse, that would be an exception. Otherwise, I agree that he can be a total d bag.

[jedipotter]

If he goes out of his way to destroy people by dissecting their lives verbally and actually makes their lives worse, that would be an exception. Otherwise, I agree that he can be a total d bag.

I'd say a good person could ''go out of their way'' to ''make someones life worse'' and still be good.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd say a good person could ''go out of their way'' to ''make someones life worse'' and still be good.

So intentionally causing pain is in. Cool. Is there anything left that distinguishes that kind of "good" from evil? Or is it just a matter of the quantity of spreading pain and suffering? How about only on Tuesdays? Weekend saint sounds appealing. Certainly makes being good sound like a better deal to those that are used to being evil.

[Melville's Book]

I guess that means the important distinction here is that Good can't cause long-term emotional pain without Good justification. Otherwise, Good can be as jerkish as any other alignment. Is that the general concensus? (Feel free to add addendums)

[Agrippa]

So intentionally causing pain is in. Cool. Is there anything left that distinguishes that kind of "good" from evil? Or is it just a matter of the quantity of spreading pain and suffering? How about only on Tuesdays? Weekend saint sounds appealing. Certainly makes being good sound like a better deal to those that are used to being evil.

How about if the only people whose lives you're ruining utterly deserve it. Like any of these Leverage villains.
Mitchell Kirkwood (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Mitchell_Kirkwood)
Judge Roy (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Judge_Roy)
Damian Moreau (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Damien_Moreau)
Colin "Chaos" Mason (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Colin_%22Chaos%22_Mason)
Jack Latimer (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Jack_Latimer)
Victor Dubenich (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Victor_Dubenich)
Alan Foss (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Alan_Foss)
The Retzing family of Henry and his sons Dennis and Randy (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Snow_Job)
Nicky and Heather Moscone (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wedding_Job)
Irena Larenko and Nicolas Obrovic (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Stork_Job)
Ian Blackpoole (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Ian_Blackpoole)
Mark Doyle (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_Doyle)
Dalton Rand (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Dalton_Rand)
Daniel Fowler (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Daniel_Fowler)
Monica Hunter (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Three_Days_of_the_Hunter_Job)
Erik Casten (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Top_Hat_Job)
Jim Kerrity III (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Ice_Man_Job)
Gloria and Russell Pan (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Runway_Job)
Adam Worth IV (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Jailhouse_Job)
Larry Duberman (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Larry_Duberman)
Darren Hoffman (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Darren_Hoffman)
Anne Hannity (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Anne_Hannity)
Hugh Whitman (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Gone_Fishin%27_Job)
Mark Vector (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_Vector)

How is it wrong to "go out of your way to make their lives worse"?

[NichG]

One mistake I think people tend to make is conflating 'heroic' with 'good'.

Someone can be 'heroic' - e.g. take actions that right a wrong, avert a catastrophe, correct and punish an injustice, etc - without that mandating that they merit a Good alignment.

Alignment by the book is about actions, but colloquially speaking it makes more sense to think of alignment in terms of choices - given a situation, how does the character choose to act, out of the various choices they might make? So in the case of causing the Leverage villains to suffer, for example, that particular choice is not a Good choice in of itself (and is likely an Evil choice). At the same time, the team is also engaging in Good choices as well - they could pocket the take from the con, but they give it to their client. As a whole, they are likely systematically neutral - doing both Good and Evil things. In the various cons where Nathan's desire for revenge is a stronger motive than his desire to help the client, this tilts towards evil (and that tends to make the other characters nervous when it happens).

So the Leverage team is probably a solid example of a set of Heroic Neutral characters (with Nathan being Neutral-leaning-Lawful on Law-Chaos and the rest being chaotic).

Ozymandias is a funny example to bring up though - he's almost a classic example of the evil of hubris. In his case, the hubris is 'I am the only one who can deal with this, and I see only one way to deal with this, and I alone can and will make the decision to deal with it this way'. Out of an infinity of possible actions (and quite a lot of resources), he chose a horrific way out of the problem he saw.

Lets assume though that his logic was perfectly sound, his vision perfectly clear, and that his actions really were the only way to preserve humanity. In this case, he would still be an Evil character - a Heroic Evil character perhaps, but still Evil. But in some sense, that is necessary for the act to retain poignancy - I'm not saying that D&D alignment is necessary for Watchmen to be meaningful, but rather the idea that simply achieving something important does not remove the guilt for doing something awful to make it happen. It was mentioned that he didn't sacrifice anything, but in this particular interpretation of the events he sacrificed his innocence - 'if it saves the world, I shall be a villain'; refunding that cost makes the sacrifice less meaningful (narratively), the same way that someone in D&D sacrificing their life is less meaningful when they know they've got a True Resurrection on retainer waiting for them.

[jedipotter]

I guess that means the important distinction here is that Good can't cause long-term emotional pain without Good justification. Otherwise, Good can be as jerkish as any other alignment. Is that the general concensus? (Feel free to add addendums)

Yes. What is nice and what is jerkish depends a lot on the person. A good person might think it's fine to do X, but all agree.

And what is ''long term emotional pain''? That can be anything....

[SowZ]

I'd say a good person could ''go out of their way'' to ''make someones life worse'' and still be good.

Which isn't what I said.

[Phelix-Mu]

I guess that means the important distinction here is that Good can't cause long-term emotional pain without Good justification. Otherwise, Good can be as jerkish as any other alignment. Is that the general concensus? (Feel free to add addendums)

There is no good justification for causing emotional pain, even to evil people. If you inflict suffering on an evil person, you generally provoke evil behavior, as people don't like being mistreated, and an evil person will respond with anger, hatred, and likely violence (at least in D&D, where violence is a regular feature of the game). Your abuse has led to evil, and this is something a truly good person would wish to avoid.

What can be justified is ridding the world of evil. The preferred method is redemption. Slightly less preferred, if more expedient and practical, is purging evil from the world. This should be done swiftly and efficiently, as tormenting those you are about to dispatch is also pretty evil.

Now, again, major caveat. Not all "good people" are locked into only good actions. Good people can have flaws, personality quirks, conflicts of interest, and major ones at that. Moreover, a large number of merely neutral people can be characterized by patterns of good actions, just, in balance, not enough to make them "good."

The important difference is that a person's non-good actions, like being cruel and abusive (if only verbally), do not contribute to their goodness. That's not how alignment works. A good person can be mean, but that meanness will, eventually, make them less good (if taken in isolation from other good acts that add to their goodness).

[Vrock_Summoner]

Depends on how emotional pain is defined, really. I mean, if I were performing acts of Evil but didn't realize the extent of the harm I was causing, and some Good guy laid down the facts down for me, I'd probably be wracked with guilt and hate myself for the rest of my life, but, especially given that I would stop that Evil act at that point, I'd say the person did a Good thing.

For the most part, causing emotional pain is somewhere on the southern side of Neutral, but if it's a particularly harsh eye-opener, then I'd say it's Good even if it is cruel.

[TypoNinja]

There is no good justification for causing emotional pain, even to evil people. If you inflict suffering on an evil person, you generally provoke evil behavior, as people don't like being mistreated, and an evil person will respond with anger, hatred, and likely violence (at least in D&D, where violence is a regular feature of the game). Your abuse has led to evil, and this is something a truly good person would wish to avoid.

What can be justified is ridding the world of evil. The preferred method is redemption. Slightly less preferred, if more expedient and practical, is purging evil from the world. This should be done swiftly and efficiently, as tormenting those you are about to dispatch is also pretty evil.

Now, again, major caveat. Not all "good people" are locked into only good actions. Good people can have flaws, personality quirks, conflicts of interest, and major ones at that. Moreover, a large number of merely neutral people can be characterized by patterns of good actions, just, in balance, not enough to make them "good."

The important difference is that a person's non-good actions, like being cruel and abusive (if only verbally), do not contribute to their goodness. That's not how alignment works. A good person can be mean, but that meanness will, eventually, make them less good (if taken in isolation from other good acts that add to their goodness).

Tend to agree. Poison use being always evil on the basis of causing suffering seems to easily be expanded to cover emotional abuse.

Its needlessly inflicted additional harm to no purpose.

Should be noted that this is different from forcing an unpleasant truth on someone.

[SowZ]

Tend to agree. Poison use being always evil on the basis of causing suffering seems to easily be expanded to cover emotional abuse.

Its needlessly inflicted additional harm to no purpose.

Should be noted that this is different from forcing an unpleasant truth on someone.

Though poisons always being evil has pretty much been debunked as total nonsense.

[TypoNinja]

Though poisons always being evil has pretty much been debunked as total nonsense.

How so? Or are you referring to the fact that pretty much any venomous animal breaks the rule?

[Slipperychicken]

How so? Or are you referring to the fact that pretty much any venomous animal breaks the rule?

D&D says that animals (and presumably, most other nonsentient creatures) can't make moral choices, so they don't get alignments.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think they took the rather accurate stance that using poison in combat is dishonorable (and using it out of combat is generally also the same), and then unnecessarily extrapolated from there to get "poison use is evil."

Now, certain aspects of people that often use poison can be evil, but I agree that the correlation should not be bent into a rule of it always being evil.

Venomous animals are a totally different matter, as they often have no choice in making attacks (reacting on instinct), and a number of them have no means to defend themselves other than the envenomed natural attack. Other venomous, non-evil creatures may also fall afoul of the second point.

[NichG]

Since SowZ didn't give the specific argument, I'm going to extrapolate based on the poison-isn't-evil debates I've seen in other threads on the forum. Feel free to correct me if you intended a different, specific argument.

Anyhow, generally the form of the debunking involves objecting to the realism of it causing unnecessary suffering. That is to say, its an argument that there are lots of poisons that would cause less suffering than a sword in the gut (especially since many poisons would be numbing agents and/or soporifics, which should actually reduce suffering).

The thing is though, this counter-argument still recognizes that causing suffering is bad, its just saying 'poisons don't actually do that in many cases'.

[Phelix-Mu]

Anyhow, generally the form of the debunking involves objecting to the realism of it causing unnecessary suffering. That is to say, its an argument that there are lots of poisons that would cause less suffering than a sword in the gut (especially since many poisons would be numbing agents and/or soporifics, which should actually reduce suffering).

The thing is though, this counter-argument still recognizes that causing suffering is bad, its just saying 'poisons don't actually do that in many cases'.

Well, the backdrop for the causing suffering is evil is that killing people is evil, and this is generally turning the good v evil debate up to eleven, a tad beyond the ken of most campaigns (as many campaigns feature great heroes of goodness who do a great deal of killing). Some campaigns attempt to probe the gray area a bit more, some do not. It takes all kinds.

My position is that causing suffering is evil, killing is evil, and using poison may be evil due to its connection to these things. Sometimes this evil is necessary, and those who commit such deeds as part of a good motive must recognize the vile nature of their actions and seek to avoid situations where they are forced to act in that manner (or seek new solutions).

Back to the OP, however, the crux of the argument about "meanness" is perhaps best viewed from the perspective of evil as a force in the universe, something that D&D morality makes clear is the case. Cruelty, in terms of causing pain to others, is a principle tool of both corruption (being cruel is a useful tool and weapon, and can give great pleasure to the one being cruel) and as way to perpetuate cycles of abuse and violence (which in turn cause corruption as they spread the pain around and ensnare new victims).

If cruelty in it's extreme is part of the arsenal of evil, then why should it be less so in small doses? Indeed, it is perhaps the small evils that are most useful to evil as a force, because these are the evils that will surface among the good-intentioned (and the non-evil generally). A good person can easily guard against the big vices and acts of evil, as they are typically conspicuous and range from distasteful to horrifying.

But belittling others, bullying, ostracizing, and otherwise being cruel in a social context is a relatively innocuous act, something that "goes on all the time," something that "everyone does." It is precisely this innocuous nature that makes the small evil most insidious, the first stepping-stone in the road to perdition. By ignoring the principle "do no harm" and instead thinking "this isn't a big deal," evil as a force makes inroads against the virtuous by making them betray their ideals. And ideals, once sullied in small ways, never shine quite the same, and the possibility of bigger violations becomes less unthinkable.

Really, evil is a pretty intricate system and has a lot going for it. Especially insofar as the imperfect nature of even the most virtuous means that everyone has to live in a world where cruelty is an undeniable facet of life, one that must at least be forgiven, though not tolerated.

Lol, I probably come off as some kind of virtue nazi. I assure you, this is not the case, and I have great fun straining the limits of the gray area in my campaigns. My players always quote me the "Your Suffering Sustains Me" motivational poster.:smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

Well, the backdrop for the causing suffering is evil is that killing people is evil, and this is generally turning the good v evil debate up to eleven, a tad beyond the ken of most campaigns (as many campaigns feature great heroes of goodness who do a great deal of killing). Some campaigns attempt to probe the gray area a bit more, some do not. It takes all kinds.


Not in D&D it isn't.


BoED page 9, "Violence"

Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.


BoVD page 7
MURDER
The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair
to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an
objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it
from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an
evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although
it’s not a good act), because it still stops the creature’s predations
on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works
only for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable
evil, such as chromatic dragons.

[EDIT: Personally, I could totally support a setting in which the act of killing is universally evil. It would make things a bit less ambiguous. Just remember that your interpretation is a houserule.]

[SowZ]

How so? Or are you referring to the fact that pretty much any venomous animal breaks the rule?

I can also produce a list of about fifty effects or spells in D&D that specifically call out pain. It is a spell designed to torture and is so good at it that it applies penalties or will saves to avoid being paralyzed by the awful pain and they aren't always Evil aligned actions. You can use them against Evil opponents and be Lawful Good.

Also, poisons aren't a long, protracted way to die like in real life. It actually increases the odds of instantly killing someone if you have Con damage. And if it is anything but Con damage, it is a method of non lethal takedowns with a 0% mortality rate. It is a guaranteed way to knock someone out harmlessly with 0 chance of permanent side effects. Sometimes, no other method of reliably knocking them unconscious without sacrificing your chance of success exists.

It is complete nonsense that it is Evil.


Since SowZ didn't give the specific argument, I'm going to extrapolate based on the poison-isn't-evil debates I've seen in other threads on the forum. Feel free to correct me if you intended a different, specific argument.

Anyhow, generally the form of the debunking involves objecting to the realism of it causing unnecessary suffering. That is to say, its an argument that there are lots of poisons that would cause less suffering than a sword in the gut (especially since many poisons would be numbing agents and/or soporifics, which should actually reduce suffering).

The thing is though, this counter-argument still recognizes that causing suffering is bad, its just saying 'poisons don't actually do that in many cases'.

Yeah, this is pretty much it.

[Phelix-Mu]

I concede that my point about killing being evil was largely in reference to a debate about good and evil that transcends the game world. I also reference you to the same BoED where the gods of good that sanction the use of violence against the forces of evil also reward non-violence, culminating in VoPe. So, while the gods may permit killing to fight evil, they also actively reward people that, despite the sanction, refrain from it while still combating evil in less obvious ways. The ways in which this is or is not contradictory is, quite frankly, my favorite part of involving morally auspicious situations in the game. Teasing apart the very principles and ideals of my players' characters is one of my great joys in life.

Again, this level of distinction, like all of BoED/BoVD, is only relevant in campaigns that really are into looking into that gray area, and as both books make clear, the exploration of these areas of morality is even more heavily influenced by DM interpretation and player receptiveness than the normal material of the typical D&D experience. My opinion is my own, as ever, and I didn't cite RAW because my argument wasn't based in RAW, but on how I usually have things work in my games.

tl/dr: Killing in the service of good may not be evil, but neither is it the
epitome of good.

EDIT: Can someone cite me where inflicting non-Con damage through poison is "knocking someone out harmlessly?" In real life (our default basis for stuff not detailed in fluff or mechanics), many, many poisons that, say, cause paralysis or nerve damage, also cause suffering (or, at the very least, fear). There is no way to correlate Dex or Wis damage to pain outside of the DM deciding how it works for each poison. Thus, a blanket statement of "it's not evil" doesn't seem to hold, and if one seeks to avoid evil, one must be quite the careful apothecary (and probably must test stuff on oneself).

[SowZ]

I concede that my point about killing being evil was largely in reference to a debate about good and evil that transcends the game world. I also reference you to the same BoED where the gods of good that sanction the use of violence against the forces of evil also reward non-violence, culminating in VoPe. So, while the gods may permit killing to fight evil, they also actively reward people that, despite the sanction, refrain from it while still combating evil in less obvious ways. The ways in which this is or is not contradictory is, quite frankly, my favorite part of involving morally auspicious situations in the game. Teasing apart the very principles and ideals of my players' characters is one of my great joys in life.

Again, this level of distinction, like all of BoED/BoVD, is only relevant in campaigns that really are into looking into that gray area, and as both books make clear, the exploration of these areas of morality is even more heavily influenced by DM interpretation and player receptiveness than the normal material of the typical D&D experience. My opinion is my own, as ever, and I didn't cite RAW because my argument wasn't based in RAW, but on how I usually have things work in my games.

tl/dr: Killing in the service of good may not be evil, but neither is it the
epitome of good.

EDIT: Can someone cite me where inflicting non-Con damage through poison is "knocking someone out harmlessly?" In real life (our default basis for stuff not detailed in fluff or mechanics), many, many poisons that, say, cause paralysis or nerve damage, also cause suffering (or, at the very least, fear). There is no way to correlate Dex or Wis damage to pain outside of the DM deciding how it works for each poison. Thus, a blanket statement of "it's not evil" doesn't seem to hold, and if one seeks to avoid evil, one must be quite the careful apothecary (and probably must test stuff on oneself).

Because ability damage isn't permanent. It always heals. As for if it is painful, maybe, sure, but spells and feats that specifically do nothing but cause pain aren't Evil. And it isn't just one or two flukes, either. There are dozens of examples of morally neutral pain spells/feats. Way more often, pain infliction isn't considered Evil. So poisons being Evil because they cause Pain holds no water. Causing lots of pain to take someone down isn't Evil in D&D.

And it is very strange that paralyzing someone knowing that they will heal fully is evil because it probably hurts but setting them on fire until they die can be good. Or killing someone over a matter of minutes by stabbing them repeatedly with a short piece of rusty metal is fine whereas sticking a poison on that same knife that will kill them in six seconds is evil.

[Phelix-Mu]

Again, I reference my previous position that the whole automatically evil thing is dumb, but I thought I'd further muddy the waters of this off-topic aspect of the discussion.

Perhaps the reason poisons are evil is that they are unpredictable. They may hurt someone, or it might not work at all. Moreover, they are more likely to work on the weak (as represented by lower Fort saves), and less likely to work on real threats. The specific degree of pain (assuming the damage is painful, which it may or may not be) will vary with each person, and there is a fair bit of chance involved. I am not sure that I buy this either, but there is an important aspect of responsibility for the outcome of your actions as a good person. If the results are unpredictable, then that is problematic.

Of course, the outcome of a sword to the gut, while seemingly more clear, is also complicated and varies by the individual so skewered. As noted, there are spells that essentially do the same thing (work better on weak targets) and yet are not evil.

My position, as noted before, is that poisons are dishonorable, which is an entirely different matter. It seems the designers just let the issue metastasize into "using poison=evil" for no good reason.

[ryu]

Again, I reference my previous position that the whole automatically evil thing is dumb, but I thought I'd further muddy the waters of this off-topic aspect of the discussion.

Perhaps the reason poisons are evil is that they are unpredictable. They may hurt someone, or it might not work at all. Moreover, they are more likely to work on the weak (as represented by lower Fort saves), and less likely to work on real threats. The specific degree of pain (assuming the damage is painful, which it may or may not be) will vary with each person, and there is a fair bit of chance involved. I am not sure that I buy this either, but there is an important aspect of responsibility for the outcome of your actions as a good person. If the results are unpredictable, then that is problematic.

Of course, the outcome of a sword to the gut, while seemingly more clear, is also complicated and varies by the individual so skewered. As noted, there are spells that essentially do the same thing (work better on weak targets) and yet are not evil.

My position, as noted before, is that poisons are dishonorable, which is an entirely different matter. It seems the designers just let the issue metastasize into "using poison=evil" for no good reason.

How is using poison dishonorable? Preferably the answer should involve something more workable than how it isn't charging sword-first into someone to solve a battle. Pointing at someone and disabling while uttering funny words is something no one bats an eye at. Why should achieving the same result with a poisonous dart be any different?

[Phelix-Mu]

Because many definitions of honorable involve the concept of fighting on even grounds, without deception. While, conceivably, poison can be used without deception, it typically is used to turn a single blow with an injury poison into the end of the fight. This is often viewed as unfair advantage by things like orders of knights that hold the principle of honor in high regard.

To dissect the word itself, honor is often equated with respect and value. If a combat is simply a matter of optimizing the takedown of the enemy, then some people would view this as not giving the process the respect it deserves. Two people (or more) put their lives on the line to defend their principles and ideals. From a perspective of honor, by seeking some external advantage, you are dishonoring your own principle by admitting that you can't fight for it on even ground.

Again, I believe that this is how some people in game think. I certainly don't agree with it, but I can see how that position is defensible, unlike the broader poison=evil issue.

[ryu]

Because many definitions of honorable involve the concept of fighting on even grounds, without deception. While, conceivably, poison can be used without deception, it typically is used to turn a single blow with an injury poison into the end of the fight. This is often viewed as unfair advantage by things like orders of knights that hold the principle of honor in high regard.

To dissect the word itself, honor is often equated with respect and value. If a combat is simply a matter of optimizing the takedown of the enemy, then some people would view this as not giving the process the respect it deserves. Two people (or more) put their lives on the line to defend their principles and ideals. From a perspective of honor, by seeking some external advantage, you are dishonoring your own principle by admitting that you can't fight for it on even ground.

Again, I believe that this is how some people in game think. I certainly don't agree with it, but I can see how that position is defensible, unlike the broader poison=evil issue.

At what point has a poison user ever attempted to prevent the other side from using poison? As a matter of fact they tend to take precautions against just that eventuality. They specifically see it as just another tool with advantages and disadvantages regardless of whether or not the other side was savvy enough to pick it up. External advantage has nothing to do with honor. What do I mean by that? A sword isn't a dishonorable tool when used to gain a range advantage on martial artists. Bows used for much the same purpose aren't either.

[Phelix-Mu]

Again, I think if the poison user announced the use of poison and the fight was otherwise deemed fair, then that might be acceptable. In many contexts, the secretive nature of people that use poison and such muddies the issue. Part of it is probably inappropriately ported from real life, where there is no real defense against poison, and even the best warrior ever may die to some kid off the street and a tin of rat poison.

In the game, that's not really how that works for pcs and other similarly high-powered beings in-world. However, it is still how it works for the common person, and that should probably count for something

[ryu]

Again, I think if the poison user announced the use of poison and the fight was otherwise deemed fair, then that might be acceptable. In many contexts, the secretive nature of people that use poison and such muddies the issue. Part of it is probably inappropriately ported from real life, where there is no real defense against poison, and even the best warrior ever may die to some kid off the street and a tin of rat poison.

In the game, that's not really how that works for pcs and other similarly high-powered beings in-world. However, it is still how it works for the common person, and that should probably count for something

Eh in real life battle one good cut can and will kill either way. As for slipped poison the trick is to have have someone else taste the dishes. As in the kings are the ones best equipped for general defense against these things. That all assumes medieval times where it wasn't possible to simply have poisonous mist capable of almost instantly ending people that expands to fill space rapidly. I'd say that kind of poison attack has more in common with a really nasty blasting spell or explosive than some deceptive trick though.

[Twilightwyrm]

The spaghetti westerns do take a lot from the Samurai movies, but almost all of Clint Eastwoods characters are strongly neutral and not even really leaning Good, though typically not leaning Evil, either. They are selfish people willing to kill for what they want and set one gang against another for their goals. Though commit great enough an injustice and you will disgust him and he'll decide to kill you because he isn't without his own code.

Well in this case I will have to take your word for it, with one possible exception. I would not, however, see setting one gang against another to wipe out both as being the mark of a selfish person. Waging a one man guerrilla was against criminal gangs is fine if you are Batman, but if you lack said access to resources and technology (and indeed, even if you have said access), if two evils can be wiped out by turning them against one another, while it would most certainly tend more towards Chaotic than Lawful, it does not seem like it would be uncharacteristic of a good character.

[ryu]

Oh come now we all know bats doesn't need resources to deal with common thugs. He'd be fully capable of taking care of that problem with nothing more than four socks, a stick of gum, and a paperclip. He uses resources to take on things like the entire justice league single-handedly, or worse... Anti-Batman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-rl0tfQO9E

[NichG]

Eh in real life battle one good cut can and will kill either way. As for slipped poison the trick is to have have someone else taste the dishes. As in the kings are the ones best equipped for general defense against these things. That all assumes medieval times where it wasn't possible to simply have poisonous mist capable of almost instantly ending people that expands to fill space rapidly. I'd say that kind of poison attack has more in common with a really nasty blasting spell or explosive than some deceptive trick though.

Unlike D&D's good and evil, the concept of 'chivalric honor' does have very specific historical roots, which D&D at least halfway claims to be trying to emulate. In systems of chivalric honor, that sense of fair fighting would go so far as to say that 'making use of a surprise round is dishonorable' or even 'fighting an unarmored peer while wearing armor is dishonorable' (though said philosophy also had a very strong class system associated with it, so you could go ahead and mow down peasants without anyone really caring).

Modern views are not going to be able to capture the reasoning behind it fully, because they tend to miss the historical context, and much of the 'purpose' of chivalry was tied to that historical context.

For example, and this is just a 'just so' story not really backed up by any deep historical analysis, but rather a way that you could explain 'chivalry' to a utilitarian viewpoint: When you have a fighting population who are also going to be your future inheritors of wealth, estate, and rule (or have blood relationships with them), then you want to regulate the way in which they can kill each-other very strongly. A concept of 'fairness' shared by both sides helps ensure that the family of the one killed accepts it and doesn't use it as an excuse to start a war or a feud. This means having a specific set of ways that killing each-other is allowed to happen. If it isn't on that list, its dishonorable. However, emotions run hot in a fight so you can't just tell everyone the logic of 'don't use poison because then they'll invade us' - you have to make it a cultural and ethical value, so its automatic for the participants. Which means that 500 years later, people may still be respecting that list even if the reasons for its existence have faded.

[Laniius]

I kind of want to play a paladin that acts like this. (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/its-not-like-i-like-you-or-anything)

[SowZ]

Again, I reference my previous position that the whole automatically evil thing is dumb, but I thought I'd further muddy the waters of this off-topic aspect of the discussion.

Perhaps the reason poisons are evil is that they are unpredictable. They may hurt someone, or it might not work at all. Moreover, they are more likely to work on the weak (as represented by lower Fort saves), and less likely to work on real threats. The specific degree of pain (assuming the damage is painful, which it may or may not be) will vary with each person, and there is a fair bit of chance involved. I am not sure that I buy this either, but there is an important aspect of responsibility for the outcome of your actions as a good person. If the results are unpredictable, then that is problematic.

Of course, the outcome of a sword to the gut, while seemingly more clear, is also complicated and varies by the individual so skewered. As noted, there are spells that essentially do the same thing (work better on weak targets) and yet are not evil.

My position, as noted before, is that poisons are dishonorable, which is an entirely different matter. It seems the designers just let the issue metastasize into "using poison=evil" for no good reason.

By that line of thinking, Sneak Attacks should definitely be Evil, and Good Wizards should probably hand all opponents a list of their prepared spells for the day.

Fighting dirty is not an Evil act in D&D.


Well in this case I will have to take your word for it, with one possible exception. I would not, however, see setting one gang against another to wipe out both as being the mark of a selfish person. Waging a one man guerrilla was against criminal gangs is fine if you are Batman, but if you lack said access to resources and technology (and indeed, even if you have said access), if two evils can be wiped out by turning them against one another, while it would most certainly tend more towards Chaotic than Lawful, it does not seem like it would be uncharacteristic of a good character.

In For a Fistful of Dollars, though, he does it so he can be big man on campus. There is no indication he is doing it to help the town or rid the world of Evil. And when his actions eventually lead to one gang killing all the families of another, he feels guilty enough to avenge them. (But not altruistic enough to interrupt the mass murder, since that would have likely ended in his own death.)

[Raven777]

"You have two options. You can wait until I leave, and then murder Abigail. But then I'll come back. I'll slay every lice-ridden peasant, anything that moves and can't climb a tree. Or, you can lead honorable lives; clear your conscience and start again, like humans. The choice is yours." - Geralt, The Witcher

If these kinds of threats are Good enough for the likes of Roland of Gilead or Geralt of Rivia, they're Good enough for me.

[SowZ]

Unlike D&D's good and evil, the concept of 'chivalric honor' does have very specific historical roots, which D&D at least halfway claims to be trying to emulate. In systems of chivalric honor, that sense of fair fighting would go so far as to say that 'making use of a surprise round is dishonorable' or even 'fighting an unarmored peer while wearing armor is dishonorable' (though said philosophy also had a very strong class system associated with it, so you could go ahead and mow down peasants without anyone really caring).

Modern views are not going to be able to capture the reasoning behind it fully, because they tend to miss the historical context, and much of the 'purpose' of chivalry was tied to that historical context.

For example, and this is just a 'just so' story not really backed up by any deep historical analysis, but rather a way that you could explain 'chivalry' to a utilitarian viewpoint: When you have a fighting population who are also going to be your future inheritors of wealth, estate, and rule (or have blood relationships with them), then you want to regulate the way in which they can kill each-other very strongly. A concept of 'fairness' shared by both sides helps ensure that the family of the one killed accepts it and doesn't use it as an excuse to start a war or a feud. This means having a specific set of ways that killing each-other is allowed to happen. If it isn't on that list, its dishonorable. However, emotions run hot in a fight so you can't just tell everyone the logic of 'don't use poison because then they'll invade us' - you have to make it a cultural and ethical value, so its automatic for the participants. Which means that 500 years later, people may still be respecting that list even if the reasons for its existence have faded.

You touched on this, but Chivalry in general only applied to other knights/persons of high birth. It wouldn't really have much to do with D&D 'Good.' More 'Law' than anything.

[ryu]

"You have two options. You can wait until I leave, and then murder Abigail. But then I'll come back. I'll slay every lice-ridden peasant, anything that moves and can't climb a tree. Or, you can lead honorable lives; clear your conscience and start again, like humans. The choice is yours." - Geralt, The Witcher

If these kinds of threats are Good enough for the likes of Roland of Gilead or Geralt of Rivia, they're Good enough for me.

I take a philosophical stance that any idea, creed, methodology, outlook, or personal code that must rely on threats has failed on a basic level. This is by simple nature of the fact that if those beholden to it are truly only so because of the threats and punishments they will immediately strike back against the policy the moment they believe they can get around the promised danger. Is such danger promising inherently evil? Of course not. In any environment for any number of reasons there are people who will commit atrocious acts if they think they can get away with it. That still leaves the fact that the position base takes as granted that said people do want such things, and that there will always be more like them to threaten in an endless cycle of pain and fear for all involved.

[BrokenChord]

While I find the very idea of trying to turn someone away from Evil with threats ridiculous, useless, and ridiculously counter-intuitive, I will attest that if you're in a rush to perform a far more necessary and urgent act than stopping for a few weeks to redeem a couple of thugs, and you actually have cause to believe your threat will keep them in line, then using that to stall their Evil keeps you from having to unnecessarily end potentially redeemable lives. Sure, turning them into town guards and the like is far more reliable, but that isn't always an option.

It's not as much "I'll use threats to make them Good", it's "I'll use threats to keep them from doing Evil for a short while until I can feasibly achieve a more permanent solution."

While we're on the subject, would you guys say that becoming a hermit and avoiding places where intelligent races live is grounds for dropping from a Good alignment, since you're intentionally keeping yourself at a distance where it would be impossible to learn that people need your help? (Hard to actively seek to help others if you prevent yourself from learning of their misfortunes, after all)

[Slipperychicken]

While I find the very idea of trying to turn someone away from Evil with threats ridiculous, useless, and ridiculously counter-intuitive


BoED seems to agree with you.


Holding a sword to a captured villain’s throat and shouting,
“Worship Heironeous or die!” is not a means of redemption.
Sword-point conversion might be a useful political tool, but it is
almost entirely without impact on the souls of the “converts.”
Worse, it stinks of evil, robbing the victim of the freedom to
choose and echoing the use of torture to extract the desired
behavior. True redemption is a much more difficult and
involved process, but truly virtuous characters consider the
reward worth the effort involved. The process of redemption is
described in Chapter 2: Variant Rules.

[BrokenChord]

BoED seems to agree with you.

Knowing BoED, it agreeing with me probably makes my argument less credible. :smalltongue:

[Zanos]

Holding a sword to a captured villain’s throat and shouting,
“Worship Heironeous or die!” is not a means of redemption.
Sword-point conversion might be a useful political tool, but it is
almost entirely without impact on the souls of the “converts.”
Worse, it stinks of evil, robbing the victim of the freedom to
choose and echoing the use of torture to extract the desired
behavior. True redemption is a much more difficult and
involved process, but truly virtuous characters consider the
reward worth the effort involved. The process of redemption is
described in Chapter 2: Variant Rules.

From the same book as the spell that's "Save or Become Good"? Who edited these books?

[Vrock_Summoner]

From the same book as the spell that's "Save or Become Good"? Who edited these books?

Probably the same person who decided masochism is Evil in BoVD, and probably wrote the Paladin of Slaughter code too. Yeah, most people ignore the morality of those books and cherry pick stuff. (Actually, a number of people ignore D&D morality, but eh)

The books justify those saves as how set a person is in their ways. But really... It's just "lol, have some Good-aligned Mindrape guys".

[SowZ]

Probably the same person who decided masochism is Evil in BoVD, and probably wrote the Paladin of Slaughter code too. Yeah, most people ignore the morality of those books and cherry pick stuff. (Actually, a number of people ignore D&D morality, but eh)

The books justify those saves as how set a person is in their ways. But really... It's just "lol, have some Good-aligned Mindrape guys".

That implies certain classes and stat arrangements are more set in their ways. Hehe. A high level character can be super flexible, whereas an 80 year old level 2 commoner could be the most close minded set in their ways person possible.

[Twilightwyrm]

In For a Fistful of Dollars, though, he does it so he can be big man on campus. There is no indication he is doing it to help the town or rid the world of Evil. And when his actions eventually lead to one gang killing all the families of another, he feels guilty enough to avenge them. (But not altruistic enough to interrupt the mass murder, since that would have likely ended in his own death.)

In that case, I'll have to take your word for it. I know in Yojimbo, the Samurai acts because he is disgusted at the evil actions of the gangs when the peasants inform him of their plight. He decides on this presumably because he knows he could not kill them all on his own, but willingly puts himself in harm's way, considerably outnumbered, in order to put his scheme into action. But again, different movies, so I'll assume you are correct for now.

[ericgrau]

When your life revolved around fighting, there can be a lot of moral dilemmas. You can pretty much do anything as long as there is a good reason for it. But there must be a reason, otherwise violence, cruelty and so forth is a last resort. When it's an overwhelming easy victory many adventurers may consider slaughtering some thieves commonplace, but it is in fact quite the atrocity to kill for theft.

Malice is never a good measure. Everyone thinks they're in the moral right, kind and good. No one trumpets "I am evil" on the hilltops.

Even when it's a close fight or you're on the losing side you also have to ask if it is worth it. If what you are fighting for is greater than the overall loss.

Lastly you need to ask whether or not your actions will actually accomplish what you intend. For persuasion in particular people don't always realize that others don't respond well to violence and tricks. Even if they really are in the wrong. There are also many other times that diplomacy is better and damage to others falls under unnecessary force even if it would not be an overwhelming victory.

[hamishspence]

When your life revolved around fighting, there can be a lot of moral dilemmas. You can pretty much do anything as long as there is a good reason for it. But there must be a reason, otherwise violence, cruelty and so forth is a last resort. When it's an overwhelming easy victory many adventurers may consider slaughtering some thieves commonplace, but it is in fact quite the atrocity to kill for theft.

Malice is never a good measure. Everyone thinks they're in the moral right, kind and good. No one trumpets "I am evil" on the hilltops.

Even when it's a close fight or you're on the losing side you also have to ask if it is worth it. If what you are fighting for is greater than the overall loss.

Lastly you need to ask whether or not your actions will actually accomplish what you intend. For persuasion in particular people don't always realize that others don't respond well to violence and tricks. Even if they really are in the wrong. There are also many other times that diplomacy is better and damage to others falls under unnecessary force even if it would not be an overwhelming victory.

Very well put. I got the impression that BoED was at least trying to promote something similar - where it fell down was in some of the mechanics.

[Vrock_Summoner]

That implies certain classes and stat arrangements are more set in their ways. Hehe. A high level character can be super flexible, whereas an 80 year old level 2 commoner could be the most close minded set in their ways person possible.

What? Stats and roleplay not coinciding perfectly to the detriment of player enjoyment? Preposterous! The Lawful Neutral Fighter MUST be the most open person to change because he lacks the willpower to resist, and the Chaotic Good high-level Cleric you've allied yourself with must be completely discriminatory and unwilling to try anything new or accept people unlike themselves!

Clearly. This is only just and proper in this obviously highly formal activity that you ignoramuses treat as a "social gathering". With friends? Bah!

Hey guys, check out the Will save on my character sheet... Wait, damn.