PDA

View Full Version : What alignment is 'For the greater Good'?



woodlandkammao
2015-08-13, 12:07 PM
We all know the story, BBEG is preparing WMD that will wipe country/city/demographic/percentage of population off the map. Hero confronts him, BBEG reveals that he thinks it's the right thing to do because somewhere down the line they predict that it will save/improve the lives of everyone else. It's in books, movies, games. Last time I saw it was just last week when it was Dr Doom's motive in Fant4stic (In the name of all that you hold dear, don't see it, please).

But I got thinking, is this CG, N, LN, or LE? I could make arguments for any. Doing something extremely unconventional and controversial because you think it is right? Definition of Chaotic Good. doing unspeakable acts in adherence to your moral code? Lawful evil, right there. Doing something without compassion because it must apparently be done? Lawful neutral.

I honestly can't pick one.

woodlandkammao
2015-08-13, 12:11 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dl2vHzyjtbg/VGVqJHW7zNI/AAAAAAAAJO4/BNttZXI3EfE/s1600/GreaterGood.jpg

You know, like this.

Kamai
2015-08-13, 12:32 PM
To me, this still sounds like LE or NE, depending on how it lies in relation, especially if it's off an educated guess. Good definitely does not say "It's worth sacrificing these lives", especially when using something like a WMD. If someone absolutely has to die, a good person is going to figure out who, and do it in a way to impact as few others as possible. Otherwise, they'd hit why these people are so dangerous, whether it would be expansionist policies, disarming their WMD, or ridding whatever disease was forming in their bodies.

While this could be on the very south end of neutral/north end of evil, that's only acceptable if they are sure that this killing would have the intended result. Even then, I'd expect a lot of work towards redemption that may ultimately never succeed.

Making the world a better place is outside of most Chaotic Evil personalities, with them caring just for their own. If they planned, they'd think first of how to take advantage of the chaos that's going to happen to make their lot better. I'd expect something like a partial destruction or just preparing their holdings against whatever's going to happen over solving the problem directly. All of this is what narrows it down to LE or NE for me, and I don't think I could narrow it down further.

Keltest
2015-08-13, 12:35 PM
"for the greater good" can cover any alignment. It describes a justification for behavior, not the behavior itself. A paladin choosing to thwart a necromancer raising an army to take over a nation instead of saving an orphan stuck in a burning tree is choosing the greater good (assuming the two actions are mutually exclusive for some reason). That same necromancer could be taking over the nation "for the greater good" by genuinely believing that they are the only person able to seize power who could wield it appropriately. Slaughtering the people would still be an evil act, even if the necromancer then brings the nation to prosperity.

Red Fel
2015-08-13, 12:38 PM
As others have mentioned, almost anything but Good. And it's usually Lawful, to boot.

Good is defined by what it won't do. That there are Lines One Does Not Cross. To compromise on this, to accept that there are times when it's okay to cross those lines, is to give up on moral conviction. Context does not make a wicked act noble; it's still wicked, even if you can offer justification.

Similarly, dedication to order, to structure, to that kind of ideal is more often Lawful than anything else. It's often coupled with a sense of superiority, an ideal that "Things will be better with me in charge." Even if it's for the noblest of reasons, it's tyrannical, which is generally seen as Lawful-leaning.

In short, you're looking at the LE/LN corner of the grid.

DigoDragon
2015-08-13, 12:40 PM
"for the greater good" can cover any alignment. It describes a justification for behavior, not the behavior itself.

I agree with Keltest. Most (if not all) alignments can have a 'For the the greater good' justification. A Chaotic Good character can willingly break a bunch of laws, potentially hurting bystanders, if it means catching a dangerous serial killer. It's all in the angle of the justification.

Keltest
2015-08-13, 12:43 PM
Exactly. The reason "for the greater good" is so commonly associated with evil is because its a slippery slope. It becomes very easy to start justifying worse and worse with the assumption that if everything goes according to plan, the end results will be worth it.

That chaotic good character may start actively putting civilians in harms way to catch the serial killer, for example, because its easier than the methods that would remove collateral damage. And then the character becomes a serial killer to prompt the authorities to get their act together so it doesn't take a vigilante like him to deal with it.

SMWallace
2015-08-13, 12:46 PM
The Well-Intentioned Extremist archetype is some flavor of Evil, according to the Book of Vile Darkness. Keep in mind this can actually apply just fine to a Chaotic Evil character; given that neither the attribute of Chaos nor the attribute of Evil demand being an insane baby-eater who can't think of anything outside his personal fulfillment, it's interesting that most people come to that conclusion about the combination. But yeah, pretty much any Evil.

Of course, it's not too hard to make the jump to Neutral if you change the "extremist" part of that. Sacrificing a thousand souls to save the mortal realm is Well-Intentioned Extremism, and Evil; the same applies to the people who conquer, brutalize, and oppress everybody with the goal of taking over everything and (eventually) turning the world into a peaceful utopia (once it's all, y'know, united). On the other hand, you can absolutely oppose and even kill the Good heroes who ignored or didn't trust your attempts to inform them that their current course of action will result not in the world's salvation but its destruction, and not fall to Evil for it (though it's miles better if you can manage to stop them without killing them). That's "sorry, you have to die for the greater good," but, well, they left you no choice and it was their own fault even though it actually really isn't their fault.

woodlandkammao
2015-08-13, 12:52 PM
I like this idea of CG being a slippery slope that villains start on. Actually, having just played Borderlands The Pre Sequel, it puts Handsome Jack's story into RPG definable terms

Milodiah
2015-08-13, 01:04 PM
I think the term here is "Tau".

Segev
2015-08-13, 01:07 PM
Generally speaking, CG is less characterized by breaking laws that protect people for expediency's sake, and more by breaking rules and laws and traditions when they feel the purpose behind said laws/rules/traditions is not being served by obedience to them.

It's not a CG vigilante who drives recklessly the wrong way down a one-way street through a school zone while kids are running across it to catch a bad guy. It's the CG vigilante who drives the wrong way down the empty one-way street to catch the bad guy.

(Example is pat and exaggerated to make a point. Even most LN types will break simple traffic laws when nobody would be hurt for something as important as "stopping the bad guy.")

DaedalusMkV
2015-08-13, 01:22 PM
The only thing I'll disagree with from the above is the assertion that this attitude is usually Lawful; it leans to no particular side of the Law/Chaos axis. You could just as easily have an Anarchist who believes that central authority is the source of all evil and therefore sets out to eradicate it (Chaotic Evil, likely, maybe Chaotic Neutral if restrained enough) as a dictator who believes that the only thing between their nation and absolute destruction at the hands of their neighbors is intense militarism and harsh rule of law (Lawful Evil). Being convinced you're doing the right thing is common to just about everyone, across just about every alignment. From the noble thief who steals from the cruel King to feed the poor to the horrible tyrant defending his people from an invasion by a great empire by means of impaling whole armies on stakes at his borders to the mystic who believes wholeheartedly in the perfect balance of all opposing forces, almost everyone has a good justification for what they're doing, regardless of how deluded they are about it.

Loxagn
2015-08-13, 01:28 PM
The problem is, from a psychological standpoint, there is no such thing as 'Evil'. Only the mentally ill will usually set out intending to do Evil for the sake of Evil. It is a terrifying fact that your average person can justify nearly any usually abominable act with 'the greater good'. It is justification, a foisting off of responsibility for one's own actions to ease one's own conscience, and we are rather unsettlingly good at it.

Substitute 'the greater good' for anything you like.

I was just following orders.
Think of how many lives would be saved.
I had to do something.

All of the greatest atrocities in history were committed by people who honestly, truly believed they were doing the right thing. That the 'greater good' meant that in the end, it would all be worth it. The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Holocaust... Certainly there must have been some people who participated because of some misplaced affection for unspeakable crimes against their fellow man, but by and large the worst of it was committed by 'misguided' people who believed themselves to be right.

In that way, 'For the Greater Good' is truly, in my opinion, an Evil sentiment. Intentions don't matter, only the actions themselves do, and for that reason I think justified Evil is by far the most vile variety. After all, Evil for the sake of Evil kicks puppies and steals candy from babies whilst twirling its moustache and cackling. Evil for the sake of Good goes out hoping to save a few people and winds up committing genocide along the way, never realizing that what they've done is the wrong thing.

Segev
2015-08-13, 01:46 PM
There is a form of Evil that is not "for the greater good."

"It's my RIGHT."

"I am OWED this."

"You don't matter/you are lesser than me."

These attitudes lead to evil because they are entitlement mindsets which place your minor convenience above the well-being of others. They recognize privileges of yours ahead of rights of others.

Not every Evil person is an ideologue who is justifying something as "right." Sometimes, they're just selfish jerks who don't think it matters if you suffer as long as they get what they want.

And sometimes, they really get off on your suffering. "The strong win" and "Might makes right" are variants of that core philosophy.

Brookshw
2015-08-13, 03:05 PM
I think the term here is "Tau".

I was thinking the same thing.

By default I put it to LN but by no means is that alignment the sole province of such an outlook. For the greater good presumably describes a willingness to impugne (I'm sure I misspelled that) upon the individual good, or rather you're willing to accept non-good actions if the larger repercussions are good. If that includes a willingness to inflict evil in that, well then you've tilted into evil. If you're only willing to accept certain degrees of non-good for the greater good, probably a neutral bent. The L/C alignment does not necessarily play into it but, in my mind, greater good implies a collective organizational approach far more likely and common in the lawful end of the spectrum.

Wardog
2015-08-13, 03:22 PM
"for the greater good" can cover any alignment. It describes a justification for behavior, not the behavior itself. A paladin choosing to thwart a necromancer raising an army to take over a nation instead of saving an orphan stuck in a burning tree is choosing the greater good (assuming the two actions are mutually exclusive for some reason)

Or indeed, a paladin choosing to thwart a necromancer raising an army to take over a nation, full stop. After all, thwarting the necromancer will probably involve harming him in some way, but this is considered acceptable for the greater good of stopping the harm he would cause.

Ditto for any society with compulsive laws, punishments, or use of force. Anything society other than a voluntary association of hippie pacifists will involve or require some level of doing things to people that they don't want done to them, or compelling them to do things they don't want to do, which is justified on the grounds that it serves the greater good, or makes things better overall. Just to be clear: I'm not making an anarchist argument that therefore, laws are bad. Rather, that the common claim that '"for the greater good"/"the lesser evil" is inherently evil' is a oversimplification.

Mastikator
2015-08-13, 03:50 PM
The "Greater Good" has become such a cliche that anything done in the greater good is automatically assumed to not actually be good. I think it's time to look at this more closely.

You can actually do stuff for the greater good, have good intentions and succeed without doing evil in the process. It's hard, but it's not categorically impossible. And the alternative is what, not having good intentions? How can you be good at all if you don't at least have good intentions.

Being clumsy, negligent or overzealous can certainly make your good intentions for nothing, but that's not your intentions' fault. You can be clumsy, negligent or overzealous and have selfish goals, or outright hostile goals. An overzealous selfish person is certainly worse than a overzealous good person.

The only way "the greater good" isn't a prerequisite for being good is when your definition "good" is one that is hostile to the wellbeing of everyone else. Wellbeing being as broadly defined as possible (if you think this argument is missing some nuance, assume it's included in the term "wellbeing" in a self consistent/maximally fair compromise way).

So I'm gonna disagree with everyone in this thread. Good is the only alignment that is for the greater good. If you're neutral then you're just not for the greater good by any good definition of good. And if you're evil, then game over.

Greater good = good and only good

Segev
2015-08-13, 03:52 PM
Generally speaking, the philosophy behind use of force to stop people from causing harm and punitive measures taken against miscreants is not "for the greater good." It is that those who seek to violate the rights of others give up their rights. Thieves give up their right to freedom, having abused it to steal. Batterers give up their right to be free from violence upon their person.

It isn't "for the greater good" so much as "you made your bed, now lie in it."

Millstone85
2015-08-13, 04:36 PM
I am under the impression that games using the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil axes are full of characters operating on self-avowed evil, be it "gotta rule 'em all", "nothing personal" or "your tears are delicious". This goes to the point where entire religions, civilizations and realities are officially built on such evils.

That's why I think alignment is about intentions and so-called realistic villains do not belong anywhere near LE, NE or CE.

Keltest
2015-08-13, 05:00 PM
I am under the impression that games using the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil axes are full of characters operating on self-avowed evil, be it "gotta rule 'em all", "nothing personal" or "your tears are delicious". This goes to the point where entire religions, civilizations and realities are officially built on such evils.

That's why I think alignment is about intentions and so-called realistic villains do not belong anywhere near LE, NE or CE.

As a general rule, in order to be classified as a villain (as opposed to an antagonist) you have to do something evil. Realistic villains can absolutely be evil. All that is really required is a lack of concern over the well being of others.

Amphetryon
2015-08-13, 05:12 PM
As others have mentioned, almost anything but Good. And it's usually Lawful, to boot.

Good is defined by what it won't do. That there are Lines One Does Not Cross. To compromise on this, to accept that there are times when it's okay to cross those lines, is to give up on moral conviction. Context does not make a wicked act noble; it's still wicked, even if you can offer justification.

Similarly, dedication to order, to structure, to that kind of ideal is more often Lawful than anything else. It's often coupled with a sense of superiority, an ideal that "Things will be better with me in charge." Even if it's for the noblest of reasons, it's tyrannical, which is generally seen as Lawful-leaning.

In short, you're looking at the LE/LN corner of the grid.

As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention?

Millstone85
2015-08-13, 05:31 PM
As a general rule, in order to be classified as a villain (as opposed to an antagonist) you have to do something evil. Realistic villains can absolutely be evil. All that is really required is a lack of concern over the well being of others.But as discussed in this thread, this "lack of concern over the well being of others" would realistically be justified, including to oneself, by others having it coming on account of their own offenses, or being dirt to begin with, or being a necessary sacrifice so that more others can be saved, or being out of reach, or... It becomes a debate on whether these are comforting lies or unpleasant truths.


*to Red Fel* As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention? Some would call it a dictate of the majority. Spock had it easy because he was the one in this scenario.

Keltest
2015-08-13, 06:41 PM
But as discussed in this thread, this "lack of concern over the well being of others" would realistically be justified, including to oneself, by others having it coming on account of their own offenses, or being dirt to begin with, or being a necessary sacrifice so that more others can be saved, or being out of reach, or... It becomes a debate on whether these are comforting lies or unpleasant truths.

Being justified is not the same thing as being Good. That's where the phrase "necessary evil" comes from. "Lesser of two evils" also comes to mind. You are doing something evil because the alternative would be worse.

Millstone85
2015-08-13, 07:08 PM
Being justified is not the same thing as being Good.Except it totally is. Being justified is doing what is just.


That's where the phrase "necessary evil" comes from. "Lesser of two evils" also comes to mind. You are doing something evil because the alternative would be worse.This is what happens when all alternatives are evils and you are not evil. If you were, you wouldn't care about which alternative is worse, or you would choose that one on purpose.

Red Fel
2015-08-13, 07:09 PM
As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention?

It depends. The saying suggests that it is acceptable to sacrifice the needs of the few (or the one) in favor of those of the many. "Needs" may occasionally be synonymous with "property," "health," "safety," or even "life."

Generally speaking, making a sacrifice of others is a non-Good thing to do.


Some would call it a dictate of the majority. Spock had it easy because he was the one in this scenario.

This is the exception. When the "needs of the many" quote is applied to justify one's own sacrifice, it is a noble and virtuous sacrifice. A person making such a sacrifice is the definition of selflessness - he is literally putting the needs of others before his own. That's Good.

But invert it. Say instead that the person saying this, Person A, is telling another person, Person B, why B must die for the greater good. A is not making the sacrifice; he is demanding it of B. That is a non-Good position.

When one makes a sacrifice of himself, it is generally a noble, Good act. When one makes a sacrifice of others, even if it is for the greater good, that tends to be non-Good.

Mind you, there are gray areas. For example, a commander ordering the dispatch of his soldiers on a mission on which many of them will probably die, for the protection of the country. A dispatcher sending out firefighters or emergency rescue workers into an active disaster area. These are situations in which the sacrifice is part of the job; it is a necessary aspect of what they do. But outside of these scenarios, a Good character doesn't decide to make sacrifices of others. Not their wealth, not their happiness, not their lives.

Keltest
2015-08-13, 07:14 PM
Except it totally is. Being justified is doing what is just.

This is what happens when all alternatives are evils and you are not evil. If you were, you wouldn't care about which alternative is worse, or you would choose that one on purpose.

Heres a scenario for you then. Theres is a massive threat that would destroy everyone. The nature of the threat doesn't really matter, but it can be fought if the people stop fighting each other so one of the larger powers can devote all their attention to it.

One warlord solves this problem by assembling a massive army and conquering all the nations threatened by this apocalypse. There is a massive loss of life, but the warlord does have the ability to repulse the threat by the end of his campaign. The warlord did not attempt or consider alternate means of removing any lesser threats to his army, but neither did he revel or enjoy the carnage he caused.

Is he evil? Is he Good? Why?

KillianHawkeye
2015-08-13, 07:29 PM
I'm not going to comment on the Law/Chaos axis, as that will generally be determined by other factors.

The problem with "For the Greater Good" is that it is generally used as a justification for choosing "The Lesser of Two Evils." If it really is between one Good and another Good, then that is (as they say) all well and good, but when used in the more typical sense of justifying Evil actions because they result in a Good outcome... well that's just another way of saying "The Ends Justify the Means" and D&D Good is totally against that.

The way that D&D handles it, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil. "Necessary Evil" is still Evil. You can sell your soul to the devil to save the world, but you're still going to Hell, and that's true whether it's the literal kind of soul selling or if it's done a little at a time with lesser Evil after lesser Evil.

If you're somebody that believes that Good ends justify Evil means, then you're the kind of person that's willing (whether you realize it or not) to sacrifice your own soul to save others. You're willing to become a monster in order to make the world a better place, and when your actions are revealed to the real, honest, goody-two-shoes of the world they will be appalled by what you have done regardless of how many lives have also saved or evils you have stopped.

Millstone85
2015-08-13, 07:32 PM
Heres a scenario for you then. Theres is a massive threat that would destroy everyone. The nature of the threat doesn't really matter, but it can be fought if the people stop fighting each other so one of the larger powers can devote all their attention to it.

One warlord solves this problem by assembling a massive army and conquering all the nations threatened by this apocalypse. There is a massive loss of life, but the warlord does have the ability to repulse the threat by the end of his campaign. The warlord did not attempt or consider alternate means of removing any lesser threats to his army, but neither did he revel or enjoy the carnage he caused.

Is he evil? Is he Good? Why?We were talking about alternatives and lesser evils.
You describe me a warlord who "did not attempt or consider alternate means".
Seriously?

Keltest
2015-08-13, 07:34 PM
Youre the one who claimed that anyone who actually did something for the greater good is Good (or at least not evil).

The alternative in the Warlord scenario would be for him to try something that either would not guarantee success or is outright inaction.

Red Fel
2015-08-13, 08:03 PM
As others have said, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil.

So you prevented an apocalypse. Good for you. You also directed the deaths of a lot of innocents.

Feel guilty? That's sweet. Doesn't undo the death. Saved the world? Awesome. Doesn't undo the death. New age of peace? Fantastic. It was built on the broken corpses of people who did nothing to deserve it.

The fact that something led to a good result doesn't excuse bad actions. That's the point.

Trying a third option isn't guaranteed, it's true. It could be useless. But choosing to do Evil with a high rate of success, as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of success, doesn't change the fact that you've chosen Evil. You chose it because it's expedient. Because it's easier, because it's more likely to work, because whatever - you made the choice. That's the point.

That's not to say the outcome is a bad one. Obviously, world saved from destruction, net positive. But the person who chose Evil to make this happen is an Evil person, or at the very least a decidedly non-Good person. That's not even a question.

Millstone85
2015-08-13, 08:22 PM
Trying a third option isn't guaranteed, it's true. It could be useless. But choosing to do Evil with a high rate of success, as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of success, doesn't change the fact that you've chosen Evil. You chose it because it's expedient. Because it's easier, because it's more likely to work, because whatever - you made the choice. That's the point.No, the point is that you can not choose to do good. The story must only have evil alternatives, or else it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Michael7123
2015-08-13, 08:27 PM
As others have said, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil.

So you prevented an apocalypse. Good for you. You also directed the deaths of a lot of innocents.

Feel guilty? That's sweet. Doesn't undo the death. Saved the world? Awesome. Doesn't undo the death. New age of peace? Fantastic. It was built on the broken corpses of people who did nothing to deserve it.

The fact that something led to a good result doesn't excuse bad actions. That's the point.

Trying a third option isn't guaranteed, it's true. It could be useless. But choosing to do Evil with a high rate of success, as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of success, doesn't change the fact that you've chosen Evil. You chose it because it's expedient. Because it's easier, because it's more likely to work, because whatever - you made the choice. That's the point.

That's not to say the outcome is a bad one. Obviously, world saved from destruction, net positive. But the person who chose Evil to make this happen is an Evil person, or at the very least a decidedly non-Good person. That's not even a question.

I pretty much agree with this. I would argue that the degree of the evil might make you Nuetral instead of evil (say, reanimating 2 zombies from people who died of natural causes to save the world would make you non good, whereas nuking an entire country would make you evil).

But in the end, good intentions and good methods are needed for an act to be good. If you've got good intentions while doing evil, you are still doing evil. You might be somewhat less evil, but still evil.

Red Fel
2015-08-13, 08:34 PM
No, the point is that you can not choose to do good. The story must only have evil alternatives, or else it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

If there are only Evil alternatives, full stop, a Good character has no place in the story.

It's like asking "What if a samurai from the 14th century had to take on an army of giant space robots with his own space robot?" When you point out that a samurai has no training in piloting a space robot, the response is, "He has to use the giant space robot, or else it is totally irrelevant to the discussion."

Well, he can't pilot the space robot. And if he has to pilot the space robot to win... He loses.

Same here. If the Good character cannot choose to do Good - if it is literally impossible to do Good - then he simply loses. The scenario is designed to make him lose. Full stop, do not pass go, game over, we're done here.

goto124
2015-08-13, 08:41 PM
If the character is trapped in a situation when all choices are some sort of evil...

For one thing, if the player is punished for choosing a 'lesser evil', how fun is that?

Another thing: why are all the choices some sort of evil? Why is there such a lack of choice?

Agreement with Red Fel above. Can't do good? Game over.

Something something Paladin falling something something.

Rockphed
2015-08-13, 08:52 PM
Except it totally is. Being justified is doing what is just.

No, justice is a lawful trait. The traits you want to see in Good people are mercy, kindness, and selflessness.

As somebody mentioned in another thread, when "for the greater good" is used as a justification for self sacrifice, it is a good justification. When it is used as justification for forcing other people to sacrifice, it is an evil justification.

The reason that "for the greater good" so seldom gets invoked by actually good characters is because when you are trying to explain your sacrifice rather than white-wash your crimes there tend to be more personal statements that can be made.

Millstone85
2015-08-14, 07:10 AM
Alright then, let's play this rigged game.


Theres is a massive threat that would destroy everyone. The nature of the threat doesn't really matter, but it can be fought if the people stop fighting each other so one of the larger powers can devote all their attention to it.

One warlord solves this problem by assembling a massive army and conquering all the nations threatened by this apocalypse. There is a massive loss of life, but the warlord does have the ability to repulse the threat by the end of his campaign. The warlord did not attempt or consider alternate means of removing any lesser threats to his army, but neither did he revel or enjoy the carnage he caused.

Is he evil? Is he Good? Why?
The alternative in the Warlord scenario would be for him to try something that either would not guarantee success or is outright inaction.The warlord's options are as follows:
Option 1: Inaction. This guarantees the death of all.
Option 2: Conquest. This (somehow) guarantees the survival of many.
Option 3: Diplomacy*. This gives a chance to the survival of most.**
* Or anything less than going full on steamroller on your opponents.
** But it is a gamble with the apocalypse, that may lead to the death of all.

We have to agree on the individual moral value of each option. Would inaction be evil? I think so. Would conquest be evil? Eeyup. Would the third option be evil? Er...


as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of successYeah, I think most people would judge the third option as the good, humane, morally acceptable thing to do. The price of failure is humongous but people would still say that it is worth the risk.

So there you have it. The warlord did not go into that good path. Probably out of laziness too, or perhaps it was a lack of faith in his fellow man. That makes him the bad guy of this story.

Are you happy now?

But I must insist. This warlord story has little to do with "the lesser evil". Yes, there is the evil of inaction and the possibly lesser evil of taking ruthless action, but then there is also that good third alternative. If anything, and to paraphrase James T. Kirk, the story is just here to show that you guys do not believe in the lesser-evil scenario.

So many badly written tales go like this. Oh no, moral dilemma! Such drama! But waaaiit... It is the magical third option to the rescue!

Red Fel
2015-08-14, 08:42 AM
So many badly written tales go like this. Oh no, moral dilemma! Such drama! But waaaiit... It is the magical third option to the rescue!

And some well-written tales go like that, as well.

There are also badly-written tales where the protagonist is given two choices, takes them at face value, and chooses one. Sounds riveting, to me.

The trope of taking a third option - and yes, it is a bit cliche - does two things. It shows us that a protagonist is clever, or at least smart enough to come up with an alternative, and it shows us that he is moral enough to do the right thing, or try to, even when it seems impossible to do.

The former is an awesome quality to have generally, but it's the latter that makes the point. The great literary heroes figured it out - when life gives you an orchard full of your choice of limes or lemons, cut the whole thing down and use the lumber to build a ranch. Take that, lemonade! There are never only two options, unless the author of the universe is a lazy writer. Life is not a multiple choice test, it is an essay exam, and the great heroes write about making the right choices. Even if they're hard choices. Especially if they're hard choices.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 09:19 AM
I am under the impression that games using the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil axes are full of characters operating on self-avowed evil, be it "gotta rule 'em all", "nothing personal" or "your tears are delicious". This goes to the point where entire religions, civilizations and realities are officially built on such evils.

That's why I think alignment is about intentions and so-called realistic villains do not belong anywhere near LE, NE or CE.I can agree with this.


As a general rule, in order to be classified as a villain (as opposed to an antagonist) you have to do something evil. Realistic villains can absolutely be evil. All that is really required is a lack of concern over the well being of others.

What others? Some do have a concern for the well-being of others, but are thinking not of the others YOU'RE thinking of.

That said... if a Villain's "For the Greater Good!" is something they're doing trying to provoke others into acting against them, they're by definition Evil - they're the opponents of Good (Even if they're rooting for Good to Win).

Segev
2015-08-14, 09:23 AM
As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention?


It depends. The saying suggests that it is acceptable to sacrifice the needs of the few (or the one) in favor of those of the many. "Needs" may occasionally be synonymous with "property," "health," "safety," or even "life."

Generally speaking, making a sacrifice of others is a non-Good thing to do.



This is the exception. When the "needs of the many" quote is applied to justify one's own sacrifice, it is a noble and virtuous sacrifice. A person making such a sacrifice is the definition of selflessness - he is literally putting the needs of others before his own. That's Good.

But invert it. Say instead that the person saying this, Person A, is telling another person, Person B, why B must die for the greater good. A is not making the sacrifice; he is demanding it of B. That is a non-Good position.

This is actually brillaintly played-with in two roles Leonard Nimoy played. I will spoiler-block it just in case anybody cares.

Spock's original quote, of course, is talking about how Spock has, himself, realized this aspect of charity in a logical form. Spock is "the few...or the one" who is willingly making the sacrifice to save others. It is a noble, heartbreaking act that marks him as one of the great characters and true heroes of the franchise.

In Transformers III: Dark Side of the Moon, Nimoy plays Sentinel Prime, a Prime who predates Optimus and to whom Optimus looks up. He turns out to be a traitor, working with the Decepticons, because the war is more or less over insofar as who rules goes, and all he wants now is to bring the transformer race to Earth after Cyberforming it (wiping out all of mankind in the process).

The Decpeticons are still evil, but they've won and are in charge; they and their subjects outnumber the Autobots, who are a rag-tag bunch of freedom-fighters.

Sentinel Prime, while fighting to bring the Decepticons their victory, argues that it is selfish of the freedom fighting Autobots to stand up for themselves and humanity, who are also outnumbered by the Decepticon horde that waits in some sort of stasis or something (I forget the specifics).

He utters the following line: "When will you learn, Prime, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?!"

This is the line of a horrific villain, willing to trample the rights, privileges, and lives of others in order to bring his own chosen side whatever it is they desire.

The sentiment is evil when spoken to justify "the many" in forcing "the few" to sacrifice or be sacrificed. It is noble when expressed by "the few" to explain why they would sacrifice of themselves for the greater good of others.

To frame it another way: a good society will have the beneficiaries of such a sacrifice - who happen to be the majority - horrified and hoping to prevent the sacrifice willingly made by the few. They will be heartbroken, but awed and grateful. They would more than respect it if the few were unwilling to make the sacrifice; they'd be glad the few weren't suffering and hopeful to find that "third option." If there is fighting, it is fighting on the part of the few against the many as the few attempt to make the sacrifice while the many try to prevent it.

An evil society will see the many pursuing and persecuting the few, looking desperately for them to sacrifice them for "the greater good." A "greater good" which, coincidentally, includes them. It is common for the few to be characterized by the many as bad people for wanting to live in the face of the needs of the many. But that is a characteristic of evil; nobody has a moral duty to die for others without having made some commitment to that effect of their own volition.


As others have said, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil.

So you prevented an apocalypse. Good for you. You also directed the deaths of a lot of innocents.

Feel guilty? That's sweet. Doesn't undo the death. Saved the world? Awesome. Doesn't undo the death. New age of peace? Fantastic. It was built on the broken corpses of people who did nothing to deserve it.

The fact that something led to a good result doesn't excuse bad actions. That's the point.

Trying a third option isn't guaranteed, it's true. It could be useless. But choosing to do Evil with a high rate of success, as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of success, doesn't change the fact that you've chosen Evil. You chose it because it's expedient. Because it's easier, because it's more likely to work, because whatever - you made the choice. That's the point.

That's not to say the outcome is a bad one. Obviously, world saved from destruction, net positive. But the person who chose Evil to make this happen is an Evil person, or at the very least a decidedly non-Good person. That's not even a question.

It is worth noting that a guile hero or a heroic Xanatos would probably have a plan fully in motion, poised to pull the trigger at the last second, to make whatever horrific sacrifice was needed. He would do all in his power to minimize the harm to as many as possible, up to and including sacrificing as much of his resources as he could in mitigation, but he's not willing to allow the chance that the third option fails to cause the worst-case scenario to happen.

I say "poised," however, because he is not going to do it just because it's easier or more expedient. He desperately does not wish to metaphorically (or literally) pull that trigger. He will aid the heroes in every way he can (from whatever resources he can spare from setting up and mitigating his tragic back-up option) in pursuing that third option, and hopes they will succeed. He will give them every chance he possibly can.

And, as the countdown timer reaches the final decision point, where it would genuinely be too late no matter what, he would, himself, be standing there, ready to pull the trigger (unless he literally couldn't, or having another do it would minimize damage further). Because nobody should have to bear that guilt if they don't have to. And he'd be praying to whatever powers he believed in or hoped might be listening that he would not have to do it.

But if the third option failed...he'd do it. And he might be evil for doing so, if he forced unwilling innocents to die and/or suffer in the process. But he'd be one of the most sympathetic evil characters one could write.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 09:29 AM
But if the third option failed...he'd do it. And he might be evil for doing so, if he forced unwilling innocents to die and/or suffer in the process. But he'd be one of the most sympathetic evil characters one could write.
Heimdall is Lawful Good, not Evil.


As others have said, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil.

So you prevented an apocalypse. Good for you. You also directed the deaths of a lot of innocents.

Feel guilty? That's sweet. Doesn't undo the death. Saved the world? Awesome. Doesn't undo the death. New age of peace? Fantastic. It was built on the broken corpses of people who did nothing to deserve it.

The fact that something led to a good result doesn't excuse bad actions. That's the point.

Trying a third option isn't guaranteed, it's true. It could be useless. But choosing to do Evil with a high rate of success, as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of success, doesn't change the fact that you've chosen Evil. You chose it because it's expedient. Because it's easier, because it's more likely to work, because whatever - you made the choice. That's the point.

That's not to say the outcome is a bad one. Obviously, world saved from destruction, net positive. But the person who chose Evil to make this happen is an Evil person, or at the very least a decidedly non-Good person. That's not even a question.
Still Good in the end, though. Just a blackish-grey mark on them.

"Taking the best action available" tautologically cannot result in an Evil Alignment.

Segev
2015-08-14, 09:40 AM
To be fair, one evil act performed with great reluctance and in great extremity is highly unlikely to cause your alignment to change.

The only real question is whether a paladin would fall for it. I think he probably would, which is why the paladin is leading the "third option" charge. Leave the Xanatos plan to a non-paladin. Paladins ARE sometimes foolishly idealistic, because that's their purpose: to seek for the best at all times.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 09:42 AM
To be fair, one evil act performed with great reluctance and in great extremity is highly unlikely to cause your alignment to change.

The only real question is whether a paladin would fall for it. I think he probably would, which is why the paladin is leading the "third option" charge. Leave the Xanatos plan to a non-paladin. Paladins ARE sometimes foolishly idealistic, because that's their purpose: to seek for the best at all times.
Paladin would fall. Grey Guard needs an on-the-cheap atonement.

Millstone85
2015-08-14, 09:55 AM
And some well-written tales go like that, as well.

There are also badly-written tales where the protagonist is given two choices, takes them at face value, and chooses one. Sounds riveting, to me.

The trope of taking a third option - and yes, it is a bit cliche - does two things. It shows us that a protagonist is clever, or at least smart enough to come up with an alternative, and it shows us that he is moral enough to do the right thing, or try to, even when it seems impossible to do.

The former is an awesome quality to have generally, but it's the latter that makes the point. The great literary heroes figured it out - when life gives you an orchard full of your choice of limes or lemons, cut the whole thing down and use the lumber to build a ranch. Take that, lemonade! There are never only two options, unless the author of the universe is a lazy writer. Life is not a multiple choice test, it is an essay exam, and the great heroes write about making the right choices. Even if they're hard choices. Especially if they're hard choices.So that confirms it. You do not believe lesser evils or necessary evils are even a thing. For you, good is always viable. And any fictional world so pessimistic that it assumes otherwise is not worth your time. I can respect that. You are certainly not alone. But now I am out of this thread.

Just before I go, though, I want to post something from one such pessimistic universe. Or maybe it is just a story about a deluded evil organization. Yeah, probably. The guy who did the voice even went for a nefarious tone. Anyway, I am posting it because it is cool and on-topic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z0YMJUaNrw

Segev
2015-08-14, 11:02 AM
The SCP Foundation is a largely-Neutral organization, with some Lawful leanings due to, well, being an organization without a specifically Chaotic philosophy and with some Evil leanings because they do go in for the "necessary evil/greater good" justification just a little too willingly (though held back from full-on Evil status by the fact that most of their agents really are trying to do the right thing).

They are not Lawful, because their overriding goal of collecting, categorizing, and containing SCPs is more important than even their own procedures, and they are prone to rewarding success even when achieved at the cost of their rules. Their purpose, however, is definitely not Chaotic, so they tend as a whole to lean a bit Lawful just by virtue of the default state being bureaucratic.

Satinavian
2015-08-14, 12:19 PM
If there are only Evil alternatives, full stop, a Good character has no place in the story.

It's like asking "What if a samurai from the 14th century had to take on an army of giant space robots with his own space robot?" When you point out that a samurai has no training in piloting a space robot, the response is, "He has to use the giant space robot, or else it is totally irrelevant to the discussion."

Well, he can't pilot the space robot. And if he has to pilot the space robot to win... He loses.

Same here. If the Good character cannot choose to do Good - if it is literally impossible to do Good - then he simply loses. The scenario is designed to make him lose. Full stop, do not pass go, game over, we're done here.
I strongly disagree.

The scenario was only evil options. And the question was not "Is the least evil option somehow not evil ?" but "Is someone, who chooses the least evil option, evil himself when all options are evil ?"

It is not about designing such scenarios (The opening post was about NPC antagonists and how to judge them). And it was not about winning or loosing.


Furthermore, yes, those scenarios do exist in regular roleplaying games. Usually, when the group really badly failed making the intended solution impossible. I have seen it so often in RPGs without any alignment system, that i am certain it is not linked to any "make the paladin fall" or "screw the LG char" intention.



We have this discussion only because D&D alignments only look at the action itself, not for any alternatives. Only here the question, if a character, who consistently chooses the option most benevolent and least harmul to others is somehow evil, because one of those choices option is listed in one of those many lists of evil deeds.




The trope of taking a third option - and yes, it is a bit cliche - does two things. It shows us that a protagonist is clever, or at least smart enough to come up with an alternative, and it shows us that he is moral enough to do the right thing, or try to, even when it seems impossible to do.Yes.

But if we leave stories where the author would never had put in the dilemma if he hadn't had the third solution ready and go to the gaming table where the player has to find the third option himself, often in situations those arose from play and were not planned by the GM beforehand and you will quite often have no third option that anyone at the table realizes. Especcially with a more down-to-earth-playstyle, where crazy stunts only work when they realistically would, it can be very difficult to conjure a third option out of nowhere.

Red Fel
2015-08-14, 12:32 PM
Yes.

But if we leave stories where the author would never had put in the dilemma if he hadn't had the third solution ready and go to the gaming table where the player has to find the third option himself, often in situations those arose from play and were not planned by the GM beforehand and you will quite often have no third option that anyone at the table realizes. Especcially with a more down-to-earth-playstyle, where crazy stunts only work when they realistically would, it can be very difficult to conjure a third option out of nowhere.

And here is precisely the problem.

I do expect players to come up with solutions if they're not satisfied with what's available. I also expect DMs to be receptive to alternatives with which they didn't come up.

More to the point, however, is that you're describing a situation in which a DM has created, and will only permit, Evil solutions. If a DM is receptive to options he didn't plan, it's a non-issue; you let the players roll the dice and see how successful they are. The scenario only works if the DM says, "No, your choices are Evil and Evil, that's all."

That scenario is also known as the "gotcha" scenario, or the Paladin auto-fall. I precluded that scenario from my consideration because I consider it bad DMing and regard it poorly. Where a DM only allows his players to choose between Evil and Evil, he is effectively informing them that they are no longer permitted to play Good characters. He is, deliberately or otherwise, forcing an alignment shift. I don't care for it.

I'm not saying it's wrong for a DM to offer a situation in which there are two Evils, if he is receptive to the players' alternatives. I place the burden on the players for coming up with alternatives, just like the burden is placed on the hero of a narrative. And I've read ones where the hero didn't come up with a solution in time, or came up with a solution that he later discovered was simply another lesser Evil - it's heartbreakingly beautiful when done right. I respect it. And if the PCs fail to come up with a third option, I at least give them credit for trying. But as a DM, it's not my place to guarantee the PCs success, merely to give them the opportunity to make the attempt. And if they want to die noble deaths seeking the elusive Good ending, I'll give them that chance.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 12:38 PM
If there are only Evil alternatives, full stop, a Good character has no place in the story.Not true. People don't stop existing simply because they find themselves in situations they don't like.


It's like asking "What if a samurai from the 14th century had to take on an army of giant space robots with his own space robot?" When you point out that a samurai has no training in piloting a space robot, the response is, "He has to use the giant space robot, or else it is totally irrelevant to the discussion."

Well, he can't pilot the space robot. And if he has to pilot the space robot to win... He loses.No, he gets in the ****ing Giant Space Robot and gets a crash-course training in using it. Not using the robot isn't an option because his katana and wood armor that he DOES know how to use are useless against the Giant Enemy Space Robots, so, while he may not know exactly what he's doing, his honor demands that he rise to the challenge and fight anyway.

And if that scenario you lined out does not describe any existing Anime... then the Japanese entertainment industry has truly failed.


Same here. If the Good character cannot choose to do Good - if it is literally impossible to do Good - then he simply loses. The scenario is designed to make him lose. Full stop, do not pass go, game over, we're done here.Loses what? He can't 'not play.' And the scenario may simply be something that pops up, not something that's actually/intelligently designed.

Amphetryon
2015-08-14, 12:58 PM
The sentiment is evil when spoken to justify "the many" in forcing "the few" to sacrifice or be sacrificed. It is noble when expressed by "the few" to explain why they would sacrifice of themselves for the greater good of others.

To frame it another way: a good society will have the beneficiaries of such a sacrifice - who happen to be the majority - horrified and hoping to prevent the sacrifice willingly made by the few. They will be heartbroken, but awed and grateful. They would more than respect it if the few were unwilling to make the sacrifice; they'd be glad the few weren't suffering and hopeful to find that "third option." If there is fighting, it is fighting on the part of the few against the many as the few attempt to make the sacrifice while the many try to prevent it.

An evil society will see the many pursuing and persecuting the few, looking desperately for them to sacrifice them for "the greater good." A "greater good" which, coincidentally, includes them. It is common for the few to be characterized by the many as bad people for wanting to live in the face of the needs of the many. But that is a characteristic of evil; nobody has a moral duty to die for others without having made some commitment to that effect of their own volition.
Clarifying further, with even more Star Trek (TNG this time):

So, it was Good when Spock used it to justify tricking McCoy into being complicit in his suicide (and means to eventual rebirth); it was Evil when Troi used it as the (correct) solution to her command test simulation, which she failed until she realized she needed to order (Holodeck) Geordi to his death in order to save the ship
Is that in keeping with how you're defining Good and Evil, and the Greater Good?

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-14, 12:58 PM
The problem is, from a psychological standpoint, there is no such thing as 'Evil'. Only the mentally ill will usually set out intending to do Evil for the sake of Evil. It is a terrifying fact that your average person can justify nearly any usually abominable act with 'the greater good'. It is justification, a foisting off of responsibility for one's own actions to ease one's own conscience, and we are rather unsettlingly good at it.
This statement here shows exactly why most villainous speeches are so creepy- they use concepts such as the greater good as justification for clearly evil actions- this causes us to question our own convictions and justifications. They make points just a bit short of the truth, twisted ever so slightly to their own ends.
Now, I do disagree a bit with the claim that extremists honsetly believes they're doing the right thing. They may have convinced themselves consciously, but their intentions are almost certainly a mixture of mostly less good intentions, such as predjudice against a certain group or desire for power or revenge. Just as only the mentally ill would consciously do evil for the sake of evil, only the mentally ill would truly, honestly believe that evil actions will benefit the greater good. In real life, I think that's why you more commonly see people who don't care about morals, performing evil actions out of simple selfishness rather than 'for the evulz' or 'for the greater good.'
As far as catch 22 situations, where all available options seem to be evil, I'll agree that sometimes these situations might hypothetically arise, they aren't going to be frequent. In such situations, by definition the least evil option will be the 'good' one. The problem is, most of the time, there will be an actually good option, meaning such 'gotcha' scenarios are mostly the realm of thought experiments. In such a case, the good character will try to find the best solution, but in such a forced situation, the wrong decision is (to a reasonable extent) understandable, especially if, as mentioned, they fail to make a decision in time. But, even if there is no good choice, you can count on the good guy trying to find one. It may be a plan doomed to failure, but to say they can't choose it is to misunderstand how they work.

Satinavian
2015-08-14, 01:03 PM
And here is precisely the problem.

I do expect players to come up with solutions if they're not satisfied with what's available. I also expect DMs to be receptive to alternatives with which they didn't come up.

More to the point, however, is that you're describing a situation in which a DM has created, and will only permit, Evil solutions. If a DM is receptive to options he didn't plan, it's a non-issue; you let the players roll the dice and see how successful they are. The scenario only works if the DM says, "No, your choices are Evil and Evil, that's all."


That scenario is also known as the "gotcha" scenario, or the Paladin auto-fall. I precluded that scenario from my consideration because I consider it bad DMing and regard it poorly. Where a DM only allows his players to choose between Evil and Evil, he is effectively informing them that they are no longer permitted to play Good characters. He is, deliberately or otherwise, forcing an alignment shift. I don't care for it.Gotcha-scenarios are silly. Most players i know, realize that and that is why i have not seen them in years. Playing mostly games without alignment and without paladin-rules probably help too, as GMs less often build scenarios based on alignment.

But i never said the DM was not receptive to player ideas. Lesser-Evil-scenarios as i know them from gaming don't need a DM enforcing just those two options. More often then not a DM would like the players to try a third option but that doesn't help, if no one finds one. As i said, those really bad situatoion come often from play and are usually far off from whatever the GM intended to happen.


And if they want to die noble deaths seeking the elusive Good ending, I'll give them that chance.Letting the worse of the two evil options happen doen't get better by throwing some additional lifes away. A noble sacrifice only counts if it achieves something or at least has a chance to achieve something. Otherwise it is just an action of spite and arrogance. Of course i wouzld still let players do that if they really want.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 01:36 PM
This statement here shows exactly why most villainous speeches are so creepy- they use concepts such as the greater good as justification for clearly evil actions- this causes us to question our own convictions and justifications. They make points just a bit short of the truth, twisted ever so slightly to their own ends.

Now, I do disagree a bit with the claim that extremists honsetly believes they're doing the right thing. They may have convinced themselves consciously, but their intentions are almost certainly a mixture of mostly less good intentions, such as predjudice against a certain group or desire for power or revenge. Just as only the mentally ill would consciously do evil for the sake of evil, only the mentally ill would truly, honestly believe that evil actions will benefit the greater good. In real life, I think that's why you more commonly see people who don't care about morals, performing evil actions out of simple selfishness rather than 'for the evulz' or 'for the greater good.'I think you are misusing the term "Mentally Ill" to discredit any belief structures you disagree with.

Red Fel
2015-08-14, 03:39 PM
I think you are misusing the term "Mentally Ill" to discredit any belief structures you disagree with.

Not necessarily.

Think about it this way. Take a character with a well-known moral code, like Superman or Batman. Now, remove that character. In his place, put a member of his supporting cast - say, Lois Lane, or Jim Gordon, or someone like that. This person is standing over one of his enemies - say, Lex Luthor or the Joker - with a gun, trembling, and saying, "He could never do this... But it has to be done. He would want me to do this. He would be happy that I did this."

When you look at that character - committing murder for the "greater good" - do you say to yourself, "That's the product of sound, reasoned judgment," or do you say, "Holy crap, what the heck happened to him/her that drove him/her so far?"

That's the point. When they stop and think about the character, what he stands for, his principles, they realize that committing this Evil act - for all the good it will accomplish - is the product of rage, panic, or an excited or unstable mental state. It's not the product of reason, and it's not what Good would want. The "greater good" isn't just society as a whole; it's the moral code that keeps society stable.

Yes, you could commit an act of Evil which would benefit society in the short run. But doing so would send a message that such conduct is acceptable if it can be justified. It is far easier, and far more stabilizing, to render such acts taboo altogether than to allow them under certain circumstances, given that society could start to erode as these enduring moral principles are chipped away.

Once people learn that it's possible to make exceptions, there will be people who start looking for exceptions. In my line of work, we call them loopholes.

goto124
2015-08-14, 08:11 PM
I see some elements of Lawfulness there.

Also, I think I might be mentally ill, considering that my thoughts on seeing Lois shooting a supervillain was 'Finally someone got rid of that guy who has proven himself evil yet no one was brave enough to end his life and hundreds of comic books worth of trouble! I guess that's why they kept him alive- how else will the writers make money...'

RL doesn't have the convienance of clearly evil supervillains, part of the reason killing is more morally muddy IRL. I'm not sure what I'm rambling about by now.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 08:48 PM
Not necessarily.

Think about it this way. Take a character with a well-known moral code, like Superman or Batman. Now, remove that character. In his place, put a member of his supporting cast - say, Lois Lane, or Jim Gordon, or someone like that. This person is standing over one of his enemies - say, Lex Luthor or the Joker - with a gun, trembling, and saying, "He could never do this... But it has to be done. He would want me to do this. He would be happy that I did this."

When you look at that character - committing murder for the "greater good" - do you say to yourself, "That's the product of sound, reasoned judgment," or do you say, "Holy crap, what the heck happened to him/her that drove him/her so far?"

That's the point. When they stop and think about the character, what he stands for, his principles, they realize that committing this Evil act - for all the good it will accomplish - is the product of rage, panic, or an excited or unstable mental state. It's not the product of reason, and it's not what Good would want. The "greater good" isn't just society as a whole; it's the moral code that keeps society stable.Rage, panic, excitement, and other emotions are not mental illness, though. In fact, I'd argue that the mind driven purely by reason is more likely to have some sort of mental illness.


Yes, you could commit an act of Evil which would benefit society in the short run. But doing so would send a message that such conduct is acceptable if it can be justified. It is far easier, and far more stabilizing, to render such acts taboo altogether than to allow them under certain circumstances, given that society could start to erode as these enduring moral principles are chipped away.

Once people learn that it's possible to make exceptions, there will be people who start looking for exceptions. In my line of work, we call them loopholes.This has nothing to do with Good, and is strictly Law. As far as Good is concerned, such conduct is acceptable if the circumstances and justify it. Good cares about the well-being of people in general, not the well being or stability of 'society'.

Not everything that isn't strictly Lawful Good is Chaotic Evil, or even Nongood.

goto124
2015-08-14, 09:03 PM
'Good cares about the well-being of people in general, not the well being or stability of 'society'.'

Explain please. What is the difference? It's something I've never really got.

I've never found a flavor of CG that works in the absence of stupid overly oppressive Evil people. Smart LE people can (or even tend to!) create and run societies that, while twisted, do work out at least fairly well. It makes the CG people look childish. Even worse if there're LG people.

My idea of CG is Robin Hood. He doesn't work without the evil tax collectors of Nottingham. If those Nottingham people worked more realistically, Robin Hood doesn't seem so Good.

Keltest
2015-08-14, 09:38 PM
'Good cares about the well-being of people in general, not the well being or stability of 'society'.'

Explain please. What is the difference? It's something I've never really got.

I've never found a flavor of CG that works in the absence of stupid overly oppressive Evil people. Smart LE people can (or even tend to!) create and run societies that, while twisted, do work out at least fairly well. It makes the CG people look childish. Even worse if there're LG people.

My idea of CG is Robin Hood. He doesn't work without the evil tax collectors of Nottingham. If those Nottingham people worked more realistically, Robin Hood doesn't seem so Good.

How about a CG person in Istar of the dragonlance setting during the days of the Kingpriest? Ultimately the society was "good" (though I think they have a loose definition of good), but it was not particularly pleasant if you were the latest scapegoat, or anyone not near the top of the ladder (ie a priest who obeyed the Kingpriest).

It is possible to be oppressive without being evil.

goto124
2015-08-14, 09:51 PM
Wouldn't a CG in an oppressive Good kingdom look childish stupid teenager who rebels for the sake of rebellion?

Chaos appeals to me as a concept. I don't know how to make it really work without resorting to stupid evil.

Keltest
2015-08-15, 05:29 AM
Wouldn't a CG in an oppressive Good kingdom look childish stupid teenager who rebels for the sake of rebellion?

Chaos appeals to me as a concept. I don't know how to make it really work without resorting to stupid evil.

Not necessarily. A lawful good kingdom is not necessary a particularly nice place to live if it is excessively lawful.

You know all those episodes of kids cartoons that invariably have an overzealous adult take over and try to make things so "safe" for kids that they are no longer remotely enjoyable? Imagine something like that. They aren't malicious, they generally have good intentions, and most importantly it works. The people really are safer/less violent/better provided for. Theyre just all unhappy at what they had to give up for it.

Enter Mister Chaotic Good. He isn't malicious either, but he recognizes that the people are unhappy. He doesn't bear the current system any (personal) ill will, but he thinks it needs to change.

NichG
2015-08-15, 06:54 AM
"Good", "Correct", and "Best"/"Optimal" are all different things. There's an implicit expectation that they are related in many ways - after all, generally speaking we want people to be 'good' because in most cases that's an effective heuristic to use. But when we start looking into constructed scenarios and push it to the edge, of course we can find or create situations where "Good" and "Correct" and "Best" and so on don't line up.

In terms of D&D alignment, Good is a moral code that is much more stringent about what someone should not do, not what they should do. So if the world is in danger, but a particular person somewhere doesn't manage to save it, that doesn't make them any less Good. But its definitely less 'Best' than if they had managed to save it. If the way to save the world violates the 'don't do X' precepts of Good, it would still be 'Best' to do compared to letting the world be destroyed, but that doesn't change that they'd still get dinged for violating the moral code.

Sometimes, it'd turn out better for everyone to have the Evil guy on their side than the Good guy. Not usually, because the Evil guy might well make choices that help him just a bit more in exchange for helping everyone else quite a bit less. But in contrived or constructed scenarios where only evil choices are able to be successful, then you've hunted down the exceptional cases. Similarly "For the Greater Good" can often lead to an Evil alignment, even if might actually be "Correct" and even "Optimal" in that circumstance.

PoeticDwarf
2015-08-15, 02:24 PM
I agree with Keltest. Most (if not all) alignments can have a 'For the the greater good' justification. A Chaotic Good character can willingly break a bunch of laws, potentially hurting bystanders, if it means catching a dangerous serial killer. It's all in the angle of the justification.

Sounds like my characters.

Inevitability
2015-08-15, 03:20 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dl2vHzyjtbg/VGVqJHW7zNI/AAAAAAAAJO4/BNttZXI3EfE/s1600/GreaterGood.jpg

You know, like this.

Oh, I love that movie!

But to stay on-topic, it's definitely LE. The guy you're describing is killing a lot of people, which can hardly be anything but evil in D&D alignments, unless all those people are already evil themselves (and even then, you're pushing it). However, he isn't killing people for fun, or because he feels like it, or for some selfish desire, but for a goal that isn't even Evil by itself. I have trouble seeing this as anything but LE.

Dienekes
2015-08-15, 08:06 PM
Not necessarily.

Think about it this way. Take a character with a well-known moral code, like Superman or Batman. Now, remove that character. In his place, put a member of his supporting cast - say, Lois Lane, or Jim Gordon, or someone like that. This person is standing over one of his enemies - say, Lex Luthor or the Joker - with a gun, trembling, and saying, "He could never do this... But it has to be done. He would want me to do this. He would be happy that I did this."

When you look at that character - committing murder for the "greater good" - do you say to yourself, "That's the product of sound, reasoned judgment," or do you say, "Holy crap, what the heck happened to him/her that drove him/her so far?"

That's the point. When they stop and think about the character, what he stands for, his principles, they realize that committing this Evil act - for all the good it will accomplish - is the product of rage, panic, or an excited or unstable mental state. It's not the product of reason, and it's not what Good would want. The "greater good" isn't just society as a whole; it's the moral code that keeps society stable.

Yes, you could commit an act of Evil which would benefit society in the short run. But doing so would send a message that such conduct is acceptable if it can be justified. It is far easier, and far more stabilizing, to render such acts taboo altogether than to allow them under certain circumstances, given that society could start to erode as these enduring moral principles are chipped away.

Once people learn that it's possible to make exceptions, there will be people who start looking for exceptions. In my line of work, we call them loopholes.

Hold on now. Many people, including myself, would say that if I had The Mother****ing Joker at gunpoint I would shoot and I wouldn't feel a pang of guilt. This character has killed thousands and proven able to break out of every prison known to man. I am not mentally ill, as far as I know. Nor have I been driven to this conclusion through horrors. If this causes others to call me evil, oh well.

Lord Raziere
2015-08-15, 09:28 PM
Hold on now. Many people, including myself, would say that if I had The Mother****ing Joker at gunpoint I would shoot and I wouldn't feel a pang of guilt. This character has killed thousands and proven able to break out of every prison known to man. I am not mentally ill, as far as I know. Not have I been driven to this conclusion through horrors. If this calls others to call me evil, oh well.

Yeah, the only reason Batman doesn't is because he is already very crazy himself and doesn't want to go over the edge. Me, on the other hand, well....he has proven repeatedly that no amount of redemption or treating his illness is going to work. Just as some tyrants need to be overthrown, Joker is just one of those crazy dangerous sickos that needs to be shot. good thing no one as cartoonishly evil as the Joker exists in this world!

Hawkstar
2015-08-16, 09:01 PM
'Good cares about the well-being of people in general, not the well being or stability of 'society'.'

Explain please. What is the difference? It's something I've never really got.The guys in the picture above care about the well-being and stability of society.

GungHo
2015-08-17, 10:51 AM
Clarifying further, with even more Star Trek (TNG this time):

So, it was Good when Spock used it to justify tricking McCoy into being complicit in his suicide (and means to eventual rebirth); it was Evil when Troi used it as the (correct) solution to her command test simulation, which she failed until she realized she needed to order (Holodeck) Geordi to his death in order to save the ship
Is that in keeping with how you're defining Good and Evil, and the Greater Good?

Beyond goofy stuff like Dukat becoming a parody of Anton LaVey, Star Trek doesn't have objective evil, so while the Spock example is a good metaphor to a D&D scenario, it's a metaphor only. The TNG example is not really a parable about having to choose between good or evil. It's about understanding what it means to become management. I'm not saying we can have our cake and eat it too. I am saying, though, that looking for consistent messages out of Trek that don't fly in the face of each other can bring you a lot of hardship, because it was under the control of a lot of different people, all of whom had different soapboxes and anvils. This doesn't just extend to individual series. They weren't even consistent between episodes at times.

TheOOB
2015-08-17, 05:15 PM
Alignment in D&D has little to do with intention and everything to do with action. Remember that alignment is objective, not subjective, a holy smite spell isn't going to ask you to justify your actions, if you're evil it burns you. Period. Someone who performs evil actions on a regular basis is evil, even if they are genuinely working twords good ends. Chaotic characters are more likely to violate their moral or ethical code to do something to achieve a goal, but even a chaotic good person avoids doing evil whenever possible.

As a general rule, if someone is willing to harm innocents they are evil, if they are willing to take risks or make sacrifices to help innocents they are good. Neutral isn't usually willing to do either. Also, evil alignments tend to overrule good alignments.

NichG
2015-08-17, 06:19 PM
Beyond goofy stuff like Dukat becoming a parody of Anton LaVey, Star Trek doesn't have objective evil, so while the Spock example is a good metaphor to a D&D scenario, it's a metaphor only. The TNG example is not really a parable about having to choose between good or evil. It's about understanding what it means to become management. I'm not saying we can have our cake and eat it too. I am saying, though, that looking for consistent messages out of Trek that don't fly in the face of each other can bring you a lot of hardship, because it was under the control of a lot of different people, all of whom had different soapboxes and anvils. This doesn't just extend to individual series. They weren't even consistent between episodes at times.

Also, if we're talking about D&D morality, even something that was about morality and depicted a consistent take on its own moral framework would still be very unlikely to be consistent with D&D morality.

D+1
2015-08-17, 06:19 PM
We all know the story, BBEG is preparing WMD that will wipe country/city/demographic/percentage of population off the map. Hero confronts him, BBEG reveals that he thinks it's the right thing to do because somewhere down the line they predict that it will save/improve the lives of everyone else.
There's your initial trouble - you're not setting objective points of comparison for the character. THE BAD GUY says it's the right thing to do. What does that tell you? It tells me he's almost certainly wrong in his assessment - or in his presentation of justifications to your PC. Just because he SAID it's the right thing to do doesn't mean it is - and he's the last person you should be accepting as any kind of authority on what's good, bad, or indifferent. Those are things YOU should know going in. By even considering his arguments you're placing YOUR OWN morality assessments in the position of doubt - NOT HIS. Maybe you as a PC don't have your own moral and ethical ducks in a row. But it sounds like your characters own morality is already screaming at you, "Don't listen to this guy!" But you are listening. If you had a better handle on your own morality then you'd be able to dismiss his argument out of hand as being based on faulty reasoning.


Doing something extremely unconventional and controversial because you think it is right? Definition of Chaotic Good.
WHOSE definition? That's rather important. The definitions you're using are clearly insufficient if you can't differentiate between alignments concerning decidedly non-subtle actions.

doing unspeakable acts in adherence to your moral code? Lawful evil, right there. Doing something without compassion because it must apparently be done? Lawful neutral.
For example - these statements are contradicting the previous statement. In the first of the three you're saying the act is only unconventional and controversial. In the second you describe it instead as unspeakable. In the third it's described only as "being without compassion". You can't pick one because you haven't even described the act itself sufficiently or consistently. Your definitions are lacking.

Doing definitively non-good things (deliberate slaughter of innocents) to achieve a so-called greater good is, in fact, a lie. Doing non-good things is NON-good. Your ultimate goal is not relevant to that and certainly no justification whatsoever for your acts. The ends does not justify the means. Chaotic good is RIGHT OUT and IMO should never have even been a possibility under consideration.

It's not a matter of "being without compassion" to slaughter thousands, tens- or hundreds-of thousands. You don't slaughter innocents en masse with the idea that you're doing this for the good of all and think that you only have to feel bad about doing it to make it justifiable. Killing innocents by the metric arse-load is, in obvious fact, evil. Neutral anything is right out.

The only one of those three possibilities that makes the first bit of sense is Lawful Evil. Lawful because you believe that there is a certain order and structure to the universe and failure to follow that will have unwanted consequences. Evil because you don't give a %*@# about who you have to kill to keep that order - to avert those consequences.

Whenever you have good and evil alignments both qualifying for the same thing then you've outrageously messed up somewhere. You've failed to grasp what it means to do good. Failed to differentiate between actual good and mere expedience. Failed to properly describe the actions in question or to set up your alignment definitions with an idea of what it is you're actually trying to use alignment for. Whatever it is - something, someone, somewhere in the equation is dead wrong.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

Hawkstar
2015-08-18, 07:57 AM
Alignment in D&D has little to do with intention and everything to do with action. Remember that alignment is objective, not subjective, a holy smite spell isn't going to ask you to justify your actions, if you're evil it burns you. Period. Someone who performs evil actions on a regular basis is evil, even if they are genuinely working twords good ends. Chaotic characters are more likely to violate their moral or ethical code to do something to achieve a goal, but even a chaotic good person avoids doing evil whenever possible.

As a general rule, if someone is willing to harm innocents they are evil, if they are willing to take risks or make sacrifices to help innocents they are good. Neutral isn't usually willing to do either. Also, evil alignments tend to overrule good alignments.
Wrong on all counts, aside from "Alignment is objective". That doesn't make it action-based. Alignment is who you are and what you believe more than merely 'what you do'. A holy smite spell doesn't ask you to justify your actions, because it doesn't know your actions - It ALREADY knows his intentions.

And no, Evil does NOT overrule Good. And your 'general rule' fails to account for the extremely common case of people willing to harm innocents while/and taking risks and making sacrifices to help innocents.

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-18, 10:23 AM
Perhaps my earlier statements were a bit unclear... when I say only the mentally ill would honestly believe an evil act to be good, I mean like mass murder of innocents, not killing a single menace to society. There are plenty of actions which are difficult to figure out whether it's a good choice or a bad one, and you can't blame someone for their choice in such matters- I'm talking about ones that are obviously evil. Further, as I said, I really don't think most well intentioned extremists honestly believe they're doing the right thing- they may consciously have convinced themselves to think otherwise, but their core motivations are almost certainly tainted by pride, greed, prejudice, and other evil intentions, masked even to themselves. My point, then, was not that anyone who doesn't believe the same way I do is mentally ill, but that the 'for the greater good' person the OP asked about is almost certainly going to have ulterior motives, even if they don't realize it.
EDIT: D+1 expressed my views on this topic very well.

Mr. Mask
2015-08-18, 10:30 AM
I think Falcon has it right.

Many of the genocides carried out in history were carried out for good, as far as the perpetrators believed. Severely wrong and evil, yes, but not necessarily legally insane (that is, not responsible for their own actions). However, deep down, such people probably realized they were doing evil and lying to themselves when they said they were doing good.

Segev
2015-08-18, 10:43 AM
My point, then, was not that anyone who doesn't believe the same way I do is mentally ill, but that the 'for the greater good' person the OP asked about is almost certainly going to have ulterior motives, even if they don't realize it.

This is part of why we associate having any personal gain from performing a good action with tainting that action. In reality, it doesn't; just because the soldier gets paid to serve his country doesn't diminish his heroism nor patriotism in choosing that as the means of earning his upkeep. One can benefit from activities which were motivated wholly by noble desires (and heck, "I want to support myself and not be a burden on society" is, itself, a noble aspiration).

However, the "for the greater good" doer of vile deeds is usually betrayed by this very thing: unspoken is the fact that he happens to be one of the beneficiaries of this "greater good," and will possibly even be one of those most benefitted by it. Whether it's a material or political gain by being the one who has taken the position to perform this "necessary" activity, or he'll be the primary distributor of whatever "greater good" is generated, or even just an emotional/spiritual boon of pride knowing that he is that great and will be known (for good or ill) for it... His motives are not pure.

And this is demonstrated in that he actively rejects other options, no matter the cost/benefit/risk ratios, when they do not benefit him as much. It can sometimes be hard to positively identify: he will justify his rejections as those other options being "too risky" or "not working" or "impossible for us to do." But if you recognize that he cannot get what he seems to personally gain from his own horrible "necessity," you can identify his true motive.

One who is acting "for the greater good" and is not actually trying to disguise his evil is horribly pained by what he is going to do, and is desperately eager to hear alternatives. He will gladly take on greater costs to himself - whether reputational or material - if he can do so without jeopardizing the greater good, and he will very clearly hope he can find ways to do so. He will, far from wanting to go down in infamy, hope that his deed is never attributed to him, for it shames him so much. Or, if he believes confession is good for the soul, or that his confession is a pennance he must do, he will write it apologetically, begging forgiveness or at least trying to downplay any honor or glory.

Those who are acting "for the greater good" but really are in it for the wrong reasons will resist alternatives. They will speak of their actions as if the very fact that they know they're performing "necessary evil" is a noble sacrifice on their part. They will dismiss most additional or greater costs to themselves as pointless, because theirs is the only viable solution and there's no point in foolishly punishing themselves for doing what's necessary. Their confession, if they make one, will be vainglorious in its proclamation of the necessity and its demand for understanding or at least veneration. If they recognize that they'll be seen as evil, they'll seek to be seen as the greatest evil possible.

They may hide their shameful deed, but if they do so, it will be to protect reputation, rather than to metaphorically pull the rocks of the earth down upon them that the sight of God may not find them. They will seek to blame others, rather than to fade into obscurity. If confronted, they'll justify, rather than apologize.

And again, most importantly (so much so it bears repeating), they'll reject or resist alternatives, because their pride and probably their plans for personal gain are wrapped up in what they've already committed to.

Wardog
2015-08-18, 11:53 AM
Alignment in D&D has little to do with intention and everything to do with action.

Is there a source for that? Because I frequently see people claim that, and I frequently see people claim the exact opposite.

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-18, 12:32 PM
Oh, woah, suddenly people started agreeing with me! I've never had that happen on the internet before!

TheOOB
2015-08-18, 01:50 PM
Is there a source for that? Because I frequently see people claim that, and I frequently see people claim the exact opposite.

It's a logical extrapolation for the information we have. You have to ask yourself "what is alignment", and the only concrete answer the book gives us is that is that it's an indicator of how supernatural effects affect you. Aside from class prerequisites(which have been getting lessened by the edition, and are almost universally supernatural), alignment only has an effect when magic gets involve, when someone casts unholy blight or detect evil, when you need to see what effects the abyss has on you, and so on. These effects work and seem to have no care for someones philosophy or justification, there is no arguing with them, you are either evil, or you are not, you are either lawful, or you or not. Thus alignment in standard D&D settings is objective. It's not something to debate, it simply is.

Since alignment is objective, that means personal philosophy doesn't and in fact can't matter. Intentions can matter to a point, but ultimately it will have to be your actions that determine your alignment. Someone who performs evil acts is evil. Someone who performs chaotic acts is chaotic, and so on.

Red Fel
2015-08-18, 02:03 PM
It's a logical extrapolation for the information we have. You have to ask yourself "what is alignment", and the only concrete answer the book gives us is that is that it's an indicator of how supernatural effects affect you. Aside from class prerequisites(which have been getting lessened by the edition, and are almost universally supernatural), alignment only has an effect when magic gets involve, when someone casts unholy blight or detect evil, when you need to see what effects the abyss has on you, and so on. These effects work and seem to have no care for someones philosophy or justification, there is no arguing with them, you are either evil, or you are not, you are either lawful, or you or not. Thus alignment in standard D&D settings is objective. It's not something to debate, it simply is.

Since alignment is objective, that means personal philosophy doesn't and in fact can't matter. Intentions can matter to a point, but ultimately it will have to be your actions that determine your alignment. Someone who performs evil acts is evil. Someone who performs chaotic acts is chaotic, and so on.

This. Books have explicitly stated "this is a Good act," "this is an Evil act," and so forth. In fact, certain things explicitly require it - for example, in D&D, becoming a Lich requires "an act of unspeakable evil."

These statements don't really care how you feel, or what you think. The act is what matters. The act is the only truly objectively measurable thing. Other elements may be weighed, but the act itself is fairly outcome-determinative.

hamishspence
2015-08-18, 02:10 PM
That said, it's far more common in the case of Evil than Good.

Keltest
2015-08-18, 02:14 PM
That said, it's far more common in the case of Evil than Good.

Indeed. I would say that Evil is a set of actions while Good is a state of being.

hamishspence
2015-08-18, 02:16 PM
Aside from a very few paladin variants, very few classes are penalised for Good acts alone, anyway. Even Vile feats and PRCs generally don't come with "you lose this if you ever commit a Good act."

Red Fel
2015-08-18, 02:29 PM
Indeed. I would say that Evil is a set of actions while Good is a state of being.


Aside from a very few paladin variants, very few classes are penalised for Good acts alone, anyway. Even Vile feats and PRCs generally don't come with "you lose this if you ever commit a Good act."

This is also true. Evil almost has to be able to occasionally perform Good acts, in order to be less of a caricature. I've often given illustrations of the Evil character who performs Good acts for articulable Evil purposes.

It's why I've generally said that Good is about acts (e.g. what you can or cannot do, lines that cannot be crossed, etc.), while Evil is about intentions (e.g. why you're doing what you're doing). It's a bit of a blanket oversimplification, but it comports reasonably well with an objective alignment standard. If you perform Evil acts, it's hard to claim you're still Good; if you perform Good acts, you'd better be able to point to something sinister in order to maintain your Evil alignment.

Amphetryon
2015-08-18, 02:36 PM
It's why I've generally said that Good is about acts (e.g. what you can or cannot do, lines that cannot be crossed, etc.), while Evil is about intentions (e.g. why you're doing what you're doing). It's a bit of a blanket oversimplification, but it comports reasonably well with an objective alignment standard. If you perform Evil acts, it's hard to claim you're still Good; if you perform Good acts, you'd better be able to point to something sinister in order to maintain your Evil alignment.
This interacts in weird ways, IMO, with another axiom I've seen you use: Evil is proactive; Good is reactive. (I may be paraphrasing).

Segev
2015-08-18, 02:38 PM
This interacts in weird ways, IMO, with another axiom I've seen you use: Evil is proactive; Good is reactive. (I may be paraphrasing).

That axiom is mostly true in narrative works. The heroes are sitting around, minding their own business, when the bad guys suddenly do something villainous and the heroes have to go out and thwart them.

Amphetryon
2015-08-18, 02:43 PM
That axiom is mostly true in narrative works. The heroes are sitting around, minding their own business, when the bad guys suddenly do something villainous and the heroes have to go out and thwart them.

I made no statement questioning the validity of the axiom, so. . . .

Red Fel
2015-08-18, 02:49 PM
This interacts in weird ways, IMO, with another axiom I've seen you use: Evil is proactive; Good is reactive. (I may be paraphrasing).

That axiom is mostly true in narrative works. The heroes are sitting around, minding their own business, when the bad guys suddenly do something villainous and the heroes have to go out and thwart them.

Yeah. When I say "Good is about actions, Evil is about intentions," I'm applying it specifically to TTRPGs with an objective morality system. There's a reason for that: I find the objective morality system of TTRPGs stupid and simplistic.

The morality of a character in a non-objective morality system (such as most good narratives, and many TTRPGs) is complex, dynamic, and nuanced. There are lots of moving parts in play, many plates spinning, many balls in the air. It's complicated, but in a good way.

As a result, outside of an objective morality TTRPG, Good and Evil are about more than just acts. A Good character can do the Wrong Thing for the Right Reasons, or the Right Thing for the Wrong Reasons, and still be Good. Same with Evil. While Good will certainly have certain lines it won't cross, that won't necessarily keep it from crossing other lines or having other vices. And in those cases, the "Evil is proactive, Good is reactive" axiom is a more accurate distinction. When Good and Evil average towards grey somewhere in the middle, the distinction between protagonist and antagonist is who motivates the plot, and who is motivated by the plot.

That said, they're not mutually exclusive. Saying that Good is defined by its actions doesn't preclude Good's actions from being in reaction to Evil's actions. Saying that Evil is defined by its intentions doesn't bar Evil from acting in a proactive way in furtherance of its goals.

Aedilred
2015-08-18, 05:59 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dl2vHzyjtbg/VGVqJHW7zNI/AAAAAAAAJO4/BNttZXI3EfE/s1600/GreaterGood.jpg

You know, like this.

In that specific instance, either LE or NE. An argument could be made for non-Lawfulness because they're going about their business without regard to and indeed actively impeding the normal law enforcement procedures. On the other hand, they have a pretty clear (if insane) code, and given who they ultimately report to, they clearly consider themselves the "real" law.

D+1
2015-08-18, 07:47 PM
Evil almost has to be able to occasionally perform Good acts, in order to be less of a caricature. I've often given illustrations of the Evil character who performs Good acts for articulable Evil purposes.
Hitler liked children, was kind to dogs, painted, laughed, and was one of the most EVIL, vile, unspeakable human beings since homo sapiens began walking erect. I'm sure people had a fine time at dinner at Berchtesgaden as long as there was no talk of politics or eugenics. Evil doesn't have to be RELENTLESSLY evil - just repeatedly and consistently evil. Just as good doesn't have to be without sin to be good - just repeatedly and consistently good. Good people can still do something questionable, even bad (non-evil...).

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-18, 11:45 PM
Indeed, I think even the D&D alignment system has room for such flexibility- if I remember correctly, there's not much info on how alignments change, so it's really only common interpretation that a single evil act immediately turns you evil. Being Good isn't just about doing the right thing, it's about making up for it when you don't.

hamishspence
2015-08-19, 12:03 AM
The DMG 3.5 mentioned the general rules for alignment change - and then told us that there are exceptions.

Older editions sometimes provided examples of acts for which "The DM is justified in instituting an immediate alignment change" (I think in 2e the example given was burning down a village (to contain a disease outbreak).

SpectralDerp
2015-08-19, 12:30 AM
No alignment is 'For the greater Good', but I can see characters of any alignment use "It's for the greater good" as a justification for their actions.

hamishspence
2015-08-19, 12:59 AM
Chaotic Evil would be a bit exceptional - but maybe V in the V for Vendetta comic could argue that his actions toward Evey are "for the greater good of the upcoming revolution" (changing her into the kind of person needed).

Spore
2015-08-19, 06:17 AM
I hate invoking Godwin's law but this sounds like social darwinism to me. You know, like the nazis did. So I think LE is very fitting. It's systemic removal of people you feel are not good for society. Now one could argue that law does the same thing. But imprisoning criminals and killing entire parts of the population are different things.

Gamgee
2015-08-19, 06:42 AM
Uh it could be any alignment, but I would expect NG, N, and NE to be the most common to employ it. Not necessarily in that order. Anyone aligned to any of the other alignments simply has too much spaying them to a particular disposition and type of actions to really qualify as for the greater good.

The greater good is emphasizes as putting the happiness of the majority above the happiness of the few. So let's break this down by society types.

LG = Since a LG society places its happiness in being lawful and good the GG action would be putting the lawfulness and goodness of the majority first. So you might have to sacrifice some laws that punish the wicked for the greater good that more law abiding citizens are not punished and more willing to up hold the law.
NG = In a NG society everyone tries to be fair, balanced, and give everyone a shot. So whatever makes that particular NG society happy is what the greater good would uphold.
CG = CG society would sacrifice strict laws for more personal and individual freedom for its citizens.

Ect. Ect.

So depending on what society the individual is in from good to evil would then infulence what his final alignment is. I mean he could be a NG working in LG society and putting the happiness of others before laws in general.

Edit
I disagree that the greater good is cliche and automatically seen as evil actions. Mordin Solus ME 2 and 3.

Hawkstar
2015-08-19, 07:31 AM
It's a logical extrapolation for the information we have. You have to ask yourself "what is alignment", and the only concrete answer the book gives us is that is that it's an indicator of how supernatural effects affect you. Aside from class prerequisites(which have been getting lessened by the edition, and are almost universally supernatural), alignment only has an effect when magic gets involve, when someone casts unholy blight or detect evil, when you need to see what effects the abyss has on you, and so on. These effects work and seem to have no care for someones philosophy or justification, there is no arguing with them, you are either evil, or you are not, you are either lawful, or you or not. Thus alignment in standard D&D settings is objective. It's not something to debate, it simply is.Or you can actually just read the PHB, which tells you what Alignment is. In the AD&D and earlier editions, Alignments were determined/defined as a character's beliefs and attitudes. 3rd Edition merely took out the word 'believe', but left them as a character's values instead of pattern of behavior. In 4e, they're still patterns of beliefs and values, not actions. Only in 5e are they a pattern of actions, and even then, it's the pattern essentially, "Where should I put my money on betting how this guy will behave". In all 5 editions of D&D, alignment is part of a character, not an action.


Since alignment is objective, that means personal philosophy doesn't and in fact can't matter. Intentions can matter to a point, but ultimately it will have to be your actions that determine your alignment. Someone who performs evil acts is evil. Someone who performs chaotic acts is chaotic, and so on.This is a complete nonsequitur. Philosophy DOES matter - not in the "Oh, if he thought it was right, then it's right", but instead "Your philosophical leanings/beliefs and how you implement them into your life determines your alignment". Someone who's belief is "Kicking puppies is Fun, Wholesome, and Healthy" is Evil. Likewise, someone who only kills in Self-defense, but overly-enjoys and looks forward to doing so is Evil as well. This is how BDSM is Objectively Evil in D&D 3e, even though a lot of people are like "Wait, what?!" about it (And if you argue, you're wrong. We're dealing with objective morality in a fantasy world, not real-world morality).


This. Books have explicitly stated "this is a Good act," "this is an Evil act," and so forth. In fact, certain things explicitly require it - for example, in D&D, becoming a Lich requires "an act of unspeakable evil."

These statements don't really care how you feel, or what you think. The act is what matters. The act is the only truly objectively measurable thing. Other elements may be weighed, but the act itself is fairly outcome-determinative.Other statements elsewhere, such as the alignment definitions in editions 1-4, don't even mention actions at all. In fact, every edition but 5th emphasizes the mindset and beliefs over anything else.
I hate invoking Godwin's law but this sounds like social darwinism to me. You know, like the nazis did. So I think LE is very fitting. It's systemic removal of people you feel are not good for society. Now one could argue that law does the same thing. But imprisoning criminals and killing entire parts of the population are different things.
Not really.

But what ARE different things are "killing people because they engage in monstrous actions" and "Killing people because they're mothers are ugly and dress them funny".

goto124
2015-08-19, 08:46 AM
Someone who's belief is "Kicking puppies is Fun, Wholesome, and Healthy" is Evil. Likewise, someone who only kills in Self-defense, but overly-enjoys and looks forward to doing so is Evil as well. This is how BDSM is Objectively Evil in D&D 3e, even though a lot of people are like "Wait, what?!" about it (And if you argue, you're wrong. We're dealing with objective morality in a fantasy world, not real-world morality).

Though, it probably started from looking at Fantastic BDSM (as opposed to Realistic BDSM) in the first place.

That, or (I'm guessing, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the line of reasoning was 'hitting people to cause pain is wrong, even if both parties enjoy it'.

Hawkstar
2015-08-19, 08:48 AM
Though, it probably started from looking at Fantastic BDSM (as opposed to Realistic BDSM) in the first place.

That, or (I'm guessing, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the line of reasoning was 'hitting people to cause pain is wrong, even if both parties enjoy it'.

Probably along with a helping of "There is no way anyone who enjoys having that amount of power over someone else can be Non-evil!"

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-19, 10:51 AM
Uh it could be any alignment, but I would expect NG, N, and NE to be the most common to employ it. Not necessarily in that order. Anyone aligned to any of the other alignments simply has too much spaying them to a particular disposition and type of actions to really qualify as for the greater good.

The greater good is emphasizes as putting the happiness of the majority above the happiness of the few. So let's break this down by society types.

LG = Since a LG society places its happiness in being lawful and good the GG action would be putting the lawfulness and goodness of the majority first. So you might have to sacrifice some laws that punish the wicked for the greater good that more law abiding citizens are not punished and more willing to up hold the law.
NG = In a NG society everyone tries to be fair, balanced, and give everyone a shot. So whatever makes that particular NG society happy is what the greater good would uphold.
CG = CG society would sacrifice strict laws for more personal and individual freedom for its citizens.

Ect. Ect.

So depending on what society the individual is in from good to evil would then infulence what his final alignment is. I mean he could be a NG working in LG society and putting the happiness of others before laws in general.

Edit
I disagree that the greater good is cliche and automatically seen as evil actions. Mordin Solus ME 2 and 3.

I think what the OP meant by 'for the greater good,' or at least what we've interpreted it as, is specifically when it's used to justify atrocities like burning down villages, not things as small as having more lax or strict laws. By the definition you mention, you're absolutely right, we can pretty much expect good aligned characters to perform such actions for the greater good- the point of contest is a lot further down the radicalism scale, towards things good characters would much more than cringe at.

Hawkstar
2015-08-19, 11:11 AM
What is the definition o "innocent person"? If someone supports and profits from an abhorrent/evil system, are they truly innocent?

SpectralDerp
2015-08-20, 03:26 AM
What is the definition o "innocent person"? If someone supports and profits from an abhorrent/evil system, are they truly innocent?

Knowingly, by choice, in the presence of other options?

Malifice
2015-08-20, 03:56 AM
Doing something extremely unconventional and controversial because you think it is right? Definition of Chaotic Good. doing unspeakable acts in adherence to your moral code? Lawful evil, right there. Doing something without compassion because it must apparently be done? Lawful neutral.

I honestly can't pick one.

It doesnt matter if you subjectively think it's right and good - its whether it is objectively good and right.

Hard for us to gauge as (philosophical objections aside) there is no such thing as 'objective good and evil' in the real world.

In DnD there is no such philosophical or epistemological problems. Good and Evil objectively exist in and of themselves.

I would argue (Godwins law warning, but this could be an exception) that Hitler argued he was acting in for the greater good of Germany by invading Poland for 'living space', invading Russia (pre-emptive strike on communists whom desired the destruction of the west) and even the holocaust.

My take on it (and this was as a DM re alignment violations) is doing the lesser evil to stop a greater evil is still willingly performing an evil act. Paladin falls etc. Genocide on a village of 'evil' Orcs might very well ensure the prosperity of a neighboring town of 'good' humans, but it is still an act of outright evil. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Noble (subjective) intentions, evil (objective) actions = evil.

goto124
2015-08-20, 03:59 AM
'doing the lesser evil to stop a greater evil is still willingly performing an evil act. Paladin falls etc.'

If the player of the paladin argues that all other options are unfeasible/impossible/not fun for the game/etc, what will you do?

Paladin falling in such situations can sour gaming relationships fast.

Keltest
2015-08-20, 04:23 AM
'doing the lesser evil to stop a greater evil is still willingly performing an evil act. Paladin falls etc.'

If the player of the paladin argues that all other options are unfeasible/impossible/not fun for the game/etc, what will you do?

Paladin falling in such situations can sour gaming relationships fast.

In a game, its pretty disrespectful to put a player in that situation without some very heavy telegraphing that theyre making bad calls that will lead to bad things down the road. Out of a game though, that kind of situation can happen. And the gods might understand and make your Atonement quest fairly easy because of it. Or they might not. It depends on what you did and how much room you had to avoid it before you did it.

Hawkstar
2015-08-20, 07:10 AM
Knowingly, by choice, in the presence of other options?Knowingly, yes at least on some level (Such as knowledge of the system's wrongdoing, presence, and your connection to it.). By choice, as well (Even if it's just a "Support Our Troops!" banner for a citizen of the Evil Empire). And there are always options, even if the price is your life anyway. You might not be evil, but you are not innocent.


My take on it (and this was as a DM re alignment violations) is doing the lesser evil to stop a greater evil is still willingly performing an evil act. Paladin falls etc. Genocide on a village of 'evil' Orcs might very well ensure the prosperity of a neighboring town of 'good' humans, but it is still an act of outright evil. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Except the Orcs are Cultists of Gruumsh, an objectively Evil deity, and so it's an objectively Good act to wipe them out (Unless the orcs AREN'T worshipers of Gruumsh or another Evil deity)

Alignment is a Cosmic War. It is, by definition, not Evil for a Good person to kill an Evil person, because, by having an Alignment, they're choosen to become soldiers in that war, and forsaken their 'innocence'. And even Neutral people killing Evil people is a Non-Evil act, because you're fighting against Evil (But not necessarily for Good).

hamishspence
2015-08-20, 08:10 AM
Depends on the D&D author.

The Eberron writers said "Evil characters don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers" and even (in the case of the average Evil commoner) "A paladin is obliged to protect these people".

If killing an Evil person can be convincingly demonstrated to be Murder, then it becomes Evil. Good implies "respect for life" - and it is possible for the killing of an Evil being to be so "disrespectful of life" as to be Evil, and Murder, itself.

goto124
2015-08-20, 09:14 AM
The Eberron writers said "Evil characters don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers"

Eberron? I think that's because Evil covers more than just the Evulz people, extending to people who do evil out of necessity.

I'm no expert, so someone else chip in please.

Hawkstar
2015-08-20, 09:18 AM
Yeah. Eberron screwed up alignment by assuming that 1-in-3 city commoners were evil.

Are we also supposed to assume that 2 out of every 3 bandits are Nonevil, and a full 33% of bandits in a bandit slaver ring, and 33% of crazy doomsday cultists are Good?

I think Keith Baker forgot that cultists, bandits, mobsters, Nazi-alikes, and other types of mooks/henchmen common to pulp stories are people too.

hamishspence
2015-08-20, 09:40 AM
Fiendish Codex 2 suggested that in some cities, 90% of the population were Lawful Evil at the time of death.

1 in 3 is only the average - in some cases it will be more, in some, less.

The message of Eberron was "Evil NPCs are still people too".

Keltest
2015-08-20, 10:06 AM
A general rule of thumb is that if your only justification for attacking someone is that they pinged on a detect evil spell, what you are doing is evil. Good will generally not follow any sort of path that involves elimination of opposition before they get a chance to do anything wrong.

goto124
2015-08-20, 11:18 AM
What is the purpose of Detect Evil? To look for demons in disguise? To watch out for signs of evil that might otherwise be missed or waved off as 'guy's acting as herself'?

Cazero
2015-08-20, 12:22 PM
Yeah. Eberron screwed up alignment by assuming that 1-in-3 city commoners were evil.

Are we also supposed to assume that 2 out of every 3 bandits are Nonevil, and a full 33% of bandits in a bandit slaver ring, and 33% of crazy doomsday cultists are Good?

I think Keith Baker forgot that cultists, bandits, mobsters, Nazi-alikes, and other types of mooks/henchmen common to pulp stories are people too.

The 33% thing is on the global population, not each subgroup. Some group are definitely all evil, and it won't change a darn thing about how the average commoner ping on detect evil because those groups are not big enough.
Slaver ring bandits and doomsday crazy cultists are probably less than 1% of the population. All evil here, almost no impact on the numbers.
And even if every single school bully is evil, it doesn't cause problem with the numbers. Seriously. Was half your school made of bullies?

Hawkstar
2015-08-20, 06:42 PM
The 33% thing is on the global population, not each subgroup. Some group are definitely all evil, and it won't change a darn thing about how the average commoner ping on detect evil because those groups are not big enough.But those subgroups are plentiful enough to make up 33% of the population in a fantasy world.


Slaver ring bandits and doomsday crazy cultists are probably less than 1% of the population. All evil here, almost no impact on the numbers.
And even if every single school bully is evil, it doesn't cause problem with the numbers. Seriously. Was half your school made of bullies?
Maybe in the real world, but we're talking fantasy worlds here. and you're just proving my point with your second one. No, half my school wasn't bullies - but that's because I'm in Gondor, or Rohan, which are overwhelmingly Good or Neutral... but you can bet your sweet hat that 99% of the Uruk-Hai over in neighboring Isengard, and 99% of the orcs of Mordor also nearby are evil.

and even by the Shire and all its good little hobbits, and the Neutral Bree... they have to deal with the neighboring, evil Barrow men.

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-20, 08:15 PM
The Detect evil spell lets you know who not to trust. Evil doesn't necessarily mean they have done or will do things worthy of death, just that they act out of malevalent intentions. There are many evil acts which don't warrant a death penalty, and to outright kill someone, let alone an entire civilization, because they are evil, is not Good. Good is about protecting the innocent, much more than punishing the wicked- the latter is all about preventing future threats, and as Captain America will tell you, there's only so far you can go that way before you become the problem yourself.

Cazero
2015-08-21, 05:50 AM
But those subgroups are plentiful enough to make up 33% of the population in a fantasy world.

Where did you got that number? It can't possibly be true.
Isn't it more likely that we simply never hear about the Good people only doing Good stuff, nor from the minor Evils doing minor Evil stuff?
There is no adventure in 'Alice the humble farmer lives decently with her loving family, gives some of her savings to charity and volunteers for community work'. There is nothing more than a random encounter in 'Bob the street thug wants your money' or 'Charlie the conman cheats at poker', and the typical fantasy hero will stomp it so hard that's it's not worth inserting in the story. There is an obvious plot hook in 'Damian the crime lord is killing innocent for his protection racket and the local autorithies can't stop it'.

You also forgot about the non-Evil aligned subgroups, like paladin orders, monasteries and druidic circles. And those groups don't need to trick recruits into burning their possessions, murdering a relative or having a death wish. Are you going to assume that 2 out of 3 paladins are non-Good, 2 out of 3 monks are non-Lawful and 2 out of 3 Druids are non-Neutral in Eberon?
Are you going to assume there are enough paladins to make up 33% of the population, like you do of major criminals and doom cultists? In that case, how can cities still exist with 33% of the population hunting Evil-doers and another 33% hiding their crimes from the world? Let's put the last 33% communing with the wilderness for good measure, so nobody even live in cities anymore.

It doesn't matter how big they are or how many different ones exist, Evil organisation you face in RPGs can't possibly make up more than 5% of the global population, wich leaves plenty of room for lesser crimes and Evils too minor to bother make a law against it.


Maybe in the real world, but we're talking fantasy worlds here. and you're just proving my point with your second one. No, half my school wasn't bullies - but that's because I'm in Gondor, or Rohan, which are overwhelmingly Good or Neutral... but you can bet your sweet hat that 99% of the Uruk-Hai over in neighboring Isengard, and 99% of the orcs of Mordor also nearby are evil.

and even by the Shire and all its good little hobbits, and the Neutral Bree... they have to deal with the neighboring, evil Barrow men.

One. There never was any statistics about human crime rate in the Lord of the Rings. 'Gondor and Rohan were mostly Good or Neutral' is a debatable opinion since even the dumbest Evil thug can think that orc eating him is bad and enlist in Gondor's army. But that's a moot point because :

Two. Eberon is not Middle-Earth. Every fantasy world are not alike, especially in crime rate. A more greyish morality world will have a mostly Neutral population with a few Evil people eager to rise to the top, while yer ole' D&D Paladin Adventure Land will only feature a few non-good commoners who aren't criminals.

Designing a world to use the full extent of the alignement spectrum rather than saying 'meh, commoners don't matter enough to ping anything and who cares about them anyway' is a design intent and nothing more.

prufock
2015-08-21, 06:27 AM
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
We can eliminate Good, since killing hundreds or thousands of people to prevent some "predicted" greater evil can't be said to be a position that respects life. It's also potentially not Neutral, since killing thousands may include sacrifices to help others; however, if he has no personal stake in those being sacrificed, it could still be Neutral.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
If he's pursuing these machinations behind the scenes, it's hardly trustworthy, though it may fit a twisted honor system, and he could still be following orders. As far as chaos goes, it may be reckless and irresponsible, but it depends on how the character would act in the aftermath.

In my opinion, the most likely to the least likely would be:
NE
CE
LE
CN
TN
LN
CG
NG
LG

Hawkstar
2015-08-21, 07:39 AM
Where did you got that number? It can't possibly be true.Why not? As for the answer... The Greyhawk and Faerun Gazetteers, a bunch of Adventure Paths, and DMG's encounter design guidelines.



Isn't it more likely that we simply never hear about the Good people only doing Good stuff, nor from the minor Evils doing minor Evil stuff?
There is no adventure in 'Alice the humble farmer lives decently with her loving family, gives some of her savings to charity and volunteers for community work'. There is nothing more than a random encounter in 'Bob the street thug wants your money' or 'Charlie the conman cheats at poker', and the typical fantasy hero will stomp it so hard that's it's not worth inserting in the story. There is an obvious plot hook in 'Damian the crime lord is killing innocent for his protection racket and the local autorithies can't stop it'.And, if you look at the numbers, Damian the crime lord's forces are a significant chunk of the population.... in a nonevil city. In the Forgotten Realms, Bane alone (Who is the enemy of everyone) has enough followers (Who are all Evil) that the entirety of the Realms cannot effectively stand against him.


You also forgot about the non-Evil aligned subgroups, like paladin orders, monasteries and druidic circles. And those groups don't need to trick recruits into burning their possessions, murdering a relative or having a death wish. Are you going to assume that 2 out of 3 paladins are non-Good, 2 out of 3 monks are non-Lawful and 2 out of 3 Druids are non-Neutral in Eberon?
Are you going to assume there are enough paladins to make up 33% of the population, like you do of major criminals and doom cultists? In that case, how can cities still exist with 33% of the population hunting Evil-doers and another 33% hiding their crimes from the world? Let's put the last 33% communing with the wilderness for good measure, so nobody even live in cities anymore. Good-aligned faithful DO make up a full 33% of the population. Cities exist because the two 33%'s are completely mutually exclusive - for every 99% Good shining beacon of a city, you have a 99% Evil hellhole of a city. And the Evil alignments aren't 'tricking' people into burning their posessions, murdering relatives, or having death wishes, because the Evil people are doing that willingly.

[quote]It doesn't matter how big they are or how many different ones exist, Evil organisation you face in RPGs can't possibly make up more than 5% of the global population, wich leaves plenty of room for lesser crimes and Evils too minor to bother make a law against it.Yes they can, and they do. AND THEIR EXISTANCE IS COSMICALLY ENFORCED!.


One. There never was any statistics about human crime rate in the Lord of the Rings. 'Gondor and Rohan were mostly Good or Neutral' is a debatable opinion since even the dumbest Evil thug can think that orc eating him is bad and enlist in Gondor's army. But that's a moot point because :There are very few Evil Thugs in Gondor. You said so yourself, and it forms the very backbone of your argument. The problem is you're trying to apply Gondor's alignment demographics to Mordor.


Two. Eberon is not Middle-Earth. Every fantasy world are not alike, especially in crime rate. A more greyish morality world will have a mostly Neutral population with a few Evil people eager to rise to the top, while yer ole' D&D Paladin Adventure Land will only feature a few non-good commoners who aren't criminals.And Evil people willing to serve as Mooks for the evil people trying to climb to the top.


Designing a world to use the full extent of the alignement spectrum rather than saying 'meh, commoners don't matter enough to ping anything and who cares about them anyway' is a design intent and nothing more.Diluting alignment to get neutral people to ping as Evil is not using the full extent of the alignment spectrum.


We can eliminate Good, since killing hundreds or thousands of people to prevent some "predicted" greater evil can't be said to be a position that respects life. It's also potentially not Neutral, since killing thousands may include sacrifices to help others; however, if he has no personal stake in those being sacrificed, it could still be Neutral.Respecting life does not preclude taking or ending it in any meaningful way, as all farmers demonstrate every day of their lives.


If he's pursuing these machinations behind the scenes, it's hardly trustworthy, though it may fit a twisted honor system, and he could still be following orders. As far as chaos goes, it may be reckless and irresponsible, but it depends on how the character would act in the aftermath.

In my opinion, the most likely to the least likely would be:
NE
CE
LE
CN
TN
LN
CG
NG
LG

I'd say LE is most likely, because, as someone else pointed out, "I must do this or else X" states a belief in causality to the universe, the strongest of Lawful principals.

prufock
2015-08-21, 08:20 AM
Respecting life does not preclude taking or ending it in any meaningful way, as all farmers demonstrate every day of their lives.
Why do you assume farmers are Good as opposed to Neutral?


I'd say LE is most likely, because, as someone else pointed out, "I must do this or else X" states a belief in causality to the universe, the strongest of Lawful principals.
Accepting that causes have effects isn't indicative of a Lawful alignment. Anarchic creatures (or deluded philosophers) might deny that, but it doesn't make one Lawful any more than the law that "stuff happens."

hamishspence
2015-08-21, 09:37 AM
Diluting alignment to get neutral people to ping as Evil is not using the full extent of the alignment spectrum.

In 2nd ed, Evil people did not always ping as evil - because that wasn't the way the Detect Evil spell worked.

3rd ed changed the way the spell worked - without changing the basic demographics of worlds like Greyhawk and Faerun.

So - evil people that didn't ping before (because they weren't actually planning anything in particular when you met them) ping now - yet it's still the same D&D setting.

DMG's encounter guidelines state that 50% of random PC-classed NPCs that you meet will be Evil. However, it says nothing about the far more commonly encountered (in communities) commoners, warriors, adepts, aristocrats, etc - only those NPCs that are fighters, rogues, and so forth.

Malifice
2015-08-22, 01:44 AM
'doing the lesser evil to stop a greater evil is still willingly performing an evil act. Paladin falls etc.'

If the player of the paladin argues that all other options are unfeasible/impossible/not fun for the game/etc, what will you do?

Make him fall. There is always another option. Willfully committing an evil act is evil.

I dont want to get into the whole Paladin argument again, and Im not suggesting being a douche about it. My example was pretty clear cut (engaging in genocide on a villiage of Orcs to ensure the safety of a nearby LG town). Thats an intentional act of evil (like when Anakin killed the sand people). Other solutions to the problem (barring genocide) exist.

If the Paladin rides into the orc villiage to negotiate a truce and to seek to resolve the issue and is attacked. then hack away If he rides in to save captured villiagers, or leads a military unit to engage the agressive tribes warriors in battle when negotiations break down then cool.

Rolling nerve gas into the joint, poisoning the wells, salting the crops, and razing the place to the ground (while effective) is fighting evil with an intentional act of evil. While a valid tactic for a LE or even possibly a LN character, your LG character should be constantly seeking to resolve the issue without resorting to barbarism, mayhem and murder.


What is the purpose of Detect Evil? To look for demons in disguise? To watch out for signs of evil that might otherwise be missed or waved off as 'guy's acting as herself'?

If your paladin is walking into pubs, detecting evil (and there will be evil people in there) and then running them through, we have bigger issues!

Thats, you know... murder. Being 'evil' isnt a crime (it's not even a reliable indication that the person is criminally inclined -detect chaos would be a better tool for that job). It just means the guy is amoral, selfish, lacks empathy, or is prepared to 'do what it takes' to save his family, earn a living, get ahead in the world, or fulfill his base desires or what have you.

Hawkstar
2015-08-22, 07:37 AM
If your paladin is walking into pubs, detecting evil (and there will be evil people in there) and then running them through, we have bigger issues!

Thats, you know... murder. Being 'evil' isnt a crime (it's not even a reliable indication that the person is criminally inclined -detect chaos would be a better tool for that job). It just means the guy is amoral, selfish, lacks empathy, or is prepared to 'do what it takes' to save his family, earn a living, get ahead in the world, or fulfill his base desires or what have you.

Yeah... At this point, you're not committing an Evil act, but you are violating the Lawful Good aspect of the Lawful Good alignment... because only you can know you are a paladin, and, even though the qualifications for Evil mark them as "He needs killin'" on a moral/Good angle (Even if only a Cosmic Good angle), it deteriorates the trust of innocents. Of course, you can still be Good and commit evil acts - otherwise, every person with any amount of responsibility at all would be Neutral at best.

Satinavian
2015-08-22, 09:35 AM
What is the definition o "innocent person"? If someone supports and profits from an abhorrent/evil system, are they truly innocent?
Yes, they can.
Otherwise you could justify all those post-revolution purges and or revolutionary terror, where the former upper class gets put against the wall. As long as Pol Pot and company count as some of the worst villians of history, people similar to their victoms get to retain label innocent, if they do anything evil beyond supporting and profiting from or just living a normal life in their own society.


Yeah... At this point, you're not committing an Evil act, but you are violating the Lawful Good aspect of the Lawful Good alignment... because only you can know you are a paladin, and, even though the qualifications for Evil mark them as "He needs killin'" on a moral/Good angle (Even if only a Cosmic Good angle), it deteriorates the trust of innocents. Of course, you can still be Good and commit evil acts - otherwise, every person with any amount of responsibility at all would be Neutral at best.But pinging evil doesn't mean "needs killing". Such a behavior would not only result in a Paladin-fall (i don't exactly like the Paladin rules) but indeed might warrant a alignment shift to evil. Especcially if done without remorse or repeatedly.

hamishspence
2015-08-22, 11:55 AM
I'd say that even the "agents of cosmic good" (angels and the like) are not going to assume that all Evil beings "need killing". Indeed, there's organisations out there (the Regulators from Epic Handbook spring to mind) that include both celestials and fiends.

Hawkstar
2015-08-22, 03:19 PM
Yes, they can.
Otherwise you could justify all those post-revolution purges and or revolutionary terror, where the former upper class gets put against the wall. As long as Pol Pot and company count as some of the worst villians of history, people similar to their victoms get to retain label innocent, if they do anything evil beyond supporting and profiting from or just living a normal life in their own society.Doesn't justify the post-revolution purge, no, because at that point the system is gone... but it does justify targeting these people during the revolution itself. Of course, it's generally more pragmatic AND better for your own side to divert their resources toward your own side, or away from theirs in a manner that costs less than an attack would.


But pinging evil doesn't mean "needs killing". Such a behavior would not only result in a Paladin-fall (i don't exactly like the Paladin rules) but indeed might warrant a alignment shift to evil. Especially if done without remorse or repeatedly.Can't warrant an alignment shift to Evil any more than killing Nazis in WWII can turn an American GI into a Nazi Stormtrooper themselves (Not someone as bad as a Nazi Stormtrooper - an actual Goose-stepping, Swastika-wearing, Hitler-serving Nazi). We are talking about a cosmic war here. Even then... actually managing to Ping evil requires that the person be so horrible that the best thing to do with them is take them out before someone innocent gets hurt.


I'd say that even the "agents of cosmic good" (angels and the like) are not going to assume that all Evil beings "need killing". Indeed, there's organisations out there (the Regulators from Epic Handbook spring to mind) that include both celestials and fiends.The Regulators put the cosmic war between Law and Chaos above that of Good and Evil.


Thats, you know... murder. Being 'evil' isnt a crime (it's not even a reliable indication that the person is criminally inclined -detect chaos would be a better tool for that job). It just means the guy is amoral, selfish, lacks empathy, or is prepared to 'do what it takes' to save his family, earn a living, get ahead in the world, or fulfill his base desires or what have you.Good doesn't care about whether it's a 'crime' or not. Being Evil is a horrible moral offense. And the traits you describe all define Neutral/Unaligned, not Evil. Evil requires being immoral s opposed to merely amoral, caring about hurting others instead of merely caring about taking care of himself, or using the methods that hurt the most people other than themselves/few they care about to 'get ahead' as is pragmatic to avoid endangering themselves. And for these kind of people, Good says "Take them out before someone innocent or on our side gets hurt by them."

hamishspence
2015-08-22, 03:35 PM
Pathfinder's version makes more sense to me:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

Keltest
2015-08-22, 04:07 PM
Doesn't justify the post-revolution purge, no, because at that point the system is gone... but it does justify targeting these people during the revolution itself. Of course, it's generally more pragmatic AND better for your own side to divert their resources toward your own side, or away from theirs in a manner that costs less than an attack would.

Can't warrant an alignment shift to Evil any more than killing Nazis in WWII can turn an American GI into a Nazi Stormtrooper themselves (Not someone as bad as a Nazi Stormtrooper - an actual Goose-stepping, Swastika-wearing, Hitler-serving Nazi). We are talking about a cosmic war here. Even then... actually managing to Ping evil requires that the person be so horrible that the best thing to do with them is take them out before someone innocent gets hurt.

The Regulators put the cosmic war between Law and Chaos above that of Good and Evil.

Good doesn't care about whether it's a 'crime' or not. Being Evil is a horrible moral offense. And the traits you describe all define Neutral/Unaligned, not Evil. Evil requires being immoral s opposed to merely amoral, caring about hurting others instead of merely caring about taking care of himself, or using the methods that hurt the most people other than themselves/few they care about to 'get ahead' as is pragmatic to avoid endangering themselves. And for these kind of people, Good says "Take them out before someone innocent or on our side gets hurt by them."

Evil acts done to evil beings are still evil. A tribe of orcs that goes to war against other orcs isn't good because its killing evil orcs.

Good has standards, and unprovoked murder violates those standards, no matter who the victim is. That doesn't mean Good isn't perfectly willing to look on the bright side of those evil actions, but theyre still evil.

hamishspence
2015-08-22, 04:20 PM
Of course, it's mostly later works (2e, 3e, Pathfinder) that have moved away from the early paradigm of "cosmic warfare between Evil and Good in which everything evil is Fair Game".

In 1st ed splatbooks, it was a bit different. But also, Detect Alignment spells were a bit different as well.

Keltest
2015-08-22, 04:36 PM
Of course, it's mostly later works (2e, 3e, Pathfinder) that have moved away from the early paradigm of "cosmic warfare between Evil and Good in which everything evil is Fair Game".

In 1st ed splatbooks, it was a bit different. But also, Detect Alignment spells were a bit different as well.

Im not sure id call 2e a "later work." :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2015-08-22, 04:39 PM
I was thinking more of later works within the 2e era - Planescape and the like - in which the "cosmic war between Good and Evil" is downplayed, and there are plenty of redeemed fiends.

Satinavian
2015-08-22, 04:39 PM
Doesn't justify the post-revolution purge, no, because at that point the system is gone... but it does justify targeting these people during the revolution itself. Of course, it's generally more pragmatic AND better for your own side to divert their resources toward your own side, or away from theirs in a manner that costs less than an attack would.If they count as innocent victoms after the revolution, they also count as innocent during the revolution. Killing them is evil.

Can't warrant an alignment shift to Evil any more than killing Nazis in WWII can turn an American GI into a Nazi Stormtrooper themselves (Not someone as bad as a Nazi Stormtrooper - an actual Goose-stepping, Swastika-wearing, Hitler-serving Nazi). We are talking about a cosmic war here. Even then... actually managing to Ping evil requires that the person be so horrible that the best thing to do with them is take them out before someone innocent gets hurt.If American GIs had killed German civillians explicitely for having somehow benefitted from the regime, yes, that would have been evil and not different at all to many of the crimes of the Nazi troops (which were 'justified' in similar manner) . But they didn't which is the reason for remembering them as the good guys of this war.

Good doesn't care about whether it's a 'crime' or not. And murdering people for some petty reason it an evil deed itself. Usually seen as worse than torture or slavery. Doesn't matter, if it is also a crime, in the cosmic, objective D&D-morality system, killing people for no better reason than being evil itself is a prrime example of evil activity and people doing so should be classified as evil.


And the traits you describe all define Neutral/Unaligned, not Evil. Evil requires being immoral s opposed to merely amoral, caring about hurting others instead of merely caring about taking care of himself, or using the methods that hurt the most people other than themselves/few they care about to 'get ahead' as is pragmatic to avoid endangering themselves. And for these kind of people, Good says "Take them out before someone innocent or on our side gets hurt by them."Not true.

hamishspence
2015-08-22, 04:49 PM
in the cosmic, objective D&D-morality system, killing people for no better reason than being evil itself is a prrime example of evil activity and people doing so should be classified as evil.


Now, yes - if you take a similar approach to BoED, Eberron, Pathfinder, etc.

In older editions, it was different.

1986: Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (AD&D 1st ed):

page 69: A brief history of underground cultures:

Then came the great Alignment Wars. These were actually all a part of a single great conflict that spanned centuries, with occasional truces that lasted a few decades. The Alignment Wars were characterized by great interracial cooperation and intraracial combat The sides were not determined by race, but by alignment. Thus, elves, dwarves, and man of good alignment united to fight elves, dwarves, and men of evil alignment. The wars extended to the seas, where the flourishing race of kuo-toa chose to align with the forces of evil and fight against the marine creatures of good.

Over the centuries, the forces of good slowly drove back their evil foes. Hatred and slaughter prevailed as evil creatures were slain solely on the basis of their alignment. Great battles were fought, and eventually the remnants of the forces of evil had to acknowledge complete defeat. Bitterly, these survivors sought shelter underground and prepared for a final battle. The drow elves and gray dwarves (or duergar) moved underground in great numbers. The skills they had developed through centuries of warfare helped them overcome the prior inhabitants of the underground.

Likewise, the kuo-toa moved under the surfaces of the seas and into subterranean waterways to escape the genocide of the Alignment Wars. Tired of the unceasing conflict, the victors abandoned their pursuit of the vanquished. Soon, the grand alliance faded, and once again new sources of evil appeared on the surface. Today, little evidence remains that the forces of good once held sway over the entire surface world.

Gideon Falcon
2015-08-22, 05:00 PM
immoral[/i] s opposed to merely amoral, caring about hurting others instead of merely caring about taking care of himself, or using the methods that hurt the most people other than themselves/few they care about to 'get ahead' as is pragmatic to avoid endangering themselves. And for these kind of people, Good says "Take them out before someone innocent or on our side gets hurt by them."

May we say it once again- Evil does not mean murderer. It means liar, cheat, jerk, many bad th ings, but there is a lot of room before we get to the worst people. You can't just walk into a pub and kill all the jerks and horrible people, that would be an Evil act. And no, it's nowhere near the same as killing Nazis in WWII, as the guys in the pub are not trying to kill you first.
So yes, being Evil is morally reprehensible, but it does not automatically qualify you as worthy of Death. A Good person kills when there's no other way to stop a murderer nonlethally. That's why the death penalty is so controversial, because it's so hard to tell for sure when that's what's absolutely necessary.

Hawkstar
2015-08-22, 05:35 PM
If they count as innocent victoms after the revolution, they also count as innocent during the revolution. Killing them is evil.No, they don't. This doesn't follow at all.


If American GIs had killed German civillians explicitely for having somehow benefitted from the regime, yes, that would have been evil and not different at all to many of the crimes of the Nazi troops (which were 'justified' in similar manner) . But they didn't which is the reason for remembering them as the good guys of this war.Actually... throughout WWII, the Allied forces DID bomb, destroy, and kill german civilians because they were providing material for the German war effort. It wasn't soldiers working those factories and living in those cities.


And murdering people for some petty reason it an evil deed itself. Usually seen as worse than torture or slavery. Doesn't matter, if it is also a crime, in the cosmic, objective D&D-morality system, killing people for no better reason than being evil itself is a prrime example of evil activity and people doing so should be classified as evil.Being Evil is not some "Petty Reason". It is a serious moral offense. (Or rather, a foolproof indicator of serious moral offense)


Not true.
Yes it is.



May we say it once again- Evil does not mean murderer. It means liar, cheat, jerk, many bad th ings, but there is a lot of room before we get to the worst people. You can't just walk into a pub and kill all the jerks and horrible people, that would be an Evil act. And no, it's nowhere near the same as killing Nazis in WWII, as the guys in the pub are not trying to kill you first.
So yes, being Evil is morally reprehensible, but it does not automatically qualify you as worthy of Death. A Good person kills when there's no other way to stop a murderer nonlethally. That's why the death penalty is so controversial, because it's so hard to tell for sure when that's what's absolutely necessary.We are dealing with an objective morality system here, not your relative morality system.

... dammit. I really need to find Gygax's quote on Lawful Good.


But to answer the question in the title, the alignment is "Renegade".

hamishspence
2015-08-22, 05:39 PM
You can have an "objective morality system" where Evil and Good alignments are fairly "dilute" while still being recognizable - and it doesn't have to become a relative morality system merely because of the dilution (dilute only from a 1st ed perspective).

Satinavian
2015-08-23, 01:16 AM
Actually... throughout WWII, the Allied forces DID bomb, destroy, and kill german civilians because they were providing material for the German war effort. It wasn't soldiers working those factories and living in those cities.Exactly. The bombing campaign was to harm the war industry, not to punish the German civillians for being part of a Nazi culture. That is why the infamous bombing of Dresden is nowadays considered excessive and wrong. It is still pretty minor compared to Nazi crimes, but you would be hard pressed to find some participant being proud of this particular raid.

We are dealing with an objective morality system here, not your relative morality system.Which is why i can say : You are wrong. Such murder is defined as EVIL in the rulebooks beyond maybe the most archaic relics. And because objective morality there is not much more to argue about.


Now, yes - if you take a similar approach to BoED, Eberron, Pathfinder, etc.

In older editions, it was different.It has been that way for many decades now. Only in the beginning, when the wargaming roots were far more obvious and Good and Evil was nothing but a fancy way to do Red and Blue instead of anything remotely resembling morality, you had alignment wars and alignment languages and all this baggage. That is long gone and none of the well-known campaign settings uses those ideas. Because it really hurts versimilitude to have all evil beings work together just because evil and to promote evil only for the sake of doing so. Pretty much no villian trope works this way which means most of the common plot arcs could not be done in such a world. Also, Red and Blue is so different from what players would naturally understand as good and evil that it hurts again versimilitude and bring in a lot of unneccessary awkwardness trying to justify such a morality system. D&D has long moved on.

Hawkstar
2015-08-23, 02:49 AM
Exactly. The bombing campaign was to harm the war industry, not to punish the German civillians for being part of a Nazi culture. That is why the infamous bombing of Dresden is nowadays considered excessive and wrong. It is still pretty minor compared to Nazi crimes, but you would be hard pressed to find some participant being proud of this particular raid.The killing of Evil people isn't to punish Evil People for being Evil, either - it's to harm and reduce the influence and number of Evil people in the Material Plane, weakening Evil's grip on the world.


Which is why i can say : You are wrong. Such murder is defined as EVIL in the rulebooks beyond maybe the most archaic relics. And because objective morality there is not much more to argue about.Only in Eberron.

hamishspence
2015-08-23, 02:59 AM
And Pathfinder. And Faerun. And some "generic 3rd ed D&D works" (Heroes of Horror) suggest that "killing beings purely for being evil-aligned" will get you jailed in most communities. BoED also says that declaring war on an orc community "purely for being evil" is evil itself.

From Drow of the Underdark:

(p187)

Good aligned PCs do not have to take part in drow society, but just as they do not (or should not) kill every NPC in their town who has an evil alignment, they will find that trying to clean out a drow city is a bad idea.

Hawkstar
2015-08-23, 03:05 AM
And Pathfinder. And Faerun. And some "generic 3rd ed D&D works" (Heroes of Horror) suggest that "killing beings purely for being evil-aligned" will get you jailed in most communities. BoED also says that declaring war on an orc community "purely for being evil" is evil itself.The reason why declaring war on Orcs for being Evil in D&D is because War is Hell. You are marching Good and Neutral people to their deaths upon the blades of orcs. And yes, killing people for being evil-aligned will get you jailed. While it's not an evil act, it IS highly disruptive to society, which relies on Evil people just as much as good ones. There is a reason Neutrality is often heralded as the 'best' alignment, morally speaking.


From Drow of the Underdark:

(p187)

Good aligned PCs do not have to take part in drow society, but just as they do not (or should not) kill every NPC in their town who has an evil alignment, they will find that trying to clean out a drow city is a bad idea.That says nothing about the morality of cleaning out the town - only that it's a bad idea (And a VERY good way to end up in the Upper Planes early with only 2 HD to your name)

Also - without a way to prove to others that the people you're killing are evil, it destroys trust and increases fear and suspicion from the common folk, which is Evil. After all, any guy can buy a suit of shiny armor, stride into a tavern, declare that he's a paladin, and then stab a random dude after declaring him 'evil', with no way to verify and of those 'facts'.

hamishspence
2015-08-23, 03:09 AM
If you've been found guilty of murder for doing it, then a case could be made that the court has just identified the evil act you've committed. With FC2 and BoVD providing the "murder is an evil act" evidence.

Now, how much overlap there is between "the definition of murder that most communities use" and "the definition of murder that the forces that define the cosmos use" may vary.

There is a reason Neutrality is often heralded as the 'best' alignment, morally speaking.



Neutral alignments are each labelled "the best alignment" in PHB - but so are Good alignments - so that's not very relevant.

Satinavian
2015-08-23, 06:26 AM
The reason why declaring war on Orcs for being Evil in D&D is because War is Hell. You are marching Good and Neutral people to their deaths upon the blades of orcs. And yes, killing people for being evil-aligned will get you jailed. While it's not an evil act, it IS highly disruptive to society, which relies on Evil people just as much as good ones. There is a reason Neutrality is often heralded as the 'best' alignment, morally speaking. Killing evil people is in fact not less evil than killing neutral or good people. Either the killing is morally justified (many possibilities for that including most cases of war and/or defense) or it is not.
Otherwise you are in the territory of "the life of some people is worth a lot, the life of other people is worth less than nothing", which can only be a foundation of an inherently evil moral code. Granted, killing of evil people may be more often justified than killing of good people, but it still has to be justified in every case.

If not, you are performing an morally unjustified murder which is pretty much the poster child for evil deeds.



The killing of Evil people isn't to punish Evil People for being Evil, either - it's to harm and reduce the influence and number of Evil people in the Material Plane, weakening Evil's grip on the world.Doing things that the rulebook defines as Evil can't possibly weaken Evil's grip on the word. Just the opposite, those evil murders and the murderers turning evil as consequence would only strengthen the evil forces.

And a VERY good way to end up in the Upper Planes early with only 2 HD to your name Lower Planes. Those murders might have been far more vicious deeds than whatever the victoms did to earn their alignment.

Hawkstar
2015-08-23, 10:12 AM
Killing evil people is in fact not less evil than killing neutral or good people. Either the killing is morally justified (many possibilities for that including most cases of war and/or defense) or it is not.
Otherwise you are in the territory of "the life of some people is worth a lot, the life of other people is worth less than nothing", which can only be a foundation of an inherently evil moral code. Granted, killing of evil people may be more often justified than killing of good people, but it still has to be justified in every case.

If not, you are performing an morally unjustified murder which is pretty much the poster child for evil deeds.It's justified in the case of "War". And figuring that some people's lives ARE worth nothing/less than nothing isn't inherently evil, unless the measure of the value of their life is tied to something they have no control over, such as skin color or race. Alignment, though, is judging them by the content of their character.

Doing things that the rulebook defines as Evil can't possibly weaken Evil's grip on the word. Just the opposite, those evil murders and the murderers turning evil as consequence would only strengthen the evil forces.
Lower Planes. Those murders might have been far more vicious deeds than whatever the victoms did to earn their alignment.Murder, as far as the cosmos is concerned, is the killing of innocent people. Innocence and Evil are mutually exclusive.

hamishspence
2015-08-23, 10:15 AM
Problem is, Detect Evil doesn't always assess a being's character. In some cases, it assesses a being's "connection to cosmic energy" (Good and Neutral aligned fiends and Undead, Neutral aligned clerics of Evil deities).

And even when the being's alignment is Evil, there is considerable variance in the nature and degree of that Evilness.
Murder, as far as the cosmos is concerned, is the killing of innocent people.
Nope - it's quite possible for an Evil person to murder another Evil person. Motive and context matter.

Cazero
2015-08-23, 10:46 AM
The cosmic forces of Good of Evil might follow some kind of principle of conservation : it is impossible to create or destroy that cosmic essence. There is a quantifiable amount of 'Good' and 'Evil' in the universe and those quantities never change.
In that case, the cosmic war is a neverending task. Immortals waste their infinite existence in it for reasons we can't comprehend.
But since the cosmic essences of 'Good' and 'Evil' are never destroyed, always displaced somewhere else, a mortal trying to make a difference in that war should never attempt to destroy his enemies. The cosmic war is closer to a tag game than to chess. Complete containment is the closest thing to a victory either side could ever hope to achieve, therefore the mortal should put his opponents in some kind of jail, killing only when no alternatives are available.

Now, let's explore the alternative : it is possible to create or destroy the cosmic essences of 'Good' and 'Evil'. The amount varies constantly depending of the actions of every entity in the universe.
Destroying the mortal vessel doesn't change a iota of cosmic essence. You would have to destroy souls. While immortals might be able to do that kind of thing on a regular basis, most mortals can't.
The best strategy for a mortal willing to take part in the cosmic war would be to convert as many souls as he can to his cause. Killing someone on the spot because he's wearing the wrong color goes against that. Especially considering most mortals probably don't know anything about that war.

If Good and Evil are some kind of cosmic force, then killing something for being on the opposite side is actively hurting yours.


Now add morality in the lot and try justifying that murder again.

Satinavian
2015-08-23, 12:09 PM
It's justified in the case of "War". And figuring that some people's lives ARE worth nothing/less than nothing isn't inherently evil, unless the measure of the value of their life is tied to something they have no control over, such as skin color or race. Good has to value life. Only valuing the life of people you like or those on your side is not good enough to be good, it is neutral at best. And as soon as you go from not valueing some lifes to killing those 'lesser beings' or those 'unworthy to live' you are deep in Evil territory.



Murder, as far as the cosmos is concerned, is the killing of innocent people. Innocence and Evil are mutually exclusive.Actually murder is not defined over innocence or guilt of the victim. Killing for revenge can be murder even if the victim if far from innocent.

Hawkstar
2015-08-23, 05:32 PM
Actually murder is not defined over innocence or guilt of the victim. Killing for revenge can be murder even if the victim if far from innocent.Depends on the type of 'revenge'. It could very well be Justice (Lawful Good).


The cosmic forces of Good of Evil might follow some kind of principle of conservation : it is impossible to create or destroy that cosmic essence. There is a quantifiable amount of 'Good' and 'Evil' in the universe and those quantities never change.
In that case, the cosmic war is a neverending task. Immortals waste their infinite existence in it for reasons we can't comprehend.
But since the cosmic essences of 'Good' and 'Evil' are never destroyed, always displaced somewhere else, a mortal trying to make a difference in that war should never attempt to destroy his enemies. The cosmic war is closer to a tag game than to chess. Complete containment is the closest thing to a victory either side could ever hope to achieve, therefore the mortal should put his opponents in some kind of jail, killing only when no alternatives are available.And killing your enemies IS a form of containment - it kicks that Cosmic Good/Evil out of the Material plane, and into the (Much harder to leave) Upper/Lower planes.


Now, let's explore the alternative : it is possible to create or destroy the cosmic essences of 'Good' and 'Evil'. The amount varies constantly depending of the actions of every entity in the universe.
Destroying the mortal vessel doesn't change a iota of cosmic essence. You would have to destroy souls. While immortals might be able to do that kind of thing on a regular basis, most mortals can't.
The best strategy for a mortal willing to take part in the cosmic war would be to convert as many souls as he can to his cause. Killing someone on the spot because he's wearing the wrong color goes against that. Especially considering most mortals probably don't know anything about that war.Those that don't know about the war are Unaligned/Neutral.


Problem is, Detect Evil doesn't always assess a being's character. In some cases, it assesses a being's "connection to cosmic energy" (Good and Neutral aligned fiends and Undead, Neutral aligned clerics of Evil deities).If it's a Fiend or Undead..."Respect for life" doesn't even come into the equation for Undead, and killing a fiend is never an evil act in itself (Method or motive can make it evil, though. "Because it's a bona fide Fiend" is a good motive. "It's the nearest living creature I can rend to pieces!" is an evil motive. Stabbing it in the face is a nonevil method. Offering it a poisoned donut or torturing it to death are evil methods). Even if it's a Lawful Good succubus - Her existence dramatically improves the effectiveness of every truly evil fiend. However, these two are exceptions to Good's normal SOPs. Of course, just because killing a fiend for the sake of being a fiend is protected by Good doesn't mean it's the best Good option, as the BoED indicates: and that goes for Evil non-fiends as well. Killing them, while not evil, is often the MUCH lesser of two Goods. Clerics of Evil deities that are not evil themselves are not evil... and while they may seem to be 'safe to kill in the name of Good!" because they're conduits of an Evil power, their own deviation from that deity's standard alignment is dragging that deity with them, diluting the Evil of it. Which is a good reason to not Smite on Ping, even if doing so is generally 'safe", though almost always the lesser of two Goods.


Nope - it's quite possible for an Evil person to murder another Evil person. Motive and context matter.Motive and method matter, yes. "I must reduce the evil of the world!" is a Good motive. Killing them through unnecessarily brutal or treacherous means (Such as torturing them to death, or offering them a box of poisoned donuts), or enjoying it too much WILL make it an evil act, though.

Cazero
2015-08-23, 11:57 PM
And killing your enemies IS a form of containment - it kicks that Cosmic Good/Evil out of the Material plane, and into the (Much harder to leave) Upper/Lower planes.

This part of the argument works under the assumption that Good and Evil can't be created. Therefore, the Upper and Lower planes constantly leak their energy on the Material plane, or everything in it is unaligned. So you need to know exactly how these leaks work before doing anything.
Is it a continuous equilibrium that enforce a proportion of good/evil/neutral souls? Then killing criminals spawns other uncatched criminals elsewhere, causing crimes that you would have prevented with a non-lethal method.
Is each individual bringing in energy based on his personnal morality? Then you have to remember that Good and Evil are not meaningless labels. Killing someone for no apparent reason is subverting the values of Good and dangerously weakens the presence of Good in the material plane, while Good methods like containment and atonement would weaken the Evil presence on the material plane with no negative impact on Good.


Those that don't know about the war are Unaligned/Neutral.

That would be completely fine if Good/Evil were meaningless labels. However, if I make a textbook Chaotic Evil serial killer with negative INT modifier and not a single rank in Knowledge (the planes), his alignement doesn't shift to True Neutral for being uneducated. He is still objectively Chaotic and Evil.

hamishspence
2015-08-24, 12:33 AM
"I must reduce the evil of the world!" is a Good motive."

But not necessarily enough to turn random slayings of "characters that ping Evil" from Murder into Nonmurder.

I'd say that a paladin who, on a mission to Zhentil Keep, attacks random commoners in the street without justification other than "they ping evil" is committing Murder, no matter how good his motive.

Wardog
2015-08-24, 03:47 AM
Humanity (as in humans collectively), by RAW, has no overall preference for any alignment.

That means all alignments are represented equally.

That means "Evil" corresponds to "the worst 1/3 of the human race" (and "Good" corresponds to "the best 1/3 of the human race").

I don't think you can reasonably argue that one third of the human race is so evil that they deserve to die - let alone that someone could kill them all and remain Good.

hamishspence
2015-08-24, 06:04 AM
Dragonlance, at least (in early novels) took that approach - the Kingpriest of Istar embarked on a genocidal Kill All Evil crusade - which was eventually stopped by the violent intervention of all the gods - yet, in one of the first serieses, a character in a position to know, explained to the protagonists that despite all this, the Kingpriest was still a good person even at the moment the gods killed him.

However, in the context of modern D&D, I can't see it working.

goto124
2015-08-24, 07:04 AM
Wait, captial G Good person, or small g good person?

Because the former makes more* sense for Always Chaotic Evil Race Genocide.

* Relatively. May still not make enough sense.

Segev
2015-08-24, 09:38 AM
War is nasty, brutish, and horrific. Good people do not revel in it. However, Good people do fight wars, and the wise fight them in the most brutally efficient ways possible, making the enemy and those on the enemy's side aware that they can expect no quarter if they are in the line of fire or in any way helping the enemy's efforts to cause you harm. Yes, this means civilians are killed in strikes on cities, when they're used as human shields by the enemy, and in attacks on the infrastructure.

Good people are best recognized after victory. They are magnanimous, they help rebuild, they care for the wounded, they protect those who have surrendered to them. But it is not evil to prosecute total war. War is horrible. It is tragic. It is one of the worst things we can endure as people. Good people who are wise seek its swift and enduring end, and that means unequivocal victory is required.

Good people, too, do not seek war. They seek every possible alternative that does not enable others' evil. But when forced into it, Good people can and do defend themselves and others. And, as stated above, the wise and Good will seek to ensure that it is swiftly over, so that peace and kindness have a place once more.

hamishspence
2015-08-24, 09:48 AM
War is nasty, brutish, and horrific. Good people do not revel in it. However, Good people do fight wars, and the wise fight them in the most brutally efficient ways possible, making the enemy and those on the enemy's side aware that they can expect no quarter if they are in the line of fire or in any way helping the enemy's efforts to cause you harm. Yes, this means civilians are killed in strikes on cities, when they're used as human shields by the enemy, and in attacks on the infrastructure.


But does taking a Good alignment equate to swearing total war on every being in the cosmos that has an Evil alignment?

Elbeyon
2015-08-24, 10:00 AM
Violence that results in harm is evil. :smallconfused: How is hurting people neutral, or even as some say good.

Segev
2015-08-24, 10:16 AM
But does taking a Good alignment equate to swearing total war on every being in the cosmos that has an Evil alignment?

Absolutely not. War is a matter, generally, of settlements and States. Good generally doesn't poke its nose in where nobody is asking for help and they are not, themselves, being harmed.

I don't mean they ignore the plight of the innocent who cannot speak up, but if an orc tribe and a goblin tribe are at war, the Good kingdom of dwarves can and probably should sit back and let them do it. If a halfling or even kobold village begs for protection from the dwarf king, however, he might well be moved to try to provide it, if said village is willing to subject themselves to the terms of protection (i.e., no instigating further war with the orcs or goblins, no being evil to each other or the dwarves, etc.).

Good seeks to protect itself and the innocent and even the not-so-innocent for whom it has taken responsibility, but it will not enable the latter in their evil.

Good goes to war only when forced to it. However, they consider themselves "forced" when those they've agreed to protect are, through no real fault of their own, going to be subjected to evil. And Good tends to be willing to take anybody who asks (and is not abusing the privilige) under their protection.

Hawkstar
2015-08-24, 10:53 AM
Violence that results in harm is evil.Every sourcebook on alignment ever disagrees with this.



I don't think you can reasonably argue that one third of the human race is so evil that they deserve to die - let alone that someone could kill them all and remain Good.
Not in the real world, no... but in a fantasy world, there are a LOT of evil cults, way-too-big murderous thieves guilds, mad wizards, bloodthirsty warlords, bandits, religions of evil (Comparable in size to religions of Good), sinister conspiracies, and, most importantly, human mooks for all these evildoer's villainous schemes.
Wait, captial G Good person, or small g good person?

Because the former makes more* sense for Always Chaotic Evil Race Genocide.

* Relatively. May still not make enough sense.Capital-G Good is the only thing under discussion here.
But not necessarily enough to turn random slayings of "characters that ping Evil" from Murder into Nonmurder.

I'd say that a paladin who, on a mission to Zhentil Keep, attacks random commoners in the street without justification other than "they ping evil" is committing Murder, no matter how good his motive.Eh... a Paladin can totally storm Zhentil Keep (It sounds like some Evil stronghold) like some sort of ARPG protagonist without risking his alignment - as long as he's strong enough to finish the job properly instead of merely causing a retributive strike from said keep against Good and Neutral people around it. Killing evil is generally the least of the Good options to take... but often the only functional one in a heat-of-the-moment situation.

I'm not saying that Smite-On-Sight is the ideal way to be Good - but, it is A way to be Good... unless you trip on any of the landmines. It's generally NOT a good idea, and often an Evil action, to kill evil people with no visible provocation in a civilized area - not because it's "Murder" of the person involved, but because killing him immediately as such:
1. Harms any and everyone dependent on him (and you should assume he has at least some dependents, since the hallmark of civilization is interdependence) and they should be assumed Innocent.
2. doesn't let witnesses know why you're doing what you're doing. They can't see the aura, and have no reason to trust your statement as fact. It's better to provoke/unmask their wickedness before laying down Justice.

Essentially - it's not what you're doing to the guy you're killing that's evil, but what you're doing to everyone else in the area that's evil.

Keltest
2015-08-24, 11:23 AM
Wait, captial G Good person, or small g good person?

Because the former makes more* sense for Always Chaotic Evil Race Genocide.

* Relatively. May still not make enough sense.

Capital G good. The Kingpriest was not especially nice, even to his loyal and competent followers. They went on to say that full on Good 100% wins isn't any more desirable than evil 100% wins because reasons, but the reasons given sounded an awful lot like "You become evil yourself" to me, so...

Garimeth
2015-08-24, 11:41 AM
War is nasty, brutish, and horrific. Good people do not revel in it. However, Good people do fight wars, and the wise fight them in the most brutally efficient ways possible, making the enemy and those on the enemy's side aware that they can expect no quarter if they are in the line of fire or in any way helping the enemy's efforts to cause you harm. Yes, this means civilians are killed in strikes on cities, when they're used as human shields by the enemy, and in attacks on the infrastructure.

Good people are best recognized after victory. They are magnanimous, they help rebuild, they care for the wounded, they protect those who have surrendered to them. But it is not evil to prosecute total war. War is horrible. It is tragic. It is one of the worst things we can endure as people. Good people who are wise seek its swift and enduring end, and that means unequivocal victory is required.

Good people, too, do not seek war. They seek every possible alternative that does not enable others' evil. But when forced into it, Good people can and do defend themselves and others. And, as stated above, the wise and Good will seek to ensure that it is swiftly over, so that peace and kindness have a place once more.

Segev makes some good points about the morality of war. I'd like to expound on them, and I think he will agree with the things I say.

Something that seems to be overlooked is that people keep referring to "murder" as Evil. Murder is UNLAWFUL or CHAOTIC, not necessarily Good or Evil. "Murder" is a crime, which means that it involves the justice system, which means it uses the Law/Chaos dichotomy. For example, soldiers killing the enemy they are ordered to kill can not be "murder" because it was lawful. In a D&D setting this applies to killing civilians as well! In fact the only reason it would not be true IRL is because of the Geneva Conventions, Law of Armed Conflict, and (in America) the code of Conduct - which all give a "higher lawfulness" than the person giving the order to kill the civilians, that explicitly states NOT to do those things. In the absence of those constraints it would actually be Chaotic to NOT obey that order, even if said order is clearly Evil. Hell even part of the oath of enlistment is about obeying the orders of the President and the officers appointed over you.

This thread is a pretty good read, not the least of which because I stumbled on it after a lengthy discussion with a co-worker about the ethical decisions a true AI would make about its relationship with humanity. That said this does really highlight why I prefer to DM games with no or minimal alignment. 13th Age FTW!

Ruslan
2015-08-24, 01:34 PM
"For the Greater Good" is definitely Lawful. The Good/Evil component depends on further specifics. For example, the Hot Fuzz village guys are LE. Spock is LG.

hamishspence
2015-08-24, 02:33 PM
Eh... a Paladin can totally storm Zhentil Keep (It sounds like some Evil stronghold) like some sort of ARPG protagonist without risking his alignment - as long as he's strong enough to finish the job properly instead of merely causing a retributive strike from said keep against Good and Neutral people around it. Killing evil is generally the least of the Good options to take... but often the only functional one in a heat-of-the-moment situation.

Zhentil Keep is not a fortress though - but a large city-state. With lots of good-aligned Harper agents within, seeking to undermine the leadership's schemes, and help the common folk who are being oppressed.

The leadership is portrayed as being far too powerful for adventurers to destroy - but its schemes can certainly be countered.
In a D&D setting this applies to killing civilians as well!
Not if you go by BoED though - which takes a "killing civilian orcs is evil" approach.

Segev
2015-08-24, 02:40 PM
Generally speaking, the "killing civilian orcs is evil" rules tend to come in the context that assumes you're slaughtering them as they cower in their camps. If they're collateral damage to a larger-scale or less-discriminate attack against the warriors, that's not nearly so cut-and-dried.

Garimeth
2015-08-24, 02:59 PM
Zhentil Keep is not a fortress though - but a large city-state. With lots of good-aligned Harper agents within, seeking to undermine the leadership's schemes, and help the common folk who are being oppressed.

The leadership is portrayed as being far too powerful for adventurers to destroy - but its schemes can certainly be countered.
Not if you go by BoED though - which takes a "killing civilian orcs is evil" approach.

I didn't say Good, I said Lawful. If in D&D there is a legitimate lawful authority (King, Officer, Deity) saying to carry out the act, and the act is not "outranked" by a higher legitimate authority (King, Officer, Deity) then that means it is Lawful, regardless of how Evil it may be. That's my point.

Keltest
2015-08-24, 03:03 PM
I didn't say Good, I said Lawful. If in D&D there is a legitimate lawful authority (King, Officer, Deity) saying to carry out the act, and the act is not "outranked" by a higher legitimate authority (King, Officer, Deity) then that means it is Lawful, regardless of how Evil it may be. That's my point.

Obeying legitimate authorities is tangential at best to being Lawful. Certainly if you believe they are legitimate, and you follow their orders it would mesh well with it, but if a lord were to order his Lawful Good knights to start attacking civilians in the street, it would not be chaotic or neutral to disobey, and if it violated their personal codes, it might even be chaotic or neutral to obey him!

hamishspence
2015-08-24, 03:29 PM
Generally speaking, the "killing civilian orcs is evil" rules tend to come in the context that assumes you're slaughtering them as they cower in their camps. If they're collateral damage to a larger-scale or less-discriminate attack against the warriors, that's not nearly so cut-and-dried.

The BoED quote in question is a "during the battle" one:


The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed at noncombatants, (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenceless.


Champions of Valor (which makes heavy use of BoED content) has an "after the battle" example though:


A good moon elf and his dwarf and human companions have just dealt with the warriors of a small tribe of Stonelands goblins raiding Cormyr farms. The dwarves and the humans want to kill the females and young because they believe goblins are incurably evil, and if they are left alive they'll just want revenge on the Cormyreans for their dead husbands and fathers. The moon elf points out that killing them just means that some other evil group is going to take over their territory and be a problem for the farmers later. He suggests leaving them alive with some of their treasure and weapons, arranging to have a team of Chauntean priests teach them rudimentary agriculture appropriate for the area, and hoping that they change their ways in the future, since perhaps the raiding goblins were evil out of starvation or worship of evil gods. If his allies accept his proposal (perhaps after suggesting that some of the trees left behind comes out of the elf's share), the elf can later explain why he feels killing defenceless creatures, even evil ones, is wrong, because killing an evil creature just sends another soul to an evil deity, while giving it a chance to redeem itself not only steals a soul from the evil gods, it sends it to the good gods.

Gamgee
2015-08-24, 06:36 PM
Look at the Advanced Tau Tactica forums for the ultimate example of a wide array of alignments and yet all have a shared faith in a philosophy of the greater good. You got stodgy lawful types, neutrals, and chaotic folks there all like here. Not quite as easy to distinguish the good bad though since you know real life people.

Tau are a fictional race in 40k. They are a the newest and smallest Empire on the block, but a series of rapid expansions, technological superiority, and of course shared faith in the Greater Good has made them a very powerful threat.

hamishspence
2015-08-24, 06:51 PM
Tau are a fictional race in 40k. They are a the newest and smallest Empire on the block, but a series of rapid expansions, technological superiority, and of course shared faith in the Greater Good has made them a very powerful threat.

In novels about the Tau Empire - the Kroot seem to come across as a bit more chaotic than the Tau.

Gamgee
2015-08-24, 07:00 PM
In novels about the Tau Empire - the Kroot seem to come across as a bit more chaotic than the Tau.

Not all Kroot follow the Greater Good, actually none really. They just work for the Tau. Kroot humor involves making people feel uncomfortable. So in an elevator it might make its stink gland worse to bug the Tau diplomat who is too polite to say anything. They also shape their DNA by eating so naturally they are bloody carnivores in that they like the gore of the kill and they eat the dead on the battlefield. If you can get past that they're actually quite nice when they're not ripping something apart with their beaks or putting a round through its head from a hidden vantage point. The Kroot were saved by the Tau. They've always been mercenaries, but after being saved they swore a pact to aid the Tau and in essence joined the Tau Empire even if they don't uphold every single aspect of it. They still contract themselves out to others as mercs frequently. It's just the Tau gets loyalty and a huge discount.

The Tau hope the more pleasant aspects of their society rub off on the Kroot (like manners) and they stop being so gory/creepy to others. The Kroot just want to keep doing what they're doing.

So yeah usually chaotic. Anywhere from good to bad with their species. They still technically follow the Greater Good since they are so often ordered to do things by the Tau and since they believe in the GG it all works out.

Hawkstar
2015-08-24, 08:01 PM
Zhentil Keep is not a fortress though - but a large city-state. With lots of good-aligned Harper agents within, seeking to undermine the leadership's schemes, and help the common folk who are being oppressed.

The leadership is portrayed as being far too powerful for adventurers to destroy - but its schemes can certainly be countered.Eh... nothing is too powerful for a sufficiently-motivated and leveled adventurer to destroy.


The BoED quote in question is a "during the battle" one:



The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed at noncombatants, (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenceless.Wow... it really calls the things that produce warriors 'not a threat'? They may not be an immediate threat, but... "Hey, let's kill all these Zerg... except their structures, larvae, and drones, because they're not threats. Mission Accomplished, Let's go home, guys!" *later* "WHERE ARE ALL THESE ZERGLINGS COMING FROM!?"


[quote]Champions of Valor (which makes heavy use of BoED content) has an "after the battle" example though:


A good moon elf and his dwarf and human companions have just dealt with the warriors of a small tribe of Stonelands goblins raiding Cormyr farms. The dwarves and the humans want to kill the females and young because they believe goblins are incurably evil, and if they are left alive they'll just want revenge on the Cormyreans for their dead husbands and fathers. The moon elf points out that killing them just means that some other evil group is going to take over their territory and be a problem for the farmers later. He suggests leaving them alive with some of their treasure and weapons, arranging to have a team of Chauntean priests teach them rudimentary agriculture appropriate for the area, and hoping that they change their ways in the future, since perhaps the raiding goblins were evil out of starvation or worship of evil gods. If his allies accept his proposal (perhaps after suggesting that some of the trees left behind comes out of the elf's share), the elf can later explain why he feels killing defenceless creatures, even evil ones, is wrong, because killing an evil creature just sends another soul to an evil deity, while giving it a chance to redeem itself not only steals a soul from the evil gods, it sends it to the good gods.If this scheme works, it absolutely IS a better "Good" than "Kill them all"... but it's also a really, really effective way to increase the number of Chauntean-Priest-Heads-on-Sticks in the world. The strategy could work if they worshipped evil gods out of a lack of alternatives for their lack of food... but there's a big glaring "White Man's Burden"-shaped hole in that plan in that it assumes that the women and children are so dumb and weak-willed that they will not hold to their convictions and memory of their slain husbands/fathers. (Then again, elves do have a tendency to be overwhelmingly patronizing and underestimate 'lesser races' ability to think for themselves) - There's a very good chance of this plan backfiring horribly in the long term, giving rise to larger numbers of well-fed evil goblins, and fewer good-aligned priests. Because seriously... how would you react to a bunch of aliens coming in, busting up your ****, killing a parent/lover, then telling you that you are living your life wrong, and all your beliefs and philosophies are evil?

Raimun
2015-08-24, 11:16 PM
Anyone of any Alignment can start to work "For the greater good". How they define this and what they do to achieve this determines what is the Alignment they end up with.

In OP's very example? Some flavor of Evil. Except, of course, in a very rare case where every last one of the creatures in question are actually of Evil Alignment themselves, in which case killing them wouldn't be an Evil act.* I mean, would a mass genocide of demons** really make you Evil? It's still possible to move in Law-Chaos-axis, of course.

*By strict reading of the Alignment-system. Duh.
** As in demons of D&D, who are made of Evil, actively pursue and champion Evil and can't ever be anything but Evil, etc.

Elbeyon
2015-08-24, 11:38 PM
I mean, would a mass genocide of demons** really make you Evil?Yes. Genocide is evil. :smalleek: Why does everyone not know that.

Raimun
2015-08-24, 11:48 PM
Yes. Genocide is evil. :smalleek: Why does everyone not know that.

You missed the point on two counts.

Genocide of D&D-demons (as defined above) is not Evil. You'd probably get a medal or something.

However, even with a strict reading of D&D-Alignment rules, genocide of people would be over 99,99% of the time Evil, since not every last one of the creatures in a given group would be Evil to begin with. If only one non-Evil creature gets killed? It would be a major Evil act.

Furthermore, please note that D&D-Alignment system is not my opinion. I didn't actually write it. Also, I'm discussing what is 'Evil', not what is 'evil'. There is a difference.

Elbeyon
2015-08-25, 12:00 AM
Killing is Evil, flat out. No one kills/murders without preforming an evil act.

Genocide no matter the target is a heinous act. Murder/killing indiscriminatory because of their race.... Surely, no one is saying that discrimination, racism, prejudice, and genocide is non-evil.

Raimun
2015-08-25, 12:08 AM
Killing is Evil, flat out. No one kills/murders without preforming an evil act.

Genocide no matter the target is a heinous act. Murder/killing indiscriminatory because of their race.... Surely, no one is saying that discrimination, racism, prejudice, and genocide is non-evil.

So, you're saying that in D&D it would be an Evil act to kill a demon that attacks you?

Or a Paladin (still in D&D) would fall if he attacked and killed a demon on sight?

I have not heard of games of D&D where either would be the case.

Elbeyon
2015-08-25, 12:18 AM
Yes. Killing a demon is goes against what dnd lays out as good. It goes against altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Killing is a violation of all of these. Now, self defense probably won't change the character's alignment, but it doesn't make killing a non-evil. It still scars the soul. People better have a good dam reason for killing to counterbalance the evil they preformed, or else they are on a straight path towards turning into devils/demons. A good act balanced against an evil act doesn't mean they didn't preform an evil act.

So, yes, in a game a paladin should fall for killing, but the paladin has always been broken. Fixing it is/was another issue.

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 12:22 AM
Wow... it really calls the things that produce warriors 'not a threat'? They may not be an immediate threat, but... "Hey, let's kill all these Zerg... except their structures, larvae, and drones, because they're not threats. Mission Accomplished, Let's go home, guys!" *later* "WHERE ARE ALL THESE ZERGLINGS COMING FROM!?"

Goblins and Orcs are nothing like Zerg though.

Yael
2015-08-25, 12:34 AM
It shouldn't be the case with Demons/Devils or any other extraplanar being, as you don't really kill it, anyway :smallbiggrin:

However, the mere act of killing shouldn't always be an evil act, because there wouldn't be any kind of good characters at all (unless sources like Book of Exalted Deeds is abused, talking 3.X). Now, senseless or motiveless slaugher, that's some evil actish stuff.

IMHO Territory ahead: The truest "for the greater good" alignment is Lawful Evil, as you will build up a better place, shaping the world at your vision, and having it to be better for everyone, even if they won't agree (Dr. Doomish style, though Latveria is kinda "happy", I guess?). Not even Chaotic Good see the world as "for the greater good", at least if reading the alignment (depending on the source, of course) you identify it with "Robin Hood", or if the wording is literally: you disobey laws as long as you do good deeds. Neutral Good tend to be seen as "the true good", but not having a respect or disrespect towards law and chaos may bring out problems with the people you are trying to help/aid. Lastly, Lawful Good is just as evil as any alignment, do you know Arthas? He was Lawful Good until he fell by corruption and anger for vengeance, and while is not always the case that you are being corrupted by hatred or Ner'zhul, Lawful Good characters tend to be the puppets for Lawful Evil characters (as I see it).

I apologize for my bad English writting.

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 12:49 AM
However, the mere act of killing shouldn't always be an evil act, because there wouldn't be any kind of good characters at all (unless sources like Book of Exalted Deeds is abused, talking 3.X). Now, senseless or motiveless slaugher, that's some evil actish stuff.


BoED sets certain limits and says "Within those limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe" and even:

"The cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies."

Elbeyon
2015-08-25, 12:54 AM
It shouldn't be the case with Demons/Devils or any other extraplanar being, as you don't really kill it, anyway :smallbiggrin:Not all of them. The high power ones maybe go back to their plane. Others, the vast majority of them, get spread like butter across their home plane. A body turning into "dirt" is being dead to me. Their cosmic stuff might be around, but them as an individual is gone.


However, the mere act of killing shouldn't always be an evil act, because there wouldn't be any kind of good characters at all (unless sources like Book of Exalted Deeds is abused, talking 3.X). Now, senseless or motiveless slaugher, that's some evil actish stuff.[/SIZE]A single evil act rarely changes an alignment. A person can do evil and still be good. The question is does that character do enough good to balance out the evil of snuffing out life. It turns out it's easier to be a good person when you don't go around killing sapient things for a living. If their aren't any good characters at all maybe everyone should stop killing each other.

Yael
2015-08-25, 03:46 AM
BoED sets certain limits and says "Within those limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe" and even:

"The cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies."

Wouldn't that be selfish, (again, IMHO) and be directed by Lawful Evil beings? :smallconfused:


Not all of them. The high power ones maybe go back to their plane. Others, the vast majority of them, get spread like butter across their home plane. A body turning into "dirt" is being dead to me. Their cosmic stuff might be around, but them as an individual is gone.

When you put it that way... Well, at least Devils respawn after like a thousand years as Dretches or worse, right? :smallbiggrin:

A single evil act rarely changes an alignment. A person can do evil and still be good. The question is does that character do enough good to balance out the evil of snuffing out life. It turns out it's easier to be a good person when you don't go around killing sapient things for a living. If their aren't any good characters at all maybe everyone should stop killing each other.

That's why we all must take a Vow of Nonviolence.
Seriously though, your point stands, but wouldn't killing, as an evil act, should be punished by the envoys of justice, said Paladins?

Blue stands for sarcasm, this post at least.

Garimeth
2015-08-25, 04:39 AM
Obeying legitimate authorities is tangential at best to being Lawful. Certainly if you believe they are legitimate, and you follow their orders it would mesh well with it, but if a lord were to order his Lawful Good knights to start attacking civilians in the street, it would not be chaotic or neutral to disobey, and if it violated their personal codes, it might even be chaotic or neutral to obey him!

Fair points, but in that example the knights personal code is functioning (like the Code of Conduct IRL) as the "higher" authority.

Keltest
2015-08-25, 05:09 AM
Fair points, but in that example the knights personal code is functioning (like the Code of Conduct IRL) as the "higher" authority.

If that's your definition, everyone is lawful, because theyre obeying who they see as the highest authority no matter what they do.

Garimeth
2015-08-25, 06:26 AM
If that's your definition, everyone is lawful, because theyre obeying who they see as the highest authority no matter what they do.

Not necessarily comparing a code of honor or conduct with w/e someone feels like doing is not the same thing. If I just think something is "wrong" and choose not to do it, but don't have a higher law that I am obeying then I am being more Good than Lawful. In the case of a knight or monk or something they have a no kidding code they follow.

I'm not wanting to tread into paladin territory here, but I would not make a paladin fall or even be headed in that direction for not following said orders. We'd
probably have a talk about what it means for his character to be working for said person though. An individual act does not an alignment change.


Yes. Killing a demon is goes against what dnd lays out as good. It goes against altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Killing is a violation of all of these. Now, self defense probably won't change the character's alignment, but it doesn't make killing a non-evil. It still scars the soul. People better have a good dam reason for killing to counterbalance the evil they preformed, or else they are on a straight path towards turning into devils/demons. A good act balanced against an evil act doesn't mean they didn't preform an evil act.

So, yes, in a game a paladin should fall for killing, but the paladin has always been broken. Fixing it is/was another issue.

I don't think you and I are playing the same game.

Socratov
2015-08-25, 07:12 AM
Similarly, a leader of a country of metropolis sized city (like Ankh-Morpork) can never be good (let alone exalted good) since at one point or another he will have to make a choice where the greater good or at least the ethical Fourier transformation will have the desired outcome. Even if you are good, get promoted to leader of [insert huge city/country/sufficiently large group of people], you cannot remain good with this line of thinking (i.e. the greater good can never be a good thing). Which makes the best governing bodies out there LN at best.

This in turn infers that the absence of government (or anarchism) is the only option for a completely Good society. Ladies and gentlemen (and everything in between and not included by previous categories): Punk has had it right; Anarchy is the best option.

Hawkstar
2015-08-25, 07:26 AM
If that's your definition, everyone is lawful, because theyre obeying who they see as the highest authority no matter what they do.

A knight's code is an external one (Even if they do write it themselves), which they adhere to almost unfailingly (Or as unfailingly as possible). Most people do not follow a code, and merely follow their own natures. While their behavior natures can be observed, codified, and predicative, it doesn't mean they're actually following a code.

Garimeth
2015-08-25, 07:53 AM
A knight's code is an external one (Even if they do write it themselves), which they adhere to almost unfailingly (Or as unfailingly as possible). Most people do not follow a code, and merely follow their own natures. While their behavior natures can be observed, codified, and predicative, it doesn't mean they're actually following a code.

This is exactly what I meant, but much more eloquent.

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 09:48 AM
Similarly, a leader of a country of metropolis sized city (like Ankh-Morpork) can never be good (let alone exalted good) since at one point or another he will have to make a choice where the greater good or at least the ethical Fourier transformation will have the desired outcome. Even if you are good, get promoted to leader of [insert huge city/country/sufficiently large group of people], you cannot remain good with this line of thinking (i.e. the greater good can never be a good thing). Which makes the best governing bodies out there LN at best.

Given that there's plenty of LG "power centers" according to DMG (and plenty of LG "large community alignments" according to Cityscape) - I could see characters remaining LG while still being able to prioritise "the many" or "the community's long-term best interests".

They'll have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of actually directly harming the innocent, but it's still possible to maintain a Good alignment.

Waterdeep is one of the biggest cities in the Realms, and its "Open Lord" (the chairman of the city council) is a paladin in the 3.0 Campaign Setting book, and the 3.5 Waterdeep splatbook

goto124
2015-08-25, 10:02 AM
I could see characters remaining LG while still being able to prioritise "the many" or "the community's long-term best interests".

Pretty sure that's exactly what LG is (supposed to be). Assuming they don't slip into Evil terrority when they take the Lawful part too far.

Hawkstar
2015-08-25, 10:34 AM
They'll have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of actually directly harming the innocent, but it's still possible to maintain a Good alignment.
The thing is... this is outright impossible. They WILL, hopefully infrequently, but inevitably nonetheless, have to take actions or make decisions that directly harm innocents. To maintain an LG alignment in such a situation, they must always be trying their best to do the right thing. Some people will likely disagree with them, but nobody is perfect. Except maybe a few humans, because Zarus is a magnificent bastard like that... And on that note!



... dammit. I had a huge post I wanted to write that gets on back on topic about how Pelor and Erythnul are just sock puppets of Zarus, in light of the "Save the Goblin Children and Women!" situation:

Effectively - Zarus made humans have no Existential Debt to him, unlike every other race out there (Lolth broke the exsistential debt on the drow. The orcs cling to theirs so tightly even half-orcs struggle to reject it), because he has one goal, and one goal only - Have humans be the most awesome race at everything. As they are. They have the most numbers of all the nonevil races (Meaning more votes in good systems and greater overall value to the universe), without being hampered by a deity like Malybulgiat or Gruumsh trying to play "Command & Conquer" with their creations. In fact, he deliberately tried to hide himself from humans, to STOP the nonsense that is the Church of Zarus from forming - he's more like "Dudes, stop trying to talk about how awesome humans are, and actually start being awesome. Also - You reach greater heights standing on a standing elf's shoulders than a trampled one's back". Humans are not only the most environmentally adaptable, but also morally adaptable as well. The other "Good" races are hampered by their creators hard-wiring some of their own flaws into every one them. While lots of humans share some of Zarus' flaws, none share all of them, and some have none of them.

Anyway - the existential debt of other races make them damn hard to suitably adapt to changing moral situations. Pelor is Zarus' creation to help humans dominate the Good alignment spectrum... especially Neutral Good. Pelor's ideals are pretty much a human-dominance lifehack - "How to take over the world without even trying, or even pissing anyone off in a manner they can morally justify", so to say. Of course, humans (And all other races, often to a greater extent) tend to be stubborn with their own beliefs... so he created the Erythnul Sockpuppet diety to serve as a hammer to smash human cultures that are self-destructive... so Pelor can come along behind them, rebuild, and most importantly re-educate. Erythnul's also a great place to dump the incorrigible CE guys without detracting from human success the way other deities might (Particularly Gruumsh and ESPECIALLY Nerull. Pelor/Zarus actually hates the god of (Un)Death because he's transhumanist, while Pelor/Zarus is Humanist). As Pelor's influence grows, Erythnul's wanes as it's no longer needed. And because Pelor's faith is a religion and life guideline, it spans political and social boundries. On a world with the Zarus/Pelor/Erythnul trinity, humans don't inherently tend to any particular alignment, but circumstance, time, and an incredibly long-term conspiracy has pushed them to have only 5-15% of the total Human population to fall onto the lower alignment spectrum (Though humans are easily the most evil of mortals as well as the most virtuous)

Also - Pelor is not the sun, except as a symbol. The sun is merely the greatest paragon of being a Beacon, which is what Zarus' Pelor faith is all about.

What kind of alignment do you give such a Magnificent Bastard (Assuming all this crazy conspiracy is true), if, on one hand, they're only in for the advancement and dominance of a single race, and sometimes/has resorted to monstrous means... but is also inarguably also the greatest active source and spreader of True Good in the world?

Zarus is a HUGE fan of Paragon Commander Shepard.

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 11:01 AM
Zarus was, as far as I can tell, invented for 3rd ed - and none of the above is actually supported in Races of Destiny.


I had a huge post I wanted to write that gets on back on topic about how Pelor and Erythnul are just sock puppets of Zarus, in light of the "Save the Goblin Children and Women!" situation:


How is that "back on topic" given that the subject is The Greater Good?

Hawkstar
2015-08-25, 11:09 AM
Zarus was, as far as I can tell, invented for 3rd ed - and none of the above is actually supported in Races of Destiny.Don't care! Conspiracies are fun!


How is that "back on topic" given that the subject is The Greater Good?

Last paragraph. What's his alignment, if he manages to inarguably accomplish the greater good by his actions?

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 11:11 AM
Considering this is "fanfic Zarus" and not "real Zarus" - I'm not sure.

The description seems extremely un-D&D-ish.

Segev
2015-08-25, 11:51 AM
I won't deny that D&D writers sometimes (often) get alignment wrong. The BoVD and BoED are both rife with horribly bad interpretations of alignment.

In a battle for life and death, civilians being used as human shields are something a good person HOPES to protect...but he is not evil if he prioritizes stopping the bad guy using the human shield over the human shield. Finding a third way is good and noble, and should be attempted if there's time. But a man who kills innocents because the villain is ensuring that they go if he goes is not committing an evil act. (There is nuance here; a man who kills them because it's just easier than the alternative, when the alternative was viable, is callous enough to term "neutral to evil" in terms of his actions.)

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 11:56 AM
I won't deny that D&D writers sometimes (often) get alignment wrong. The BoVD and BoED are both rife with horribly bad interpretations of alignment.

That said, BoED's one of the few sources that at least tries to move away from "Evil characters deserve anything you do to them".

Eberron and Pathfinder continued it further.

Socratov
2015-08-25, 02:15 PM
That said, BoED's one of the few sources that at least tries to move away from "Evil characters deserve anything you do to them".

-snip-

until you find the spell named Sanctify the Wicked...

hamishspence
2015-08-25, 02:19 PM
There's lots of badly thought out spells in the book, certainly. Since it costs the character casting it a level of experience, it's not going to see much use. It should really have only changed creature alignment on one axis, rather than "to that of caster".

goto124
2015-08-25, 08:22 PM
'The thing is... this is outright impossible. They WILL, hopefully infrequently, but inevitably nonetheless, have to take actions or make decisions that directly harm innocents. To maintain an LG alignment in such a situation, they must always be trying their best to do the right thing. Some people will likely disagree with them, but nobody is perfect. '

How often will they have to make such decisions? Is the innocent-harming-decision so bad that they remain in a non-LG alignment?

To be fair, NG or LN aren't so bad.

nablahat
2015-08-26, 07:09 AM
I think d&d morality and real life moral complexes in general is a bad mix if strictly adhering to both as they often conflict. I think there has already been a lot of good insights so far. To show where I am coming from I briefly state my view on d&d alignments and afterwards point out some awkward explamples.

In my view d&d strict Evil and good alignment comes from fairytales (evil creatures, good heros) mixed with christian religion (good angles,evil devils).

In the simplest form it makes for easy battle targets like it is generally okay to kill evil opponents.

In practice it makes for weird moral conclusions.

1. Killing innocents makes you evil.
- Only actions counts: So at a trial a person is found guilty of murder. The punishment is death. The paladin kills him. He was Innocent = paladin falls. ( would be an efficient system with supplies of resurrection and atonement spells :)
- Only intention matters: the paladin fails his sense motive check. Believes whole village is evil cult members. Slaughter horde of Innocent men, woman and children alike, but does not fall.

2. self sacrifice is good.
- paladin trades his own soul to devil to save the worl, but the Paladin is now evil.
- The good ranger is helping a group of people escape. They need people to delay their pursuers. Only the ranger has survival skills. He sacrifice himself = good. The group escape and all die in the wilderness.

3. Start of hitch hikers guide. A house needs to be destroyed to make a road. Maybe slightly evil but not instantly fall to evil action and all alignments could do it for the greater good.
- Volorns needs to blow up the Earth to make a galactic highway :) Now we are on the evil scale.

... Approaching real life conflicts both sides usually kill civilians and Innocents unintionally (or not) so in dnd terms they would both be evil. And paladins or the real life crusaders would in dnd terms mostly be evil, invading foreign lands far from home....

If I asked the other players I have played with I get different views both on the dnd alignment system on real life moral and how they fit them together.

goto124
2015-08-26, 07:44 AM
1. Killing innocents makes you evil.
- Only actions counts: So at a trial a person is found guilty of murder. The punishment is death. The paladin kills him. He was Innocent = paladin falls. ( would be an efficient system with supplies of resurrection and atonement spells :)
- Only intention matters: the paladin fails his sense motive check. Believes whole village is evil cult members. Slaughter horde of Innocent men, woman and children alike, but does not fall.

Personally, I feel that leaning towards intentions will make for happier players, especially since only the GM knows about who's 'really' innocent. Put yourself in the shoes of the paladin in the 'only actions count' situation: you already went through the trouble of acquiring evidence, putting the suspect through a trial, etc, and you were unlucky enough that you somehow arrived at the wrong conclusion anyway. You've already done your best.

I said leaning, since there could be problems if the players stop trying to find out the truth, and use 'only intention matters' as a pass to do what they want to do. If the GM sees that the players aren't really trying, said GM should at least prompt the players. 'Hey, are you sure that's the right thing to do, when you have a lack of information to go by?'

Mind you, the village slaughter could've been wrong even if there were evil cult members, but we've already argued that part earlier on in this thread, and I doubt there's much point continuing said argument.


2. self sacrifice is good.
- paladin trades his own soul to devil to save the worl, but the Paladin is now evil.
- The good ranger is helping a group of people escape. They need people to delay their pursuers. Only the ranger has survival skills. He sacrifice himself = good. The group escape and all die in the wilderness.

I'm not sure how soul-trading even works, so it's hard to comment on it. The latter point about the ranger works with 'self sacrifice is Good', just that it turned out to be a pretty bad decision from the logcal and pragmatic point of view.


3. Start of hitch hikers guide. A house needs to be destroyed to make a road. Maybe slightly evil but not instantly fall to evil action and all alignments could do it for the greater good.
- Volorns needs to blow up the Earth to make a galactic highway :) Now we are on the evil scale.

Sounds about right. It's a scale, after all.

Wardog
2015-08-28, 07:02 AM
Not in the real world, no... but in a fantasy world, there are a LOT of evil cults, way-too-big murderous thieves guilds, mad wizards, bloodthirsty warlords, bandits, religions of evil (Comparable in size to religions of Good), sinister conspiracies, and, most importantly, human mooks for all these evildoer's villainous schemes.

But are 1/3 of the human population in an evil cult, thieves' guild, or working as a mook for an evil warlord?

And are all those who do so evil that they can justly be killed out of hand even when not directly threatening you?



War is nasty, brutish, and horrific. Good people do not revel in it. However, Good people do fight wars, and the wise fight them in the most brutally efficient ways possible, making the enemy and those on the enemy's side aware that they can expect no quarter if they are in the line of fire or in any way helping the enemy's efforts to cause you harm. Yes, this means civilians are killed in strikes on cities, when they're used as human shields by the enemy, and in attacks on the infrastructure.

Is that fact, or just opinion?

If you mean in the real world, I don't think we can discuss that here.
If you mean in D&D, once you get past teh early editions where "Good" and "Evil" are more like team names, I don't think that is supported by either the descriptions of Good alignments, or the examples of Good/Evil behaviour or characters.
If you mean theoretically, it can easily go the other way. If you are refusing to take prisoners, you are likely to make people fight harder rather than surrender. If you deliberately target civilians, you are are almost certainly going to kill or injur more innocent peopel than you would otherwise. And anything you do to make the enemy hate you is likely to make them continue to fight even when it would be sensible to stop.

Hawkstar
2015-08-28, 07:12 AM
But are 1/3 of the human population in an evil cult, thieves' guild, or working as a mook for an evil warlord?Yes.


And are all those who do so evil that they can justly be killed out of hand even when not directly threatening you?Yes, because they're mooks.



Is that fact, or just opinion?

If you mean in the real world, I don't think we can discuss that here.
If you mean in D&D, once you get past teh early editions where "Good" and "Evil" are more like team names, I don't think that is supported by either the descriptions of Good alignments, or the examples of Good/Evil behaviour or characters.
If you mean theoretically, it can easily go the other way. If you are refusing to take prisoners, you are likely to make people fight harder rather than surrender. If you deliberately target civilians, you are are almost certainly going to kill or injur more innocent peopel than you would otherwise. And anything you do to make the enemy hate you is likely to make them continue to fight even when it would be sensible to stop.This is all true. Good generally follows the spirit behind the rules and customs of war... which generally prohibit actions that do nothing but increase suffering when reciprocated.

hamishspence
2015-08-28, 07:19 AM
Or, they can be "random NPCs" rather than "enemy mooks".

I lean to the view that D&D has been evolving out of "evil-aligned characters exist to be slaughtered" for a while.

Hawkstar
2015-08-28, 08:27 AM
Or, they can be "random NPCs" rather than "enemy mooks".Enemy Mooks are Random NPCs.


I lean to the view that D&D has been evolving out of "evil-aligned characters exist to be slaughtered" for a while.
The Monster Manuals all disagree.

hamishspence
2015-08-28, 09:00 AM
Humans aren't in the 3.0 and 3.5 Monster Manuals though.

Hawkstar
2015-08-28, 12:00 PM
Humans aren't in the 3.0 and 3.5 Monster Manuals though.
But they're in every other edition's Monster Manuals. As are many other types of person.

Segev
2015-08-28, 12:07 PM
Good people don't fight wars with other good people, unless at least one side isn't living up to its ideals (or there's tremendous miscommunication or deliberate deception by a third party going on).

Good people fight when forced to, to defend themselves and those about whom they care (which often, if they have the resources to support it, is just about any innocent ever).

Wars fought with rules of engagement which only allow lightly annoying the enemy, or which encourage the enemy to hole up in civilian areas, or which are prolonged because one side refuses to fight to win because it would be "mean," are ultimately longer and crueler to all involved save the bad guys who like the war and suffering and the powerful feelings it gives them.

This is as true in D&D as it is anywhere else. A lot of the supposed moral quandaries are built around this: allow the obvious villain who will go out and do horrid things to live, or kill his innocent hostages! Doing either is evil! You monster!

The truth is, a Good person can go either way on that kind of thing, but he should probably not be encouraging future situations like that and should be taking measures to ensure that the bad guy won't always have his "innocent kids armor" avaialble to him.

War changes the rules, because of its barbaric nature. If you've gone to war, "nice" has failed...or you're a bad guy who likes using war because you don't care who you hurt if you get what you want.

hamishspence
2015-08-28, 01:13 PM
And are all those who do so evil that they can justly be killed out of hand even when not directly threatening you?


Eberron's notion that Evil Commoners can qualify as "those the paladin is obliged to protect" is an interesting one:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people.



Something along the lines of "innocent till proven guilty - and Detect Evil is not proof".

Keltest
2015-08-28, 02:02 PM
Eberron's notion that Evil Commoners can qualify as "those the paladin is obliged to protect" is an interesting one:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people.



Something along the lines of "innocent till proven guilty - and Detect Evil is not proof".

Pretty much. Being evil is neither a crime nor a death sentence.

Hawkstar
2015-08-28, 02:38 PM
It's not the killing them that is an Evil act - Their own lives don't matter. But in a setting with as massive, interdependent society as Eberron, killing someone Evil causes a chain reaction that hurts Good people more often than not. And in Eberron, it's pretty easy to do a little bit of legwork to prove that those 33% of people are in league with the Lords of Dust or Emerald Claw or most unsavory side of the Blood of Vol or secretly a Lord of Blades Spybot or Khyber Cultist or...

Keltest
2015-08-28, 02:43 PM
It's not the killing them that is an Evil act - Their own lives don't matter. But in a setting with as massive, interdependent society as Eberron, killing someone Evil causes a chain reaction that hurts Good people more often than not. And in Eberron, it's pretty easy to do a little bit of legwork to prove that those 33% of people are in league with the Lords of Dust or Emerald Claw or most unsavory side of the Blood of Vol or secretly a Lord of Blades Spybot or Khyber Cultist or...

Or a mean tavern keeper, or a disgruntled beggar, or an exceptionally sadistic guardsman...

having an evil alignment does not automatically come with moustache and a how-to guide for twirling it.

hamishspence
2015-08-28, 02:49 PM
Their own lives don't matter.

Which is kind of lacking in "respect for life". All life is precious - even in a D&D world - and should only be destroyed when a convincing case can be made for its necessity.

I'm sure I've had this conversation before several times over the last few years.

Hawkstar
2015-08-28, 04:21 PM
Or a mean tavern keeper, or a disgruntled beggar, or an exceptionally sadistic guardsman...

having an evil alignment does not automatically come with moustache and a how-to guide for twirling it.Disgruntled and mean don't make one evil. That said, the types of guardsmen and beggars that ping as evil are a serious blight on society in need of removal as soon as practical. The latter because they're multiple betrayals and uninvestigated/unsolved murders that have and/or are waiting to happen. The former for a large number of serious and obvious reasons.


Which is kind of lacking in "respect for life". All life is precious - even in a D&D world - and should only be destroyed when a convincing case can be made for its necessity.

I'm sure I've had this conversation before several times over the last few years.
Falling into the Evil category carries a whole litany of convincing cases for the necessity of its destruction unless it's managed to make parts of society dependent on them (Which is extremely common in civilized areas). Also - Good implies a respect for life, but it's not the entirety or even mandatory for the alignment.

Keltest
2015-08-28, 04:40 PM
Disgruntled and mean don't make one evil. That said, the types of guardsmen and beggars that ping as evil are a serious blight on society in need of removal as soon as practical. The latter because they're multiple betrayals and uninvestigated/unsolved murders that have and/or are waiting to happen. The former for a large number of serious and obvious reasons.

Wrong. Being disgruntled and mean is absolutely enough to make you evil. You delight in the small sufferings you cause others and have no empathy for when other people are hurt or put down.

And yet they lack the capacity for any real harm. So yes, you are sentencing people to death because "Theyre mean and don't care when people get hurt."

hamishspence
2015-08-29, 12:46 AM
Maybe we could all could Agree To Disagree about different interpretations of what "modern D&D" is all about - and move on to discussing a different "For the Greater Good" action than

"murdering (legally speaking) evil-aligned people".

Suggestions?

Hawkstar
2015-08-29, 03:21 PM
Destroying the world to keep all the souls from being eaten and guys actually maintaining the world from being destroyed?

Destroying a fundamentally flawed, unfair, and horrible world to make one that works out better for the people involved?

Fighting to stop a dying world from being destroyed so it can be renewed?

goto124
2015-08-29, 09:53 PM
Funny thing about destroying the world... who's supposed to survive it? What do you get to keep safe? What materials do you have After The End? What if you're left with nothing to build a new world? What if you destroy yourself?