What Makes Good...Good?

[ThinkMinty]

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what, exactly, makes good good? Opinions are gonna vary, and it'd be neat to hear multiple perspectives on this one.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what, exactly, makes good good? Opinions are gonna vary, and it'd be neat to hear multiple perspectives on this one.

In the context of DnD and the like, right? Else I'd say this is the wrong area to pose such questions.

I've always held a simple definition of the word. It might not be complete, and it may have some flaws, but it goes as follow.

"Good is any action that provides happiness and or peace, that is not at the serious expense of others."

Ex)
The trickster gnome might play pranks on people, but they're ultimately harmless and make people laugh.

The savage raider who kills for fun might make his clan happy, but not the people who he/she is killing.

The noble knight who sacrifices himself to save the world has done good, because it preserves happiness at the expense of his own.

The evil henchmen who willingly sacrifices their self for his/her darkmaster is not good, because their darkmaster gains joy at the expense of others.

[Frozen_Feet]

The same three reasons why evil beings are evil, but applied differently:

1) They are literally made of good - embodiments of known virtues. They can only do evil by accident or when forced in a situation where no good act is possible.

2) They have inborn instincts and intuitions that reward and drive them towards altruism, non-violence, generosity etc. Good behaviour. On the reverse, they might feel instinctive revulsion towards hurting others etc.

3) They exist in an environment which encourages and rewards good actions, likely while punishing evil ones.

[LudicSavant]

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what, exactly, makes good good? Opinions are gonna vary, and it'd be neat to hear multiple perspectives on this one.

Which setting?

Different settings have very different explanations.

[GanonBoar]

The way I see it, Good is something that tries to help others who are in need. Neutral is something that cares predominantly for itself. And Evil is something that tries to harm others who are innocent.

[BWR]

Whatever the setting says, as interpreted by the GM.

[MrNobody]

I think that a good (:smallbiggrin:), general definition of Good could be:

"Any action made with selfless spirit with the intent of providing a benefit for someone with little-to-no harm for other creatures or other creature's possession. If harming someone is inevitable, the damage should affect the person that is accomplishing the Good act before anyone else".

Here you have the attempt to make other people's happy without hurting anyone in their person and possession (which automatically excludes things like "kill him and i'll be happy!", "rob him and i'll be really happy", and the like) and the idea that the one that is accomplishing the good act must be responsible on what he is doing, willing to accept most of the damage that could be needed to make the benefit possible and, most of all, altruistically not concerned about the eventual benefits he could get from his action.

If you are thinking about a D&D setting and alignments you could add the word "and freedom" after "possession" to gain a general Chaotic-oriented Good. Adding "accordingly to the laws and rules appropriate to the time and location in which the action is performed" you could to gain a general Lawful-oriented Good

[BWR]

I think that a good (:smallbiggrin:), general definition of Good could be:

"Any action made with selfless spirit with the intent of providing a benefit for someone with little-to-no harm for other creatures or other creature's possession. If harming someone is inevitable, the damage should affect the person that is accomplishing the Good act before anyone else".


And you have settings where this definition does not work.
That's the problem, you can always find or make a setting where one or more definitions you have does not work. The only way you can actually discuss this is on a case by case basis. There will probably be some (or even a lot of) overlap and similarities between one and the other but I cannot see that there is any single universal element other than "there are things we consider Good/Evil".

[Komatik]

Keeping brainwashed slaves. Just ask the elves from Dragonlance.

[The_Tentacle]

One issue I have with "defining" good and evil is how, as BWR said, it is difficult to create a blanket statement that covers anywhere close to everything. Sure, you might have your beings incapable of not being and acting whatever alignment, but IRL their actions are ultimately controlled by a human, so you cannot depend on that. Essentially, I'm trying to say that there is no science to defining good and evil. There isn't an algorithm that can take in a situation, even if it had all the context it is possible to have, and then spit out an answer. The only real way to address this is to just evaluate each action on a case-by-case basis and trust your gut intuition and instinct. In RPGs this will be up to the DM, maybe with input from players, but I really don't think the process should be subjected to any kind of systematic analysis.

[Quertus]

And you have settings where this definition does not work.

Can you provide some examples?


One issue I have with "defining" good and evil is how, as BWR said, it is difficult to create a blanket statement that covers anywhere close to everything. Sure, you might have your beings incapable of not being and acting whatever alignment, but IRL their actions are ultimately controlled by a human, so you cannot depend on that. Essentially, I'm trying to say that there is no science to defining good and evil. There isn't an algorithm that can take in a situation, even if it had all the context it is possible to have, and then spit out an answer. The only real way to address this is to just evaluate each action on a case-by-case basis and trust your gut intuition and instinct. In RPGs this will be up to the DM, maybe with input from players, but I really don't think the process should be subjected to any kind of systematic analysis.

That sounds like the chaotic good definition. ;)

To try for a more "lawful" version... Although "define by example" has fallen out of favor, it is still largely the way we teach children language. We say "tree", and show them a tree, or several trees. Sure, they may decide that a bush is also a tree, so we either correct them when it comes up, or we provide counter examples: x is a tree, but y is not.

So it is perfectly valid to provide either specific or general examples of either what is or is not good, to generate, if not an algorithm, at least a heuristic, as a framework for discussion.


As to my opinion on the matter... I hate to say something that sounds like shades of grey, but...

Suppose we hold peace and happiness as our desired result. Questionable, but a good place to start.

Actions that tend towards our desired results in a way that are consistent with them are good. Actions which tend towards our desired results, but contradict them (such as your standard d&d adventures murdering the monsters) are good if, in the setting, there is no better alternative; otherwise, they are not. Actions which are consistent with our goals, but tend against them may have "good intentions".

Now, Warhammer orks well tell you that happiness and peace are mutually exclusive. If all the universe were orks, we would need to define our desired outcomes differently.

[Kriton]

Wiser men than us(and women), have been arguing on this topic since the dawn of reason.

My short answer is: I don't know.

A solution that I find workable for this problem whenever it practically arises, is doing whatever the society that is concerned with your actions(and by extension judging the goodness of you actions), finds most desirable as a behavior. In other words, society makes good, good.

[NichG]

Within D&D, I don't particularly expect any alignment to 'make sense' in a broad fashion. Each action has a little marker that says 'the writers called this one Good' and 'the writers called this one Evil' and that's all there is to it. There's the superficial appearance of consistency, but since the writers and the settings and so on varied over the entire run of D&D, that appearance of some kind of underlying consistent rule breaks down when you look closely.

If I were to rebuild it from scratch but at the same time I was forced to keep 'good' and 'evil' as the key concepts, I guess what I'd do is as follows. I'd say forget about actions, and look at what a person cares about and why. In those terms, the tendency of good is to assign fundamental value to things outside ones-self for their own sake. That doesn't preclude making mistakes that get people hurt or killed, or even making hard choices like one person's value as being higher than another. But rather its when those mistakes or trade-offs become acceptable - the point where the individual is no longer seriously attempting to avoid them, but begins to accept them as inevitable or even welcome in a self-aggrandizing way (look at me, I'm the only one willing to make the hard choices!) - that it starts to become something else. Basically, it stops being good and becomes neutral or evil when the value of others is being seen as relative to the self - what that person means to me, what I will feel like if that person suffers, etc - rather than as intrinsic value.

That's why sacrifice is often associated with good. Because if something has intrinsic value independent of the self, then preserving that thing even at the cost of one's life is rational given that value function. Sacrifice wouldn't be necessary for good per se, but it'd be a strong test.

Also for this kind of thing, you could have a person who assigns external value to their kin, but not at all to strangers, and other more complex cases. So 'good' isn't an intrinsic property here, its a relative one. This person can 'good' to one group of people, but 'evil' to another group of people, without being inconsistent. If there's some deity in the setting who gets to declare Good and Evil, then it might as well be 'if you assign intrinsic value to all the things that this deity says should be valued, you're Good with a capital G'. Which is as consistent as you're going to get with any absolute morality.

[Xuc Xac]

There is a line between good and evil. Sometimes it's thin and fuzzy. Good is the side that cares where the line is.

[BWR]

Can you provide some examples?

L5R, where a bigoted, racist, xenophobic caste system is instituted and approved of by the highest metaphysical authorities in the setting. While compassion is a virtue, you can be an abusive, oppressive ******** and still be a paragon of honor (you have at least one faction in the game that exemplifies this possibility).

CoC - 'good' and 'evil' aren't really things in CoC or any Mythos-inspired setting. You have only 'comforting delusions of humanity' and 'reality'.

You can bring in plenty of other settings where the ideas of Good and Evil are irrelevant, like CoC. There may be one or more internal moral systems in the game but the setting as a whole does not make much of a issue about a universal and objective standard. Most of the WoD games, Dying Earth, etc., fall into this category.

[Aneurin]

I seldom bother to come up with objective definitions of Good, Neutrality and Evil. I find it's more more interesting (and relevant) to work out a subjective definition for that character, and find out whether they think they are Good, Evil or Neutral.

However, when pushed to declare a perceived-by-the-world-at-large D&D-style definition, I tend to judge by their actions using something like this;


There is a room, entirely sealed, with a pool of lava, the character and a complete stranger. The character is told the terms; the only way to get out is for either they or the stranger to jump into the lava and die. Whoever survives will have their memories of the event removed, and be released. The one who dies gets to stay dead. There is plenty of time to think, all the time in the world so this is not a snap judgement. There will be no judgement, no word of the event will ever get out. The stranger is also absolutely incapable of preventing whatever course of action the character undertakes for the purposes of this situation.

If the character would jump into the lava to save a perfect stranger, then they are Good.

If the character would push the stranger into the lava to save themself, then they are Evil.

If the character would do neither of these things, then they are Neutral.

[Amphetryon]

Broadly speaking, Good considers the welfare of others before the self, while Evil considers the welfare of the self before others.

[goto124]

the only way to get out is for either they or the stranger to jump into the lava and die.

If the character would push the stranger into the lava to save themself, then they are Evil.

If the character would do neither of these things, then they are Neutral.

Erm... I was under the impression that Neutral people would save their own lives, which means they would push the stranger into the lava as well. Heck, given enough time, the Good person might end up deciding to get out and actually do something good (such as saving kittens, kingdoms, or the world) instead of get stuck in this lava room forever.

If this is a repeatable test done on enough people, "amount of time taken for person to push stranger into lava" may be a simple way to roughly gauge the goodness/evilness of the person :smallbiggrin:

[BWR]

Broadly speaking, Good considers the welfare of others before the self, while Evil considers the welfare of the self before others.

Which means that the vast majority of people in these settings, the ones that basically just want to live quiet life minding their own business and not getting involved in anything more important than the local farmer's market, are evil.

[Florian]

I consider "do not do unto others what others should not do upon you" as a very good example for "Neutral"
"Good" then goes way beyond that, as in "improve general quality of life for all beings, as much as you want to have all beings improve upon your quality of life"

[Lord Raziere]

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what, exactly, makes good good? Opinions are gonna vary, and it'd be neat to hear multiple perspectives on this one.

Knowing when too far is too far, knowing when someone needs help, knowing when you need to correct something and when to let it go, doing all that you can to improve things within your capability no matter how limited, knowing the difference between what you can change and what you can't, knowing when you need to suffer for others to be happy, and when you don't need to suffer at all for everyone to be happy, knowing when you need courage to stand up for whats right, knowing when you need to compromise, knowing that you may someday need to admit your mistakes and fix them, knowing that your uncertain in how good you are and having to try your best anyways, having principles but not being blinded by them, knowing when a philosophy is wrong and when it is right, knowing the difference between someone being wrong and a disagreement, and so on and so forth.

Good is complex, made of many things, many virtues, many little parts. It is closer to a vast ecology of little things that can be called good in some situations but not others than a single thing that we cannot see the shape of. a healthier view I think, than thinking of it as some big singular principle above all others. rather it is many things combined that make it up, with many ingredients, and it does not always turn out the same. such an abstract concept is closer to a word that applies over many subdivisions than an actual thing unto itself.

[Amphetryon]

Which means that the vast majority of people in these settings, the ones that basically just want to live quiet life minding their own business and not getting involved in anything more important than the local farmer's market, are evil.

No, it doesn't, unless you choose to deliberately misconstrue the "broadly speaking" qualifier. That is, of course, your prerogative.

[Millstone85]

Broadly speaking, Good considers the welfare of others before the self, while Evil considers the welfare of the self before others.Which means that the vast majority of people in these settings, the ones that basically just want to live quiet life minding their own business and not getting involved in anything more important than the local farmer's market, are evil.The local farmer's market is already a moral challenge. Are they honest on the quality of their products? Do they practice fair prices? Tiny Tim might not see another spring unless father brings some money home...

[Whyrocknodie]

Victory, of course.

[Nerd-o-rama]

No, it doesn't, unless you choose to deliberately misconstrue the "broadly speaking" qualifier. That is, of course, your prerogative.

I think what BWR means is that Evil is enriching one's own happiness/good at the expense of others. Enriching one's own happiness/good and simply being unconcerned with that of others would almost always be moral-Neutral, in D&D terms.

The pithiest way to say this is that Good is going out of your way to help other people, without a specific motivation of helping yourself. Evil is going out of your way to hurt people, for your own sake (even if it's just the emotional satisfaction of inflicting harm).

[Millstone85]

I think what BWR means is that Evil is enriching one's own happiness/good at the expense of others. Enriching one's own happiness/good and simply being unconcerned with that of others would almost always be moral-Neutral, in D&D terms.Perhaps by RAW but I would expect most stories to ultimately make those potayto potahto.

[Amphetryon]

I think what BWR means is that Evil is enriching one's own happiness/good at the expense of others. Enriching one's own happiness/good and simply being unconcerned with that of others would almost always be moral-Neutral, in D&D terms.

The pithiest way to say this is that Good is going out of your way to help other people, without a specific motivation of helping yourself. Evil is going out of your way to hurt people, for your own sake (even if it's just the emotional satisfaction of inflicting harm).

Which is, broadly speaking, the same set of parameters I listed and which he argued against. . . unless you're also ignoring that same qualifier.

[wumpus]

Not being seen when gutting Kender.

[Aneurin]

Erm... I was under the impression that Neutral people would save their own lives, which means they would push the stranger into the lava as well. Heck, given enough time, the Good person might end up deciding to get out and actually do something good (such as saving kittens, kingdoms, or the world) instead of get stuck in this lava room forever.

If this is a repeatable test done on enough people, "amount of time taken for person to push stranger into lava" may be a simple way to roughly gauge the goodness/evilness of the person :smallbiggrin:

I personally don't feel that deliberately sacrificing someone to preserve your own life is a Good act - and remember, this is a perfect stranger. It could be anyone from the greatest hero, to the lowliest peasant, to the blackest villain. While you make a good point that the character could perhaps do a great deal of Good if they survived, I would still hesitate to call them a Good person if they were willing to sacrifice another to do it - especially if that were their line of reasoning, since putting their own life's value above that of another smacks of arrogance and hubris.

For the sake of clarity, in this case I was considering the Neutral path to be one where the character is unwilling to sacrifice another for the sake of their own survival, but is also unprepared to give their own life up for a stranger.

The lack of time limit's just in there to make clear that this isn't a snap decision, really. It's not about how a character would act in the heat of the moment, it's about how they act when they have time to think and consider. The alignment check is, as far as I'm concerned, complete as soon as they make their decision - or find themselves paralysed by the choice and unable to decide - even if they eventually choose otherwise.


It's not a perfect system, and I'd certainly not bother trying to apply it to real-world morality or anything else. There's also a bunch of things it just doesn't cover - like personal reasons to survive/not survive - because I really can't think of a way to work them in without making the whole thing needlessly complicated. But I find it's a decent base, when I've no choice but to declare a position in a black-and-white objective morality system. Normally, though, I just won't bother - to me, it's much more important to understand the character's beliefs on the subject and where they think they stand in terms of morality.

[BWR]

I think what BWR means is that Evil is enriching one's own happiness/good at the expense of others.

Amphytron, but yes, I did get that. It was just inaccurately formulated.

[Mastikator]

If we're going by good dragons vs evil dragons.

Shininess is what makes good... good.

[Quertus]

There is a room, entirely sealed, with a pool of lava, the character and a complete stranger. The character is told the terms; the only way to get out is for either they or the stranger to jump into the lava and die. Whoever survives will have their memories of the event removed, and be released. The one who dies gets to stay dead. There is plenty of time to think, all the time in the world so this is not a snap judgement. There will be no judgement, no word of the event will ever get out. The stranger is also absolutely incapable of preventing whatever course of action the character undertakes for the purposes of this situation.

If the character would jump into the lava to save a perfect stranger, then they are Good.

If the character would push the stranger into the lava to save themself, then they are Evil.

If the character would do neither of these things, then they are Neutral.

As I am a lawful rules lawyer, I note you said that the only easy out was for someone to "jump in", so I would never push the stranger in ;)

Cogito ergo sum. I can only prove I exist, and am therefore unwilling to sacrifice myself for an illusion. Is that necessarily Evil?

Putting this test with the idea of judging people by their own measure of what is good... The Warhammer ork who, valuing violence, kills the stranger, is good? The person who believes in happiness, who interrogates the stranger, concludes that they will cause more happiness than the stranger, kills the stranger, is good? The person who believes that they are a paragon of their virtue, and so kills the stranger without testing them, is good? The poison who believes in something, but sacrifices themselves without testing the stranger, is not good?

[Aneurin]

As I am a lawful rules lawyer, I note you said that the only easy out was for someone to "jump in", so I would never push the stranger in ;)

Cogito ergo sum. I can only prove I exist, and am therefore unwilling to sacrifice myself for an illusion. Is that necessarily Evil?

Putting this test with the idea of judging people by their own measure of what is good... The Warhammer ork who, valuing violence, kills the stranger, is good? The person who believes in happiness, who interrogates the stranger, concludes that they will cause more happiness than the stranger, kills the stranger, is good? The person who believes that they are a paragon of their virtue, and so kills the stranger without testing them, is good? The poison who believes in something, but sacrifices themselves without testing the stranger, is not good?

Those are great points, but they make for subjective morality, not objective. The scenario I described is my benchmark for objective morality, a completely sterile situation with no outside influences - a choice made in vacuum, between certain, clear, instant and painless destruction for the character or a total stranger. No reprecussions, no guilt after the fact. The only variable in the scenario is the character's decision. It probably shouldn't be possible to communicate with the stranger, since a conversation with them would shift things to subjective terms.

I've mostly based the scenario on the alignments as described by the d20srd, since we're talking about roleplaying games. I would be amused to see an objective morality system based on the 40k orks though - a species with fundamentally different attitudes to life, death and violence should have a rather interesting moral framework to go with it.

I'm not sure, though, that an ork would think of themself as being good for killing the stranger, though. They don't appear to hold violence as a good thing or an evil thing, in much the same way humans don't regard breathing as a (morally) good or evil action, and killing another ork to survive seems to be a simple fact of life. I'm not sure what would be useable as their morality benchmarks, really.

[Quertus]

L5R, where a bigoted, racist, xenophobic caste system is instituted and approved of by the highest metaphysical authorities in the setting. While compassion is a virtue, you can be an abusive, oppressive ******** and still be a paragon of honor (you have at least one faction in the game that exemplifies this possibility).

CoC - 'good' and 'evil' aren't really things in CoC or any Mythos-inspired setting. You have only 'comforting delusions of humanity' and 'reality'.

You can bring in plenty of other settings where the ideas of Good and Evil are irrelevant, like CoC. There may be one or more internal moral systems in the game but the setting as a whole does not make much of a issue about a universal and objective standard. Most of the WoD games, Dying Earth, etc., fall into this category.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see where either of these settings invalidates the potential for good to be defined as bringing happiness without causing harm.

In CoC, you could describe Hannibal Lectre (or any number of classic "evil" examples) as evil, and people would generally understand and agree with you.

Similar thing for L5R... probably. The only issue you described is that the system-recognized greatest good approves of things that might not be good by this definition. (plenty of people IRL can be perfectly honorable and perfect jerks)

Xenophobia, racism, bigotry, bullying might be evil by the "kindly utilitarian" definition of good as "maximize happiness, cause no harm". I can see said kindly utilitarian trying to argue for a better way in L5R. Whether they'd get further with that world's inhabitants than with Warhammer orks is another matter.

I'm not sure that a caste system (or even xenophobia) innately reduce happiness more than their removal, or cause more suffering than they prevent. YMMV.

Warhammer orks, however, certainly do bring the kindly utilitarian's views into question. For them, war is happiness. RAW, the kindly utilitarian would argue that they should not fight, and must therefore be unhappy - even in a universe consisting of nothing but them.

Kantian ethics would generally agree with the kindly utilitarian, but would allow Warhammer orks to fight each other.

[Quertus]

Those are great points, but they make for subjective morality, not objective. The scenario I described is my benchmark for objective morality, a completely sterile situation with no outside influences - a choice made in vacuum, between certain, clear, instant and painless destruction for the character or a total stranger. No reprecussions, no guilt after the fact. The only variable in the scenario is the character's decision. It probably shouldn't be possible to communicate with the stranger, since a conversation with them would shift things to subjective terms.

I've mostly based the scenario on the alignments as described by the d20srd, since we're talking about roleplaying games. I would be amused to see an objective morality system based on the 40k orks though - a species with fundamentally different attitudes to life, death and violence should have a rather interesting moral framework to go with it.

I'm not sure, though, that an ork would think of themself as being good for killing the stranger, though. They don't appear to hold violence as a good thing or an evil thing, in much the same way humans don't regard breathing as a (morally) good or evil action, and killing another ork to survive seems to be a simple fact of life. I'm not sure what would be useable as their morality benchmarks, really.

Death seems like a pretty big repercussion to me. ;)

Also, someone dies. That has repercussions. Someone who is terminally ill is more likely than someone whose family depends on them for their survival to jump.

And what of those who come from a culture / religion where suicide is considered evil - or even the greatest evil?

BTW, My insertion of subjective reality was in response to others doing the same, not directly in response to your post. I was trying to tie the two together.

[Madeiner]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see where either of these settings invalidates the potential for good to be defined as bringing happiness without causing harm.


Let me provide an example from my current campaign.

A deity (the planet itself, gaia) has taken humanoid form, because the planet is suffering.
This form is simple girl named Terra, with untold powers but also extremely fragile.

The setting has estabilished that all living things return to the planet upon death, and those souls are recycled to create new life.
Terra (she IS the planet, and she's carrying all the life within herself) is destined to be killed by a PC: a ranger who has been foretold he is destined to kill Terra.

Terra gets stabbed by an evil character with an evil weapon, who is going to absorb all the living things that are inside her, basically killing the planet in the process.
PC ranger gets to go back in time to a few seconds before that, and his only option is to kill Terra before she is stabbed by the evil weapon.

He is causing suffering to Terra. Maybe she will die slowly and painfully. The PC is suffering through that (remember, she is her lover) but he needs to do that any way if he doesnt want the world to perish.

Is he good?

[NichG]

If the setting doesn't support 'good' as a concept which has actual decision power, then it becomes questionable whether trying to define good is actually relevant or productive anymore. In D&D, you're kind of forced to define good, because you need to know 'is this guy good?' to determine if certain spells work on him and things like that. In Call of Cthulhu, even if you come up with a definition of good, there is nothing in the setting that actually needs to know at an intrinsic level whether someone is good or not to decide what happens. So the definition is just this random thing floating around in your head, its not actually bound to anything that happens.

Instead of calling it 'Good' you could call it 'Quertus Eudaemonia' for example, without changing anything. Whereas in D&D where 'Good' is bound to consequence directly, choosing to call something 'Good' versus 'Quertus Eudaemonia' actually does have a consequence.

[goto124]

Why does DnD have outright spells tied to the concept of morality? What 'feel' does it achieve? Does it promote a playstyle that's potentially fun for someone, or enough people to form a group?

[Kriton]

Why does DnD have outright spells tied to the concept of morality? What 'feel' does it achieve? Does it promote a playstyle that's potentially fun for someone, or enough people to form a group?

I think, it might serve as a way to steer the players in the direction of not always siding with the villains of the campaign, with varying degrees of success in my experience in my experience.

[NichG]

It's to create the feeling of a cosmic conflict that is more important than individual nuance. Instead of "what do you think about this complex ethical choice?" Its "which side of the war are you on?" This means the players can e.g. slaughter the army of orcs without worrying about the orc orphans and such. You even had things like alignment languages to help disparate forces unite under the banner of their cosmic morality marker. Remember, D&D came out of wargaming.

Since then, D&D had expanded quite a bit. So some of the design decisions made early on don't help with what D&D is today.

[Broken Crown]

Not being seen when gutting Kender.

I have to disagree with this.

Gutting Kender makes the world a better place; everyone benefits from it (except the Kender in question), so it is a good act.

Furthermore, knowing that a Kender has been removed from the world makes everyone happier. Thus, making people aware of the destruction of a Kender benefits everyone (again, except the Kender in question, who is now beyond caring), and is a good act.

Therefore, to maximize the good caused by gutting Kender, you should do it as publicly as possible.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Why does DnD have outright spells tied to the concept of morality? What 'feel' does it achieve? Does it promote a playstyle that's potentially fun for someone, or enough people to form a group?


Because evil people are jerkwads. Imagine someone who is just a total narcissistic, racist, puppy-killing A-hole. Now imagine the satisfaction of punching said a-hole in the face.

Spells and abilities tied to "Good beating the crap out of evil" is a way a way of emulating that feeling of satisfaction, and giving the player character the moral satisfaction as well. Whatever your definition of "good" is at the gaming table.

Using some well known anime as examples. I'm just going to go ahead and say that most people don't watch Naruto, or DBZ, or Fairy Tail, for that matter, because of their complex, profound and thought-provoking plotlines. No. People watch those shows because they showcase baddass "good guys" beating the crap out of villains.

"Smite evil", in many ways, is the spirit bomb of DnD. (except it doesn't take 6 sessions to use)

On the flip side, evil only spells and abilities are meant to accentuate how villainous the BBEG is, leading to further satisfaction when the good guys defeat him/her

[goto124]

So... it works in worlds of black and white morality? It's not bad in and of itself, it's just that I was wondering if cosmic alignment can work outside that.

[TheFamilarRaven]

So... it works in worlds of black and white morality? It's not bad in and of itself, it's just that I was wondering if cosmic alignment can work outside that.

I'm not sure that I fully understand the question.

Are you asking if cosmic alignment can work in a world that's not black and white? Because there is Neutrality on that list. So there IS a grey area, thus I would say the world is not completely black and white. But black and white ARE clearly defined (in some respect). If everything was grey then no, cosmic alignment would not work, because the very definition (i think) of cosmic alignment is that there are at at least two opposing sides. If there are no clear sides, there can be no cosmic alignment.

Or are you asking if cosmic alignment could work if there was no mechanics tied to them? In which case, I'd say no. There'd be little to no point in writing "lawful good" on a character sheet if it didn't have some sort of mechanical consequence. In other words, alignment would be "there" but no one would give a rats ass about it because it wouldn't affect their character in any meaningful way except to maybe remind them of how their character is supposed to behave.

[BWR]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see where either of these settings invalidates the potential for good to be defined as bringing happiness without causing harm.





If the setting doesn't support 'good' as a concept which has actual decision power, then it becomes questionable whether trying to define good is actually relevant or productive anymore. In D&D, you're kind of forced to define good, because you need to know 'is this guy good?' to determine if certain spells work on him and things like that. In Call of Cthulhu, even if you come up with a definition of good, there is nothing in the setting that actually needs to know at an intrinsic level whether someone is good or not to decide what happens. So the definition is just this random thing floating around in your head, its not actually bound to anything that happens.



Firstly, this. If absolute standards of Good/Evil aren't an actual thing in the setting it's a distraction and futile to try to define them for the setting.
Secondly, and most importantly, to repeat myself, you can always find or create a setting where any given definition of Good/Evil is inaccurate or incorrect, so the discussion of universal standards of morality is pointless. The only meaningful discussion on morality you can have is within the context of any given setting.

In the case of L5R and the caste system.
The caste system is a rigidly defined social hierarchy that pretty much locks you into place from the moment of your birth. While there are some very few cases of mobility, it is never a common thing since only the Emperor can change your caste (that or becoming a monk/nun), The lower castes are basically slaves and at best half-human or worst non-human. That is, physiologically they are human but socially they are less than that and considered spiritually lesser as well.
This is a system instituted by gods and approved of by the very highest authorities in the setting and reflects the rest of the hierarchy of creation. This sort of flat-out slavery, which is often abusive, is accepted as the correct way to do things not only by the people in charge of that but also by gods in charge. In the context of D&D worlds, slavery tends to considered a Bad Thing and most slavers and slaveholding societies are portrayed as evil, or at least not-Good, and even within D&D settings there is a lot of variation. Whereas many D&D settings have morality as an external, universal standard, in L5R it's really a Might Makes Right standard from the gods and whatever they decide is Good, goes.
Going through all sorts of mental hoops to try to twist a single universal moral system to be applicable to all settings is not only futile, it's missing the point of many settings.

[veti]

Knowing when too far is too far, knowing when someone needs help, knowing when you need to correct something and when to let it go, doing all that you can to improve things within your capability no matter how limited, knowing the difference between what you can change and what you can't, knowing when you need to suffer for others to be happy, and when you don't need to suffer at all for everyone to be happy, knowing when you need courage to stand up for whats right, knowing when you need to compromise, knowing that you may someday need to admit your mistakes and fix them, knowing that your uncertain in how good you are and having to try your best anyways, having principles but not being blinded by them, knowing when a philosophy is wrong and when it is right, knowing the difference between someone being wrong and a disagreement, and so on and so forth.

This sounds like "wisdom" rather than "good". You're talking about sound judgment. But a character's goals and motivations are independent of their personal wisdom and insight. Isn't it possible to be "good", and also - not so insightful?

I agree that "good", in so far as it means anything at all, is complex. It's about little things more than big things, simply because there are more little things than big. Superman isn't Good because he saves the world on a regular basis - that just makes him powerful, which is a whole different axis entirely. He's Good because he opens doors for people and helps seniors across the street.


Victory, of course.

For anyone who thinks this is cynical - look at it this way. Winners write the history, because they're the ones who are there to write it, and have the influence to get it read. So history necessarily tells stories from the winner's perspective. (Of course that's an oversimplification, there is such a thing as minority history, but that's - minority. At best.) You'll know and understand and sympathise with the winner's background, motivations and ends, not so much with the loser's. And that's precisely why the term "paladin" - originally associated with the closest henchmen of one of the most successful thugs in European history - now means "paragon of goodness".


Those are great points, but they make for subjective morality, not objective. The scenario I described is my benchmark for objective morality, a completely sterile situation with no outside influences - a choice made in vacuum, between certain, clear, instant and painless destruction for the character or a total stranger. No reprecussions, no guilt after the fact. The only variable in the scenario is the character's decision. It probably shouldn't be possible to communicate with the stranger, since a conversation with them would shift things to subjective terms.

You're assuming that each person sees their own life in a vacuum, as being purely about themselves. What if I'm in the middle of a vital quest, which only I have any hope of completing, to save the whole world? Then sacrificing my life also means sacrificing everyone else's, including the stranger's.

If you think that might be an extenuating circumstance, then: what if it's not the whole world, but just my country? Just my village? Just my family? How big does the stake have to be, before I'm allowed to put them ahead of the interests of this stranger?

[Lord Raziere]

This sounds like "wisdom" rather than "good". You're talking about sound judgment. But a character's goals and motivations are independent of their personal wisdom and insight. Isn't it possible to be "good", and also - not so insightful?


Ah, but what person of sound judgement would choose any goal that wouldn't be good? would not someone's judgement if it led to something bad, therefore not be wise or sound? morally speaking, you need wisdom and good information to make accurate assessments of the situation to do the right thing. sure you can try to do the right thing with less insight and with incomplete information, but its less good than having a clear view of the situation. someone with a clear head has more awareness of the pitfalls that could lead to evil.

in contrast, evil is almost always unaware thats it evil, or tries to deny that its evil, or is doing something unwise. a moral extremist is often characterized by how unaware they are of their actions being wrong, a serial murderer kills people in certain patterns and targets even though its wiser to not kill at all, a corporate executives despite having more money than anyone obsessively hoard even more money thinking they need to constantly stay competitive controlled by the fear of loss and not caring how their decisions impact wider society, a bully goes out of their way to show off their power and make someone else suffer no reason even though it could come back to bite him further down the line and turn people against him. there is no such thing as "wise villainy" or "moderate evil". Evil by its very nature is a thing of extremes, obsessions, flaws, broken thinking and fallacious rationalization trying to hold itself together however tenuously it can.

after all, good and evil are all about making decisions. making decisions is all about logic. and logic is all about knowing the correct information to make the right assumptions to come to the proper conclusions, which requires insight and the wisdom to assess the situation as best they can from what they can figure out. so what is evil, if not flawed, broken thinking? Evil by its very definition is something that is bad, nonfunctional, detrimental. and Evil makes the wrong decisions given the information they have, so there is a breakdown of logic and good decision-making here, which is clearly unwise.

so yes, someone can be good if they're not wise, but they'll have a harder time of it than someone who is, as an unwise person is more likely to make mistakes and do things that could make them evil.

[Florian]

So... it works in worlds of black and white morality? It's not bad in and of itself, it's just that I was wondering if cosmic alignment can work outside that.

That will come down to reward vs. punishment vs. Free Will to chose between now and forever.

[Aneurin]

Death seems like a pretty big repercussion to me. ;)

Also, someone dies. That has repercussions. Someone who is terminally ill is more likely than someone whose family depends on them for their survival to jump.

And what of those who come from a culture / religion where suicide is considered evil - or even the greatest evil?

BTW, My insertion of subjective reality was in response to others doing the same, not directly in response to your post. I was trying to tie the two together.

And this sort of thing is why I try to avoid objective morality with my characters where I can. It tends to collide messily with any situation that isn't in a perfect vacuum.

Take the classic situation of adventurers rescuing a village from the predations of a goblin tribe living nearby by driving them off or killing them. The goblins steal food and tools, sometimes break things, sometimes kill the villagers. Sounds pretty evil, until you start to look at why the goblins are doing this. Can they forge those tools themselves? Can they find or grow that food? Were they there first, and the humans are the invaders driving them from the prime hunting and foraging spots? If the villagers are willing to hire adventurers to wipe out an entire clan of sapient beings, what else might they have tried in the past to upset the goblins? Did anyone try to broker a peace treaty between the two?

If you try and apply D&D-style objective morality to the situation, you're going to wind up with everyone involved flagging as evil very quickly. Thinking, reasoning beings are being killed all over the place, theft will be occuring ('cause you can guaratee the adventurers are going to loot everything they can) and the villagers are inciting slaughter and hiring would-be murderers.


You're assuming that each person sees their own life in a vacuum, as being purely about themselves. What if I'm in the middle of a vital quest, which only I have any hope of completing, to save the whole world? Then sacrificing my life also means sacrificing everyone else's, including the stranger's.

If you think that might be an extenuating circumstance, then: what if it's not the whole world, but just my country? Just my village? Just my family? How big does the stake have to be, before I'm allowed to put them ahead of the interests of this stranger?

I'm not assuming that at all; what I am doing, though, is assuming that this choice happens in vacuum. The choice is about whether the character chooses to sacrifice themself to save a perfect stranger, sacrifice a stranger to save themselves or whether they do not choose at all, and perhaps push the burden of choice on to another.

In a world of objective morality, sacrificing another to save your own life even with the greatest of extenuating reasons would still be an Evil act. It may be understandable, forgivable even, but that does not make it anything other than an Evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the stranger, in turn, would be a Good act no matter what your reasoning and personal beliefs on the matter.

In a world of subjective morality, then sacrificing that stranger may be a Good act but since the test is designed to make an assessment in a world of objective morality any results you can take from the scenario are more or less irrelevant.

[Florian]

@goto124:

After a bit of thought, let me rephrase it this way: In a morally grey world, staying "pure" one way or the other requires extreme dedication and both direction alienate one from the common crowd.

Just for example, Rorschach is the perfect example for a Paladin trasportet into our world.

Edit and afterthought: In a sense, the whole Daniel Craig 007 series showcases all of the pros and cons here. Knowing right from wrong and acting right from wrong is quite different. That, I do love in these movies.

[The Fury]

In a world of objective morality, sacrificing another to save your own life even with the greatest of extenuating reasons would still be an Evil act. It may be understandable, forgivable even, but that does not make it anything other than an Evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the stranger, in turn, would be a Good act no matter what your reasoning and personal beliefs on the matter.


I suppose that's true, though something I've always wondered about settings that have objective morality is how well that morality is understood and how many characters within it make their decisions based on it.

For example, sparing the life of an enemy might be considered an objectively Good act, but if the one that spares the life justifies their reasons with, "Look, your holdings have been plundered, your house has been burned down, your allies have deserted you. You are finished, broken. I could easily destroy you now, but I do not believe you're worth killing."

The universe might consider this an act of generosity, though it's clearly meant as an act of cruelty. Personally, I'm not so sure that many characters in the setting would agree with the objective morality of the universe on something like that.

[Drynwyn]

In my opinion, what makes Good good is a willingness to help people, for it's own sake, when giving that help comes at a cost to you.

Just how Good you are depends on how large you're willing to make that cost.

Basically:

Good: Help others even at a cost to yourself.

Neutral: Refrain from Evil acts.

Evil: Perform Evil acts if it suits your purposes.

[Stubbazubba]

D&D morality just doesn't make sense, because it defines Good and Evil in terms of individual actions and whole character orientations. Characters are described by an alignment, but each action may also be its own alignment. So you have Lawful Good paladins who may be LG to a T, but then "fall" because of one action. Are they still Lawful Good? If the character descriptor is the grand sum of all their past actions, then yeah, but what if it's an in-the-moment descriptor? Will they show up as Neutral or Evil under the right Detect spell?

I find it more convenient (though I don't know if it gels with every mechanic) to imagine descriptors as a spectrum, where pure Good and pure Evil are on the ends, and a range of mixtures with Neutral in between. A relatively Good person considers the well-being of others before their own well-being, a Neutral person considers them of equal value, and a relatively Evil person considers their own well-being before that of others. When you cast Detect Evil or Detect Good, you are finding those beings who are more Evil/Good than they are Neutral. Mortals are generally Neutral with a splash of Good and/or Evil here and there; it takes focus to get to Good or Evil territory. How much an impact individual actions have on someone's overall alignment has to do with the action's Magnitude and Recency. A career con man who has turned around can be Good, while a saint that kills one person to cover up a scandal certainly loses Good status immediately.

Similarly, actions have to be pretty one-sided to count as Good or Evil as opposed to Neutral. So an act is only Good if it involves some sacrifice or risk to oneself that is not off-set by personal reward (or at least is undertaken regardless of personal reward). Eliminating a threat to a village because of the promised reward money is Neutral, not Good, even though the benefit to others may exceed that to yourself. So it requires both an objective benefit to others in excess of personal risk and the subjective motivation of considering the benefit to others first.

An Evil act, similarly, requires knowingly and disproportionately harming others relative to the benefit to yourself. If you jump out of the way of an arrow knowing it'll hit your friend behind you, that is technically selfish, but it's not Evil; the harm to either of you is identical, and merely refusing to sacrifice for someone else is Neutral, not Evil. If, OTOH, your enemy is hiding behind several human shields, and you decide to fireball them all in order to eliminate the enemy, that's probably Evil.

Even this leaves an important question unanswered: what if the harm to others is disproportionate to the benefit to yourself, but not to the benefit to yourself and others? E.g. how many human shields can you kill to save even more innocents? Applying the Good analysis, if you kill the human shields because you want to save the other innocents, and not just your own skin, it should be Good. But it's also clearly a disproportionate harm to others relative to the benefit to yourself. It is scenarios like this that remind us why we keep Neutral around. We don't have to say 100% justified or 100% unjustified, we can say it's murky, it's debatable, ergo Neutral.

Ideally, the game just doesn't have an objective morality system that is externally detectable and keyed to in-game effects. Ideally, morality is a role-playing aid only and best represented by Ideals, any of which can be taken to an extreme in a way that would generally be considered "wrong." Navigating competing Ideals is good fodder for character interaction and growth, but it relies on being subjective and confined to the inner thoughts of the character to be so.

[Aliquid]

In my opinion, what makes Good good is a willingness to help people, for it's own sake, when giving that help comes at a cost to you.

Just how Good you are depends on how large you're willing to make that cost.

Along those lines:

Good - Willing to make a personal sacrifice to help others (without expecting a reward)
Evil - Willing to cause suffering for personal gain (or just for fun)
Neutral - Not overly interested in doing either of those things

[veti]

I hate the way these discussions always talk about "good" as a fantasy idea - something imagined, far outside our everyday experience. Good isn't about killing vs sparing - that's a decision that most of us will probably never even have the opportunity to make. It's real and immediate. It's the way you smile and say "please" when you ask a shop assistant to help you with something, the way you let a car out in front of you at a busy intersection, the way you dry your hands thoroughly after washing them before touching anything. Doing your best to make the world a more, rather than less, happy place.

That's not to say that life/death decisions and major crimes don't matter. One major crime can outweigh quite a lot of ordinary politeness. But for most of us, that's academic, because we'll never be seriously tempted to commit a crime like that. So couching the discussion in those terms is really a way of distancing ourselves from the decision - a way of saying that the "morality" we want to talk about is something that's purely imaginary and has no meaning in reality. And then we start waxing indignant because other people's imaginary morality differs from ours.

[Aliquid]

I hate the way these discussions always talk about "good" as a fantasy idea - something imagined, far outside our everyday experience.This is a role playing game section of the forum...

[goto124]

I hate the way these discussions always talk about "good" as a fantasy idea - something imagined, far outside our everyday experience. Good isn't about killing vs sparing - that's a decision that most of us will probably never even have the opportunity to make.

To be honest, that's kinda the point of having objective morality in a role-playing game.

[Socratov]

I'd say Good makes Goog, well, good if for the overwhelming part of his actions he take the action that leaves in the mathematical sense an absolute positive result. The inverse is true for evil and everything in between I consider neutral.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Victory, of course.

And a talented publicist!