PDA

View Full Version : Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!



Bartmanhomer
2020-07-25, 10:13 PM
Is it true that some good characters aren't nice people? If so, how do they even maintain their goodness? :confused:

Kyutaru
2020-07-25, 10:32 PM
Moral busybodies. Doing for the sake of others what they don't even want done.

Saintheart
2020-07-25, 10:45 PM
Google the Kingpriest of Istar.

RedWarlock
2020-07-25, 10:49 PM
Warning: TV Tropes (Good Is Not Nice (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice))

TLDR: Good characters that do what needs to be done, they do good acts (killing evil monsters, rooting out injustice, and even feeding the poor and saving burning orphanages), but aren't necessarily social, friendly, accommodating people.

Keltest
2020-07-25, 10:56 PM
Google the Kingpriest of Istar.

He was only "good" in the sense that the authors said he was good. You look at what was actually going on, his regime saw genocide, slavery and thought policing going on.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-25, 11:01 PM
Is it true that some good characters aren't nice people? If so, how do they even maintain their goodness? :confused:

By that logic, evil can't ever be nice. They must give their children coal on Christmas, beat them on their birthdays, and make fun of their big noses. They must never pet a puppy or serve a non-poisoned meal to their guests.

Nice is situational. Good/evil isn't.

Dienekes
2020-07-25, 11:07 PM
Is it true that some good characters aren't nice people? If so, how do they even maintain their goodness? :confused:

Think of it this way. Niceness is a good quality. But it is not the only good quality: Valuing justice. Honesty. Fairness. Giving aid/helping others. Facing down evil. Those are also good qualities.

It is theoretically possible that a person has all those other good qualities. But isn’t nice. I would still consider that person good. Just probably not someone I would want to grab a beer with.

legomaster00156
2020-07-25, 11:16 PM
It is perfectly possible to have a strong moral compass and an absolutely rotten personality.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-25, 11:40 PM
Think of it this way. Niceness is of good quality. But it is not the only good quality: Valuing justice. Honesty. Fairness. Giving aid/helping others. Facing down evil. Those are also good qualities.

It is theoretically possible that a person has all those other good qualities. But isn’t nice. I would still consider that person good. Just probably not someone I would want to grab a beer with.

But doesn't that defeat the whole definition of being good and everything that stands for being good? :confused:

TeChameleon
2020-07-25, 11:51 PM
'Nice' has absolutely nothing to do with 'good'. If it did, Canada would be Heaven on Earth.

It's not 'nice' to confront a loved one about the drug habit that's destroying them; it's not 'nice' to kick down their door when their building is on fire. It's not 'nice' to kill the unrepentant mass-murderer while he's in mid-murder.

But I think it can be generally agreed that those actions are 'good', or at the very least on the good-ish side of neutral.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-26, 12:04 AM
'Nice' has absolutely nothing to do with 'good'. If it did, Canada would be Heaven on Earth.

It's not 'nice' to confront a loved one about the drug habit that's destroying them; it's not 'nice' to kick down their door when their building is on fire. It's not 'nice' to kill the unrepentant mass-murderer while he's in mid-murder.

But I think it can be generally agreed that those actions are 'good', or at the very least on the good-ish side of neutral.

So being nice is meaningless then? :confused:

KineticDiplomat
2020-07-26, 12:17 AM
{scrubbed}

Kraynic
2020-07-26, 12:18 AM
So being nice is meaningless then? :confused:

Pretty much. The chaotic evil villain will be "nice" to string you along until the inevitable betrayal. I mean, people do more things for you if your are nice to them. Even if they are just pawns in the grand scheme of things, and will likely need a good sacrificing by the end....

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-26, 12:22 AM
Pretty much. The chaotic evil villain will be "nice" to string you along until the inevitable betrayal. I mean, people do more things for you if your are nice to them. Even if they are just pawns in the grand scheme of things, and will likely need a good sacrificing by the end....

Then what's the whole point of being good if you can't be nice to people? :frown:

vasilidor
2020-07-26, 12:41 AM
By that logic, evil can't ever be nice. They must give their children coal on Christmas, beat them on their birthdays, and make fun of their big noses. They must never pet a puppy or serve a non-poisoned meal to their guests.

Nice is situational. Good/evil isn't.

oh, but they can get a small child a pet puppy. then after the child gets attached to it and has some happy memories you shoot the puppy with a tranq dart filled with rabies.

Ignimortis
2020-07-26, 01:05 AM
But doesn't that defeat the whole definition of being good and everything that stands for being good? :confused:

Nope. Good is what you do, not what you are. As long as your moral compass is aligned towards helping as much as you can, you're good.


Then what's the whole point of being good if you can't be nice to people? :frown:

You can be nice. You just don't have to be. It's just one type of good person that's possible, not "every good character isn't nice".

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-26, 01:15 AM
Nope. Good is what you do, not what you are. As long as your moral compass is aligned towards helping as much as you can, you're good.



You can be nice. You just don't have to be. It's just one type of good person that's possible, not "every good character isn't nice".
Well, my definition of good that nice is part of good but I guess it isn't.

kingcheesepants
2020-07-26, 02:26 AM
Well, my definition of good that nice is part of good but I guess it isn't.

To be fair to your original definition, goodness and niceness often go hand in hand. And actually I would go further and say that you are mostly correct. Being nice is one part of being good. At least under most common ways of thinking. If you had two people who are otherwise identical in their behavior but one of them greets everyone with a smile and the other just ignores them. Well most people would reckon that the first person is a better person. After all he is making other peoples lives better (or at least attempting to) while the second person isn't. However niceness isn't necessarily a good thing in and of itself and it can get very murky very quickly. Going back to those two people if the first guy was smiling and greeting those folks because he wanted to con them later, that's definitely bad. Even if he was just doing it because he wanted to be on their good side and thought he might get treated better if he was smiling, it's not necessarily bad but I would certainly hesitate to call it good. So you can see how quickly the situation can become foggy especially when taking into account things like motives which might not even be clear to the person doing the action.
Also as some other posters mentioned sometimes niceness needs to take a back seat in order to do what's right (such as when a person needs to fight a villain or when a fire fighter needs to break down a door). Furthermore all people in real life and most characters in fiction are complex creatures who do not embody goodness but rather exist on a spectrum. Some characters are mostly good (they put themselves in harms way to help others and protect the innocent) but might be mean and surly with everyone including their friends (like Batman). Others are good characters who are nice to everyone (like superman). I would argue that the former is a more fun and interesting character but the latter is a better (in terms of goodness) character.
Long story short I think you are right overall to associate goodness and niceness but it's a lot more complicated than simply good=nice.

OldTrees1
2020-07-26, 05:12 AM
Is it true that some good characters aren't nice people? If so, how do they even maintain their goodness? :confused:


Is it moral to be nice? Why is it moral to be nice? Is it morally obligatory, or morally supererogatory?
Do not conflate "Nice" with "Kind", sometimes harsh words are kinder then nice lies.
Can one be moral without being a perfect paragon of morality? Can a event (intent/action/consequence) be moral without involving every moral virtue?


Yes, some good characters are not nice. Some of them are gruff, harsh, and abrasive. Just like how some evil characters are nice, kind, and even charitable. Morality is not a simple 3 state switch and alignment merely tries to describe a rough over-summarized summary of the character's moral character.

PS: Was this a real question?

jayem
2020-07-26, 05:45 AM
Granny Weatherwax identifies as GOOD but not NICE.

Nice worries about feelings, good worries about their outcomes. nice is short term, good is long term.
"Don't worry about your homework" is nice but not good, "Get upstairs and do your homework is good but not nice"
"Chocolate is nice for you", "Fruit is good for you"

I guess you could say Nice isn't orthogonal to Good, but contains an orthogonal component. If you were trying to push it on the D&D alignment* you might have Good going foward/backward, lawfulness left and right and niceness on a diagonal with good (ideally with that diagonal forward (good) and up (something else?), if you needed to keep it on the plane you could bodge it by having it partially tie in only lawfulness 'politeness', or chaos 'generosity')

*The only good reason for this is to have a D&D character.

Kyutaru
2020-07-26, 08:12 AM
Well, my definition of good that nice is part of good but I guess it isn't.

Nice is part of manipulation, not goodness. The people who are nice to you are the ones you should watch out for.

Imbalance
2020-07-26, 08:45 AM
Yes, one should always be good and nice, but the two are not automatically correlated.

The Fury
2020-07-26, 08:56 AM
So being nice is meaningless then? :confused:

I wouldn't say so. Say you know someone who's struggling. Maybe practical advice would be "good" but, it's not really what they need. Maybe they just need someone to be kind to them. So I think there's some value in being nice.


Nice is part of manipulation, not goodness. The people who are nice to you are the ones you should watch out for.

That's awfully cynical.

If you're talking about "nice" people that always want something from you, sure. I'd agree that they're being manipulative. If someone is being nice without really wanting anything in return... that's probably just who they are.

Kyutaru
2020-07-26, 12:12 PM
If you're talking about "nice" people that always want something from you, sure. I'd agree that they're being manipulative. If someone is being nice without really wanting anything in return... that's probably just who they are.

Disagree. Nice people are nice because they want something. They want you to be nice back. It creatives a positive feedback loop where you say Good Morning expecting someone to return the greeting. People who don't you look at weirdly and try to avoid while those who do create that feeling you're looking for. Communities form around similar mindsets and ostracize the ones who don't want to comply and conform.

Delicious Taffy
2020-07-26, 01:24 PM
Disagree. Nice people are nice because they want something. They want you to be nice back.

This is a nitpick, and not a very useful one at that.


It creatives a positive feedback loop where you say Good Morning expecting someone to return the greeting. People who don't you look at weirdly and try to avoid while those who do create that feeling you're looking for. Communities form around similar mindsets and ostracize the ones who don't want to comply and conform.

This just seems paranoid, like you're assigning some sort of roundabout long-term malice to any polite behavior.

Satinavian
2020-07-26, 02:30 PM
Is it true that some good characters aren't nice people? If so, how do they even maintain their goodness? :confused:
Depends a bit on what counts as good and nice.


But i can easily imagine someone who would help others in need, ovoid haming people but also not actually enjoying company and being bordeline rude if bothered without a good reason.

Gavinfoxx
2020-07-26, 02:32 PM
Consider a Good character with a charisma of 6 and no ranks in any social skills.

Why should he be prevented from being Good?

denthor
2020-07-26, 03:26 PM
Evil people do evil and are liked for it. Why they give food out people. A mob boss can extort money from those who borrow to give food to those families that are in his neighborhood. He can have someone killed and still help fix your fence that is nice. He can be a slime and sell faulty products but send people to help you move your things. The above are all nice things.

A good person is honest but struggling to make ends meet and can not afford charity for others. You want to see orphanages starve the children.

Kyutaru
2020-07-26, 04:06 PM
This just seems paranoid, like you're assigning some sort of roundabout long-term malice to any polite behavior.
Where do you see malice? The only thing I remarked on was expectations and the dopamine hit achieved when they're met. Polite people are merely engaging in an exchange of positive vibes for their own personal pleasure. It feels good to be polite and to speak to someone else being polite to you, like they're kissing up to you and you're both sharing the experience. This gets to be quite the drug for excessively positive people who avoid all negativity, locking it away instead where it festers and grows. Cool hatred or a smile with no soul are staples in the long term that show niceness should never be associated with goodness or kindness.

Heck this even goes back to the adage of paying someone a compliment. The idea that you're paying and being paid in some positive social gift exchange should highlight the benefits that can be construed as self-serving.

JadedDM
2020-07-26, 05:07 PM
Here's an example, Bartmanhomer.

Goku is Good and Nice.
Vegeta is Good and Mean.

Both have saved the world multiple times, sacrificed themselves to save others, and fought to protect the weak. But Goku is a nice guy while Vegeta is usually pretty rude.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-26, 05:24 PM
Here's an example, Bartmanhomer.

Goku is Good and Nice.
Vegeta is Good and Mean.

Both have saved the world multiple times, sacrificed themselves to save others, and fought to protect the weak. But Goku is a nice guy while Vegeta is usually pretty rude.

That's a good example. I know that Vegeta is nasty but I never thought he'll be good. I haven't watch Dragonball Z for a while. I'm missing out a lot.

Cluedrew
2020-07-26, 06:04 PM
Nice is part of manipulation, not goodness. The people who are nice to you are the ones you should watch out for.You sound like the people who insist I'm not taking them seriously because I'm being polite.

More generally one of the more positive spins on good and not nice is "Tough Love" (at least when it is the real thing), roughly: being the right amount of mean to someone to help them out in the long run.

Kyutaru
2020-07-26, 11:38 PM
You sound like the people who insist I'm not taking them seriously because I'm being polite.
No I sound like one of the people who thinks a billionaire donating a million dollars to charity is not out of generosity but for the substantial tax break and favors it earns.

vasilidor
2020-07-27, 12:20 AM
I have been nice to people because that was the fastest method to get them to go away that would not get me in trouble. did i actually care in the moment? no. I just wanted them to go away.

AntiAuthority
2020-07-27, 02:05 AM
Here's an example of two good characters. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia7KLwMONzc) One nice and the other... Not so much. They're both worried about the kids they saved, but while Superman tells them to be smarter in a gentle manner, Batman makes a joke that they'd eventually get themselves killed doing dangerous stunts... One is meaner than the other, but both have good intentions at heart to dissuade the youngsters from trying anything that dangerous again when the heroes might not be able to save them.

BisectedBrioche
2020-07-27, 03:44 AM
Well, my definition of good that nice is part of good but I guess it isn't.

A lot of evil in the world can be laid at the feet of people who word their evil as kindly as politely as possible, admonish the people they mistreat for not explaining why they deserve the basic dignities as kindly as possible, and the people on the sidelines who agree.

Theoboldi
2020-07-27, 05:29 AM
A lot of evil in the world can be laid at the feet of people who word their evil as kindly as politely as possible, admonish the people they mistreat for not explaining why they deserve the basic dignities as kindly as possible, and the people on the sidelines who agree.

I think that is conflating politeness and niceness, though. By that definition, you could even call torturing someone 'nice' as long as you did it with a smile on your face and a gentle tone to your voice. In the context of this discussion, that may cause some misunderstandings.

Cluedrew
2020-07-27, 07:03 AM
No I sound like one of the people who thinks a billionaire donating a million dollars to charity is not out of generosity but for the substantial tax break and favors it earns.I mean you might also sound like them but what is with the "No"?

The Fury
2020-07-27, 10:06 AM
Disagree. Nice people are nice because they want something. They want you to be nice back. It creatives a positive feedback loop where you say Good Morning expecting someone to return the greeting. People who don't you look at weirdly and try to avoid while those who do create that feeling you're looking for. Communities form around similar mindsets and ostracize the ones who don't want to comply and conform.

I generally agree with Delicious Taffy that this is nitpicky. Genuinely good people want something from the people they help too-- they want them to be OK.

I don't think you're necessarily associating malice with niceness, but I do think that you're making assumptions about why people are nice. In my case, yeah. I generally will greet people when I see them. Sometimes people return the greeting, sometimes they don't. Those that don't probably have a reason. Maybe they didn't hear me, maybe they have a lot on their mind, maybe they just don't want to talk to me right now. In any case, I don't think I'm doing them any favors by avoiding them. Maybe they'll want to talk later.


A lot of evil in the world can be laid at the feet of people who word their evil as kindly as politely as possible, admonish the people they mistreat for not explaining why they deserve the basic dignities as kindly as possible, and the people on the sidelines who agree.

Oh yeah... agreed. That's how you make godawful actions seem reasonable.

Duff
2020-07-27, 08:04 PM
For good-but-not-nice I give you Miko the Paladin (until she was't).
She seemed to be the least nice member of the Sapphire guard, but most of them seem quite pleasant to be around.
And I can see a case that the personality traits which made her not-nice also contributed to her fall, but people would have to work pretty hard to convince me her fall was inevitable because of her personality

Dr_Dinosaur
2020-07-27, 09:57 PM
If you treat those who are cruel and oppressive to the vulnerable nicely, you're being cruel to their victims by not allowing them to keep speaking hate and acting maliciously. The tyrant and the abuser need to be stopped, and the best ways to make sure they're stopped aren't very nice. That's where paladins (the most common subjects of the title quote) come in.

Yanagi
2020-07-27, 11:09 PM
The word "nice" can be an aesthetic evaluation--that is an agreeable person to be around--or it can be a moral evaluation--that is a kind person.

That a person can be "good" by being kind, but not be "nice" because they are not agreeable, is a common character trope. The inversive--an agreeable person turns out to not be a kind one--is also a trope.

However "nice" as in "kind" still includes a degree of scale: it is possible to engage in superficial kindness but ultimately do immoral things that are profoundly unkind.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-27, 11:38 PM
For good-but-not-nice I give you Miko the Paladin (until she wasn't).
She seemed to be the least nice member of the Sapphire guard, but most of them seem quite pleasant to be around.
And I can see a case that the personality traits which made her not-nice also contributed to her fall, but people would have to work pretty hard to convince me her fall was inevitable because of her personality
She's definitely not the type of paladin to hang out with, is she?

AdAstra
2020-07-27, 11:54 PM
A lot of evil in the world can be laid at the feet of people who word their evil as kindly as politely as possible, admonish the people they mistreat for not explaining why they deserve the basic dignities as kindly as possible, and the people on the sidelines who agree.

Agreed. It also comes down to a difference in words vs actions. Plenty of people sound mean (or at least impolite) but act incredibly nice. Knight in Sour armor on a smaller scale, more or less. While most of the meanest people are practically saccharine in their speech.

Kaptin Keen
2020-07-28, 02:34 AM
Here's an example, Bartmanhomer.

Goku is Good and Nice.
Vegeta is Good and Mean.

Both have saved the world multiple times, sacrificed themselves to save others, and fought to protect the weak. But Goku is a nice guy while Vegeta is usually pretty rude.

Batman and Wolverine are both good - but you wouldn't consider them nice.

Whereas say, the Penguin is nice, polite, mannered, friendly - and definitely evil.

Actually, there are too few nice villains. Personally, I find likeable villains to be both the most realistic, and by far the most terrifying. Someone who could be your lovable elderly neighbor, but also wouldn't think twice about butchering you in their basement, if it suited their plans.

jayem
2020-07-28, 03:10 AM
The batman_penguin election episode is presented almost a platonic battle of good v nice (of course in this case we know the niceness is false anyway). Batman competes on issues, penguin on feelings, what monster doesn't even kiss a baby.

I think there's another one where genuinely well meaning nice do gooders cause havoc (and plenty of other occasions where batman is the nice one, against the Miko's of Gotham)

BisectedBrioche
2020-07-28, 04:21 AM
I think that is conflating politeness and niceness, though. By that definition, you could even call torturing someone 'nice' as long as you did it with a smile on your face and a gentle tone to your voice. In the context of this discussion, that may cause some misunderstandings.

In some cases, yes. But it's hard to tell where one starts and the other begins.

One can mix nice acts in with unspeakable cruelty (as The Onion loves to point out), and one can be unfailingly nice while being blisteringly uncouth.

Arkhios
2020-07-28, 04:25 AM
Jotaro Joestar Kujo is downright a-hole. Still, he's a good guy.

Likewise, Judge Dredd is pretty rude and unpleasant to be around, but he's one of the good guys, too.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-28, 06:58 AM
Likewise, Judge Dredd is pretty rude and unpleasant to be around, but he's one of the good guys, too.

I'd argue that Dredd specifically would be more LN than LG myself. Though I do agree with the general premise that good doesn't equal nice.

Agrippa
2020-07-28, 04:54 PM
Jotaro Joestar is downright a-hole. Still, he's a good guy.

You mean Jotaro Kujo, fight? Yes he's Jonathan Joestar's great grandson, but his mother Holly/Seiko married the Japanese sax player Sadao Kujo and adopted the family name, but Jotaro is still a member of the Joestar bloodline.

BisectedBrioche
2020-07-29, 07:04 AM
I'd argue that Dredd specifically would be more LN than LG myself. Though I do agree with the general premise that good doesn't equal nice.

There's some argument for him being LG in a LN to LE setting (for example, he's supported a switch to democracy in some stories). And it's established that he's incorruptible, but that might depend on your distinction between LG and LN.

I suppose a clearer example would be Sam Vimes from Discworld.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-29, 07:50 AM
There's some argument for him being LG in a LN to LE setting (for example, he's supported a switch to democracy in some stories). And it's established that he's incorruptible, but that might depend on your distinction between LG and LN.

I suppose a clearer example would be Sam Vimes from Discworld.

It's definitely a LE setting, or at least right on the cusp between LE & LN. But that's part of what I think makes Dredd LN. He's more than willing to enforce LE laws, because they are THE LAW.

But - D&D alignment only works at all if you're okay with broad ballparking. I wouldn't have any issue with a character who was LG and played like Dredd - with the possible exception if they were a paladin.

Plus, I'm hardly an expert of Dredd; I've read a few comics and watched the movie. Likely you know more about him, as I had no idea that he favored democracy.

Saintheart
2020-07-29, 08:04 AM
It's definitely a LE setting, or at least right on the cusp between LE & LN. But that's part of what I think makes Dredd LN. He's more than willing to enforce LE laws, because they are THE LAW.

But - D&D alignment only works at all if you're okay with broad ballparking. I wouldn't have any issue with a character who was LG and played like Dredd - with the possible exception if they were a paladin.

Plus, I'm hardly an expert of Dredd; I've read a few comics and watched the movie. Likely you know more about him, as I had no idea that he favored democracy.

He had something of an existential crisis seeing what the Judge system was inflicting on the population, and particularly on being asked to crush a democracy movement in Mega-City One. Dredd pushed through the first democratic vote in about a hundred years or so, the subject of the vote being whether the Judge system remain or whether Mega-City One should return to democracy. The vote was for the Judge system to remain. That then gave him the impetus to stare down the democracy movement on a simple proviso: "Democracy's not for the people, because the people don't want it."

Arkhios
2020-07-29, 09:45 AM
You mean Jotaro Kujo, fight? Yes he's Jonathan Joestar's great grandson, but his mother Holly/Seiko married the Japanese sax player Sadao Kujo and adopted the family name, but Jotaro is still a member of the Joestar bloodline.

Details, schmetails. :smallbiggrin: He's yet another spiritual (re)incarnation of JoJo nonetheless.
I'm not a diehard fan of the series. I've just watched the first three seasons (or however they're split up) of them only very recently on Netflix, so naturally I mixed up some (I'd argue very minor) details.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-29, 09:57 AM
That then gave him the impetus to stare down the democracy movement on a simple proviso: "Democracy's not for the people, because the people don't want it."

That's an interesting theme. I might have to go read up on Dredd a bit more. I have seen in other fiction (and arguably IRL) the theme that freedom/democracy only really works if it's fought for by the populace. Given from outside sources doesn't work.

Democratus
2020-07-29, 10:42 AM
Exactly what is meant by 'nice'? It is a very vague term.

The dictionary I picked up had these 3 primary definitions:


Pleasing and agreeable in nature.
Having a pleasant or attractive appearance.
Exhibiting courtesy and politeness.


None of these really have any bearing on the good/evil spectrum.

JNAProductions
2020-07-29, 10:43 AM
Exactly what is meant by 'nice'? It is a very vague term.

The dictionary I picked up had these 3 primary definitions:


Pleasing and agreeable in nature.
Having a pleasant or attractive appearance.
Exhibiting courtesy and politeness.


None of these really have any bearing on the good/evil spectrum.

Eh... I'd say that, if someone has absolutely nothing else going on in the Good/Evil spectrum, literally completely zilch, then being nice is a minor bump to Goodness. Being nice helps make people happy, and happy good!

But it's really minor. A grouchy jerkwad who does their best to save lives and make the world a better place is far more Good than a pleasant murderer.

kyoryu
2020-07-29, 10:59 AM
Exactly what is meant by 'nice'? It is a very vague term.

The dictionary I picked up had these 3 primary definitions:


Pleasing and agreeable in nature.
Having a pleasant or attractive appearance.
Exhibiting courtesy and politeness.


None of these really have any bearing on the good/evil spectrum.

Exactly. Goodness is fundamentally a concern about others and a willingness to sacrifice for them.

Now, someone that is concerned about the well-being of others will probably try not to cause undue stress to them.... but that's such a minor thing that it wouldn't bump you from Good if you're not doing it.

Evil OTOH just wants to get what it wants, regardless of who has to be harmed. But Evil doesn't have to be about harm, Evil just doesn't give a damn. And if being nice will get you what you'll want? You'll be nice.

Kyutaru
2020-07-29, 11:25 AM
Exactly. Goodness is fundamentally a concern about others and a willingness to sacrifice for them.

Now, someone that is concerned about the well-being of others will probably try not to cause undue stress to them.... but that's such a minor thing that it wouldn't bump you from Good if you're not doing it.

Evil OTOH just wants to get what it wants, regardless of who has to be harmed. But Evil doesn't have to be about harm, Evil just doesn't give a damn. And if being nice will get you what you'll want? You'll be nice.
Similarly, the nice people who don't make waves and get along with everybody and continue about their business in a happy way keeping their head down and looking the other way while their neighbors get taken away by the minions of the evil tyrant are being pleasant respectable human beings in every way with not a single Evil action taken to harm another unless you think it's every Good person's moral duty to rise up and resist. The kingdom may be corrupt but the Good citizens still scurry about their daily routines unable or unwilling to affect change and being as pleasant as can be throughout it because it's traitorous to question the king's policies and there are happier things to think about.

Somehow though the not-nice resistance members that want to overthrow the despot are the ones who get the flack as though they're not as Good as the others. Hell, they're probably more Good, even the ones that have to resort to murder and fearmongering. Alignment is rarely a cut and dry thing and that makes it interesting for the gamemaster.

Man_Over_Game
2020-07-29, 01:02 PM
You could say that being Nice is the same as being Peaceful, or Politeness. Peace is generally beneficial for most people, so wanting to get along with your neighbor isn't necessarily a selfless act.

Goodness comes from self-sacrifice and empathy. You are willing to give up something for a benefit that you may not be rewarded from, or at least be rewarded in a way that is profitable for you.

A charismatic person that's Nice to you could use you for personal gain. If a Good person makes you feel bad, they'll generally apologize for it, as the apology hurts their character more than ignoring your problems would.


That's not saying that wanting Peace can't be a Good thing. That's why most Good people are also Nice.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have a person that is rude to others due to obliviousness, but regularly tries to compensate for his flaws.

Or, put simply:


Nice = Avoiding problems, because Peace is almost always beneficial (for you, or others)
Good = Willing to self-sacrifice for another's benefit.

Segev
2020-07-29, 01:36 PM
"Nice" cares more about feelings, especially in the moment, than about what's right or long-term good for anybody. Good will tend towards niceness, because anybody concerned with others' feelings is liable to want the best for them, and to try to help them achieve it. However, sometimes, the nice thing isn't the good thing.

It's not nice to call somebody fat, or even to imply that they are. However, it is not good to let them gorge on unhealthy foods and keep making themselves fatter while nicely ignoring that they're hurting themselves. Nice people can feel awkward about informing somebody that they have something stuck in their teeth, or that the clothes they chose are hideous on them, etc., but a good friend will tell them, anyway, before they go out and make a fool of themselves in public.

A nice parent will give their kid candy and let them play whatever they want. The kid will think they're super-nice, and the parent will feel nice for how happy they make their kid. A good parent will impose limits and teach the child responsibility, which sometimes involves being less than nice.

A nice teacher will not inflict harsh punishments on kids for misbehaving, because it's not nice to punish people. A good teacher will punish bad behavior to prevent it from causing harm to well-behaved kids.

As others have said, being nice is more about politeness than about results. But it also is about others feeling good and being happy in the moment. If you're nice, you coddle and you uplift. Sometimes, neither is called for by goodness, because the people you're coddling and uplifting need to be thwarted or need to learn the consequences of their poor decisions.

Now, "Good is Not Nice" as a trope applies to people who take this to an extreme: they don't care about short-term feelings, or pretend not to, but won't let evil triumph and will support the good, even if they won't be friendly about it.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-29, 05:23 PM
"Nice" cares more about feelings, especially at the moment, than about what's right or long-term good for anybody. Goodwill tends towards niceness because anybody concerned with others' feelings is liable to want the best for them and to try to help them achieve it. However, sometimes, the nice thing isn't a good thing.

It's not nice to call somebody fat, or even to imply that they are. However, it is not good to let them gorge on unhealthy foods and keep making themselves fatter while nicely ignoring that they're hurting themselves. Nice people can feel awkward about informing somebody that they have something stuck in their teeth, or that the clothes they chose are hideous on them, etc., but a good friend will tell them, anyway, before they go out and make a fool of themselves in public.

A nice parent will give their kid candy and let them play whatever they want. The kid will think they're super-nice, and the parent will feel nice for how happy they make their kid. A good parent will impose limits and teach the child responsibility, which sometimes involves being less than nice.

A nice teacher will not inflict harsh punishments on kids for misbehaving, because it's not nice to punish people. A good teacher will punish bad behavior to prevent it from causing harm to well-behaved kids.

As others have said, being nice is more about politeness than about results. But it also is about others feeling good and being happy at the moment. If you're nice, you coddle and you uplift. Sometimes, neither is called for by goodness, because the people you're coddling and uplifting need to be thwarted or need to learn the consequences of their poor decisions.

Now, "Good is Not Nice" as a trope applies to people who take this to an extreme: they don't care about short-term feelings, or pretend not to, but won't let evil triumph and will support the good, even if they won't be friendly about it.

Well, the Good Is Not Nice Trope kind of rubs me the wrong way. It's more leans toward neutral or even evil. I mean if you care for the sake of people and goodness then you should also learn to be respectful. I can fully understand that every good character is different and not everybody shares the same values for the same of goodness but at least be respectful.

Mystic Muse
2020-07-29, 05:44 PM
Well, the Good Is Not Nice Trope kind of rubs me the wrong way. It's more leans toward neutral or even evil. I mean if you care for the sake of people and goodness then you should also learn to be respectful. I can fully understand that every good character is different and not everybody shares the same values for the same of goodness but at least be respectful.

Respect is something that has to be earned, or at least not lost. There are plenty of times where good characters will be disrespectful, because the person they're being disrespectful towards genuinely does not deserve any amount of respect.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-29, 05:46 PM
Respect is something that has to be earned, or at least not lost. There are plenty of times where good characters will be disrespectful, because the person they're being disrespectful towards genuinely does not deserve any amount of respect.

That's definitely true. Respect has to be earned. :smile:

Saintheart
2020-07-29, 09:56 PM
That's an interesting theme. I might have to go read up on Dredd a bit more. I have seen in other fiction (and arguably IRL) the theme that freedom/democracy only really works if it's fought for by the populace. Given from outside sources doesn't work.

The democracy storyline in Dredd is generally acclaimed as the absolute best of Judge Dredd across its entire 30 year history. Part of that might be because the key story portraying the referendum in which the judges are returned to power, Twilight's Last Gleaming, 2000 AD #754–756, 1991, was written by Garth Ennis (although the issues leading up to it are also superb). Twilight's Last Gleaming is nuanced and, more importantly, balanced in a way that modern comics simply refuse to grasp or simply can't emulate.

Dredd in particular makes his case when he's interviewed about media about who he thinks will win the election. At that point it's more or less assumed the Judges will be thrown out. Dredd calmly says he's confident the result will be otherwise, and makes a pretty devastating counter to those who propound democracy: When some creep's holding a knife to your throat, who do you want to see riding up...me—or your elected representative? Think about it.

The argument works mainly because Mega-City One is generally portrayed as an urban animal house, where the Judge system's ruthless brutality only exists because in general the populace are variously thick as planks and/or ruthlessly violent with one another, the judges more or less at constant war with the criminal population. But it still makes the point: democracy is the ideal, the reality is a lot more complicated. As said, it's one of the few comic books I've read that meaningfully challenges your views on democracy whether you believe in more or less of it.

tomandtish
2020-07-29, 10:04 PM
Well, the Good Is Not Nice Trope kind of rubs me the wrong way. It's more leans toward neutral or even evil. I mean if you care for the sake of people and goodness then you should also learn to be respectful. I can fully understand that every good character is different and not everybody shares the same values for the same of goodness but at least be respectful.

Respectful and nice also aren't the same thing.

And as for good not being nice, heck we have examples of it in this comic. Many of the Azure City paladins don't qualify as nice. Miko was a paladin right up to the moment she killed Shojo. And I don't think anyone is going to try and argue that Miko was nice.

Pauly
2020-07-30, 12:28 AM
Snce we’ve talked about Dredd, let’s talk about his inspiration, Harry Calahan.

Dirty Harry is definitely LG “Good” although closer to NG, the saw way Dredd is LG, but leans LN.

Nice is not one of the words one would use to describe Harry Calahan. Determined, Ruthless, Cynical, yes, but he is unswerving in doing what is best to protect the people of his city.

TeChameleon
2020-07-30, 12:33 AM
Respectful and nice also aren't the same thing.

And as for good not being nice, heck we have examples of it in this comic. Many of the Azure City paladins don't qualify as nice. Miko was a paladin right up to the moment she killed Shojo. And I don't think anyone is going to try and argue that Miko was nice.

Heck, even forgetting Miko... dunno that O-Chul could really be called 'nice', particularly, but I don't think there's any argument that he's not very firmly in the camp of good.

Nice is... garnish. It's great to have, sometimes, but you don't really need it. If people know that you are genuinely concerned with their well-being and only want what's best for them, 'nice' is profoundly irrelevant. Nice is mostly for social lubrication- you are polite to the people you don't know, or don't know well, because they don't know your intentions and thus cannot depend on you having their best interests at heart. And that, honestly, has very little to do with good or evil- honestly, I'd almost say it fell along the law/chaos axis.

Theoboldi
2020-07-30, 04:56 AM
To be honest, I have always found myself a bit critical of this particular trope. Mostly because I have seen no shortage of people who justify any sort of tyrannical or simply hurtful behavior on their part with such ideas as "It doesn't matter, I'm a good person at heart." or "It's okay, I'm ultimately doing what's right."

At its core it is a valid idea, but one that is very easily co-opted by genuinely awful people. 'Niceness' I think is more than just politeness and social lubrication as others have claimed. It's also in part genuinely caring about the other person you are interacting with, and showing them a basic level of dignity and human respect, even if they have done nothing to 'earn' it.

By not caring about it at all, I think it is easy to get up in an 'ends justify the means' kind of mindset, without really considering that these particular 'means' are not necessary at all and just a matter of personal comfort. If you cease to care about how another person feels, it's gonna take some effort to actually keep their best interests at heart.

Democratus
2020-07-30, 07:53 AM
At its core it is a valid idea, but one that is very easily co-opted by genuinely awful people. 'Niceness' I think is more than just politeness and social lubrication as others have claimed. It's also in part genuinely caring about the other person you are interacting with, and showing them a basic level of dignity and human respect, even if they have done nothing to 'earn' it.


This is conflating 'good' and 'nice'. It is important that we use language properly. Especially when we are in a thread that is entirely about these two words.

Words are matter. Words that have different meanings - and yet can imply similar things, even more so. Because they allow us to write with nuance.

The dictionary definition of 'nice' is posted earlier in the thread. 'Nice' is a behavior pattern, not an internal mental state. You can be nice and evil or nice and good.

Genuinely caring about someone is a great thing. And we need more of it. But it isn't necessary for 'nice'. :smallsmile:

Drascin
2020-07-30, 08:00 AM
People mention Sam Vimes, but honestly the clearest example in Discworld is Esmerelda Weathewax.

Not mincing words, Granny is an absolute ***hole. Straight up, no two ways about it - Sam is most of the time just coarse but tries to ne polite, Granny is plain a jerk. She would be absolutely infuriating to be around in any capacity. Everything she does is testing people. She will sooner cut off her own arm than admit a mistake. She's entirely convinced she knows what's best for you and she WILL make you do it. As the books say, Granny is the kind of person who believes that her job is to move in a straight line and it's up to the mountains to get out of her way. The only people who manage to stand being around her are some other witches, and part of it is probably witches inherently being used to people being ***** to them.

She is, however, also someone who basically spares no thoughts whatsoever for herself except when it comes to her fatal flaw (that being Pride). Almost everything Granny does she does for someone else. She will do everything, from fighting vampires to massaging the pus-covered warts on a half-maddened old man, for those who can't. This is a woman who will tear off her beloved heirloom cloth to make bandages for a man she doesn't even like (though she will probably make sure the ointment stings). It is very hard to position Esmerelda Weatherwax as anything other than decisively Good, and yet if given the choice between spending an afternoon with her or with a hungry bear I would consider that a difficult decision!

AdAstra
2020-07-30, 08:12 AM
This is conflating 'good' and 'nice'. It is important that we use language properly. Especially when we are in a thread that is entirely about these two words.

Words are matter. Words that have different meanings - and yet can imply similar things, even more so. Because they allow us to write with nuance.

The dictionary definition of 'nice' is posted earlier in the thread. 'Nice' is a behavior pattern, not an internal mental state. You can be nice and evil or nice and good.

Genuinely caring about someone is a great thing. And we need more of it. But it isn't necessary for 'nice'. :smallsmile:

I think the idea is that a person’s external facade/behavior can very quickly become their internal state. Words DO matter, and the words you choose will, to varying degrees, influence the way that you and others feel. Niceness is merely a behavior, one that doesn’t by necessity reflect the “true self”, but niceness, or the lack thereof, frequently does stem directly from caring/not caring for others.

“We are what we pretend to be”, is often not true, but it is a thing that very frequently happens, and is a valuable insight into personal growth and change. In most cases, changing your behavior requires some degree of pretending, acting out the motions. Because the whole reason why people try to change themselves is that, currently, they’re NOT what they want to be, or at least they think so. But eventually, by deciding to do things differently, you can learn to think differently, too.

Can think of being a good person as like any other skill. First you learn how and experience why, and eventually it becomes a part of you.

OldTrees1
2020-07-30, 10:15 AM
Depending on the moral theory being used, there are multiple moral considerations. For simplicity's sake I will call those virtues.

1) Good does not require perfection. We use the term morally supererogatory to describe going above and beyond the call of moral duty. That means it is possible for something to be moral without being the ideal solution. This means it is possible for something to be moral while omitting or partially implementing a virtue.

2) Lacking a virtue is not necessarily Good. There are multiple virtues. Lacking one of them does not mean something is moral. It is fallacious to claim:
A) X is a virtue.
B) Good is not necessarily X.
C) ___ is not X.
D) ___ is Good.

3) Having a virtue is not necessarily Good. There are multiple virtues. Having one of them does not mean something is moral. It could be deficient is many other areas.

As a result for any virtue (using Nice as an example):
Something Good is not necessarily Nice
Something Not Nice is not necessarily Good
Something Nice is not necessarily Good

Now you may conclude from those 3 statements that the virtue is orthogonal to morality. This would be a mistake. While a specific virtue is not equivalent to the entirety of morality, each virtue is intrinsically linked to morality. Width is not orthogonal to Volume.

kyoryu
2020-07-30, 10:29 AM
Consider two people walking up to a homeless person. And let's assume they have equal means, to derail that argument.

Person A: "Oh, you poor thing! The situation you're in is awful! How horrible it must be! I can't imagine what you've gone through to be in this state, and I'm sure it's not your fault, you poor victim!" And they walk away.

Person B: "How could you let yourself come to this? What, did you get hooked on drugs? Just lazy? Do something with your life!" And they proceed to give that person money to help them off the street, and an opportunity at a job, and mentor them on how to improve their lives, and turn this person's life around.

Which person was nice?

Which person was Good?

(Note that you could make arguments about how effective Person B's approach might be. I'd probably agree with those arguments. They're out of scope. Presume the situation goes down as described)

(Also, no, Person A isn't evil. They're strongly neutral. They're just a very NICE neutral.)



Now you may conclude from those 3 statements that the virtue is orthogonal to morality. This would be a mistake. While a specific virtue is not equivalent to the entirety of morality, each virtue is intrinsically linked to morality. Width is not orthogonal to Volume.

I'm not sure that being nice is a virtue.

Specifically, it is entirely possible to be nice while committing rather foul levels of Evil. While it's true that most really Good people will be nice (as it will be rooted in their same concern for the welfare of others), smart Evil is self-interested and will recognize that being nice removes a lot of friction and resistance to what they're doing, as well as providing a good amount of cover.

OldTrees1
2020-07-30, 11:12 AM
Consider two people walking up to a homeless person. And let's assume they have equal means, to derail that argument.

Person A: "Oh, you poor thing! The situation you're in is awful! How horrible it must be! I can't imagine what you've gone through to be in this state, and I'm sure it's not your fault, you poor victim!" And they walk away.

Person B: "How could you let yourself come to this? What, did you get hooked on drugs? Just lazy? Do something with your life!" And they proceed to give that person money to help them off the street, and an opportunity at a job, and mentor them on how to improve their lives, and turn this person's life around.

Which person was nice?

Which person was Good?

(Note that you could make arguments about how effective Person B's approach might be. I'd probably agree with those arguments. They're out of scope. Presume the situation goes down as described)

(Also, no, Person A isn't evil. They're strongly neutral. They're just a very NICE neutral.)


Both were nice and both were good. But not equally so.
1) Both were nice. Person A is polite and pleasant. Person B is not completely abrasive. (Assuming vocal tone is equal, otherwise either could be abrasive)
2) Many moral theories would argue Person A had no moral duty in this circumstance. They chose to offer some comfort. Do not underestimate how important mental health is. Even Person A's bad job can be a blessing. Person B also had no moral duty, but went even further above and beyond the call of duty in the opportunity they offered.
3) However I should point out that both Person A and Person B helped with the mental health of the homeless person. Both had room for improvement (although I would say A has more room than B).


I'm not sure that being nice is a virtue.

Specifically, it is entirely possible to be nice while committing rather foul levels of Evil. While it's true that most really Good people will be nice (as it will be rooted in their same concern for the welfare of others), smart Evil is self-interested and will recognize that being nice removes a lot of friction and resistance to what they're doing, as well as providing a good amount of cover.
It is possible that nice is or is not a virtue. However many moral theories would describe it in a positive light. Mostly as an implementation of avoiding unnecessary harm. However my point is more about how "Good is not necessarily ___" works.

See point 3. A virtue is not a sufficient condition of something being moral. You can have 1 virtue amidst a lot of vice and it will be a "rather foul level of Evil".
See point 1. Just like Good does not require perfection, Evil does not require perfection. Evil can still exhibit a virtue while being immoral. I would argue Evil usually does exhibit some virtues.
See point 3 again. Having 1 virtue does not necessarily mean it is moral.

Theoboldi
2020-07-30, 11:36 AM
This is conflating 'good' and 'nice'. It is important that we use language properly. Especially when we are in a thread that is entirely about these two words.

Words are matter. Words that have different meanings - and yet can imply similar things, even more so. Because they allow us to write with nuance.

The dictionary definition of 'nice' is posted earlier in the thread. 'Nice' is a behavior pattern, not an internal mental state. You can be nice and evil or nice and good.

Genuinely caring about someone is a great thing. And we need more of it. But it isn't necessary for 'nice'. :smallsmile:

In the interest of not repeating things that have already been said in a less capable way, I'll just point out that I basically agree with what AdAstra said on the topic.


Consider two people walking up to a homeless person. And let's assume they have equal means, to derail that argument.

Person A: "Oh, you poor thing! The situation you're in is awful! How horrible it must be! I can't imagine what you've gone through to be in this state, and I'm sure it's not your fault, you poor victim!" And they walk away.

Person B: "How could you let yourself come to this? What, did you get hooked on drugs? Just lazy? Do something with your life!" And they proceed to give that person money to help them off the street, and an opportunity at a job, and mentor them on how to improve their lives, and turn this person's life around.

Which person was nice?

Which person was Good?

(Note that you could make arguments about how effective Person B's approach might be. I'd probably agree with those arguments. They're out of scope. Presume the situation goes down as described)

(Also, no, Person A isn't evil. They're strongly neutral. They're just a very NICE neutral.)


I would actually argue that both are neither.

Person A certainly said 'nice' words, but did not show any actual niceness by engaging with the homeless person and then just walking away. That is not something I would call agreeable or pleasant in any way towards the person it is directed at. And of course, they did not do anything to help that person, so they have not acted morally good.

Person B obviously isn't nice, but I would also argue they are not acting in a 'good' manner by blaming this homeless person for their circumstances, and then giving them a blanket set of solutions without actually inspecting what caused their issues. I know you deliberately said you did not want to argue about the effectiveness of their aid, but I think that the effectiveness and applicability of their aid is actually the most important factor here. Not being 'nice' in this instant seems to be the result of favoring Person B's preconceived notions of how to improve the world and their ego above actually helping the homeless person. As such, I would argue their actions are ultimately more self-serving than good.

Segev
2020-07-30, 12:47 PM
To be honest, I have always found myself a bit critical of this particular trope. Mostly because I have seen no shortage of people who justify any sort of tyrannical or simply hurtful behavior on their part with such ideas as "It doesn't matter, I'm a good person at heart." or "It's okay, I'm ultimately doing what's right."

At its core it is a valid idea, but one that is very easily co-opted by genuinely awful people. 'Niceness' I think is more than just politeness and social lubrication as others have claimed. It's also in part genuinely caring about the other person you are interacting with, and showing them a basic level of dignity and human respect, even if they have done nothing to 'earn' it.

By not caring about it at all, I think it is easy to get up in an 'ends justify the means' kind of mindset, without really considering that these particular 'means' are not necessary at all and just a matter of personal comfort. If you cease to care about how another person feels, it's gonna take some effort to actually keep their best interests at heart.

While you're right, and people can and do use that kind of excuse when they're really just not very nice people AND not very good people, it doesn't change that the trope - and therefore this discussion - is about people who genuinely are good, but not very nice.

Generally, I think, you'll find "good is not nice" applying to people who are good because they have a conscience and empathy that they resent. Not that they would change it if they could, but that they view it as a problem they can't overcome. Think how many "good is not nice" types will berate themselves for being too soft-hearted when there isn't somebody to berate for needing to be helped. Some will genuinely view good as weakness, while others know it's right and know it's not weakness but also resent being the ones who have to do it. This actually does diminish their proverbial sainthood: resenting helping others is not as good as doing so joyfully. It is, however, still helping and still doing good. Some just don't like the image of being "good." Or value an image of being "dangerous." Or in some other way have a self-identity as a not-very-nice-person and are uncomfortable being good-hearted because it's one step away from revealing there's a lie to their persona.

"Good is not nice" rarely applies to happy characters. Granny Weatherwax is only ever questionably happy; she's barely content. And it is her pride, her great weakness, that makes her as harsh as she tends to be, as well as what makes her miserable with the way things are going.

It is better to be nice and good. It just isn't required to be both.

ebarde
2020-07-30, 12:58 PM
Honestly what I dislike about the good is not nice thing is that often the author sorta uses it as a way to make it so a character being a bit of a prick to everyone has a blanket excuse for their behavior? You know like when the gritty anti-hero dismisses any criticism of their behavior by saying he does things for the greater good or whatever? That being said, the archetype I really like is when a character is good and nice but sorta puts on a serious face when the villain does something truly evil, like when the bubbly optimistic character goes berserk that goes a long way at raising the stakes of any situation. Especially good when the villain is scared beyond belief cause of it.

kyoryu
2020-07-30, 01:09 PM
Person B obviously isn't nice, but I would also argue they are not acting in a 'good' manner by blaming this homeless person for their circumstances, and then giving them a blanket set of solutions without actually inspecting what caused their issues. I know you deliberately said you did not want to argue about the effectiveness of their aid, but I think that the effectiveness and applicability of their aid is actually the most important factor here. Not being 'nice' in this instant seems to be the result of favoring Person B's preconceived notions of how to improve the world and their ego above actually helping the homeless person. As such, I would argue their actions are ultimately more self-serving than good.

Can we just presume that they acted in a Good way, since that was the clear intent rather than pixelbitching about me not going into sufficient detail about how they actually determined what would actually help this person?

IOW, the point here is "this person actually helped them", not "do we agree that kyoryu's brief, off-the-cuff description of helping is actually the best course of action here?"

Democratus
2020-07-30, 01:49 PM
In many RPGs good is a jersey. If you are on 'team good' then you are good.

In some it is a fundamental force of the universe. A terrifying angel of a good god is good, even when using mass Flame Strikes to destroy a city. They are good by definition because they are made of good.

Thus, this thread is not only in need of a common definition for 'nice'. But also a definition of 'good'.

And that definition is very much dependent on the game/world/table/author/etc.

OldTrees1
2020-07-30, 02:13 PM
In many RPGs good is a jersey. If you are on 'team good' then you are good.

In some it is a fundamental force of the universe. A terrifying angel of a good god is good, even when using mass Flame Strikes to destroy a city. They are good by definition because they are made of good.

Thus, this thread is not only in need of a common definition for 'nice'. But also a definition of 'good'.

And that definition is very much dependent on the game/world/table/author/etc.

I don't think we need a common definition of 'good'. You are right some authors, and even some tables, use good as a jersey. But those cases are trivial so they can be ignored. The other authors, and many tables use some variation on the moral beliefs of the participants. You accurately noted those moral beliefs are dependant on the game/world/table/author/etc, so we can recognize the definition of 'good' is going to be subjective.

However people's usage of the word 'moral' is subjective and that has not stopped metaethics from examining its usage. A singular definition of 'good' would make things easy but less accurate. I think we are up to the challenge of discussing the topic while accommodating the broad range of moral theories.

As evidence, see my post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24637505&postcount=73)discussing why individual moral considerations (I called them virtues for simplistic terms) can appear largely independent of the overall verdict. Aka "Good is not necessarily <insert moral consideration> for all moral considerations." Now, I will recognize that any sufficiently broad survey of moral theories can find exceptions, but I do think this conclusion will generally hold.

TeChameleon
2020-07-30, 02:18 PM
I think part of the difficulty here is that people seem to be conflating 'niceness' and 'kindness'.

The way that I would define it is that 'nice' is inherently selfish; there is nothing about 'nice' that requires you to care about the people you're being nice to in the slightest. You are nice to ease your own way in the world, not do anything to help others. The saying 'politeness costs nothing' is kind of literally true here; being nice and polite doesn't even inconvenience you, much less cost you anything.

Kindness, on the other hand, forces you to consider the position of the other; empathy is a necessity for true kindness, and true kindness will always leave the recipient better than when you started. And as has been stated, there are things that are kind that aren't even remotely nice; a needed intervention, for example.

TL;DR version? 'Nice' changes nothing. 'Kind' leaves the world a better place.

a_flemish_guy
2020-07-30, 04:14 PM
Both were nice and both were good. But not equally so.
1) Both were nice. Person A is polite and pleasant. Person B is not completely abrasive. (Assuming vocal tone is equal, otherwise either could be abrasive)
2) Many moral theories would argue Person A had no moral duty in this circumstance. They chose to offer some comfort. Do not underestimate how important mental health is. Even Person A's bad job can be a blessing. Person B also had no moral duty, but went even further above and beyond the call of duty in the opportunity they offered.


I'd like to disagree with this with a caveat: "it's perfectly ok to be neutral, it's not supposed to be treated like 2 steps up from evil"
I'd argue that sticking only to what's your moral duty is a neutral act and it's going beyond what's expected of you in either solely the interests of others or at a detriment to yourselves is a good act

OldTrees1
2020-07-30, 07:18 PM
I'd like to disagree with this with a caveat: "it's perfectly ok to be neutral, it's not supposed to be treated like 2 steps up from evil"
I'd argue that sticking only to what's your moral duty is a neutral act and it's going beyond what's expected of you in either solely the interests of others or at a detriment to yourselves is a good act

Warning, I am thinking out loud. So it is more a continuation of our 2 posts rather than a reply to either.

Hmm. I would say amoral acts are neutral acts, moral acts are good acts, and immoral acts are evil acts.
Now to bring out some terms:



Did it
Didn't


Morally prohibited
Immoral
Amoral


Morally permissible
Amoral / Moral
Amoral


Morally obligatory
Moral
Immoral


Morally supererogatory
Moral
Amoral



Moral duty is a mixture of abstaining from the morally prohibited and from doing the morally obligatory. Life will include more or less morally permissible acts depending on the moral theory. Strict Utilitarianism for example believes nothing is amoral. On the other hand if Moral Error theory is correct, everything is amoral.

I would argue that if the moral duty included morally obligatory acts, then it is moral. Depending on the frequency, it might be reasonable to call the person good. On the other hand if moral duty just included abstaining from morally prohibited acts OR if the morally obligatory acts were infrequent, then it might be reasonable to call the person neutral.

Okay, so I can see why you might describe sticking to moral duty as neutral in this scenario.

However neither Person A nor Person B stuck to moral duty. I think both went beyond (Person B clear did several morally supererogatory actions). Person A went beyond a bit by providing comfort. Even though Person A is clumsy in providing comfort, I think we should not underestimate how much it can help (or more accurately how starvation of it can kill).

Segev
2020-07-30, 07:20 PM
Honestly what I dislike about the good is not nice thing is that often the author sorta uses it as a way to make it so a character being a bit of a prick to everyone has a blanket excuse for their behavior? You know like when the gritty anti-hero dismisses any criticism of their behavior by saying he does things for the greater good or whatever? That being said, the archetype I really like is when a character is good and nice but sorta puts on a serious face when the villain does something truly evil, like when the bubbly optimistic character goes berserk that goes a long way at raising the stakes of any situation. Especially good when the villain is scared beyond belief cause of it.

I tend to think the author is doing it wrong when they do that. That's just a jerk who is excusing himself. "Good is not nice" types, like certain kinds of evil, make no excuses for their churlishness. In fact, the "good is not nice" type frequently is making excuses for their goodness. As if it's shameful, in the manner of a big burly man being embarrassed to wear a tutu, or a prim and proper woman being embarrassed to dress scandalously and sing and dance on stage for leering men. The characters feel it wrong, even if the audience doesn't. Usually, such characters are gruff and less than gentle, but grudgingly go back and do the right thing even after telling themselves not to. Or they do it and explain-too-much how it's totally self-interest, honest, and the beneficiary of this goodness should be grateful but not expect anything in the future. Or something along those lines.

Cluedrew
2020-07-30, 07:31 PM
To be honest, I have always found myself a bit critical of this particular trope. Mostly because I have seen no shortage of people who justify any sort of tyrannical or simply hurtful behavior on their part with such ideas as "It doesn't matter, I'm a good person at heart." or "It's okay, I'm ultimately doing what's right."Yes, this is one people can use as a shield. The final solution is of course to examine their actions and judge them. And if that sounds incredibly simplistic it... sort of is, determining the final moral value of a decision can be very hard or effectively impossible. But on the other hand once you have done that it is all you have to do.

And of course I would say it is better to be nice (in general not to say universally in every moment) than otherwise so if you really are good and not nice... maybe try to be good and nice?

a_flemish_guy
2020-07-30, 09:26 PM
Warning, I am thinking out loud. So it is more a continuation of our 2 posts rather than a reply to either.

Hmm. I would say amoral acts are neutral acts, moral acts are good acts, and immoral acts are evil acts.
Now to bring out some terms:



Did it
Didn't


Morally prohibited
Immoral
Amoral


Morally permissible
Amoral / Moral
Amoral


Morally obligatory
Moral
Immoral


Morally supererogatory
Moral
Amoral



Moral duty is a mixture of abstaining from the morally prohibited and from doing the morally obligatory. Life will include more or less morally permissible acts depending on the moral theory. Strict Utilitarianism for example believes nothing is amoral. On the other hand if Moral Error theory is correct, everything is amoral.

I would argue that if the moral duty included morally obligatory acts, then it is moral. Depending on the frequency, it might be reasonable to call the person good. On the other hand if moral duty just included abstaining from morally prohibited acts OR if the morally obligatory acts were infrequent, then it might be reasonable to call the person neutral.

Okay, so I can see why you might describe sticking to moral duty as neutral in this scenario.

However neither Person A nor Person B stuck to moral duty. I think both went beyond (Person B clear did several morally supererogatory actions). Person A went beyond a bit by providing comfort. Even though Person A is clumsy in providing comfort, I think we should not underestimate how much it can help (or more accurately how starvation of it can kill).

I wasn't completely satisfied with my answer either on the grounds of what I call "passive moral" and "active moral" but you got the entire gist of it, so I agree with your analysis
however I think you can consistently actively help someone and still be neutral, let's say I travel for a living and I take every robber victim with me on my path untill the next inn and leave them in the care of the innkeeper, I'm actively saving their lives but I'm also not going beyond of what's expected of me by for example paying for the victims food and care or following up on him

as for what you wrote on person A: I disagree but that's a me-problem, I don't view words and gestures as worth something but clearly you and other people do and I can't argue with that

Segev
2020-07-31, 11:42 AM
To me, the difference between amoral and immoral is whether the immorality is its own motivation. Not necessarily, "I'm so EEheehEEvil!" but at the least, "I am committing this immoral act because I enjoy the act itself." Note that "amoral" doesn't mean "neutral" or "evil," and either can be amoral. Amorality is a disregard for morality entirely, with no particular morality attached to what you actually care about. Immorality is having goals which are inherently immoral.

An amoral being can be kept from immorality by making the moral path the most effective one for them to follow. They honestly don't care. They could and would commit immoral acts if those would get them where they want to go, and thus they can be quite evil. But they can and will do good or avoid evil if morality gets them what they want with fewer complications and greater efficiency.

OldTrees1
2020-07-31, 03:41 PM
To me, the difference between amoral and immoral is whether the immorality is its own motivation. Not necessarily, "I'm so EEheehEEvil!" but at the least, "I am committing this immoral act because I enjoy the act itself." Note that "amoral" doesn't mean "neutral" or "evil," and either can be amoral. Amorality is a disregard for morality entirely, with no particular morality attached to what you actually care about. Immorality is having goals which are inherently immoral.

An amoral being can be kept from immorality by making the moral path the most effective one for them to follow. They honestly don't care. They could and would commit immoral acts if those would get them where they want to go, and thus they can be quite evil. But they can and will do good or avoid evil if morality gets them what they want with fewer complications and greater efficiency.

Amoral has multiple definitions.
1. (of acts) being neither moral nor immoral
2. (of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality

I am using it in the first definition. Amoral is when something (intent/action/consequence) is neither moral nor immoral. It is an absence of moral connotation rather than the disregard for morality. This is important usage because not every event is a binary between moral action and immoral inaction or vice versa.

There are also times to use amoral in the first definition to describe a being that is not a moral agent. Not being a moral agent, they lack the capacity and opportunity to have choices with moral connotations.

However the second definition is not really relevant to our concerns because it is orthogonal to moral character. So even if we were to judge a moral agent, that judgement would be independent of their metaethical beliefs.

With this context I expect my posts will become clearer.

mindstalk
2020-08-03, 10:09 PM
I mean if you care for the sake of people and goodness then you should also learn to be respectful.

Ideally, yes. But people aren't perfect, and being not-nice in daily life is not the sort of thing that pushes a person who self-sacrifices on big things off of the Good end.

Some things do. If you work hard for lots of orphanages while keeping a sex slave chained in the basement, I'd say you're Evil, because some things are "one strike, you're out": the good done doesn't make up for the appalling evil.

We already talked about Miko, but Roy's father, Eugene, is also officially Lawful Good. This is more of an informed attribute from what we've seen, but he used to be an adventurer, I can believe it. But he's a pretty flawed human, distractable (according to his wife) and of course very crochety as a nagging dead guy. Not Nice. But presumably with a lot of lifetime spent on Good, and nothing that pushes him to being not-Good. Just... less Good. Certainly less pleasant.

mindstalk
2020-08-03, 10:18 PM
I'd like to disagree with this with a caveat: "it's perfectly ok to be neutral, it's not supposed to be treated like 2 steps up from evil"
I'd argue that sticking only to what's your moral duty is a neutral act and it's going beyond what's expected of you in either solely the interests of others or at a detriment to yourselves is a good act

Yeah. I like to think of Neutral as 'Decent'. You don't do bad things, you don't go out of your way to be particularly good.

mindstalk
2020-08-03, 10:26 PM
In fact, the "good is not nice" type frequently is making excuses for their goodness. As if it's shameful, in the manner of a big burly man being embarrassed to wear a tutu, or a prim and proper woman being embarrassed to dress scandalously and sing and dance on stage for leering men. The characters feel it wrong, even if the audience doesn't. Usually, such characters are gruff and less than gentle, but grudgingly go back and do the right thing even after telling themselves not to.

I think a strong example is Rin Tohsaka from the Fate series. She spends a lot of UBW doing the right thing while talking about how it's in her self-interest or just paying back a debt. When she goes to the point of *staying* in debt it starts to look suspicious. :) But mage society in that universe seems to hold Lawful Evil behavior up as an aspirational goal: pursue magical power above all else, at least within some rules for co-existence. Imagine someone with the soul of a paladin but who's been raised to self-serving ambition, and devoted most of her life to preparing for a kill-or-be-killed competition. Her brain tells her to kill without mercy, her heart disagrees, and she listens to her heart.

Complaining loudly all the way. Very loudly.

On top of her being tsundere for her love interests, and just about anything else in her life that isn't an actual threat...

mindstalk
2020-08-03, 10:36 PM
To me, the difference between amoral and immoral is whether the immorality is its own motivation.

I disagree, because I think that kind of immorality barely exists outside of fiction. Maybe there's some serial killer who qualifies, but most people who do bad things justify it to themselves, or on impulse, they're not doing it "because it's immoral".

Why did someone steal?

* They did it in the moment, not even thinking about it.
* "I need it more than they do"
* "They stole it themselves."

Why did someone kill?

* "I was angry. Oops."
* "They hurt me, I'm paying them back."
* "I'm protecting my group."

Killers often have a very strong moral sense, of sorts. It's not necessarily working the same way it does for the rest of us -- "my sister dishonored our family, she had to die"

In general I'd say people doing bad things fall into

* "It's good, really, here's why"
* Just not caring about doing wrong; maybe they need X, or it feels too good to give up
* "Goodness is a myth people use to manipulate each other, I'm not worse than anyone else, just more honest." Which is still a justification for the second one, doing what they want (which is usually mundane -- wanting money/land/sex/power/safety, not "for the evil").

If anything, distinguishing between amoral and immoral is another way to feel good about being immoral. "I'm just selfish, not EVIL." No, if you're selfish without brakes or restraint, you're evil or only circumstances away from it, it doesn't matter that you're not actively sadistic or satanic.

"I want to hurt you" and "I don't care if I hurt you" are both evil, even if they're different in a psychological sense.

Segev
2020-08-04, 12:41 AM
I disagree, because I think that kind of immorality barely exists outside of fiction. Maybe there's some serial killer who qualifies, but most people who do bad things justify it to themselves, or on impulse, they're not doing it "because it's immoral".

Why did someone steal?

* They did it in the moment, not even thinking about it.
* "I need it more than they do"
* "They stole it themselves."

Why did someone kill?

* "I was angry. Oops."
* "They hurt me, I'm paying them back."
* "I'm protecting my group."

Killers often have a very strong moral sense, of sorts. It's not necessarily working the same way it does for the rest of us -- "my sister dishonored our family, she had to die"

In general I'd say people doing bad things fall into

* "It's good, really, here's why"
* Just not caring about doing wrong; maybe they need X, or it feels too good to give up
* "Goodness is a myth people use to manipulate each other, I'm not worse than anyone else, just more honest." Which is still a justification for the second one, doing what they want (which is usually mundane -- wanting money/land/sex/power/safety, not "for the evil").

If anything, distinguishing between amoral and immoral is another way to feel good about being immoral. "I'm just selfish, not EVIL." No, if you're selfish without brakes or restraint, you're evil or only circumstances away from it, it doesn't matter that you're not actively sadistic or satanic.

"I want to hurt you" and "I don't care if I hurt you" are both evil, even if they're different in a psychological sense.
I didn't say that immoral people do immoral things for the sake of being evil. I said that the immoral act was its own purpose.

An amoral person might kill somebody who is in their way. An immoral person wants to kill that person (whether specifically, or just because they want to kill somebody and that person is convenient). An amoral person might take money or food to feed himself or another, or to service a larger agenda. An immoral person will take things because he wants them for their own sake.

This isn't to say that immoral people can't also be amoral. But an amoral person's goals are not, themselves, immoral. They're not necessarily moral, either, but the distinction is whether the goals are definitionally unachievable by a moral person.

Note: I said "definitionally," not "practically." That is, if you do achieve your goals, and the achievement of your goal is itself an immoral deed, you are immoral. If you do achieve your goals, and anybody who knew nothing about how you got to them would simply say, "Oh, good for him," then you may be amoral. (Not a guarantee, but it is a necessary condition.)

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 01:49 AM
I didn't say that immoral people do immoral things for the sake of being evil. I said that the immoral act was its own purpose.

An amoral person might kill somebody who is in their way. An immoral person wants to kill that person (whether specifically, or just because they want to kill somebody and that person is convenient). An amoral person might take money or food to feed himself or another, or to service a larger agenda. An immoral person will take things because he wants them for their own sake.

This isn't to say that immoral people can't also be amoral. But an amoral person's goals are not, themselves, immoral. They're not necessarily moral, either, but the distinction is whether the goals are definitionally unachievable by a moral person.

Note: I said "definitionally," not "practically." That is, if you do achieve your goals, and the achievement of your goal is itself an immoral deed, you are immoral. If you do achieve your goals, and anybody who knew nothing about how you got to them would simply say, "Oh, good for him," then you may be amoral. (Not a guarantee, but it is a necessary condition.)

You are using the term "amoral" to describe "individual with amoral or moral goals". This does not match either common definition.

1. (of acts) being neither moral nor immoral
2. (of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality

Nor does it match a common 3rd definition
3. A being that is not capable of or faced with moral choices. Aka, a being that is not a moral agent and thus cannot be moral or immoral because they don't have the opportunity or the capability to do things that are moral / immoral.

You brought this definition up in response to the subthread between a_flemish_guy and myself. Could you elaborate on the relevance? We were primarily using definition 1 since we were talking about acts.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-08-04, 05:47 AM
I generally find the desire to play a good character who is actually evil incredibly contrarian and unfun. Just play a evil character if that's what you want, rather than trying to trick me.

kyoryu
2020-08-04, 10:30 AM
"I want to hurt you" and "I don't care if I hurt you" are both evil, even if they're different in a psychological sense.

Yeah, but even good people will occasionally perform evil acts.

A good person may steal bread to feed their family, after all other options have been exhausted. They'll still feel bad about it, and will likely try to make amends when they can.

An evil person, however, will steal just because they're feeling a bit peckish.


I generally find the desire to play a good character who is actually evil incredibly contrarian and unfun. Just play a evil character if that's what you want, rather than trying to trick me.

I think the guy that's abrasive but is actually a good human being to be a very interesting character. Think of Clint Eastwood's character in Grand Torino.

The Good character that's syrupy nicey nice is just entirely too two dimensional. At that point you're playing a caricature rather than a character.

Yes, there can be nice Good people, and even ones that aren't over-the-top nice can have varying levels of not-niceness, and so on and so forth. Characters should be complex. But... if someone is saying "all Good characters must be like this, then I suspect that there's a lot of stereotyping of "good" in there.


Ideally, yes. But people aren't perfect, and being not-nice in daily life is not the sort of thing that pushes a person who self-sacrifices on big things off of the Good end.

Some things do. If you work hard for lots of orphanages while keeping a sex slave chained in the basement, I'd say you're Evil, because some things are "one strike, you're out": the good done doesn't make up for the appalling evil.

So.... I look at it as acts and people, in different categories.

An act is Good if it is done to help others, especially at a cost to one's self, without any expectation of compensation. The greater the sacrifice, the more Good. Good is pretty much directly self-sacrifice, to my way of thinking.

A Neutral act is one that is often self interested, but in a fair way - trading someone for something you want, for instance. You'll get a fair deal, maybe even drive a hard bargain, but at the end of the day everyone's agreeing to it and everyone comes away at least a little better off.

Evil is self interest at the expense of others. It's the opposite of Good.

Now... those are acts, and the amount of sacrifice/expense can change how good/evil an act is. And I view acts pretty strictly in this sense. Murder is more evil than theft, but theft is still evil.... and evil acts done for good purposes are still good

People, though, are less strict.

A good person will do Good things on a fairly basis, and at a fairly-to-reasonably high cost to themselves. They'll also do a ton of neutral stuff (everyone does), and may even commit an evil act on occasion, though usually it will be under great duress, they'll have guilt over it, and they'll try to make amends when they can.

A neutral person pretty much does all neutral stuff. They're fair, they get along with everyone. They don't necessarily do a lot of charity, and aren't into self sacrifice, but they might give a little on occasion, and they also might do a few minor evils on occasion. They'll probably still have some guilt about it, but it won't bug them as much.

An evil person is just out for themselves. If you're willing to harm others (steal, murder, etc.) for personal gain, you're evil. Doesn't mean that you are always evil, or are doing it for giggles, or without reason. But just like a Good person will help others with little regard for themselves, and Evil person will help themselves with little regard for others. An evil person that does good on occasion is still evil... the evil trumps whatever it is that they do. Neutral is not doing Good and Evil in rough proportion, someone that does that is Evil.

So for the "saves orphanages, has a sex slave" example, the Evil of the sex slave trumps any goodness done, in my way of looking at it.


We already talked about Miko, but Roy's father, Eugene, is also officially Lawful Good. This is more of an informed attribute from what we've seen, but he used to be an adventurer, I can believe it. But he's a pretty flawed human, distractable (according to his wife) and of course very crochety as a nagging dead guy. Not Nice. But presumably with a lot of lifetime spent on Good, and nothing that pushes him to being not-Good. Just... less Good. Certainly less pleasant.

A very good example of "Good, but not pleasant".

Segev
2020-08-04, 11:27 AM
I think the amoral/immoral thing is getting too far into the weeds. All I'm saying is that amorality is often, but doesn't have to be, evil. Immorality (where we define "moral" specifically according to the Good/Evil axis) is inherently evil.

The character from whom I take my screen name is a very evil necromancer, but he rarely has evil goals. He is amoral by my definition, but that in no way excuses his behavior nor makes him neutral. He's evil, because he can and will perpetrate evil acts if they are the best way to ensure his goals' achievement.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 12:14 PM
I think the amoral/immoral thing is getting too far into the weeds. All I'm saying is that amorality is often, but doesn't have to be, evil. Immorality (where we define "moral" specifically according to the Good/Evil axis) is inherently evil.

That says more about which definition you are talking about than it does about how a different definition was used in the subthread you replied to.

Acknowledging events can be amoral (1. [of acts] being neither moral nor immoral) is fundamental to understanding terms like "morally obligatory", "morally permissible", "morally prohibited", and "morally supererogatory".

Once we are using the same definition, then everything becomes clear. Especially since a_flemish_guy and I were discussing "moral duty". Whether performing your"moral duty is a moral or an amoral event depends on the nature of that moral duty. Specifically we discussed active duty to do the morally obligatory vs passive duty to abstain from the morally prohibited.



The character from whom I take my screen name is a very evil necromancer, but he rarely has evil goals. He is amoral by my definition, but that in no way excuses his behavior nor makes him neutral. He's evil, because he can and will perpetrate evil acts if they are the best way to ensure his goals' achievement.
This dives into the 2nd definition (the one not used in that subthread) and the 3rd definition (which I tried to avoid in the subthread).
2) If that very evil necromancer disbelieves or otherwise does not care about the subject of morality, then they are amoral under the 2nd definition. This is obviously different from the very evil necromancer that believes they are doing the right thing.
3) Since the very evil necromancer is evil/good, they must be a moral agent that has/had the opportunity to face moral choices. Since they are a moral agent, they are not amoral in the same sense that a deer is amoral.
Aka, yes I think your conclusion on these other definitions is fine. But the subthread you replied to was talking about the 1st definition.

Segev
2020-08-04, 12:23 PM
That says more about which definition you are talking about than it does about how a different definition was used in the subthread you replied to.

Acknowledging events can be amoral (1. [of acts] being neither moral nor immoral) is fundamental to understanding terms like "morally obligatory", "morally permissible", "morally prohibited", and "morally supererogatory".

Once we are using the same definition, then everything becomes clear. Especially since a_flemish_guy and I were discussing "moral duty". Whether performing your"moral duty is a moral or an amoral event depends on the nature of that moral duty. Specifically we discussed active duty to do the morally obligatory vs passive duty to abstain from the morally prohibited.



This dives into the 2nd definition (the one not used in that subthread) and the 3rd definition (which I tried to avoid in the subthread).
2) If that very evil necromancer disbelieves or otherwise does not care about the subject of morality, then they are amoral under the 2nd definition. This is obviously different from the very evil necromancer that believes they are doing the right thing.
3) Since the very evil necromancer is evil/good, they must be a moral agent that has/had the opportunity to face moral choices. Since they are a moral agent, they are not amoral in the same sense that a deer is amoral.
Aka, yes I think your conclusion on these other definitions is fine. I was talking about the 1st definition.
Ah, fair enough. I didn't pick up on the context at all, and didn't grasp what you were trying to say about the context until this post. Sorry about that.

"Moral duty" is a sticky concept because it comes down to very specific circumstances every single time. Most would find a guy who literally only has to say, "I'll save you!" to save somebody's life, who refuses to even do that at no cost to himself save the effort a normal person would have to put into that statement, to be fairly reprehensible. However, the more you increase the cost to the could-be-savior - whether in effort, risk, or anything else - the less reprehensible he seems. While many good people would be very mad at themselves for failing to save somebody even if they couldn't realistically have done so, very few would fault a man for refusing to risk his own life for a slim chance of saving another's life.

Of course, amoral acts are simply those which, in D&D, would be morally-neutral. "I'm going to have lunch" is a morally neutral, amoral act, as a general rule. I mean, you can add things to it to give it moral weight, but it is those circumstantial changes that are the morally-altered things.

There are, yes, two kinds of neutral-aligned beings, as well: amoral ones who are not moral agents, and morally-ambiguous ones who may perpetrate some evils but have limits, and also do some good (but generally aren't doing Great Deeds of Good or the like).

So, I think we're in agreement?

Conradine
2020-08-04, 12:37 PM
In my opinion there's a limit to how much harsh and verbally abusive a person can be without stepping into the Evil behiavour. Evil in D&D is about causing suffering. It's perfectly possible to cause great suffering without physical violence.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 12:40 PM
Ah, fair enough. I didn't pick up on the context at all, and didn't grasp what you were trying to say about the context until this post. Sorry about that.
I am glad we are on the same page, sorry about not being clearer earlier.


"Moral duty" is a sticky concept because it comes down to very specific circumstances every single time. Most would find a guy who literally only has to say, "I'll save you!" to save somebody's life, who refuses to even do that at no cost to himself save the effort a normal person would have to put into that statement, to be fairly reprehensible. However, the more you increase the cost to the could-be-savior - whether in effort, risk, or anything else - the less reprehensible he seems. While many good people would be very mad at themselves for failing to save somebody even if they couldn't realistically have done so, very few would fault a man for refusing to risk his own life for a slim chance of saving another's life.
Indeed it can be quite sticky. We had a specific circumstance, and agreed enough on the moral duty involved, but a slight difference in initial opinion is what lead to us dissecting moral duty into the active duty to do the morally obligatory vs passive duty to abstain from the morally prohibited. This lead to the conclusion that Person A had a mostly amoral event since the moral duty in that case was mostly passive. I am glad a_flemish_guy brought up that distinction because I had overlooked it in my post.

So most of the discussion about moral duty was at an abstract enough level with enough common premises that we avoided the sticky part.


Of course, amoral acts are simply those which, in D&D, would be morally-neutral. "I'm going to have lunch" is a morally neutral, amoral act, as a general rule. I mean, you can add things to it to give it moral weight, but it is those circumstantial changes that are the morally-altered things.

There are, yes, two kinds of neutral-aligned beings, as well: amoral ones who are not moral agents, and morally-ambiguous ones who may perpetrate some evils but have limits, and also do some good (but generally aren't doing Great Deeds of Good or the like).

So, I think we're in agreement?

Yes, these are premises we have in common.

I tend to use moral/amoral/immoral terms when discussing metaethics and ethics because they are more precise jargon than the colloquial terms good/neutral/evil

Democratus
2020-08-04, 03:02 PM
In my opinion there's a limit to how much harsh and verbally abusive a person can be without stepping into the Evil behiavour. Evil in D&D is about causing suffering. It's perfectly possible to cause great suffering without physical violence.

Causing suffering isn't Evil. You can cause suffering simply by telling someone you aren't interested in dating them. Everyone, good or evil, causes suffering at some point or another in their lives.

The desire to (and enjoyment of) causing suffering is Evil.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-04, 03:55 PM
Causing suffering isn't Evil. You can cause suffering simply by telling someone you aren't interested in dating them. Everyone, good or evil, causes suffering at some point or another in their lives.

The desire to (and enjoyment of) causing suffering is Evil.

Thats setting the bar of non-evil a little low, not gonna lie.

your missing your a big gap there between "everyone causes suffering so its okay" and "enjoys causing suffering" that a lot of evil falls into. like ignoring suffering just because everyone causes it? I would not say thats Good.

Conradine
2020-08-04, 03:57 PM
I said "it's about causing suffering". I should have been more precise, it's about deliberately, consciously and unnecessarily causing suffering.

Politely delining a date is a thing, laughing at the proposal and mocking the person's appearance / behiavour / social status is a whole different issue.

Democratus
2020-08-04, 04:09 PM
Thats setting the bar of non-evil a little low, not gonna lie.

your missing your a big gap there between "everyone causes suffering so its okay" and "enjoys causing suffering" that a lot of evil falls into. like ignoring suffering just because everyone causes it? I would not say thats Good.

I didn't say "...so it's okay", only that it isn't necessarily evil.

Heck, punishing your kid for misbehaving is causing suffering. And it is intentional. But it's for a higher purpose. And I wouldn't say that it's Evil.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 05:12 PM
Causing suffering isn't Evil. You can cause suffering simply by telling someone you aren't interested in dating them. Everyone, good or evil, causes suffering at some point or another in their lives.

The desire to (and enjoyment of) causing suffering is Evil.


I didn't say "...so it's okay", only that it isn't necessarily evil.

Heck, punishing your kid for misbehaving is causing suffering. And it is intentional. But it's for a higher purpose. And I wouldn't say that it's Evil.

It depends on the moral theory. Utilitarianism for example would hold that causing an increase in suffering is immoral. However that is a consequentialist theory and it sounds like you consider intent to be the important part of the intent/action/consequent trio.


Thats setting the bar of non-evil a little low, not gonna lie.

your missing your a big gap there between "everyone causes suffering so its okay" and "enjoys causing suffering" that a lot of evil falls into. like ignoring suffering just because everyone causes it? I would not say thats Good.

If causing suffering is unavoidable, then causing suffering is probably not inherently immoral (although it might still be prima facie immoral). There is probably something that differentiates between immoral causation of suffering and other causation of suffering. Some examples: unnecessary, excessive, net increase, etc.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-04, 05:21 PM
I didn't say "...so it's okay", only that it isn't necessarily evil.

Heck, punishing your kid for misbehaving is causing suffering. And it is intentional. But it's for a higher purpose. And I wouldn't say that it's Evil.

what kind of punishment? your talking as it there is only one punishment when there is a spectrum of punishments for child. again your leaving out a lot here. not all punishment is the same. and anything that includes even a small amount of violence on a child I would not say is good.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 05:39 PM
what kind of punishment? your talking as it there is only one punishment when there is a spectrum of punishments for child. again your leaving out a lot here. not all punishment is the same. and anything that includes even a small amount of violence on a child I would not say is good.

I believe there argument there is that punishment necessarily causes suffering but is not necessarily immoral. Your further questions seeking specifics kinda support the thrust of their argument.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-04, 05:41 PM
I believe there argument there is that punishment necessarily causes suffering but is not necessarily immoral. Your further questions kinda support the thrust of their argument.

Okay, but "its only evil if you enjoy/desire it" is still a pretty low bar.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 06:49 PM
Okay, but "its only evil if you enjoy/desire it" is still a pretty low bar.

Yes, a strictly intent based moral theory is a rather low bar. Some moral theories have really high bars.

Although maybe that was just with regards to suffering.

Kyutaru
2020-08-04, 07:11 PM
I mean the bar for being Chaotic Evil used to be "likes walks through hell, burning orphanages, and murdering puppies"

Alignment has become more inclusive over the years to reflect that the spectrum is not from Saint to Sociopath.

mindstalk
2020-08-04, 08:00 PM
You could say evil is causing unnecessary or avoidable suffering.

If Joe is into Jane, and she's not into him, suffering is unavoidable. She turns him down and he feels hurt, or she goes out with him and suffers a relationship she doesn't want. There is no suffering-free outcome.

But she can turn him down kindly but firmly (don't want to give false hope.) Or she can waffle hoping he takes a hint, drawing out the process. Or she can rudely put him down, "why would anyone go out with a greenskin like you?" The latter two cause excess suffering, in various ways. 'waffle' is thoughtlessness or misplaced kindness, but the putdown at least approaches evil.

Reathin
2020-08-04, 08:35 PM
"Good" is tied to action (healing the sick, defending the weak, sheltering the innocent, all that literally good stuff) while being nice is tied to the expression of your actions. It is entirely possible to have a truly selfless individual whose actions are saint-like and yet they aren't nice. Maybe they're deeply cynical but want to fight against that (while acknowledging how little they are really able to do or how far they have to go to make society as a whole better). That's emotionally draining, which makes it hard to maintain basic civility. Maybe they're embarrassed but driven by guilt to act in good ways. Maybe they think manners slows down the efficiency of their Good acts (I've seen this before, and it's almost universally a short-sighted strategy. "Refusing to sugar coat" things, even when it's not being used as an excuse to be rude, still makes your job harder 9 times out of 10 compared to just taking a second to word things gently). Maybe they're simply not good at interacting with people, so don't even try to put on a nice face.

Being nice usually makes doing Good more palatable, and there's definitely a correlation between being good and being nice (Nice and Evil aren't antonyms, but they're unusual enough to draw attention, whereas a charitable, kind sort being nice isn't exactly newsworthy), but at the end of the day, they're still separate concepts.

Thayborne
2020-08-04, 08:57 PM
By that logic, evil can't ever be nice. They must give their children coal on Christmas, beat them on their birthdays, and make fun of their big noses. They must never pet a puppy or serve a non-poisoned meal to their guests.

Nice is situational. Good/evil isn't. The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 09:45 PM
The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Nay, it is easy and comforting to dehumanize and demonize the other. However it does naught but blind you. It is wiser to confront the fact that even the other are people too. The love of a loving parent to their child is not a cruelty regardless of whether the parent is otherwise a "wicked" person or not.

Beware foolish proverbs. It is better to heed the rare true wisdom from a fool than the rare true foolishness from the wise. And better yet to become wise enough to judge for yourself.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-04, 10:16 PM
The love of a loving parent to their child is not a cruelty regardless of whether the parent is otherwise a "wicked" person or not.


No, Abusive parents are a thing. perhaps take your own medicine about foolish proverbs.

OldTrees1
2020-08-04, 10:37 PM
No, Abusive parents are a thing. perhaps take your own medicine about foolish proverbs.

I would not call that "loving" parents. Abuse is not love.


With that context my post will become clearer to you. Especially if you read the proverb I was criticising. If you assume someone who is "wicked" in one aspect of their life must be wicked in all aspects of their life, then you blind yourself. That is why the proverb in question is foolish. It is a comforting fiction rather than reality.

PS: The 2nd half of your post does not make sense. Even if you nitpick or otherwise disagree with my post, my post does follow its own advice. It is my words rather than blindly repeating a dehumanizing proverb. And it calls for reasoned evaluation rather than blind acceptance.

kyoryu
2020-08-05, 09:55 AM
AKA: Most people are good people to their friends.

Morty
2020-08-05, 10:38 AM
Two things emerge from this thread, first and foremost. One, the definitions of both "good" and "nice" are very situation dependent. Second, maybe TVTropes shouldn't be treated as a serious source of character analysis.

Segev
2020-08-05, 12:06 PM
Two things emerge from this thread, first and foremost. One, the definitions of both "good" and "nice" are very situation dependent. Second, maybe TVTropes shouldn't be treated as a serious source of character analysis.

Nonsense! It's on the internet! A group collaboration for the amusement of people on the internet is always 100% factual and a perfect distillation of the highest wisdom!

BisectedBrioche
2020-08-05, 12:24 PM
Two things emerge from this thread, first and foremost. One, the definitions of both "good" and "nice" are very situation dependent. Second, maybe TVTropes shouldn't be treated as a serious source of character analysis.

Sorry, I can't hear you! I'm over on TV Tropes analysing characters informally. :smalltongue:

NorthernPhoenix
2020-08-05, 02:28 PM
AKA: Most people are good people to their friends.

Definitely. Some of the most horrible people you can imagine probably are too. But that alone doesn't make anyone a good person.

mindstalk
2020-08-05, 08:35 PM
No, Abusive parents are a thing. perhaps take your own medicine about foolish proverbs.

Abusive parents are definitely a thing, but someone who is wicked in some ways isn't necessarily an abusive parent -- nor is someone good in many ways necessarily *not* an abusive parent. (Eugene Greenhilt again, for a mild example.)

ImNotTrevor
2020-08-05, 08:53 PM
Abusive parents are definitely a thing, but someone who is wicked in some ways isn't necessarily an abusive parent -- nor is someone good in many ways necessarily *not* an abusive parent. (Eugene Greenhilt again, for a mild example.)

Historically, most people I have met with predatory/abusive behaviors are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

The most common abusers are frequently {scrubbed} otherwise upstanding members of their community who are very charismatic and respected by their peers.

I can think of a noteworthy celebrity who pretty.much everyone thought of as a really nice, fudgepop-loving guy, a real family man... up until we all collectively learned he was a predator. And we tend to forget that the majority of people thought he was a nice, good man.

If the Devil showed up in your bedroom to make a deal with you tonight, I guarantee he'd be handsome, well dressed, and very, very friendly, sympathetic, and express genuine concern for your plights.

Nice and Good are two diffetent considerations. End of.

kyoryu
2020-08-06, 10:50 AM
Historically, most people I have met with predatory/abusive behaviors are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

Well, of course.

How else do they suck their victims in?

Segev
2020-08-06, 01:07 PM
Well, of course.

How else do they suck their victims in?

Vacuum cleaners?

Spheres of Annihilation?

Spheres of Defenestration set to reverse?

Xervous
2020-08-06, 01:31 PM
Vacuum cleaners?

Spheres of Annihilation?

Spheres of Defenestration set to reverse?

Splatbooks/character cosmetics/catchy jingles...

jayem
2020-08-06, 03:29 PM
If the Devil showed up in your bedroom to make a deal with you tonight, I guarantee he'd be handsome, well dressed, and very, very friendly, sympathetic, and express genuine concern for your plights.

It strikes me, that's where three of the different "nicenessess" behave in interesting ways.
If the (standard) Devil* showed up, the concern would seem genuine, but wouldn't be.

In terms of politeness/nice absolutely. In terms of being appealing/nice, absolutely. But I'm sure we've all been told "tricking someone to end up in Naraka on false pretences, isn't nice" (or was it just me), there's a variant of niceness that is more fundamental than the surface, so he only "seems nice", in the same way he might only seem "human".
However, and this is the point, lets take this 'good/nice' version of nice where we assume the Sirens are "seeming nice" but not actually "being nice". They, and particularly in the classic Diaboloical contract, are often seemingly 'nice' while simultaneously openly not being 'good'. So the nice and good distinction is still there.

*metaphor's mixed to avoid religious input.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-06, 05:02 PM
There is a much simpler way of looking at this. Think of Paladins.

Paladins do not lie. They do not cheat. They do not knowingly associate with evil people or people who offend their moral code. They will not hire you as a retainer (etc.) if you fail to adhere to their standard of good.

They are also armed champions of law, with duty to punish those who harm or threaten innocents, up to and including arresting and executing those guilty of severe offenses.

Paladins are famously conflict-prone as player characters. Many people decry their code as something that puts them at odds with other character archetypes. But there's a reason for that: many other player character archetypes are either explicitly or implicitely thieves and raiders, they lie, they cheat, they threaten and harm for their own convenience. Their only real loyalty is to a tiny band of other player characters, with everyone else, the "non-player characters", deemed to be of lesser importance and free to exploit.

In short, judged by the standards the paladin is supposed to uphold, those other characters are horribly immoral. They are the sort of people a paladin should be duty-bound to oppose or cut ties with. Obviously, those other character and their players find this the very opposite of "nice". Many players even claim evil party members are preferable to a paladin, because at least an evil character is excused for unfairly favoring their fellow adventurers. That is, they don't need to judge their peers for lying, cheating and acting violently for their own convenience, and even kd they do, they don't need to do anything about it.

In the cut-throat world of adventuring, evil people can "play nice". A paladin can't.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-12, 07:54 PM
There is a much simpler way of looking at this. Think of Paladins.

Paladins do not lie. They do not cheat. They do not knowingly associate with evil people or people who offend their moral code. They will not hire you as a retainer (etc.) if you fail to adhere to their standard of good.

They are also armed champions of law, with the duty to punish those who harm or threaten innocents, up to and including arresting and executing those guilty of severe offenses.

Paladins are famously conflict-prone as player characters. Many people decry their code as something that puts them at odds with other character archetypes. But there's a reason for that: many other player character archetypes are either explicitly or implicitly thieves and raiders, they lie, they cheat, they threaten and harm for their own convenience. Their only real loyalty is to a tiny band of other player characters, with everyone else, the "non-player characters", deemed to be of lesser importance and free to exploit.

In short, judged by the standards the paladin is supposed to uphold, those other characters are horribly immoral. They are the sort of people a paladin should be duty-bound to oppose or cut ties with. Obviously, that other character and their players find this the very opposite of "nice". Many players even claim evil party members are preferable to a paladin because at least an evil character is excused for unfairly favoring their fellow adventurers. That is, they don't need to judge their peers for lying, cheating, and acting violently for their own convenience, and even kd they do, they don't need to do anything about it.

In the cut-throat world of adventuring, evil people can "play nice". A paladin can't.

Yes, I know that the paladins have a bad reputation for being lawful stupid which is probably that I'm not going to play as a paladin.

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-12, 07:57 PM
Yes, I know that the paladins have a bad reputation for being lawful stupid which is probably that I'm not going to play as a paladin.

I mean there are a lot of different oaths for different ideals. Oath of Ancients in 5e is pretty chill.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-12, 08:10 PM
I mean there are a lot of different oaths for different ideals. Oath of Ancients in 5e is pretty chill.

Cool. I never play D&D 5e so I can't vouch for an opinion on that.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-12, 08:22 PM
I mean there are a lot of different oaths for different ideals. Oath of Ancients in 5e is pretty chill.

That and most other paladin-like classes or archetypes outside of DnD ditch the code altogether. you can still be a shining knight with white/holy magic after all, you can even play up the virtue part of it....the GM just isn't required to hold you to anything specific and thus whether your character truly or fully lives up to the paladin ideal stops being a requirement to make sure your powers work, and starts being an actual interesting look into a character like this: what kind of person goes out of their way to exemplify these ideals when nothing is requiring them to? how much of their morality do they hold themselves to and how much do they have to be flexible on? I find that one can have plenty of interesting moral quandaries and things to test your moral mettle in roleplaying without any specific code if that is what one thinks a paladin is about. and in some ways they can even be better people without one.

and of course they are perfectly capable of still being Rudely Good without a code: portray injustices/suffering right and it becomes kind of hard not to be in response. assuming they don't just descend upon evildoers in righteous berserking fury. paladin/barbarian is a more plausible hybrid than most people would assume.

OldTrees1
2020-08-12, 10:05 PM
Cool. I never play D&D 5e so I can't vouch for an opinion on that.

Oath of Ancients in a nutshull:
Everyone is a candle. Help everyone flourish and let themselves shine bright. Protect the candles from the wind. Life can be great, let's all make it so.

Basically Oath of Ancients is one of the only Paladin oaths that would still exist in a utopia.

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-12, 10:37 PM
Oath of Ancients in a nutshull:
Everyone is a candle. Help everyone flourish and let themselves shine bright. Protect the candles from the wind. Life can be great, let's all make it so.

Basically Oath of Ancients is one of the only Paladin oaths that would still exist in a utopia.

Yeah and kinda the one that my pcs end up following anyway, without being paladins.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-13, 12:48 PM
Yes, I know that the paladins have a bad reputation for being lawful stupid which is probably that I'm not going to play as a paladin.

"Lawful Stupid" is what Neutrals, Chaotics and Evils like to call a paladin when a paladin is not acting in a way that's convenient to them. It's not at all given that all paladins labeled as "Lawful Stupid" are acting stupidly from in-character, in-universe or moral point of views.


That and most other paladin-like classes or archetypes outside of DnD ditch the code altogether. you can still be a shining knight with white/holy magic after all, you can even play up the virtue part of it....the GM just isn't required to hold you to anything specific...

For conflict to happen, it is not at all necessary for the GM to require or enforce adherence to a code - it is enough for the player to require and enforce it of themselves. Even in a game where a GM does enforce it, trying to blame conflict on an externality is dodging responsibility, because it bypasses the most important question of all: why did the player, and hence the character, submit themselves to a code?


Yeah and kinda the one that my pcs end up following anyway, without being paladins.

And that is enough to come into a conflict with other characters, just like a paladin would. Remember the larger point: good people aren't always "nice". Paladins are just an obvious case, because they've made their morals explicit. But even when you're just trying to keep all candles safe from the wind, some people will disagree, because they want to see some candles snuffed out; and they will not find it "nice" if you object or act to prevent them.

OldTrees1
2020-08-13, 01:10 PM
But even when you're just trying to keep all candles safe from the wind, some people will disagree, because they want to see some candles snuffed out; and they will not find it "nice" if you object or act to prevent them.

If I understood correctly: A team might not describe the other team's goalie as nice.

Kyutaru
2020-08-13, 01:24 PM
If I understood correctly: A team might not describe the other team's goalie as nice.Since sports are literal conflict, I think that's a bad example.

I think a better way to view it is some people have thoughts on principles they wish to uphold and protect while others want those principles abolished and will be more than a bit displeased if you prevent them from doing so.

Or yet another way... the witch has taken sanctuary in the church. Some wish to protect her, some wish to burn her at the stake. They both have a reasonably righteous case.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-13, 01:26 PM
Or yet another way... the witch has taken sanctuary in the church. Some wish to protect her, some wish to burn her at the stake. They both have a reasonably righteous case.

No. Neither have a reasonably righteous case. they do not know enough about the witch to know whether she should live or die. only with further information about what evil she has done will reveal whether which one is righteous. these are only assumptions.

Kyutaru
2020-08-13, 02:02 PM
No. Neither have a reasonably righteous case. they do not know enough about the witch to know whether she should live or die. only with further information about what evil she has done will reveal whether which one is righteous. these are only assumptions.
But, as I'm sure you may be able to understand, one must still act prior to having the information. There may be a time crisis in the distance or the grim reality is you will never actually know the truth because the world isn't fair and clean like that. But even those reasons matter not because the call to inaction begs the question of what do we do FOR NOW. Something must be done lest someone else take action and regardless of what is done you are making a choice. If the de facto answer is to hold her in some facility until a reasonable investigation has been conducted then you are still choosing to keep her alive and protected from the angry rioters. How long you can do that for and still keep the peace is uncertain. At some point, information or not, you will have to either grant her mercy or give her over to the mob.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-13, 02:33 PM
No. Neither have a reasonably righteous case.

For people with truly different core values, you can assume both have full information and they will still disagree. Even in D&D there are three different flavors of good and it is not meant for them to always agree.

kyoryu
2020-08-13, 04:12 PM
But, as I'm sure you may be able to understand, one must still act prior to having the information. There may be a time crisis in the distance or the grim reality is you will never actually know the truth because the world isn't fair and clean like that. But even those reasons matter not because the call to inaction begs the question of what do we do FOR NOW. Something must be done lest someone else take action and regardless of what is done you are making a choice. If the de facto answer is to hold her in some facility until a reasonable investigation has been conducted then you are still choosing to keep her alive and protected from the angry rioters. How long you can do that for and still keep the peace is uncertain. At some point, information or not, you will have to either grant her mercy or give her over to the mob.

Nobody ever said "good" was easy.

Arguably, if it's easy, it's not Good (capital letter). IOW, when the "right thing" happens to line up with the expedient or beneficial thing, then doing the right thing is easy and doesn't tell me much about you. (That doesn't make it bad, obviously). How you react when it's difficult or costly is really what's interesting.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-13, 05:01 PM
For people with truly different core values, you can assume both have full information and they will still disagree. Even in D&D there are three different flavors of good and it is not meant for them to always agree.

And assuming they both have equal value in a situation is absurd.

subjectivism is not morality and shouldn't be treated as such. letting yourself be lost in grey vs grey idiocy because someone disagrees with you is letting evil win. both your points are irrelevant. not enough information has been provided, are witches even real? or are they just superstitious nonsense and the woman is a normal woman? this isn't the Dnd forum, I can't assume this is a setting where magic exists. if they are real, I can't assume witches are evil. not unless more information is provided.

and if I find out the mob just an angry unreasonable mob who won't listen and that witch is innocent? the moral thing to isn't just to keep her safe, but to help her escape so that she lives and hides from their idiotic wrath and not pretend as if those people are right just because there are more of them. and if I'm in a setting where the witch is areal danger and I'm an adventurer or hero with powers to help, the last thing I should is hand her over to them and let them die to her magic when I'm probably the more competent person to take her out. either way, its best to handle this myself than let her get near anyone else.

NigelWalmsley
2020-08-13, 05:12 PM
Nobody ever said "good" was easy.

The thing about Good is that most people aren't Good. Most people don't go out and volunteer at shelters for domestic abuse victims, or donate their money to fight cancer, let alone actually go out and do relief work in war zones. Of course, most people aren't Evil either, but for the most part people are Neutral. And as a civilization, we are okay with that. Postulating a notion of people who are, in some meaningful sense, "Good" means postulating people who act in ways that the vast majority of people not only don't, but don't consider themselves particularly compelled to.

That is, of course, assuming you even accept the framework that there is a Good side and an Evil side to begin with. Which, frankly, is rather suspect as a claim. There's not a single universally agreed-upon answer to moral questions, and even if one of the sides offering an answer started calling themselves Good rather than Deontology or Utilitarianism or Virtue Ethics or whatever, that wouldn't magically make their conclusions right.

Kyutaru
2020-08-13, 05:47 PM
subjectivism is not morality and shouldn't be treated as such. letting yourself be lost in grey vs grey idiocy because someone disagrees with you is letting evil win. both your points are irrelevant. not enough information has been provided, are witches even real? or are they just superstitious nonsense and the woman is a normal woman? this isn't the Dnd forum, I can't assume this is a setting where magic exists. if they are real, I can't assume witches are evil. not unless more information is provided.
Why should that matter? Even if our world, the angry mob believed witches were real. It doesn't matter if magic truly exists or not. All that matters is what the individual believes. You're right, this isn't a DND forum which means there is no objective Good and objective Evil cosmic forces out there. It's all based on the perceptions of the people involved and Good people can carry out Evil actions through misinformation.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-13, 07:10 PM
Why should that matter? Even if our world, the angry mob believed witches were real. It doesn't matter if magic truly exists or not. All that matters is what the individual believes. You're right, this isn't a DND forum which means there is no objective Good and objective Evil cosmic forces out there. It's all based on the perceptions of the people involved and Good people can carry out Evil actions through misinformation.

It always matters. they are acting on false information, because witches are not real. and therefore what they acting on is prejudice and stupidity, not actual justice or morality. what they believe is worth less than dirt, as it has no basis in reality. moral subjectivism is similarly useless and not worth any serious consideration. the fact that good can accidentally do evil, is why I emphasize proper information finding over listening to an idiotic mob and wondering if their angry yelling is just as valuable as rational decisions when they clearly are not.

If witches are real, that doesn't tell me how dangerous they are. whats their power level? what can they destroy or do if they are dangerous? is this street level problem? a city level? country? are they from DBZ and can destroy a planet? I don't know.

and perhaps there is no perfect moral solution- but neither is there any perfectly amoral situation where all options are equal. there will be some information gleaned that will tip the scales one way or another and the lighter shade will be chosen. and if a GM makes this hypothetical situation where I can't judge any of the options, where no choices are right? thats just absurd, and not worth playing with if I'm trying to be moral (and if I'm roleplaying someone amoral- chances I don't care about the situation in the first place and won't make my choices on any priorities involving peoples safety)

Edit: like what, am I going to go in, find out the witch is just an ordinary person who did nothing wrong then go out and be Nice and say their subjective angry mob viewpoint is right and let them kill her? That isn't Good. thats absurd.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-13, 07:18 PM
It always matters. they are acting on false information because witches are not real. and therefore what they acting on is prejudice and stupidity, not actual justice or morality. what they believe is worth less than dirt, as it has no basis in reality. moral subjectivism is similarly useless and not worth any serious consideration. the fact that good can accidentally do evil, is why I emphasize proper information finding over listening to an idiotic mob and wondering if their angry yelling is just as valuable as rational decisions when they clearly are not.

If witches are real, that doesn't tell me how dangerous they are. whats their power level? what can they destroy or do if they are dangerous? is this street-level problem? a city level? country? are they from DBZ and can destroy a planet? I don't know.

and perhaps there is no perfect moral solution- but neither is there any perfectly amoral situation where all options are equal. there will be some information gleaned that will tip the scales one way or another and the lighter shade will be chosen. and if a GM makes this hypothetical situation where I can't judge any of the options, where no choices are right? that's just absurd, and not worth playing with if I'm trying to be moral (and if I'm roleplaying someone amoral- chances I don't care about the situation in the first place and won't make my choices on any priorities involving peoples safety)

I agree with you there. If the mob believes that witches are evil without any research how do they know witches are evil based by jumping to the conclusion. That's a stereotype and prejudice.

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-13, 07:48 PM
And that is enough to come into a conflict with other characters, just like a paladin would. Remember the larger point: good people aren't always "nice". Paladins are just an obvious case, because they've made their morals explicit. But even when you're just trying to keep all candles safe from the wind, some people will disagree, because they want to see some candles snuffed out; and they will not find it "nice" if you object or act to prevent them.

But no... the ancients paladin generally doesn't result in conflict as it's again.. fairly chill. Also I haven't seen it cause any conflict in my games or with my pcs.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-13, 09:21 PM
And assuming they both have equal value in a situation is absurd.

subjectivism is not morality and shouldn't be treated as such. letting yourself be lost in grey vs grey idiocy because someone disagrees with you is letting evil win. both your points are irrelevant.

You are getting lost in the weeds of one, specific example about witches. The details of the example won't matter because they don't exist - any answers would just be arbitrary invented spins on the situation. You can just cut that useless phase out and assume both parties have full information.

The point isn't about equating subjectivity with morality. You can assume a purely objective moral framework: the trait we're looking for is that sometimes, a situation has two equally good yet mutually exclusive solutions. That's enough to create disagreement between two people - they can have subjective preference for one over the other. Their values create conflict, but it's not their values that make those solutions moral.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-13, 10:18 PM
You are getting lost in the weeds of one, specific example about witches. The details of the example won't matter because they don't exist - any answers would just be arbitrary invented spins on the situation. You can just cut that useless phase out and assume both parties have full information.

The point isn't about equating subjectivity with morality. You can assume a purely objective moral framework: the trait we're looking for is that sometimes, a situation has two equally good yet mutually exclusive solutions. That's enough to create disagreement between two people - they can have subjective preference for one over the other. Their values create conflict, but it's not their values that make those solutions moral.

No. that makes no sense.

the details always matter. yes they are arbitrary. So is all of roleplaying. it doesn't matter if both parties have full information. what matters is the information itself, as whatever crime done has a degree of severity. that degree of severity from then on we can determine proper punishment in accordance with that severity, which will tip one side being right over the other. I'm the PC in this instance, therefore really only my decision matters. NPCs can voice they're opinion but they aren't the decision-makers.

and if you still look for this trait- I'm sorry, it doesn't actually exist. your looking for a fairy tale, morality is not a vacuum and any meaning moral decision has to take surrounding details into account. saving a life is inherently more valuable than killing one, the only reason to kill the witch over saving them are utilitarian reasons of saving more lives than that. if they aren't a threat, there is no reason to kill them and the people wanting to kill are just flat out wrong. if she is a threat and can't be convinced to stop being one, the people advocating for mercy are just flat out wrong. they are only right and therefore righteous if their response to the information matches reality. a bunch of people killing a single innocent is wrong no matter what. a bunch of people killed because they foolishly believed a monster will be merciful back are also wrong.

now its possible that everyone is evil, that the mob wanting her dead are people prejudiced against witches and thus will try to kill her no matter what, that the mob wanting her alive are actually witch conspirators wishing to garner her favor and thus work with her to kill everyone in the city, and the witch is evil. that is technically all morally equal options in that they're all equally bad to pick, and thus the actual moral option is to kill all three groups. but I generally try not to assume things that lead to paranoia massacres.

so to assume everyone is good, we have to assume the witch is good to, and that she doesn't want to kill anyone either. therefore when we talk to her the truth is revealed and when we go out to tell them, the group that wants her dead will realize that they were wrong and give up their viewpoint, thus it was never righteous. thus your speaking of a false moral equivalency: they are not equally good solutions because your only considering one side of the equation, to kill someone without knowing whether its right to do so based on a single trait that we don't know the full details of is prejudice, as we don't know what that trait entails or what this person themselves wants, when if this a sane universe and not a grimdark 40k one, they probably don't want to harm people.
now, this "we want witches dead" group could refuse to acknowledge this, say they are right and try to kill her anyways along with me for defending her. but they aren't good anymore if that is true, and I feel no guilt when my PC kills them in her defense. now if this was all a trick by the GM to suddenly make the witch evil kill the guys who want the witch to live then attack me, I'm just freaking angry because they pulled a gotcha on me, because this entire scenario feels like a gotcha waiting to happen, because two moral options of equal value just sounds like the GM going "okay lets what your personal compass points to so I can stomp on you for choosing any option at all." its the moral equivalent of a fork in the road with no other features: without clues to help you pick the right path, its all just luck, a coinflip. with the possibility that both faces of the coin lead to ruin. not really good GMing either way.

Kyutaru
2020-08-13, 11:10 PM
now its possible that everyone is evil, that the mob wanting her dead are people prejudiced against witches and thus will try to kill her no matter what, that the mob wanting her alive are actually witch conspirators wishing to garner her favor and thus work with her to kill everyone in the city, and the witch is evil. that is technically all morally equal options in that they're all equally bad to pick, and thus the actual moral option is to kill all three groups. but I generally try not to assume things that lead to paranoia massacres.
It may surprise you to know that this is how real life generally goes though. People will say one thing publicly and carry ulterior motives for why they're really doing something. Supporters and condemners will form up sides to further their agenda. This scenario you portrayed as paranoid is actually the most realistic one.


now if this was all a trick by the GM to suddenly make the witch evil kill the guys who want the witch to live then attack me, I'm just freaking angry because they pulled a gotcha on me, because this entire scenario feels like a gotcha waiting to happen, because two moral options of equal value just sounds like the GM going "okay lets what your personal compass points to so I can stomp on you for choosing any option at all." its the moral equivalent of a fork in the road with no other features: without clues to help you pick the right path, its all just luck, a coinflip. with the possibility that both faces of the coin lead to ruin. not really good GMing either way.
This is the basis of the Witcher's grey morality and path of neutrality. Choosing sides is always wrong and makes you as much to blame for what comes of it. There is no Good vs Evil because both sides are flawed and seeking their own purposes. So whichever side you choose you're supporting the evils of that one in addition to the good they seek to do. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing an evil.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-13, 11:18 PM
It may surprise you to know that this is how real life generally goes though. People will say one thing publicly and carry ulterior motives for why they're really doing something. Supporters and condemners will form up sides to further their agenda. This scenario you portrayed as paranoid is actually the most realistic one.


This is the basis of the Witcher's grey morality and path of neutrality. Choosing sides is always wrong and makes you as much to blame for what comes of it. There is no Good vs Evil because both sides are flawed and seeking their own purposes. So whichever side you choose you're supporting the evils of that one in addition to the good they seek to do. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing an evil.

You believe everyone is evil and deserving of a paranoia massacre by murderhobo? I have nothing further to say to you

Kyutaru
2020-08-13, 11:25 PM
You believe everyone is evil and deserving of a paranoia massacre by murderhobo? I have nothing further to say to you
You added the murderhobo bit along with the concept of evil. I believe the realistic portrayal of humans as a selfish species who will push for goals that benefit them. A protectorate that defends a known criminal to garner favors and a mob full of prejudice wishing them dead are as on the mark as you can get.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-13, 11:42 PM
You added the murderhobo bit along with the concept of evil. I believe the realistic portrayal of humans as a selfish species who will push for goals that benefit them. A protectorate that defends a known criminal to garner favors and a mob full of prejudice wishing them dead are as on the mark as you can get.

I fundamentally disagree with you. the good situation where everyone lives is the realistic one in my eyes. Your belief holds no value to me and your continued insistence to try and push it convinces me you do not care for my mental well being. Some of us need more faith in humanity than that to be happy and not depressed. Again: I have nothing else to say to you. Please don't push this.

Kyutaru
2020-08-14, 12:00 AM
I fundamentally disagree with you. the good situation where everyone lives is the realistic one in my eyes. Your belief holds no value to me and your continued insistence to try and push it convinces me you do not care for my mental well being. Some of us need more faith in humanity than that to be happy and not depressed. Again: I have nothing else to say to you. Please don't push this.
I haven't continued to insist anything by stating the point, much less by referencing a popular work pertaining to it. My second reply came from your misconception regarding my original one as I had to correct your misunderstanding. Your state of mind is not mine to burden and if you disagree with the position then that's normal in a world of differing perspectives. But it's a public board and the discussion merits the portrayal. In short, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-14, 12:42 AM
@Lord Raziere: you are doing two things at once:

The first is failure to engage. Imagine a teacher asking, "you have two apples and you give one to Suzie, how many apples do you then have left?" and a kid asking in response "but why would I give my apple to Suzie?". You are doing exactly what the kid is doing: getting sidetracked by details that don't matter for the solution of the problem. The correct way to engage the question is to assume, for the sake of discussion, that you will give an apple to Suzie, for whatever reason. The same is true for any game: there's a point where you stop asking questions from your GM and just accept that the details they've given you are all the details that matter.

The second is a more bizarre argument about nature of moral complexity. You say that moral problems with two (or more) exclusive but equivalent options are a "fairy tale" that "doesn't exist". But the reason why I can claim this trait exists on the abstract leveand talk about it "in a vacuum" because we know plenty of complex physical and logical systems behave like this. Why'd you presume moral systems are different? You're functionally saying "you must account for all variables to solve a system of equations!" and then "every system of equations must have a single, unique solution!" There are cases where can show the latter is untrue by following the former.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-14, 12:51 AM
Nope. I've had my fill of philosophy for today/this week/month whatever. I'm getting angry and your talking about things I don't understand or care to figure out, especially since I do not see how a blanket statement that ignores the consequences or the possible scenarios I laid out that I find useful to keep in mind when considering situations like is dismissed as whatever your saying, I don't really know.

Bye thread I'm gone. have fun without me. I'm peacing out.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 01:27 AM
@Lord Raziere: you are doing two things at once:

The first is failure to engage. Imagine a teacher asking, "you have two apples and you give one to Suzie, how many apples do you then have left?" and a kid asking in response "but why would I give my apple to Suzie?". You are doing exactly what the kid is doing: getting sidetracked by details that don't matter for the solution of the problem. The correct way to engage the question is to assume, for the sake of discussion, that you will give an apple to Suzie, for whatever reason. The same is true for any game: there's a point where you stop asking questions from your GM and just accept that the details they've given you are all the details that matter.
Apologies I am not Lord Raziere but I noticed something,

With math, we expect the teacher to know which details are relevant and which are not.

But the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. I have DM'd many years and the players can still surprise me. If they think there is yet another relevant question, there is yet another relevant question.

So when we ask a hypothetical D&D question on a forum, how much of the question is like the math question, and how much of it is like playing the actual scenario. It falls in between and depends on context.

Here the context is that the hypothetical was crafted with the intent to show 2 conflicting sides to demonstrate a point about conflict being inevitable (including having inaction default to one side). Lord Raziere tried to find "the" correct 3rd option.



@Lord Raziere: you are doing two things at once:

The second is a more bizarre argument about nature of moral complexity. You say that moral problems with two (or more) exclusive but equivalent options are a "fairy tale" that "doesn't exist". But the reason why I can claim this trait exists on the abstract level and talk about it "in a vacuum" is because we know plenty of complex physical and logical systems behave like this. Why'd you presume moral systems are different? You're functionally saying "you must account for all variables to solve a system of equations!" and then "every system of equations must have a single, unique solution!" There are cases where can show the latter is untrue by following the former.

Again, apologies for not being Lord Raziere.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I think both of them are saying "If options 1 and 2 are wrong, find a 3rd option". They just differ in which 3rd option they default to. Kyutaru was talking about inaction. Lord Raziere was talking about investigating to get the facts needed to create an active 3rd option.

I don't think this means Lord Raziere expects there to be a single unique solution. Their post sounds more like, "Well, start by asking about the other morally relevant details". However in the particular scenario the two sides believe in mutually exclusive goals due to believing in mutually exclusive realities. Once the facts are determined then they will point to one side or neither. Now perhaps a different scenario would avoid this problem, but it might have gotten a different reaction too, so we can't discuss the counterfactual with much precision.



Edit:
As a result I can understand their subthread discussion ending. There are several unshared premises that are hindering both arguments.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-14, 06:21 AM
Apologies I am not Lord Raziere but I noticed something,

With math, we expect the teacher to know which details are relevant and which are not.

But the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. I have DM'd many years and the players can still surprise me. If they think there is yet another relevant question, there is yet another relevant question.

The GM doesn't need to be an expert on what a player or their character considers relevant, they only need to be an expert on what the moral framework of their game considers relevant. This works, because a GM can make arbitrary authorial decisions about the subject matter. For the sake of a hypothetical, we can assume the GM has already made up their mind and determined two options equal to one another, and all that's left is the players (and their characters) arguing with each other.

What you describe of your own play preferences instead suggests a scenario where the GM has not yet made up their mind, and hence the players (and their characters) are not merely arguing with each other, they're arguing for their case before the GM. You could end up here because you're not an expert and didn't do the math right, but just as well it could be because you left the problem open ended on purpose.

You can generalize this to all puzzle design: a GM can make their puzzles so that they know all their solutions beforehand, or they can make them so that they only know some of the answers but have an effective method for checking whether player-given solutions would work.

The rest, I don't feel a need to talk more of.

Democratus
2020-08-14, 08:02 AM
Is this discussion even on topic any more?

The OP question was whether once can be good and also not be nice.

There have been many legitimate responses showing how the answer here could be "yes" or "no" depending on how you define "good" and "nice".

Are the last two pages of discussion getting any closer to resolving anything?

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 08:34 AM
The GM doesn't need to be an expert on what a player or their character considers relevant, they only need to be an expert on what the moral framework of their game considers relevant. This works, because a GM can make arbitrary authorial decisions about the subject matter. For the sake of a hypothetical, we can assume the GM has already made up their mind and determined two options equal to one another, and all that's left is the players (and their characters) arguing with each other.

What you describe of your own play preferences instead suggests a scenario where the GM has not yet made up their mind, and hence the players (and their characters) are not merely arguing with each other, they're arguing for their case before the GM. You could end up here because you're not an expert and didn't do the math right, but just as well it could be because you left the problem open ended on purpose.

You can generalize this to all puzzle design: a GM can make their puzzles so that they know all their solutions beforehand, or they can make them so that they only know some of the answers but have an effective method for checking whether player-given solutions would work.

The rest, I don't feel a need to talk more of.

PC, like most moral agents, decide what to do when faced by a moral choice based upon their moral beliefs. As such what is relevant to the player roleplaying the PC is not necessarily the same as what is relevant to the DM when rendering moral judgement. I normally try to avoid talking about moral truth and moral beliefs in the same post because they are unrelated, but I believe the distinction is important when discussing whether to shut down the player's investigation.

I have not said whether I do or do not make up my mind about the moral judgement in advance. I mentioned that the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. Then I made the intuitive leap that the GM is not an expert on which details will be relevant to the scenario (because if a player asks a question, then the answer is relevant to the question). You do have interesting observations on the DM knowing the moral judgement vs leaving it open until after hearing from the players, but I will leave it there.

When the PCs are faced with moral choices, is it a puzzle? Yes. Is it a solved puzzle or an open puzzle? Is it a case where the PC is trying to solve "what ought I do?" and the player is trying to solve "what will my PC do?"? In that case I expect the player to have their PC investigate until their PC arrives at a conclusion. However despite the DM's ability to know the morally relevant facts, they are not the expert on what facts are relevant to the PC's moral beliefs. As such they don't necessarily know which facts are relevant to the player, or to the PC. The only know which facts are relevant to the innermost puzzle of this multi layered puzzle. So I think it is premature for the DM to shut down further investigation, since they don't know if all the relevant facts have been gathered.

Bring it back to the example: Our hypothetical DM has set one group seeking to execute a person and another group seeking to provide sanctuary for the person. Our hypothetical DM has determined both positions are moral, and even equivalently moral. Whether that is a reasonable position IRL does not matter because the DM has authorial input here. Now enter the PC, the PC is trying to figure out which side to help, but also what they ought to do. The Player is trying to find what their PC will do. In this case the Player decides the PC will investigate for facts the PC finds relevant, even if the DM does not consider them relevant to the moral dilemma. Are those additional facts relevant to the scenario? I would say yes, they are part of the PC arriving at a conclusion and part of the Player solving "what will my PC do in this circumstance?". It is not a failure to engage, it is engaging with facts the DM might not expect to be relevant, but which were relevant.


Is this discussion even on topic any more?

The OP question was whether once can be good and also not be nice.

There have been many legitimate responses showing how the answer here could be "yes" or "no" depending on how you define "good" and "nice".

Are the last two pages of discussion getting any closer to resolving anything?

Emphatic No. It is not on topic and the last subthread (the one before Vahnavoi and myself) was a stubborn argument between 2 people (one of which left).

However the thread in general has been resolved several times over. Good is not necessarily Nice and Nice is not necessarily Good but there is a relationship between them because both can involve benevolence towards the mental and emotional health of others.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-14, 09:26 AM
Generally speaking, a GM doesn't have to stop their players from chasing a red herring of their own making. In that sense, I agree that failure to engage a moral dilemma isn't necessarily a failure to engage with the game; a game can still move on as the players and their characters chase for whatever they think is relevant. But, if we loop back to my original argument, there's no point in going through this process in case of a hypothetical: you can assume the players or characters have already finished this process and acquired the information they want, and what's left of the conflict is caused by their differing values, not missing information.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 10:29 AM
Generally speaking, a GM doesn't have to stop their players from chasing a red herring of their own making. In that sense, I agree that failure to engage a moral dilemma isn't necessarily a failure to engage with the game; a game can still move on as the players and their characters chase for whatever they think is relevant. But, if we loop back to my original argument, there's no point in going through this process in case of a hypothetical: you can assume the players or characters have already finished this process and acquired the information they want, and what's left of the conflict is caused by their differing values, not missing information.

Indeed that can happen. I don't think Lord Raziere was done gather information in the sanctuary or execution example. So I don't know their reaction to a conflict existing after that phase.

Personally I would start by concluding some tautologies:
"Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions."
"If both sides have valid solutions, then either solution is valid."
"If one side is mistaken, at least one side could find a better solution than their current solution."

From those tautologies I would conclude either the conflict is unnecessary (because either is valid) or the conflict is unnecessary (because the next step is more investigation). But it is hard to know why the conflict in unnecessary, so conflict is possible.

For more I will need to reread the part of the subthread specific to your points to Lord Raziere. Doing that now.
Edit:
So once we get past the "get enough information" section and into the "can there be multiple mutually exclusive valid solutions in this case?" it seems that the specific case of sanctuary vs execution is a poor choice of example. Under a given moral system there can be cases with multiple mutually exclusive valid moral solutions and cases with only mutually compatible moral solutions. It could be that when a life is on the line, Lord Raziere's moral theory does not have multiple mutually exclusive valid moral solutions. The life should either be protected or extinguished, rather than both being valid moral solutions. To be frank, many moral theories agree with them on this point (Which is not a compelling argument, just an observation). So while your point of multiple mutually exclusive valid moral solutions has merit, it might not apply to the sanctuary or execution example.

Democratus
2020-08-14, 10:31 AM
Personally I would start by concluding some tautologies:
"Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions."
"If both sides have valid solutions, then either solution is valid."
"If one side is mistaken, at least one side could find a better solution than their current solution."


I'm not sure that first one is a tautology, since it ignores the possibility that both sides are mistaken.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 10:36 AM
I'm not sure that first one is a tautology, since it ignores the possibility that both sides are mistaken.

How can you have both sides be mistaken and yet not have one side be mistaken? If there exist 1+ of something, then there exists at least 1 of something.

Democratus
2020-08-14, 10:39 AM
How can you have both sides be mistaken and yet not have one side be mistaken?

Correct. You can have one side be mistaken. And you can have two sides be mistaken, which is not having one side be mistaken.

In a tautological statement, one side covers the meaning of exactly one side.

A tautology has to be true in the context of only itself and true in all interpretations. That's the weird magic of them.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 11:01 AM
Correct. You can have one side be mistaken. And you can have two sides be mistaken, which is not having one side be mistaken.

In a tautological statement, one side covers the meaning of exactly one side.

A tautology has to be true in the context of only itself and true in all interpretations. That's the weird magic of them.

If 3 sides are mistaken, then 2 sides are mistaken, then 1 side is mistaken. Because the claim "there exists 3" implies "there exist 2" implies "there exist 1". If exactly 3 sides are mistaken, then 2 sides are mistaken BUT not exactly 2 sides are mistaken. Because the clam "there exist exactly 3" implies "there exist 3" but does not imply "there exist exactly 2".

The claim "Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions." does not say exactly 1 or 0 sides are mistaken. It says either 1 mistaken side exists or exactly 0 sides are mistaken. Aka either "x >= 1" or "x == 0". Aka "x >= 0" (assuming the domain is integers).


In a tautological statement, one side covers the meaning of exactly one side.

"Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions."

I see no evidence of "exactly one" in my claim. I see the equivalent of "there exists at least one" and "there exists exactly 0" on either side of the "or" but I do not see "there exists exactly one". Now I could decompose "there exists at least one" into "there exists exactly 1 or there exists more than 1" but no matter what, that left hand side means 1+.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-14, 11:41 AM
Apologies I am not Lord Raziere but I noticed something,

With math, we expect the teacher to know which details are relevant and which are not.

But the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. I have DM'd many years and the players can still surprise me. If they think there is yet another relevant question, there is yet another relevant question.

So when we ask a hypothetical D&D question on a forum, how much of the question is like the math question, and how much of it is like playing the actual scenario. It falls in between and depends on context.

Here the context is that the hypothetical was crafted with the intent to show 2 conflicting sides to demonstrate a point about conflict being inevitable (including having inaction default to one side). Lord Raziere tried to find "the" correct 3rd option.




Again, apologies for not being Lord Raziere.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I think both of them are saying "If options 1 and 2 are wrong, find a 3rd option". They just differ in which 3rd option they default to. Kyutaru was talking about inaction. Lord Raziere was talking about investigating to get the facts needed to create an active 3rd option.

I don't think this means Lord Raziere expects there to be a single unique solution. Their post sounds more like, "Well, start by asking about the other morally relevant details". However in the particular scenario the two sides believe in mutually exclusive goals due to believing in mutually exclusive realities. Once the facts are determined then they will point to one side or neither. Now perhaps a different scenario would avoid this problem, but it might have gotten a different reaction too, so we can't discuss the counterfactual with much precision.


Yeah, this is pretty accurate to my logic.

I wasn't expect on finding a perfect or unique or even a third solution yeah msotly I was jsut trying to figure out which world I'm living in, I just don't really care about white room scenarios, since I find that a lot of moral situations even in roleplaying end up having other details surrounding them that change the situation. for example how powerful and dangerous the witch is might render the whole situation moot: for example if she is capable of destroying a city district or above, then I have to send out evacuation orders to make sure both mobs get as far away from her as possible and I have to be very careful in my negotiations to make sure this is peacefully done, because it'd be preferable that I don't cause collateral damage to people's livelihoods and handing her over to an angry mob is just a surefire way to make that mob dead no matter how justified they are in their anger.

so yeah, technically maybe in some universe both sides could have a point, but it depends on what world we're living in and you'd have to find a very specific world where the scenario legitimately holds water. otherwise some overlooked detail just makes this state collapse into one side being right, which is why I don't value the example all that highly, because it sounds like one of arbitrary philosophical hypotheticals that in theory seems like a conundrum but really isn't. kind of like the boy stealing bread for his family one: why not just have the boy work for the bread-maker instead to earn the food? there is a solution there, and I don't really care for pigeonholing solutions into binary choices. especially ones where its highly dependent on the actual reality of the world where they are moral or not.

Vahnavoi
2020-08-14, 11:50 AM
OldTrees1: I can admit that conceiving of a moral system and a situation where both executing and sparing a person are equally good can be difficult. I had one written out, but decided to omit it for sake of brevity; in retrospect, maybe I should've posted it. I instead tried to encourage moving past that particular example, but that went poorly.

Democratus
2020-08-14, 11:51 AM
If 3 sides are mistaken, then 2 sides are mistaken, then 1 side is mistaken.

Not true, either in casual speech or in logically rigorous description.

A tautology must be self-true for all interpretations possible.

However, we are way off in the weeds - given that the topic is good vs. nice. So I'll stop cluttering up the thread.

kyoryu
2020-08-14, 11:53 AM
Again, apologies for not being Lord Raziere.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I think both of them are saying "If options 1 and 2 are wrong, find a 3rd option". They just differ in which 3rd option they default to. Kyutaru was talking about inaction. Lord Raziere was talking about investigating to get the facts needed to create an active 3rd option.

Depends on the situation, but in a place where multiple parties are trying to, ya know, kill each other or claim self defense, the immediate active option is, like, stop the impending violence?

Very few cases where that isn't a good thing.

Tvtyrant
2020-08-14, 11:59 AM
OldTrees1: I can admit that conceiving of a moral system and a situation where both executing and sparing a person are equally good can be difficult. I had one written out, but decided to omit it for sake of brevity; in retrospect, maybe I should've posted it. I instead tried to encourage moving past that particular example, but that went poorly.

Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-14, 12:12 PM
Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

If thats the world I'm living in, I'm just killing the mindflayer then. I'm no 3.5 paladin or exalted character, I have pragmatic things to do like make sure people are safe. I'll just do good elsewhere if others lecture me over it.

hamishspence
2020-08-14, 12:14 PM
Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

Outside of "enemy has been put on trial for serious crimes and sentenced to death", yes.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 12:15 PM
OldTrees1: I can admit that conceiving of a moral system and a situation where both executing and sparing a person are equally good can be difficult. I had one written out, but decided to omit it for sake of brevity; in retrospect, maybe I should've posted it. I instead tried to encourage moving past that particular example, but that went poorly.

Hmm. I think you were in a tough situation either way. Even in hindsight, trying to move past that particular example sounds like the more viable path. It just didn't quite work this time.


Depends on the situation, but in a place where multiple parties are trying to, ya know, kill each other or claim self defense, the immediate active option is, like, stop the impending violence?

Very few cases where that isn't a good thing.

Yeah, that is generally true.


Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

Um, that is an attempt at making 2 invalid solutions. Not quite the same thing.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-08-14, 12:16 PM
If thats the world I'm living in, I'm just killing the mindflayer then. I'm no 3.5 paladin or exalted character, I have pragmatic things to do like make sure people are safe. I'll just do good elsewhere if others lecture me over it.

A Mindflayer in most DnD contexts is a supernatural monster of death effectively a (lowercase) demon. Killing it wouldn't make you "not Good" outside of gatcha land. However, how you went about it certainly would. At least in my mind. You can kill a Mindflayer and still be nice. If you're not, that's what makes it "non-good", to me.

Xervous
2020-08-14, 12:16 PM
Outside of "enemy has been put on trial for serious crimes and sentenced to death", yes.

But the senate is too slow to act, if only we could get the chancellor emergency powers!

There must either be some high power individuals involved in capturing mind flayers or some intriguing circumstances. Or a pending Darwin Award.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-14, 12:23 PM
A Mindflayer in most DnD contexts is a supernatural monster of death effectively a (lowercase) demon. Killing it wouldn't make you "not Good" outside of gatcha land. However, how you went about it certainly would. At least in my mind. You can kill a Mindflayer and still be nice. If you're not, that's what makes it "non-good", to me.

I mean I'm just smart/efficient. if I torture it that just gives it more time to mind control, got to do it fast so....quick probably, painless maybe, but my first priority is making sure the problem doesn't grow like a weed and endanger more people in negligence.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 12:23 PM
@all
Let's move past that example. Here is another one:
A group of Ancients Paladins discover / rescue a young orphan. They know of several places that would raise the orphan. Each has different pros and cons. The orphan is does not have a preference (due to being too young or just not having a preference). The Ancients Paladins have a mild disagreement over which place to take the orphan.

This might be a decent example of multiple mutually exclusive but equally valid moral solutions. Although I did not succeed in tying in the topic of Nice to the example.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-14, 12:35 PM
@all
Let's move past that example. Here is another one:
A group of Ancients Paladins discover / rescue a young orphan. They know of several places that would raise the orphan. Each has different pros and cons. The orphan is does not have a preference (due to being too young or just not having a preference). The Ancients Paladins have a mild disagreement over which place to take the orphan.

This might be a decent example of multiple mutually exclusive but equally valid moral solutions. Although I did not succeed in tying in the topic of Nice to the example.

I mean could tell you my take on this but given the last example, but it might be missing the point I mean I pretty I agree with its all equally valid just...I would still look for details even if they have no moral weight, because one orphanage's situation might be different from another and while its all morally the same, there might be other concerns that could influence the decision. (like how many children being cared for, its probably best not to overload one orphanage with too many).

NorthernPhoenix
2020-08-14, 12:37 PM
I mean I'm just smart/efficient. if I torture it that just gives it more time to mind control, got to do it fast so....quick probably, painless maybe, but my first priority is making sure the problem doesn't grow like a weed and endanger more people in negligence.

Personally, i find "smart and efficient" generally leads to "not nice" and thereby to "not good" but i judge each set of actions individually. But i also think that motivation is important in these discussions. You should choose not to torture because torture is cruel and evil, not because it's "not efficient".

Morgaln
2020-08-14, 12:47 PM
Moral quandaries that don't have one correct solution have been a topic of various movies and tv shows in the past. One example that comes to mind is the Babylon 5 episode "Believers" (note that this is not an especially good episode, but it fits as an example). It's about a terminally ill child that could be saved by a simple operation. However, the religious beliefs of the child and his parents forbid cutting open his body because it would mean he loses his soul. So you either let the child die or you go against the express wishes of the child and his parents (and potentially force him into eternal damnation, since you can't disprove that particular belief). Neither option is nice, but both are arguably good.

Kyutaru
2020-08-14, 12:54 PM
@all
Let's move past that example. Here is another one:
A group of Ancients Paladins discover / rescue a young orphan. They know of several places that would raise the orphan. Each has different pros and cons. The orphan is does not have a preference (due to being too young or just not having a preference). The Ancients Paladins have a mild disagreement over which place to take the orphan.

This might be a decent example of multiple mutually exclusive but equally valid moral solutions. Although I did not succeed in tying in the topic of Nice to the example.
No need to reinvent the wheel when examples are out there. The Witcher series again provides more than a few moral dilemmas that can be viewed as a both, either, or neither scenario depending on personal perspective. What it does not provide is what these discussions try all too often to bring: a neat and clean and tidy moral choice with a clear cut Paragon vs Renegade divide. Moral quandaries are rarely so clear and situations can often not be so one-dimensional.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 01:20 PM
No need to reinvent the wheel when examples are out there. The Witcher series again provides more than a few moral dilemmas that can be viewed as a both, either, or neither scenario depending on personal perspective. What it does not provide is what these discussions try all too often to bring: a neat and clean and tidy moral choice with a clear cut Paragon vs Renegade divide. Moral quandaries are rarely so clear and situations can often not be so one-dimensional.

I am going to take that advice with a grain of salt.
1) My example actually achieved the goal of shared premises. (This was the root cause of the problem with the prior argument)
2) Not everyone watches the Witcher.
So even if reinventing was unneeded, it was an efficient and effective solution. I was able to get Lord Raziere to answer Vahnavoi's actual question.

mindstalk
2020-08-14, 02:06 PM
handing her over to an angry mob is just a surefire way to make that mob dead no matter how justified they are in their anger.


Not necessarily. The witch could be a slow danger, capable of poisoning/infecting/corrupting a city even if imprisoned but not capable of violence that takes out a mob.

mindstalk
2020-08-14, 02:08 PM
Personally, i find "smart and efficient" generally leads to "not nice" and thereby to "not good" but i judge each set of actions individually. But i also think that motivation is important in these discussions. You should choose not to torture because torture is cruel and evil, not because it's "not efficient".

But it helps to also know that torture generally isn't effective.

Lord Raziere
2020-08-14, 02:59 PM
Not necessarily. The witch could be a slow danger, capable of poisoning/infecting/corrupting a city even if imprisoned but not capable of violence that takes out a mob.

Ah, but I don't know how long she has been there, it could already be spreading so its a moot point anyways: a quarantine needs to be established to keep the corruption from spreading outside of it and those people could used to get infected by trying to touch her and the poison/infection/corruption could continue without her being alive, and her death could make it so that my one source of information of how to combat it is dead, thus dooming the city. thus those people need to be sent away and contained. in any case, trusting a mob of angry random people to competently solve problems like this is probably not a good solution in the short term, nor is it a good habit to pickup in the long term.

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-14, 04:26 PM
@all
Let's move past that example. Here is another one:
A group of Ancients Paladins discover / rescue a young orphan. They know of several places that would raise the orphan. Each has different pros and cons. The orphan is does not have a preference (due to being too young or just not having a preference). The Ancients Paladins have a mild disagreement over which place to take the orphan.

This might be a decent example of multiple mutually exclusive but equally valid moral solutions. Although I did not succeed in tying in the topic of Nice to the example.

I think, generally the ancients Paladins would probably debate about it and then ultimately reach an agreement.

Segev
2020-08-16, 09:41 AM
The woman accused of witchcraft in a setting where this is believable and witches are very dangerous and evil is giving signs that she is hungry and incapable of getting sufficient nourishment from the coarse bread she’s being fed. However, this bread was chosen because it is known that just about anything else is something a witch can use to brew a potion even using just her own spit and can curse or escape with it.

If she’s innocent, this treatment is needlessly cruel. If she’s really a witch, this treatment still is cruel, but necessary. Good, here, is not nice, because “nice” risks proving the accused’s witchcraft by virtue her cursing the entire town by vanishing in a puff of smoke that releases a dark cloud of plague-carrying mosquitoes.

AdAstra
2020-08-17, 12:14 AM
The woman accused of witchcraft in a setting where this is believable and witches are very dangerous and evil is giving signs that she is hungry and incapable of getting sufficient nourishment from the coarse bread she’s being fed. However, this bread was chosen because it is known that just about anything else is something a witch can use to brew a potion even using just her own spit and can curse or escape with it.

If she’s innocent, this treatment is needlessly cruel. If she’s really a witch, this treatment still is cruel, but necessary. Good, here, is not nice, because “nice” risks proving the accused’s witchcraft by virtue her cursing the entire town by vanishing in a puff of smoke that releases a dark cloud of plague-carrying mosquitoes.

Assuming the premises as true, then the only ethical course is to provide a fair and empirical trial as soon as possible. Any delay is either unnecessarily prolonging suffering, or preventing the witch from being neutralized ASAP. If a trial cannot be provided quickly, then an alternative means of confinement will need to be found. Perhaps the witch could be temporarily moved far away under guard. Maybe Create Food and Water could be used to provide a food source that is nourishing but also insufficient for potions. Regardless of what's the "nice" way, the smart way actually kinda coincides with niceness here, since just keeping the "witch" in town and treating her like crap risks serious practical repercussions if she turns out to be powerful, and is a serious ethical problem if she is not.

This of course, also seems to assume that being a powerful witch is inherently criminal, which is usually not the case. I'm making a further assumption that there's something magic-seeming and bad that the "witch" has been accused of.

Segev
2020-08-17, 11:53 AM
Assuming the premises as true, then the only ethical course is to provide a fair and empirical trial as soon as possible. Any delay is either unnecessarily prolonging suffering, or preventing the witch from being neutralized ASAP. If a trial cannot be provided quickly, then an alternative means of confinement will need to be found. Perhaps the witch could be temporarily moved far away under guard. Maybe Create Food and Water could be used to provide a food source that is nourishing but also insufficient for potions. Regardless of what's the "nice" way, the smart way actually kinda coincides with niceness here, since just keeping the "witch" in town and treating her like crap risks serious practical repercussions if she turns out to be powerful, and is a serious ethical problem if she is not.

This of course, also seems to assume that being a powerful witch is inherently criminal, which is usually not the case. I'm making a further assumption that there's something magic-seeming and bad that the "witch" has been accused of.

I did note that one of the premises was that "witches are dangerous and evil." Feel free to presume as a given that something about being a witch requires you to be malign and harmful and wicked for purposes of this example. Perhaps you must eat babies to maintain your life and power and appease your dark master, or something.

The point is that, no, even your "practical and nice" options that you require for greater morals and ethics are not something you can do immediately, so for now, she has to suffer discomfort and indignity. Sure, speedy trials are great and to be pushed for. But right now you cannot be both good and nice.

ImNotTrevor
2020-08-17, 04:25 PM
For an additional perspective:
I worked in a Psych Hospital. When a patient was having a psychotic episode, throwing chairs, and/or trying to hurt someone, we had to restrain them.

This typically involved putting them on the floor as quickly as possible, holding them down as they screamed and flailed and relived their trauma under our bodyweight, sometimes even needing to pull down their pants and give them an emergency injection in the buttock. (The medicine needs a large mass of muscle to dissolve into, and that's the easiest spot to stick when someone is on the floor face-down.)

These patients did not like what we did. It certainly wasn't a nice thing to do, holding someone on the ground and giving them an injection of narcotics against their will.

But it was also the right thing to do, since it prevented them from harming themselves or others, and in the long run allowed us to give them the necessary treatment that stood a chance of reducing their suffering overall, so I'd call it Good.

In real life, doing the right and Good thing often requires doing things that are not nice.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-08-17, 06:50 PM
For an additional perspective:
I worked in a Psych Hospital. When a patient was having a psychotic episode, throwing chairs, and/or trying to hurt someone, we had to restrain them.

This typically involved putting them on the floor as quickly as possible, holding them down as they screamed and flailed and relived their trauma under our bodyweight, sometimes even needing to pull down their pants and give them an emergency injection in the buttock. (The medicine needs a large mass of muscle to dissolve into, and that's the easiest spot to stick when someone is on the floor face-down.)

These patients did not like what we did. It certainly wasn't a nice thing to do, holding someone on the ground and giving them an injection of narcotics against their will.

But it was also the right thing to do, since it prevented them from harming themselves or others, and in the long run allowed us to give them the necessary treatment that stood a chance of reducing their suffering overall, so I'd call it Good.

In real life, doing the right and Good thing often requires doing things that are not nice.

I feel like that doesn't touch on the most important factor. Are you consoling the person as you "help" them this way, or are you telling them "take that you idiot, it's what you deserve for being so broken". That makes all the difference. And assuming you don't say anything, what were your (theoretical) thoughts closest to of the two? That's the difference between nice and not nice.

AdAstra
2020-08-18, 02:53 AM
I did note that one of the premises was that "witches are dangerous and evil." Feel free to presume as a given that something about being a witch requires you to be malign and harmful and wicked for purposes of this example. Perhaps you must eat babies to maintain your life and power and appease your dark master, or something.

The point is that, no, even your "practical and nice" options that you require for greater morals and ethics are not something you can do immediately, so for now, she has to suffer discomfort and indignity. Sure, speedy trials are great and to be pushed for. But right now you cannot be both good and nice.

So, okay, we have the premises of:
-Witches are inherently evil and also cannot be trusted to leave innocents alone.
-Witches can make a potion out of anything except ****ty food
-No one is around that can make food that is at least nourishing, so presumably no Create Food and Water.
-The trial is happening as fast as possible, but it will still take a while.
-You can't move the maybe-witch somewhere safer for the populace if she manages to pull something.

I will point out that being good OR nice usually includes how you plan for the future. Generally, for both traits, it's possible to make up for a compromise now by being better in the future. And I think that's important. What you intend to do in the future can significantly affect the goodness or niceness of your actions in the present. For example, if you let a repentant enemy surrender, that's generally good. If you let a repentant enemy surrender, but plan on having their family slaughtered tomorrow, that makes your in-the-moment decision pretty dang nasty and cruel.

I think, in this case, it's possible to be both Good and Nice because of how you intend to act if the maybe-witch is found innocent. A particularly not-Nice Good person would probably recognize the mistake, and perhaps attempt to seek justice if people were throwing around false accusations on purpose, but wouldn't necessarily be sorry for the situation, and would likely consider it the cost of doing business. For a Nice Good person, this is kind of a worst case scenario. You compromised your morals for nothing, and caused suffering to an innocent. Potentially, you fell for an *******'s tricks, assuming that treachery was involved in the accusations. Restitution and justice would be a priority in this situation, and particularly the further well-being of the not-witch. A Nice person would probably take it upon themselves to not only seek practical remediation, but also help restore the accused's reputation and ensure no one is going to give her a hard time.

Of course, a not-nice Good person could also be very interested in restitution and be very upset if the accusation turned out to be false. Even in that case, I think the reasoning would be different. For a not-nice person, it's a matter of justice. For a Nice person, it's a matter of righting a wrong that they committed, a more personal matter.

ImNotTrevor
2020-08-18, 08:52 AM
I feel like that doesn't touch on the most important factor. Are you consoling the person as you "help" them this way, or are you telling them "take that you idiot, it's what you deserve for being so broken". That makes all the difference. And assuming you don't say anything, what were your (theoretical) thoughts closest to of the two? That's the difference between nice and not nice.

If holding someone down and forcing an injection upon them is "nice" so long as you're thinking positively about the victim, you've got a very strange definition of Nice that doesn't keep with the most common definitions, such as:

pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory. (Google)
Polite; kind (merriam webster)
Pleasing; agreeable (also MW)
amiably pleasant; kind (dictionary.com)
pleasant in manner; good-natured; kind. (Lexico)

That last one borders on your definition, but if you can visit any sort of suffering upon a person so long as you do it because you like them, then being Nice is all but meaningless. Characters in the Yandere trope are nice, by your definition, because at least they want their object of affection to be happy and genuinely believe capturing them is the first step towards that long-term happiness.

So, no, I reject this definition of "nice" out of hand. No matter how much I wished well for the people I was restraining, I never, ever, EVER, walked away with the illusion that I'd done a kind, pleasant, amiable, polite, or agreeable thing to them. They relived trauma under my hands and it was a tragedy. Every. Single. Time.
It was an infliction of trauma. Every. Single. Time.

Don't come in here and try to convince me I was being nice, no matter how much I cared about them. Doing the right thing in the worst of circumstances often requires doing things that will make you feel like a bad person, but were the only good options.

I'll not come at you with hostility because I know you've never worked in psych, and have no idea how bad things can get on a daily basis, even on a good day. But I'll say this: Accept that you don't know what you're talking about, and that I have seen and experienced some things that you do not want to know about, and take my word for it:
Nothing about a restraint is "nice," no matter how much I like the kid I'm restraining. (I worked with kids aged 4-17)
Nothing about my restraints were needlessly cruel, and I often was mournful, or occasionally relieved when it was over.
But they were never "nice." Nice goes out the window when you chuck a chair at another patient or me, no matter how much I like you. At that point it's creating safety, no matter how much you hate me for the next several minutes to 2 hours.

So yeah. Hard no to this idea. There's no backing for it, whatsoever.

OldTrees1
2020-08-18, 10:15 AM
If holding someone down and forcing an injection upon them is "nice" so long as you're thinking positively about the victim, you've got a very strange definition of Nice that doesn't keep with the most common definitions, such as:

pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory. (Google)
Polite; kind (merriam webster)
Pleasing; agreeable (also MW)
amiably pleasant; kind (dictionary.com)
pleasant in manner; good-natured; kind. (Lexico)


Um, NorthernPhoenix might be saying something different.

Consider "take that you idiot, it's what you deserve for being so broken".
Pleasant? No
Agreeable? No
Satisfactory? Maybe
Polite? No
Kind? Maybe, by prima facie No
Pleasing? No
Agreeable (repeated)? No
Amiably pleasant(kinda a repeat)? No
Kind (repeated)? Maybe, but prima facie No
Pleasant in manner (kinda a repeat)? No
Good-natured? Is the verbage good-natured? Maybe, but prima facie No
Kind (repeated)? Maybe, but prima facie No

I think NorthernPhoenix is trying to describe a sufficient condition for something to not be nice. And conversely the lack of a sufficient condition for !A is a necessary condition for A. (P->!Q Q->!P)

Lord Raziere
2020-08-18, 12:28 PM
Um, NorthernPhoenix might be saying something different.
Consider "take that you idiot, it's what you deserve for being so broken".
Pleasant? No
Agreeable? No
Satisfactory? Maybe
Polite? No
Kind? Maybe, by prima facie No
Pleasing? No
Agreeable (repeated)? No
Amiably pleasant(kinda a repeat)? No
Kind (repeated)? Maybe, but prima facie No
Pleasant in manner (kinda a repeat)? No
Good-natured? Is the verbage good-natured? Maybe, but prima facie No
Kind (repeated)? Maybe, but prima facie No

I think NorthernPhoenix is describing a sufficient condition for something to not be nice.

Dude, I think you and NorthernPhoenix should least tread with caution. Your talking about something you don't know about to someone who does. your logic is fine, but I think I'll take I'mNotTrevor's experiences over abstract white room conditions. and I don't think its all that illogical to assume that if your getting physical with someone conditions are way past nice in any form. a few words won't change the fact that your already like slamming them to ground and holding them from doing something or other.

though personally if someone is saying that particular hurtful statement like that to someone in need of help, I don't think they're good at all. there is a difference between being a rude good person and being an actual jerk who doesn't care for the suffering he causes. such a statement implies they think so lowly of someone that they probably aren't actually doing good; your already restraining someone which isn't nice, specifically insulting them when their mental health is what your there to treat? crosses a line just a little. that kind of statement if done too frequently could negatively impact someone's mental health, make them see themselves that way since your not exactly talking to someone mentally healthy enough to shrug it off. "good is not nice" has its limits. its just that most shows that use the trope are focusing on problems that aren't mental health while ones that do often make the protagonists nice because otherwise they wouldn't be sympathetic when confronting mental issues.

OldTrees1
2020-08-18, 12:52 PM
Dude, I think you and NorthernPhoenix should least tread with caution. Your talking about something you don't know about to someone who does.

Um, I was taking a sentence and seeing if the verbiage of that sentence could be described by a list of adjectives. I was very very cautious in how I limited the scope of what I said.

I didn't even say whether I agreed or disagreed with NorthenPhoenix's claim that X was a sufficient condition of Y being not nice.

So, if you think there was any more caution that could be applied, I would love to hear it. That was such a bland post I am surprised.


@IamNotTrevor RE the trauma
I said nothing about the trauma in my post because my comment was very very narrow in scope. Trauma is a form of suffering, it is prima facie horrible painful and not nice.

ImNotTrevor
2020-08-18, 01:39 PM
Um, I was taking a sentence and seeing if the verbiage of that sentence could be described by a list of adjectives. I was very very cautious in how I limited the scope of what I said.

I didn't even say whether I agreed or disagreed with NorthenPhoenix's claim that X was a sufficient condition of Y being not nice.

So, if you think there was any more caution that could be applied, I would love to hear it. That was such a bland post I am surprised.


@IamNotTrevor RE the trauma
I said nothing about the trauma in my post because my comment was very very narrow in scope. Trauma is a form of suffering, it is prima facie horrible painful and not nice.

The issue is that I think you misread the post. While there are question marks involved, it's not a questioning post. There is an assertion. Namely, that the attitude of the Psych Tech "makes all the difference" between if that interaction is nice or not.

That's the claim I'm rejecting out of hand. It's ludicrous on its face, as shown by the Yandere character trope fulfilling this requirement of nice.
A Yandere being a trope of a character who is in.love with another to the point of obsession and willingness to inflict violence upon their beloved if it means they can keep them close, ie willing to knock them out and tie them to a bed. This being done because they guinely believe this will lead their object of affection to greater happiness with them. By the requirements given, they fit.
Which is absurd on its face, hence my rejection.

I don't think you overstepped any bounds, though the tone was a smidge dismissive in the first sentence. (Which I didn't attribute to malice. It's the internet, and I've seen you around. It's not your style)

OldTrees1
2020-08-18, 04:29 PM
The issue is that I think you misread the post. While there are question marks involved, it's not a questioning post. There is an assertion. Namely, that the attitude of the Psych Tech "makes all the difference" between if that interaction is nice or not.

That's the claim I'm rejecting out of hand.

I don't think you overstepped any bounds, though the tone was a smidge dismissive in the first sentence. (Which I didn't attribute to malice. It's the internet, and I've seen you around. It's not your style)


1) Yeah, that claim, if it is being made, is to be rejected out of hand.
2) I am reading a different, and lesser, assertion in that post than you are. Basically, if the Psych Tech decides to be a mean cruel douche about it, then it can't be nice regardless of the procedure. Aka the claim that the wrong attitude can be a sufficient condition for it being not nice, and thus the right attitude can be a necessary condition for it being nice.
3) I might be wrong about which assertion is being made, I just habitually assume the more plausible interpretation.

Thanks for also following Hanlon's razor. It helps over the internet.

ImNotTrevor
2020-08-18, 05:17 PM
1) Yeah, that claim, if it is being made, is to be rejected out of hand.
2) I am reading a different, and lesser, assertion in that post than you are. Basically, if the Psych Tech decides to be a mean cruel douche about it, then it can't be nice regardless of the procedure. Aka the claim that the wrong attitude can be a sufficient condition for it being not nice, and thus the right attitude can be a necessary condition for it being nice.
3) I might be wrong about which assertion is being made, I just habitually assume the more plausible interpretation.

Thanks for also following Hanlon's razor. It helps over the internet.

#2 is a rehash of the assertion being made. It's the same assertion in different wording. Ie, "if the Tech likes the patient and wants good things for them, tackling them to the ground and administering a shot against their will is now a Nice action."


That's the exact assertion I have rejected out of hand. That the Tech can be unecessarily cruel would push it out of being an action done for Good. I have seen Techs call codes more for vengeance than genuine need and I've even seen a tech bite a kid. Those actions were neither nice, nor Good.

Ensuring someone's safety (and the safety of those around them) is a Good deed. It does not require being pleasant, amiable, gentle, or kind about it. If my friend was drunk and about to do something lethally stupid, I would sock him right in the eye if that's what it took to make him stop. And I'd have no pretenses about that being a nice thing to do. I punched my friend in the face. But, it was the Good thing to do, since it saved his life.

Nice has a very narrow definition. Good has a vast and broad definition. It is impossible that something as narrowly defined as "nice" can apply to all the broad happenings that are Good, without diminishing what Good means.

Edit:
No problemo on the razor, my guy. Since moving away from Hospital work I have tried to channel some Bob Ross energy into my life.

OldTrees1
2020-08-18, 06:36 PM
#2 is a rehash of the assertion being made. It's the same assertion in different wording. Ie, "if the Tech likes the patient and wants good things for them, tackling them to the ground and administering a shot against their will is now a Nice action."

I said P -> !Q and I said Q -> !P. I did not say !P -> Q.

If P (having a mean cruel douche attitude) is a sufficient condition of !Q (not being nice), then !P (not being a mean cruel douche) is a necessary condition of Q (being nice). However that does not imply we can conclude if !P is a sufficient condition of Q. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)


You rejected !P -> Q, and I would too. However I think P -> !Q is a fair statement and thus Q -> !P is also a fair statement.


Ensuring someone's safety (and the safety of those around them) is a Good deed. It does not require being pleasant, amiable, gentle, or kind about it. If my friend was drunk and about to do something lethally stupid, I would sock him right in the eye if that's what it took to make him stop. And I'd have no pretenses about that being a nice thing to do. I punched my friend in the face. But, it was the Good thing to do, since it saved his life.

Nice has a very narrow definition. Good has a vast and broad definition. It is impossible that something as narrowly defined as "nice" can apply to all the broad happenings that are Good, without diminishing what Good means.

Edit:
No problemo on the razor, my guy. Since moving away from Hospital work I have tried to channel some Bob Ross energy into my life.
Yes, I agree. Earlier in the thread I made the case that even if we presume being nice is inherently virtuous*, good is not always nice and things that are nice are not always good.

*Not universally accepted, but the fairest starting point if I want to defend my conclusion.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-18, 07:17 PM
Maybe we need to look in the Book Of Exalted Deeds to find the definition of Good.

Kyutaru
2020-08-18, 07:20 PM
Maybe we need to look in the Book Of Exalted Deeds to find the definition of Good.
Altruism, charity, healing, personal sacrifice, worshipping good deities, casting good spells, mercy, forgiveness, bringing hope and redeeming evil.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-18, 07:24 PM
Altruism, charity, healing, personal sacrifice, worshipping good deities, casting good spells, mercy, forgiveness, bringing hope, and redeeming evil.

That sounds about right.

Kyutaru
2020-08-18, 07:30 PM
That sounds about right.
And not one spec of nice. You can do all of those while being a total jerk.

...and you see you value the Oxford comma.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-18, 07:33 PM
And not one spec of nice. You can do all of those while being a total jerk.

...and you see you value the Oxford comma.

Yes. Now that I understand it a bit more.

Kruploy
2020-08-19, 10:01 AM
Is it true that some good characters aren't nice people? If so, how do they even maintain their goodness? :confused:

Cops are good but they are not necessarily nice.

Bartmanhomer
2020-08-19, 10:03 AM
Cops are good but they are not necessarily nice.

Some cops are nice and friendly that I've known but not all of them.

mindstalk
2020-08-22, 11:41 PM
Cops are good but they are not necessarily nice.

Some cops are outright evil: planting evidence, taking pleasure in hurting the vulnerable, extorting sex from prostitutes.

Some cops are directly evil, but don't help turn in those who are.

The balance of good vs. evil cops in our society, and whether policing as an existing institution restrains evil or encourages it, is hotly debated at the moment.

--------------

As for the psych example, I'd say that forcible restraint is basically not nice. It can be minimally not-nice: doing just what is required to keep the patient safe for themselves and others. Or it can be excessively not-nice: excessive force, insults, humiliation beyond the simple fact of restraint. But there's no Nice version. And trying to make it Nice might make it even worse: "I'm doing this for your own good, you'll thank me later..."

kyoryu
2020-08-24, 10:14 AM
Here's a good example of "good but not nice".

Not continuing enabling behavior.

While helping people is usually both Good and Nice, sometimes, that help allows people to continue with self-destructive behavior and not to correct it. So, sometimes the best thing for them, in the long run, is to stop enabling them, and let them deal with the current consequences of their actions.

It's usually not nice.

But, it can be Good, in that it can be what is needed to allow them to realize that their behavior needs to change, and will result in the best future for them.

Clistenes
2020-09-10, 03:36 AM
And not one spec of nice. You can do all of those while being a total jerk.

Or at least while being curt, gruff, surly and sullen... A person can try to help others despite being awful at people skills...

cutlery
2020-09-10, 06:33 AM
In a calculating moral system like that of The Good Place; being pleasant might be among the tiniest of good acts, if it had an influence on one's alignment at all. Murdering evil things or saving innocents, on the other hand, had a bigger one.


Good doesn't have to be nice, and not-good doesn't have to be not-nice.

If it makes you feel better, you could chalk up refusal to be polite to being chaotic good, as they're violating social norms.

kyoryu
2020-09-10, 09:28 AM
In a calculating moral system like that of The Good Place; being pleasant might be among the tiniest of good acts, if it had an influence on one's alignment at all. Murdering evil things or saving innocents, on the other hand, had a bigger one.


Good doesn't have to be nice, and not-good doesn't have to be not-nice.

If it makes you feel better, you could chalk up refusal to be polite to being chaotic good, as they're violating social norms.

Effective evil is often exceptionally nice.

Xervous
2020-09-10, 09:35 AM
Effective evil is often exceptionally nice.

Why thank you, could you take a moment to like and subscribe?

Frogwarrior
2020-09-16, 10:48 PM
I see "nice" as more of a "lawful" thing than a "good" thing. A system of rules designed to make the cogs move smoothly.
It CAN be used for "good," and it CAN be used to put a rug over the bloodstains so nobody notices, metaphorically speaking.

Both "nice" and "rude" can serve the purposes of selfless good, or self-centered amorality. People just usually find the first more pleasant, so conflating the two comes easily.

Kami2awa
2020-09-17, 03:12 AM
Actually, I think Good and Nice should necessarily go together. If you're doing bad stuff for a good reason, you slide ever-closer to doing it for a bad reason, at which point Good and Evil are simply labels for the same behaviour. This is what we see time and again in the real world, until we have nothing but "hard men making hard decisions" to the suffering of all.

Pleh
2020-09-17, 05:14 AM
Actually, I think Good and Nice should necessarily go together. If you're doing bad stuff for a good reason, you slide ever-closer to doing it for a bad reason, at which point Good and Evil are simply labels for the same behaviour. This is what we see time and again in the real world, until we have nothing but "hard men making hard decisions" to the suffering of all.

I think we need to steer well clear of talking about the real world at all here, per forum rules.

But to counter your point in spirit, "being nice" is just a behavior, and morality is never determined by behavior alone. Morality is determined by examining behavior in its context (people, their attitudes, their incentives, and extenuating circumstances).

Con artists can be the nicest people in trying to earn your trust long enough to get you to buy the con.

The TV show House is a demonstration that you can be a total jerk and rarely do anything nice and still overall be doing good things by saving lives. Nothing to do with your alleged slippery slope of hard men doing hard things.

You don't have to care about people's feelings to be a good person doing good things.

jayem
2020-09-17, 06:00 PM
Con artists can be the nicest people in trying to earn your trust long enough to get you to buy the con.
.
Personally, I think that's where "acting nice" and "seeming nice" come into play.

If the 'niceness' is a consciously chosen facade, (whether for good reasons or bad, but particularly bad) then I think there's an argument that it wasn't ever really 'nice', it just gave that appearance. It's a bit of a messy distinction though.

A malevolent con artist is just as likely to "act good" or "seem good" (or lawful) but they definitely aren't. With "niceness" the concepts are a bit more ambiguous, but I think the same holds.

Note of course you can 'seem nice' because you actually are 'nice'. And 'acting nice', is (in the absence of other details) itself a nice thing to do.
Also while I think true niceness is definitely correlated with goodness. I'm totally of the opinion you can have not-nice&good or nice&evil.

Perhaps for example you are willing to kill a friend because you inherit (evil), but goes to unnecessary, unrewarded, difficult and risky lengths to make it a pleasant death (nicer than the levels of evil involved would suggest, although still not very nice, but you arguably can have less evil and more niceness).


I think I'd begin by having it so you for every 2 levels of goodness you get a level of niceness and all the vice-versas.

At that point our murderous example then might be 3-Levels of 'not-good' (-3,-1.5) and 1-Level of 'niceness' (0,5, 1), to end up at (-2.5,-0.5)
Compared with say a mildly good person at (1,0.5).

Which isn't a perfect match, but to me feels a lot better than claiming our murderer comes out at (-3,+1) against our good person (+1,0) if they were independent. (I.E nicer)
And provides a bit more nuance than (-3.-3) if good=nice, if you want the system to distinguish.

Pleh
2020-09-17, 07:26 PM
Personally, I think that's where "acting nice" and "seeming nice" come into play.

If the 'niceness' is a consciously chosen facade, (whether for good reasons or bad, but particularly bad) then I think there's an argument that it wasn't ever really 'nice', it just gave that appearance. It's a bit of a messy distinction though.

I'm reminded of Malcom Reynolds, who frequently conned people for profit, but also tried to just keep it professional. No hard feelings, just hand over what I want and there's no need for bloodshed. Genuinely nice guy, unless you made things personal, even as he does not nice things.

Simon asked why he could trust Mal wouldn't just kill him in his sleep and Mal told him he would never kill him unless he was armed, awake, and facing him (possibly a slight exaggeration, he did sometimes throw helpless prisoners into turbine engines).

When his whole crew warned Patience planned to double cross and kill him, he insisted on doing the job with he honestly first and simply have a backup for the double cross.

Yes, to some extent, "acting nice" is the same as being nice. But furthermore, I was meaning to point out that even someone with malicious intent could have the nicest manners and behavior outside of the one malicious thing they intend to do. They can even be a generally nice person who just happen to have a less hospitable occupation.

"But then they aren't really a nice person."

Well, everyone ends up being a jerk to someone else in life. Does that mean that no one is actually a nice person at all? I guess in the most cynical sense, but my point is this seems a bit of a reductive perspective to take. How much niceness vs not niceness do you need before you count as a nice person, as opposed to a not nice person? And why does it have any bearing on good/evil axis alignment?

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-17, 08:57 PM
Nice only really solidly means "Pleasant and agreeable."
No mention of Genuine, Kind, or Benevolent in any of the definitions I've ever looked up.

Just pleasant and agreeable, really. You can be very nice while doing horribly malevolent things to people, and very mean while doing deeply benevolent things to people.

It's literally the Crotchety Doctor trope. The doctor who will patch up the hero because it's the right thing to do but is going to call them an idiot and a vacuum-brained know-nothing who collects wounds like they were stamps. Good, but not nice. Quite rude, actually. But is doing the right thing anyways.

If I save your life and then call you an idiot who would have deserved that death for being so collosally stupid, I'm again not being nice but am being Good.

In neither of these is the focused character being Pleasant or Agreeable, and by extension Nice.
But they're doing the right thing.

Nice and Good are two different things, that often correlate but there is no causal relationship in either direction.

Lord Raziere
2020-09-17, 09:10 PM
Actually, I think Good and Nice should necessarily go together. If you're doing bad stuff for a good reason, you slide ever-closer to doing it for a bad reason, at which point Good and Evil are simply labels for the same behaviour. ...until we have nothing but "hard men making hard decisions" to the suffering of all.

Yeah but if you go too far in the other direction, you have pacifists and doormats who are just cowards by politer names, or "wise mentors" who have the classic flaw of being so cautious and thoughtful that they don't don't do anything until its too late. Soft men making no decisions, can be just as bad.

jayem
2020-09-18, 03:18 AM
Yes, to some extent, "acting nice" is the same as being nice. But furthermore, I was meaning to point out that even someone with malicious intent could have the nicest manners and behavior outside of the one malicious thing they intend to do. They can even be a generally nice person who just happen to have a less hospitable occupation.

I think the first part is debatable (as in the extent varies).
Tbh, your example (possibly the way you tell it) comes across very much as nice when convenient. More than a pure facade, he does mean it and follow through. (On any other axis that point we'd say is neutral).



"But then they aren't really a nice person."

Well, everyone ends up being a jerk to someone else in life. Does that mean that no one is actually a nice person at all? I guess in the most ...as t?

The same issue applies to lawful (I've misjudged the speed limit on occasion), and good. And we can deal with it in the same way. (Normally hypocritically in practice).
Consider the scarecrow from dr syn for someone who acts extremely lawful and good but I think we can say he isn't. (Even if bad boys make good stories)

Pleh
2020-09-18, 04:40 AM
I think the first part is debatable (as in the extent varies).
Tbh, your example (possibly the way you tell it) comes across very much as nice when convenient.

My point being that people who are nice when it is inconvenient aren't "more good." They're just doormats.

You can have evil characters that fit this description. My mind goes back to Criminal Minds with antagonist murderers who feel emasculated and controlled by their spouse at home, and take out their repressed aggression on others as a serial killer, playing out fantasies of control they lack in their personal life.

Meet them on the street in their day job, they're meek and submissive and do every nice thing they are asked, no matter how inconvenient. They just push the anger down further to take that aggression out on their victims later.

"But that's not a nice person."

Well, again I insist to make that claim you have to actually define what a nice person is, but no one really wants that burden because it is a rather untenable position to defend.

That's because niceness is a subjective quality. "He was nice to me" is a common defense. Robin Hood was very nice to the poor, and not nice at all to the sheriff of nottigham or prince john. He's a staple example of a "good" character archetype for roleplaying games. His not niceness towards authority figured makes him chaotic aligned, not evil, or even neutral, despite even killing many of the sheriff's men.

Thus, I insist "niceness" is too subjective to inform good or evil alignment. It has some amount of correlation, but almost zero causation.

Democratus
2020-09-18, 11:28 AM
My point being that people who are nice when it is inconvenient aren't "more good." They're just doormats.

There are some who feel that "turning the other cheek" is the very definition of 'more good'.

kyoryu
2020-09-18, 12:38 PM
Thus, I insist "niceness" is too subjective to inform good or evil alignment. It has some amount of correlation, but almost zero causation.

Right.

It is 100% possible to be evil and be "nice".

I also maintain it is entirely possible to be Good and Not Nice.

(Presuming that 'nice' means some general definition of 'pleasant, charming, etc.')

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-18, 12:41 PM
There are some who feel that "turning the other cheek" is the very definition of 'more good'.

I can't imagine any of them would think it ok to leave others to their demise when action could save them, either.

The concept of turning the other cheek is in forgiving slights and rudeness, not in allowing blatant abuse to continue unimpeded.

Pleh
2020-09-18, 02:04 PM
There are some who feel that "turning the other cheek" is the very definition of 'more good'.

I would contend that "turning the other cheek" isn't meant to advocate being a doormat, though the confusion at that point is understandable. The difference here (in my mind) is a bit nuanced and subtle.

I believe "turn the other cheek" philosophically is meant to teach us to maintain our priorities, particularly that sometimes our social relationships should be more important than our pride, or even our self defense.

I see the MCU Steve Rogers as a great example of this philosophy when he fought Tony to defend Bucky. It doesn't mean he can't fight and defend his friend, but he is going to try everything else first, and he's never going to forget that Tony is his friend, too.

Turning the other cheek was dropping his shield when Tony reminded him that it was given to him by Tony's father. He could have kept the shield, but he respected Tony enough to surrender it, simultaneously reminding Tony that Bucky's life is worth giving up the shield.

OldTrees1
2020-09-18, 02:05 PM
Thus, I insist "niceness" is too subjective to inform good or evil alignment. It has some amount of correlation, but almost zero causation.

5 pages ago I demonstrated you could generally say that about all virtues too. Even if "X" is good, "someone that does X" will not have 100% correlation with "someone that is good".

My post is repeated below because 5 pages is a long time. In it I presume Nice is virtue but then prove that does not mean Good is always Nice or that Nice is always Good. This is not precisely your claim, but I feel it treads similar ground and strikes at the same root fallacy.


Depending on the moral theory being used, there are multiple moral considerations. For simplicity's sake I will call those virtues.

1) Good does not require perfection. We use the term morally supererogatory to describe going above and beyond the call of moral duty. That means it is possible for something to be moral without being the ideal solution. This means it is possible for something to be moral while omitting or partially implementing a virtue.

2) Lacking a virtue is not necessarily Good. There are multiple virtues. Lacking one of them does not mean something is moral. It is fallacious to claim:
A) X is a virtue.
B) Good is not necessarily X.
C) ___ is not X.
D) Therefore ___ is Good.

3) Having a virtue is not necessarily Good. There are multiple virtues. Having one of them does not mean something is moral. It could be deficient is many other areas.

As a result for any virtue (using Nice as an example):
Something Good is not necessarily Nice
Something Not Nice is not necessarily Good
Something Nice is not necessarily Good

Now you may conclude from those 3 statements that the virtue is orthogonal to morality. This would be a mistake. While a specific virtue is not equivalent to the entirety of morality, each virtue is intrinsically linked to morality. Width is not orthogonal to Volume.

jayem
2020-09-18, 02:29 PM
Nice only really solidly means "Pleasant and agreeable."
No mention of Genuine, Kind, or Benevolent in any of the definitions I've ever looked up.

Kind seems to appear fairly often.
Cambridge (1. (Pleasant) pleasant enjoyable satisfactory 2. (Kind) kind, friendly, polite 3. (Small differences)
M-Webster (1. Polite, Kind 2. Pleasing, Agreeable, Appropriate, Fitting, Well-Done 3. Socially acceptable, virtuous, respectable
(also naive came up somewhere)
Dic...com (1. pleasing, agreeable, delightful 2. amiably pleasant, kind

(In the examples the pleasant variant is for trips, cake, experience)

The genuine aspect I think is inherited. "He was very pleasant, he agreed to put my money into a safe place, and ran to Bermudu". Is one that seems just as dubious as "It was very nice when I had all my money stolen". You could use it but only when you'd established that you were pissed off about the con (or if you had still fallen for it).
The benevolence is similarly



It's literally the Crotchety Doctor trope. The doctor who will patch up the hero because it's the right thing to do but is going to call them an idiot and a vacuum-brained know-nothing who collects wounds like they were stamps. Good, but not nice. Quite rude, actually. But is doing the right thing anyways.

Agreed, that's a good example of good but not nice
(personally I'd say patching them up as well as being the good thing, is often also the nice thing. But that niceness wise this is outweighed by the rudeness. While goodness wise the insult is trivial compared to the medical help).



"But that's not a nice person."

Well, again I insist to make that claim you have to actually define what a nice person is, but no one really wants that burden because it is a rather untenable position to defend. That's because niceness is a subjective quality.

I'd agree and disagree. I definitely don't want that burden. And niceness is subjective in that it's not very clear and tied into experiences and weighting that will depend on individual tastes.
But if you say someone is nice, they try to be nice to everyone and have a non-trivial success rate. Similarly if someone is a polite/friendly/charitable/good person.
If you know Mr Deatheater tortures and kills gingers, and the Weasley twins ask you if he's nice, you are lying if you say yes because he pets your little black curls (if you didn't know, you are mistaken)



Robin Hood was very nice to the poor, and not nice at all to the sheriff of nottingham or prince john. He's a staple example of a "good" character archetype for roleplaying games. His not niceness towards authority figured makes him chaotic aligned, not evil, or even neutral, despite even killing many of the sheriff's men.

While there are characters who can be good and nasty. This is also the Robin, who treats the Sheriff to luxurious banquets and releases him (after he promises to change) time after time. Whereas you don't see the Sheriff doing the reverse. Granted the banquet was poached, compulsory, politely mocking, and overpriced, but that also puts him at his nastiest at a level with the con-man at his best.
So while Robin is indeed much more good (and chaotic) than he is nice, he is also much nicer than the Sheriff or Guy (even when they are unfailingly polite).
And you totally can have people who are much nicer than they are good (even to the point of them being evil).

I think though that there would be very few examples, if any, of a extremely (genuinely) nice, extremely evil or extremely nasty, extreme good. As there is more than just correlation. Being good is a nice thing to do, but not the nicest (and in a particular instance may be outweighed by nasty side effects). Being nice is a good thing to do but not the most good (and in a particular instance may be outweighed by evil side effects). Neither parallel nor perpendicular.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-18, 08:39 PM
Kind seems to appear fairly often.
Cambridge (1. (Pleasant) pleasant enjoyable satisfactory 2. (Kind) kind, friendly, polite 3. (Small differences)
M-Webster (1. Polite, Kind 2. Pleasing, Agreeable, Appropriate, Fitting, Well-Done 3. Socially acceptable, virtuous, respectable
(also naive came up somewhere)
Dic...com (1. pleasing, agreeable, delightful 2. amiably pleasant, kind

(In the examples the pleasant variant is for trips, cake, experience)

The genuine aspect I think is inherited. "He was very pleasant, he agreed to put my money into a safe place, and ran to Bermudu". Is one that seems just as dubious as "It was very nice when I had all my money stolen". You could use it but only when you'd established that you were pissed off about the con (or if you had still fallen for it).


"He was really nice, up until he stole our money."
And apparently you're unfamiliar with neighbors finding out the guy next door was a murderer and saying things like "but he was always so nice."

Nice/Mean and Good/Evil are two different spectrums.

That kind came up indicates how long its been since I looked, but benevolence and genuineness aren't necessarily inherited. You can be nice and ingenuine. Anyone who has smiled and waved and made small talk at a dinner party full of people they dislike (as I have) knows it's entirely possible to be perfectly pleasant all evening and mean none of it. And without knowing your thoughts, people would think you were being nice.

That's kind of the thing about Nice. Nice is a set of behaviors, not a set of motivations. If I had to list what things are part of Being Nice, virtually everything I'm thinking of is a behavior rather than a motivation.

Opening a door for someone is Nice.
Complimenting your boss's tie is Nice.
Helping someone lift a heavy thing is Nice.

None of those actions require you to be a good person. A good person is more likely to do them, but it's not required.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-09-19, 07:54 PM
Here's an example of conflict between goods that happened in a game of mine.

Setting notes: in this setting, there is no such thing as cosmological good and evil. Alignment is purely a descriptive tool. There is also no permanent afterlife--all spirits, after they die, eventually "fade away". What happens to them then is an open question even for the powers that be.

The party, who I had pegged as CHAOTIC good (strong on the chaotic, decent on the good, with an extreme dislike of arbitrary authority), and an Adult Silver Dragon (except with plot-driven powers beyond those of most ASDs) found themselves finalists for the privilege of enacting a Wish. This wasn't an ordinary wish spell--
* It could only be cast by the intentional, knowing, willing, unaltered-mind sacrifice of the enactor. Not just their life, but their entire existence past and present and future. They would be forgotten utterly. Everything they did would have been done by someone else. Only the Wish would remain.
* It could only be cast once in an era.
* It required someone of significant strength to accomplish; anyone else who tried would be consumed in vain.
* It could rewrite the fundamental laws of reality--past Wishes had brought various forms of magic into existence, including the gods themselves.
* If they refused, the device involved would summon more people until someone did it. Most of whom would be erased in the attempt.

The party wasn't sure who among them (including some follower NPCs of significance) would pay the price, nor what they would Wish for. The ASD knew exactly what he would do--he had spent his entire life building towards this moment. His plan was to create an afterlife for the worthy, a utopian place of rest and reward. The unworthy would not be punished in any way--for them the status quo ante would prevail. But his idea of "worthiness" came with a strong notion of law and order (being best described as LAWFUL good). There were standards to be met. And him meeting his goal would involve imposing his notion of the meaning of "good" and "not good" on the universe.

Mechanically, if he'd have won (or if the party let him), mechanical alignment would have become a thing. Slightly different than the book values, but within epsilon. And the party (players and characters alike) couldn't stomach this. They refused to let him be the judge of good and evil. They accepted that his way was also righteous, but found it unsupportable because they valued freedom and choice over pure goodness.

They didn't actually fight, because they managed to talk the ASD into a metaphysical pickle, convincing it that by its own standards it was unworthy. Due to aforementioned plot-powered things, this made him effectively divide by zero and self destruct. They'd have preferred to change his mind, but that wasn't going to happen either way. They'd have fought (in a dimensional pocket to avoid collateral damage) if this had failed.

--------------
Neither the party nor the ASD were nice people, however. Ok, the druid was a nice guy. Nice enough that he almost got munched on by a green dragon earlier in the campaign by trying to go talk to it and help it, despite strong evidence it was insane and hostile. The rest were...rough around the edges. The ASD wasn't nice either--strict and uncompromising, with very little mercy for those that acted wrongly and couldn't be easily reformed. But everything (including his desired total self-sacrifice) for the good of the people. No ego, no self-interest. Very good, not very nice.

Duff
2020-09-30, 09:05 PM
Here's a good example of "good but not nice".

Not continuing enabling behavior.

Really good example. Even when you do it with all the kindness, politeness and compassion, you're still saying "No" to someone who really wants a yes and they will* be upset about it.

* for values of "will" where if they aren't upset, it isn't counting as "enabling" as such