Ends Justifying means in Dungeons and Dragons alignment?

[Burner28]

Okay, I am going to ask you for your personal opinion about using evil means to achieve good ends. Do you belive that such a person who does this should always be an Evil alignment or do you belive differently(ie. thinking someone who does this should be Neutral? Well, not that it is personally important, but I thought it would be interesting to see what your opinion is.

[Frosty]

We just had this discussion. At least half of that thread was discussing ends and means and how to judge Good and Evil and such.

[The_JJ]

Ultimately I run that on the Chaotic/Lawful end. CG Ranger who tortures to get information on whatever evil he's hunting vs. the LG Pally who sticks to the code. It's rarely so clear cut as 'always a good thing' and 'always bad.' There's considerable difference in how evil ('borrowing' equipment for the greater good -> mercy kills -> preemptive genocide) and clarity of outcome (definitely save the world -> might help, might not -> vaguely related to an ideology that's good).

I do think it is possible for a G character to take things to far, and end up registering E on detect evils. But generally I try to avoid that, since the DnD 'verse doesn't handle Well Intentioned Extremists very well.

[Callista]

Depends on which ends and which means. Slightly evil means for Good ends could still be neutral.

[dsmiles]

Is it time for the weekly alignment thread already?

[hamishspence]

Depends on which ends and which means. Slightly evil means for Good ends could still be neutral.

I prefer the phrasing "slightly evil means for Good ends is compatible with a Neutral alignment". BoVD suggests that a person can cast "a few evil spells" and not change alignment to evil- Heroes of Horror suggests that the "flexible Neutral" antihero can commit some evil deeds toward good ends and remain Neutral.

It also has the "Any nongood" Dread Necromancer- it states in the class description that doing evil deeds is built into the class, however if the ends remain good and the evil deeds remain minimal, it can remain Neutral rather than slipping to evil.

Champions of Ruin does suggest that "the ends justify the means" is a trope for some evil characters- who do evil deeds only toward good ends. And that regularly doing some of the evil deeds listed (taken from BoVD) is the mark of an evil character- regardless of the reasons.

BoED says "Whether or not the ends can justify the means, they certainly cannot make evil deeds any less evil"- so an evil deed stays evil even if the ends are good.

Players Handbook 2, in the Paladin section, has for the moral philosopher paladin "Outside of moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number"- so a paladin should be concerned with "the greater good" but not to the point of using it as an excuse to commit evil acts "for the good of the many".

[WarKitty]

It's going to depend on the worldview to which you subscribe. BoED explicitly operates within a worldview where there is always a way out. Same with the paladin code. DnD alignment system is meant to function in a black and white world where you have heroes and villains. If you play a gritty shades of grey world, it's not going to work so well.

[hamishspence]

Thing is, if you go by some of the essays on The Forgotten Realms, right from the beginning that particular campaign setting tended to be shades of grey- sometimes the evil characters do heroic things, sometimes the meddling of the good characters actually makes the world worse.

Alignment can work in a shades of grey campaign- as long as the players lose the assumption that evil characters are primarily there to be killed by good characters.

[dsmiles]

I do love a good moral and ethical dilemma. Good vs. good, and all that.

[valadil]

Okay, I am going to ask you for your personal opinion about using evil means to achieve good ends. Do you belive that such a person who does this should always be an Evil alignment or do you belive differently(ie. thinking someone who does this should be Neutral? Well, not that it is personally important, but I thought it would be interesting to see what your opinion is.

Nice of you to bring this up. My campaign is working through similar issues right now.

IMO, morality is all about intention. It's what you mean to do and what you want to do that counts. My PCs mean to do well, but don't hesitate to use evil means to do so. Recently I put them in a situation where they ended up in camp with an evil army. The bad guys were attacked by unicorns. The PCs didn't really want to fight unicorns but they also didn't want to break cover. They fought the unicorns for a while, killed and poached one, and then fled the scene. They argue that these actions will bring good somewhere down the road.

I say they saw two courses of action. Kill unicorns or kill bad guys (and risk getting themselves killed, thus ended the chance for doing good later on). Basically they woke up and asked "who do we get to kill today?" IMO that's evil, regardless of the direction they pointed themselves in. Someone who was truly good would at least attempt to find an option that didn't involve killing.

[Telonius]

Consult your Phylactery of Faithfulness.

If you are a DM, keep a Magic 8 Ball on hand for such occasions.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I entered a PrC into a competition and had to add a clause as one of its main abilities is to gain information through the dissection/vivisection of creatures.

I ruled that vivisection of non-sentient creatures was not a moral issue if they are unconscious. If they are conscious, and therefore badly hurting, then the DM has grounds for it to start shifting them to neutral if they continuously don't bother to knock it out in some manner.

Now, vivisection of intelligent creatures, whether unconscious or not was one that had grounds for shifting towards evil.

However, what if some horribly evil demons are starting to spread through the land and possessing folks?

What if the monstrumologist would be able to cut into them and through knowledge of this demon, can learn how to best fight it and what its weaknesses are or how to ward against it? You're only cutting it open to save lives, and otherwise the creature would be killed out of hand simply to protect themselves.

Would this be grounds to shift alignment for evil?

[WarKitty]

Thing is, if you go by some of the essays on The Forgotten Realms, right from the beginning that particular campaign setting tended to be shades of grey- sometimes the evil characters do heroic things, sometimes the meddling of the good characters actually makes the world worse.

Alignment can work in a shades of grey campaign- as long as the players lose the assumption that evil characters are primarily there to be killed by
good characters.

True - but I tend to consider Forgotten Realms and BoED morality to be two different and incompatible ways of handling alignment.

As far as my personal morality goes - I think life rarely hands us a choice that doesn't involve some evil somewhere along the line. The paladin that never does an evil act is a simple moral impossibility. Good consists in choosing the least evil path.

[Telonius]

I entered a PrC into a competition and had to add a clause as one of its main abilities is to gain information through the dissection/vivisection of creatures.

I ruled that vivisection of non-sentient creatures was not a moral issue if they are unconscious. If they are conscious, and therefore badly hurting, then the DM has grounds for it to start shifting them to neutral if they continuously don't bother to knock it out in some manner.

Now, vivisection of intelligent creatures, whether unconscious or not was one that had grounds for shifting towards evil.

However, what if some horribly evil demons are starting to spread through the land and possessing folks?

What if the monstrumologist would be able to cut into them and through knowledge of this demon, can learn how to best fight it and what its weaknesses are or how to ward against it? You're only cutting it open to save lives, and otherwise the creature would be killed out of hand simply to protect themselves.

Would this be grounds to shift alignment for evil?

I think it would depend on whether or not the demon was considered to have free will. If so, then most objective moral philosophical systems would probably require the demon to either consent or at the very least have some sort of a fighting chance in order for the act not to be evil. If it doesn't have free will (i.e. were made out of the very stuff of evil, suffused with evil essence, etc) then it wouldn't be considered a moral actor. Cutting it up would be no more morally wrong than taking apart a Shield Guardian to use for scrap.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I think it would depend on whether or not the demon was considered to have free will.

Most intelligent demons do to my knowledge.

If it doesn't have free will (i.e. were made out of the very stuff of evil, suffused with evil essence, etc)

In D&D that's contradictory. They normally have free will and are made out of the very stuff of evil at the same time.

[dsmiles]

Stuff...

Would this be grounds to shift alignment for evil?

Nope. Not in my book. Clear-cut case of "For the Greater Good."

[Callista]

Why would you need this PrC anyway? It's the same effect as Speak With Dead, only gorier.

If they're conscious, then the alignment effect is always evil. If they're unconscious, the effect is the same as killing them would be. Why is this a dilemma?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Why would you need this PrC anyway? It's the same effect as Speak With Dead, only gorier.

What did you arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps you'll need to actually read the PrC...

Monstrumologist

If they're conscious, then the alignment effect is always evil. If they're unconscious, the effect is the same as killing them would be. Why is this a dilemma?

Well, is killing someone you captured evil once you've gotten what you want from them? Could be raping them for all they know, and that is actually less intrusive than vivisection.

[hamishspence]

True - but I tend to consider Forgotten Realms and BoED morality to be two different and incompatible ways of handling alignment.

As far as my personal morality goes - I think life rarely hands us a choice that doesn't involve some evil somewhere along the line. The paladin that never does an evil act is a simple moral impossibility. Good consists in choosing the least evil path.

The Players Guide to Faerun does have exalted feats- and there is a counterpart to Champions of Ruin (Champions of Valor) that has more exalted feats, and discusses the issue of playing a Good character in Faerun.

"X act is always evil" isn't incompatible with "sometimes the players have good reason to believe that sometimes X act is necessary"- but it does mean that if the DM throws this kind of issue at the players a lot, there will be quite a bit of Falling (loss of Exalted feats/PRCs) and atoning (regaining those feats/PRCs)

What defines an evil act in D&D? Most "always evil acts" are ones that are somewhat excessive in brutality and might be called "human-rights violations", even when committed against evil, non-innocent characters- torture, slavery, and so on.

[ScionoftheVoid]

If you are a DM, keep a Magic 8 Ball on hand for such occasions.

I may just do that.


On topic: I would say it depends on how Evil the means and how Good the ends. I would say that most characters who use this (who don't fall into Well Intentioned Extremists, who are Neutral at best) are Neutral, though they could be Good or Evil.

[Telonius]

Well, is killing someone you captured evil once you've gotten what you want from them? Could be raping them for all they know, and that is actually less intrusive than vivisection.

Random character background thought ... an Evil Outsider gets captured, and asks to be vivisected (i.e. provides consent). He also asks that he remain conscious during the procedure. He uses the opportunity to deaden the person to the idea of cutting up live creatures, and tempts him to use the knowledge to other purposes.

Yeah, this could get ugly.

[hamishspence]

On topic: I would say it depends on how Evil the means and how Good the ends. I would say that most characters who use this (who don't fall into Well Intentioned Extremists, who are Neutral at best) are Neutral, though they could be Good or Evil.

A Good character might be willing to use means that are not inherently evil- but that they would normally object to anyway- because they naturally tend toward a Lawful attitude.

In this case, a LG character would have decided "Good ends justify chaotic, somewhat objectionable, illegal (but not strictly Evil) means".

This would be a possible way for a Good character to hold the philosophy of certain dubious means being justified by the ends, without sliding from Good.

Once the means they are using become "strictly Evil" they are likely to slide though.

[WarKitty]

The Players Guide to Faerun does have exalted feats- and there is a counterpart to Champions of Ruin (Champions of Valor) that has more exalted feats, and discusses the issue of playing a Good character in Faerun.

"X act is always evil" isn't incompatible with "sometimes the players have good reason to believe that sometimes X act is necessary"- but it does mean that if the DM throws this kind of issue at the players a lot, there will be quite a bit of Falling (loss of Exalted feats/PRCs) and atoning (regaining those feats/PRCs)

What defines an evil act in D&D? Most "always evil acts" are ones that are somewhat excessive in brutality and might be called "human-rights violations", even when committed against evil, non-innocent characters- torture, slavery, and so on.

Perhaps my point could be better phrased. Either you have a system in which only grossly evil actions constitute "evil acts," or you have a situation where good characters can commit minor evil without falling, or a system where dilemmas like that never come up. Otherwise you're going to be doing a whole lot of falling, like you said.

[hamishspence]

Fiendish Codex 2 states: "Most acts are not strongly aligned enough to qualify as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic"

So the "acts that qualify as Evil enough to have the Evil tag are grossly evil" perspective may be fairly close to what's intended.

Acts which are slightly evil-ish but not evil enough to have the Evil tag, might exist- and a player who does such an act wouldn't Fall on the spot for doing so if their character has a Falling mechanic.

Corrupt acts in FC2 might be a good place to start for finding which acts qualify for the Evil tag.

BoVD, while listing typical evil acts, does say that in some cases they are not strictly evil- only very risky. Lying was one of these.

So- a lie might count as Neutral rather than Evil if the motive and consequences are sufficiently Good.

[Frosty]

So- a lie might count as Neutral rather than Evil if the motive and consequences are sufficiently Good.

This is why Grey Guards can lie all that want in the pursuit of a Good goal.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I'd have thought a lie was on the lawful/chaotic axis?

[hamishspence]

It may count as morally similar to killing- lying in self-defense and defense of others, just as killing in self-defense or defense of others, is Not-Evil- lying for less justifiable reasons, like killing for less justifiable reasons, qualifying as Evil.

On a much smaller scale, of course- an unjustified lie is probably much less evil than an unjustified killing.

That's the way it seems to be portrayed in BoVD, anyway.

if I remember rightly, in Kantian philosophy- a lie is an unjustifiable violation of someone's rights- whereas a killing isn't- D&D is at least a bit more forgiving than that.

This is why Grey Guards can lie all that want in the pursuit of a Good goal.

Yup- only 10th level Grey Guards can commit evil acts in pursuit of a Good goal without falling though- and even then if they do it enough they may eventually fall.

[Zeta Kai]

Yet another example of why alignment is an overly restrictive thought-sink that should be cast out of every game during chargen. The topic consumes every question, answer, opinion, philosophy, bias, & rebuttal thrown at it, like a black hole for mental energy. No debate can resolve morality &/or ethics for all possible concerned parties, & trying to shoehorn every possible character concept into 9 neat little categories is painful folly.

Please, please, please, can we just ban alignment discussion, like we do with politics & religion? It's all the same, really. Don't make me invoke Godwin on you guys. I love you all too much to open up a can of Hitler on you.

[hamishspence]

Please, please, please, can we just ban alignment discussion, like we do with politics & religion? It's all the same, really.

Ethics is not inherently tied to politics or religion though. And while alignment discussions can be tricky, there's usually some splatbook source or other to provide answers (of sorts).

As written in the PHB alignments are pretty narrow- but with the splatbooks some alignments (such as Evil, in Champions of Ruin, or Neutral, in Heroes of Horror) get widened considerably and made more flexible.