Is sacrifice evil if it saves the greater good?

[randomhero00]

Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Another situation might be at the end of the campaign, you get an option to turn yourself into some kind of mighty elder evil, but in so doing you can save an entire world or continent. Is that really evil? Is being a martyr evil?

[Mordokai]

By DnD alignment standars, yeah, it is. And the less we verge into real life discussion, the better. Or alignment discussion, where this thread is headed sooner or later.

[Ichneumon]

In all honesty, I think there is no easy answer to that question and philosophers and politicians have been asking the same question for thousands of years.

Personally, I'd say it is even wrong to sacrifice 1 to save a million without that one's consent, but I also know people who'd think differently. it's possible to give good arguments for both views.

[bloodtide]

This is where Alignment breaks down.

Alignment only works if A is evil and B is good and C is neutral.


Once you start down the road of 'anything can be anything', then alignment is meaningless.

Any action can be called 'good or 'evil'. If you kill 1/2 the people in town, then the other half will have more food...good or evil?

And you get all the sneaky stuff....the elves will never attack the halflings.....but if 'suddenly' the halfings were shown to blow up the elf tower...then the elven army would invade in no time. Good or bad?


--
In D&D alignment, killing a mass number of people is Evil. No matter the reason. You might have a ;good; reason to do it, but it's still Evil. And a good person would have figured out another way to 'save everyone'.

And it's evil to turn yourself into evil, even for a good reason.

[Telonius]

This debate is at least several hundred years old. There are (mainly) two sides to the argument.

The first debater (let's call him Manny) says yes, evil is based on the act itself, not its consequences. An evil act is an evil act, and no amount of excuses or justifications can turn evil into good. (This is the default position of the D&D universe).

The second debater (Johnny) says no, acts are best judged by the results they have. It makes no sense to sacrifice a billion people to save a million. The suffering of the many outweigh the suffering of the few.

Personally I line up more with Manny than with Johnny, but that's mainly because I don't consider dying to be the worst thing that can happen to someone.

[agahii]

Id probly call the situation Neutral not evil or good.

[John Doe]

D+D has always seemed pretty Kantian in it's out look. The action in itself has to be good, not merely the means to a good end.

[Terumitsu]

Generally, I take a bit of an odd view when it comes to killing. It works though.

Think of the butterfly effect. You kill a person here and now, negating their future influence. Say they could have had a kid. And then that kid would have grown up to have children. And so on and so forth. In effect, you have potentially murdered countless individuals by denying their existence right here and now.

It's a bit of an extreme example but you'd be surprised how well it works in deflecting a conflict when the party paladin is getting guff for just knocking the person out rather than running them through. It shows dedication at least.

[Sir Swindle89]

not sacrificing thousands to save millions IS sacrificing millions to save thousands. That being said some times good people have to do evil things, thats why we have the attonment spell.


On the elder evil thing, No one ever argues that martyrdom is any thing but a selfless good act. even if you are sacrificing yourself to become an elder evil, as long as you are doing it selflessly rather than selfishly it's good.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Your opinions please. What if you had to sacrifice thousands to save millions (this actually came up in a campaign recently) is it evil? My DM thought so. Personally I don't think so and am curious to hear your opinions.

Another situation might be at the end of the campaign, you get an option to turn yourself into some kind of mighty elder evil, but in so doing you can save an entire world or continent. Is that really evil? Is being a martyr evil?

I'd say the first is most definitely an Evil act, Good consequences do not make an act Good. Edit: I will add that if you know that you can sacrifice thousands to save millions but instead leave everyone to die then that is also evil.

The second is (probably, I'd need more details to be sure) Neutral for turning into the elder evil and Good for saving the world or continent.

[randomhero00]

Well the conclusion I seem to be coming to is that evil isn't truly "evil" in the way we understand it. It's simply an unpleasant option. Sometimes its better to be unpleasant and save as many as you can rather than be pleasant and watch the world suffer.

Second question, do you think, in general, we should keep the black and white alignments of D&D or use more real world alignments? Does anyone do that?

[Kaww]

Personally I hope I have the guts to do evil for the greater good. Never had to, hope I will never have to.

My personal opinion on morality of it is this:

What you did is evil, no matter why you did it. You have done it and now you have to live with it. This is a fact with which, for instance, every person that killed other human being/s has to live with. I think I wouldn't have an easy time living like that...

[bloodtide]

not sacrificing thousands to save millions IS sacrificing millions to save thousands. That being said some times good people have to do evil things, thats why we have the attonment spell.

A good person would never, ever(all most) sacrifice even one person. They would find another way to do things that did not involve killing. Only in the most extreme situation would a good person sacrifice one person....and thousands is out of the question.

No one ever argues that martyrdom is any thing but a selfless good act. even if you are sacrificing yourself to become an elder evil, as long as you are doing it selflessly rather than selfishly it's good.

So being a martyr to cause great evil is still a selfless good act? If you kill yourself so a demon can be born or such. How about you only save evil people with your martyr act, is it still a good act?

[ScionoftheVoid]

Well the conclusion I seem to be coming to is that evil isn't truly "evil" in the way we understand it. It's simply an unpleasant option. Sometimes its better to be unpleasant and save as many as you can rather than be pleasant and watch the world suffer.

Capital "E" Evil just has to reduce the quality of someone's life, end it unnessecarily, or otherwise show a lack of respect for life. So I'd probably agree here.

Second question, do you think, in general, we should keep the black and white alignments of D&D or use more real world alignments? Does anyone do that?

D&D doesn't have black and white alignments. It just has shades of grey with labels at certain intervals. I think there are certainly people who use more "realistic" alignment systems, as well as people who don't use alignment in any form.

[Mordokai]

So being a martyr to cause great evil is still a selfless good act? If you kill yourself so a demon can be born or such. How about you only save evil people with your martyr act, is it still a good act?

I believe the answer to that last one is "yes". You did a good work. That the result of it was, shall we say, less then desirable has no effect on this.

Got to admit, I'm a little confused when it comes to judging action vs. result. Does DnD consider the former more good or the later? Personally, I would consider sacrificing yourself to save evil people a good act. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but if somebody did it, I certainly wouldn't consider them evil. Stupid maybe, but certainly not evil.

[bloodtide]

I would consider sacrificing yourself to save evil people a good act.

This is where it gets tricky. Do you judge the single act, or the consequences?

Is saving a life always, automatically a good act? Even if the life is evil?

This is the classic one from the movies....bad guy dangles off cliff and begs for the good guy to save him. Good guy saves him. Then bad guy pulls out gun and shoots the girl! Nooooo! Screams good guy and he shoots bad guy five times and throws him off the cliff. But....if he would have just let him fall in the first place, then good girl would still be alive.

And what about monsters that are not people? Is it a good act to save a demon that will slaughter everyone on your world?

[Telonius]

This is where it gets tricky. Do you judge the single act, or the consequences?

Is saving a life always, automatically a good act? Even if the life is evil?

This is the classic one from the movies....bad guy dangles off cliff and begs for the good guy to save him. Good guy saves him. Then bad guy pulls out gun and shoots the girl! Nooooo! Screams good guy and he shoots bad guy five times and throws him off the cliff. But....if he would have just let him fall in the first place, then good girl would still be alive.

And what about monsters that are not people? Is it a good act to save a demon that will slaughter everyone on your world?

Subverted in Mighty Max.

Spike: You can't kill me! If you do, you'll be no better than me!
Norman: ::drop:: I can live with that.

[Swordguy]

Something that never seems to come up in these discussions is forgiveness. It is in the nature of Good to forgive a transgression under certain circumstances.

Assuming the lack of consent, the sacrifice of thousands of save millions, or even all of existence (which is a fantasy trope and thus more common to us than it is to the actual denizens of the fiction universes in question) is unquestionably evil. In fact, not only is it an evil act, it is indeed an Evil one, with all the ramifications and consequences thereof.

But part of the intrinsic nature of Good is that of forgiveness. If there truly was nothing else to be done, if all other methods had been tried, then it is more in keeping with the nature of Good to accept and forgive the action rather then damn the perpetrator for an act that had no other solution except to perpetrate an even greater evil.

But this is where the rules themselves break down. The rules are there to cover the vast majority of actions, but NO rules can cover ALL actions or circumstances. An action of this magnitude is not part of "normal play"...it is a Plot Point, and thus something that must be tailored to the group and campaign in question. In short, whether the entities of Good would look upon this act with understanding and forgiveness is a decision that MUST rest solely on the part of the DM. RAW is not the answer here. A player Paladin, wrestling with himself and finally making this hellish decision, must be judged not by the auspices of RAW, but by the forces which he serves - and the whims of those forces are shaped by the DM of the game. Did the Paladin exhaust all other options? Did he walk into this expecting that the forces of Good would forgive him (ie, Miko)? Did he walk into this knowing that there truly was no other option, and be willing to sacrifice his own paladinhood - everything that makes him, him - to save as many as he could? All of these questions (and more) should be considered by the DM, and a thought-through, intelligent, and appropriate decision made...not simply a reference to a book and a binary "if-than" statement spat out.

Perhaps, in the end, even once the fallen paladin meets his end, if he has kept the faith through all he was witnessed and done...in the next world, in the next world he might be restored and allowed into the realms of Good. Forgiveness, after all, need not be immediate.

tl;dr? There is no right answer. The answer is determined by the attitudes of the player, character, DM and the needs of the game. For plot-centric, major events upon which a campaign may swing in the balance, be willing to look beyond RAW.

[Mordokai]

This is where it gets tricky. Do you judge the single act, or the consequences?

Is saving a life always, automatically a good act? Even if the life is evil?

This is the classic one from the movies....bad guy dangles off cliff and begs for the good guy to save him. Good guy saves him. Then bad guy pulls out gun and shoots the girl! Nooooo! Screams good guy and he shoots bad guy five times and throws him off the cliff. But....if he would have just let him fall in the first place, then good girl would still be alive.

And what about monsters that are not people? Is it a good act to save a demon that will slaughter everyone on your world?

No one said anything about tying the bad guys up But yeah, all life is sacred, even an evil one. It's the premise of being good. You don't kill it unless you can avoid it. You don't kill it because it's easier. That's what evil folks do.

As for demons... they are beings of ultimate evil. Evil personified, if you will. Killing them is not evil, it's common sense, since pretty much anybody knows you can't expect anything but more damage and evil from them.

[randomhero00]

I think sacrificing/killing obviously evil creatures like demons and devils for the greater good is always at least a neutral act, if not a good act.

Supposedly everyone can be redeemed. But come on, whens the last time a pit fiend was redeemed and turned good?

My character's tend to be more pragmatic. The ends justify the means. If there is a village of starving people who are about to be over run by a ruthless army, its better to make them into undead to gain strength for your army in beating the even more evil army, for the greater good. Or use them for something, since you know they will be suffering a lot and be destroyed.

[Mordokai]

Supposedly everyone can be redeemed. But come on, whens the last time a pit fiend was redeemed and turned good?

Eludecia would like to have a word with you.

[Tengu_temp]

Sacrificing thousands to save millions is definitely an evil act. It's just that the alternative is even worse. Would it cause alignment drop, though? That depends on your character's reaction. Did he pursue alternatives, and did this only because there was no other way? Does he feel regret in his action? If yes, then he probably stays good (I assume we're talking about a good character here). If he emotionlessly decides "it's better to kill a few than many" and feels no regret whatsoever, drop to neutral. If he enjoyed it and thinks he did a good job, he might even drop to evil. No matter the reaction, though, a paladin would still fall - because in a world where paladins can fall for performing a single evil act, there is always a good alternative to every action, and if you don't see any it's because you haven't looked hard enough. Redemption might be easy, though.

Also, read Watchmen. Same dilemma.

[randomhero00]

As for demons... they are beings of ultimate evil. Evil personified, if you will. Killing them is not evil, it's common sense, since pretty much anybody knows you can't expect anything but more damage and evil from them.

I'm pretty sure the BoED says differently IIRC.

Eludecia would like to have a word with you.

Sorry, that's really long. Can you summarize that for me? I'm having trouble concentrating due to some RL issues.

[Mordokai]

Sorry, that's really long. Can you summarize that for me? I'm having trouble concentrating due to some RL issues.

*sigh* In a nutshell, a succubus paladin.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't believe it is evil. Those millions of people are still alive because of you. If your DM thinks otherwise get Atonement and move on. It's horrible to have to sacrifice people, but it isn't evil if the alternative is worse.

I particularly liked the poster who flat out stated that any action the person took would be evil! Your my favorite!

[randomhero00]

I don't believe it is evil. Those millions of people are still alive because of you. If your DM thinks otherwise get Atonement and move on. It's horrible to have to sacrifice people, but it isn't evil if the alternative is worse.

I particularly liked the poster who flat out stated that any action the person took would be evil! Your my favorite!

What's atonement?

*sigh* In a nutshell, a succubus paladin.

how does that work?

[Tvtyrant]

What's atonement?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

[Mordokai]

how does that work?

It's the power of love Here, I'll c/p the important part for you. It's not that long and I hope you'll find time to read through it anyway.

Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin

In worlds where magic is common, powerful wizards sometimes use their dweomers to warp and change creatures for their own purposes. However, even more profound changes sometimes stem from the natural forces in the multiverse. One of those forces is love, and love somehow found the succubus known as Eludecia.

She does not talk about what happened, but during one of her many quests to tempt souls and bring them to the Abyss, she met a beautiful angel, and something unimaginable happened -- she fell in love. Eludecia fought against the unfamiliar emotion for a long time but finally realized that she could not win. So she sought out the angel and confessed her feelings for him, though she did not understand them.

When Eludecia asked for help in redeeming herself, the angel was only too happy to accommodate her. After all, the succubus was extremely beautiful, and he could not help but be attracted to her. Furthermore, the accomplishment of redeeming a demon would certainly make him well known in the angelic hierarchy and advance him in his master's service.

Redemption sometimes comes in a flash, but more often it takes years and years of painful work -- and so it was in this case. Born to evil, Eludecia found it hard even to understand goodness, let alone embrace it. However, she persevered until she finally achieved a shaky redemption. She then dedicated herself fully to the cause of good and took on the mantle of paladin, although no deity was willing to be her special patron.

Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably.

[Zeful]

My character's tend to be more pragmatic. The ends justify the means. If there is a village of starving people who are about to be over run by a ruthless army, its better to make them into undead to gain strength for your army in beating the even more evil army, for the greater good. Or use them for something, since you know they will be suffering a lot and be destroyed.

This attitude is Nuetral Evil, at best. These people are starving and about to be overrun and all you do to fix the problem is kill them all and raise their bodies as undead? You couldn't think to kill the enemy commanders? Evacuate the people? Hide them?

[Telonius]

It's the power of love Here, I'll c/p the important part for you. It's not that long and I hope you'll find time to read through it anyway.

DM fiat from WotC, basically.