Is sacrifice evil if it saves the greater good?

[olentu]

A person who is tied up and about to be executed for a serious crime, is a noncombatant- and yet, it specifies that Execution Is Not Automatically Evil.

So is it only innocent noncombatants that you can't attack?

Why is it evil to drop a fireball on a enemy combat squad of orcs if there's one orc noncombatant among them, but not evil for that noncombatant to be executed for a serious crime afterward?

Possibly, because when you don't yet know if a being has done something deserving of death, you can't (if they are not a combatant) kill them, until you know- the rules require you to be discriminating.

So, there are times when violence against "noncombatants" is not evil (execution) and times when it is evil (during a combat, when the noncombatant is in with a bunch of combatants).

Question may be "Does the violence, against noncombatants, violate their rights"?
Another notable example- separating conjoined twins, when leaving them together makes it certain both will die, and separating them makes it certain one will die.

In a sense, by separating them, you are killing one- which is "violence"- but, does that one have a right to live just a tiny bit longer if by doing so, the result is both will die?

I believe the point of the BoED example was to indicate, that Exalted characters can never commit unjustifiable homicide and remain Exalted. Intentionally killing noncombatants in any kind of combat situation, is "unjustifiable homicide" which soldiers, cops, etc can face charges for.

But not all homicide, even against "the innocent" falls into the class of "unjustifiable homicide".

Well either it is a specific exception or the example does not hold anywhere but itself meaning that there is absolutely no problem with killing everyone and anyone so long as the motivations are not those three specifically called out as making it murder. So either the book of exalted deeds would either be saying that the example can be applied in general or only in itself.

But since you are belaboring the point of the example not being specifically called out to apply everywhere then I will change to going strictly by the rules. So the example holds nowhere but itself and thus so far as has been presented one can kill everyone and anyone so long as not being motivated by the three specific motivations and it will not be evil barring DM fiat unless it was evil for another reason.

Also rights are meaningless. It could not be violating their rights and still be evil.

[hamishspence]

Also rights are meaningless. It could not be violating their rights and still be evil.

That might depend on whether D&D morality is intended to be a "rights-based" morality or not.

Magic might not violate somebody's rights, and yet the spell be Evil, yes.

But outside of that, much of the BoVD list of Evil acts (cheating, stealing, murder, etc) may be based on the idea that by doing these, you are violating the rights of the person you're doing them to.

BoVD makes it clear that Murder is evil, and even Causing Death By Reckless Endangerment, is something that should "probably" cause a paladin to fall.

Complete Adventurer has that Paladin-based organization that has, as part of its dogma, an acceptance that occasionally, innocent life being sacrificed is necessary.

Conclusion- the BoED example, while useful should not be extrapolated from to cover all circumstances. When a sacrifice is not murder, manslaughter, causing death by reckless endangerment, etc, it may not qualify as an evil act.

[Fawsto]

Nops... I believe that The Prince was not a satyr at all. Well, at least not in the perspective of someone who has studied that a few times during the last few years of College/University.

Still, I stand by the side of my argument: It depends on your goal. If your goal is to be the best person you can be it is something, if, however, your goal is to save people, things get quite diferent.

As I said before. There is no easy answer for this in the real world. D&D makes things even harder due to the "good/evil" "white/black" axis.

[FelixG]

Well, I would look at it as two acts for the first one

You kill 1,000 people! You are now an evil, evil person...
You just saved 1,000,000 people! You are now a very very good person...

Net gain for good!

I figure you are actively making a choice, sure killing people is evil, but saving people is good on the other hand, so might as well make it a 1:1 decision, in this example you have a net gain of good

[Hanuman]

Is sacrifice evil if it saves the greater good?

If an individual shows respect for life and finds disrespect for life morally wrong then that individual is good.

If a course of action is taken by a player who is good that has the means of implying evil but the character has a different intent then as long as that player has all their ducks in a row it is not evil.

An insane player or a misguided player might be acting evil while trying to be good.

But as long as the correct procedure of moral dilemma is there, it's not evil as far as I'm concerned.

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

BUT

A Lawful Good character would have a certain "code" of goodness, you could call this a pre-disposition of objectively good and evil acts, a god with lawful perspectives might judge actions instead of intent this way as well.

Now, would it be honorable to commit a questionable or abhorrent act even if it was followed through with the right intent? If the individual or the god's morality is in conflict with the ACTION then it is in breach of one's honor, and one's honor as it relates to good and evil acts acts as proxy for how intent is judged, therefore let's say, a LG paladin would find kicking an innocent little puppy an evil act even if the world would end if he didn't, he or his god or both could have major beef with puppykicking. Therefore it would be dishonorable to betray one's moral opinions as they are judged personally as objective, and therefore in terms of the moral dilemma would be done with negative intent relative to one's views.

This is precisely why I greatly prefer to play NG or LN protectors instead of straight up paladins, they are just too full of themselves when it comes to what's right! =]

[hamishspence]

As I said before. There is no easy answer for this in the real world. D&D makes things even harder due to the "good/evil" "white/black" axis.

And the splatbooks (even BoVD) allow for a certain about of grey.

"Is either side truly evil in this situation? Probably not" was for an example it gave where two good factions clash.

[Fawsto]

And the splatbooks (even BoVD) allow for a certain about of grey.

"Is either side truly evil in this situation? Probably not" was for an example it gave where two good factions clash.

IMO, each of us need to find a phylosofical north to adress this problem. I've chosen Machiavelli due to its "goal" approach. I will stick to it since it allows someone (my interpretation from now on) to measure the nobility of its cause. There are some easily discernable "evil goals". So, by D&D standards, a Paladin would only choose the most noble goals. Such goals, would, for example, see the sacrifice of inocents as something evil, but not always. As I said, sometimes the noble goal may be "save the world", to wich the sacrifice of inocents would be a valid action.

There are too many interpretations of good and evil about the same topics. The only way that I see to solve this is to set a goal and compare those actions to the goals that you are pursuing.

[Stephen_E]

I'm reminded of a section from a novel by David Gemmel.
A friends is talking to a character called Druss the Axe.

He asks "If you saw a baby. that you knew would grow up to be a evil warlord, drowning in a pond would you save him?"
Druss replied "Of course. That's what heros do"

Stephen E

[kyoryu]

IMO, each of us need to find a phylosofical north to adress this problem. I've chosen Machiavelli due to its "goal" approach. I will stick to it since it allows someone (my interpretation from now on) to measure the nobility of its cause. There are some easily discernable "evil goals". So, by D&D standards, a Paladin would only choose the most noble goals. Such goals, would, for example, see the sacrifice of inocents as something evil, but not always. As I said, sometimes the noble goal may be "save the world", to wich the sacrifice of inocents would be a valid action.

There are too many interpretations of good and evil about the same topics. The only way that I see to solve this is to set a goal and compare those actions to the goals that you are pursuing.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Say you're trying to stamp out cancer (a good goal), and a multibillionaire offers you three billion dollars for research, but to get the money, you need to torture and rape a woman (sorry, been watching Dexter).

By that logic, the torture and rape would be fine, since it was for a noble goal. I don't buy that.

[hamishspence]

Yes- I prefer a rights-based approach. Using that, sacrificing the innocent, may sometimes not actually violate their rights (like in the previously mentioned examples I've given (Vaccine during epidemic, starship under attack)

But murdering an innocent who is not in this kind of danger, always violates their rights.

[abadguy]

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.

Ah, classic Paladin dilemma. If you're looking for a "RAW" answer, you can find it in Book of Exalted Deeds Pg 9, where this matter of Ends and Means is discussed quite a bit. Summarising, an evil act is an evil act. Just because it leads to a good end, it does not make the evil act any less evil.

The scenario you set up is the "easy" way out but the path of Good is the hardest to walk. If I were DM-ing, I'd consider this act somewhat neutral only IF the PC has exhausted all possibilities and tried everything he could to prevent this sacrifice and save the other millions at the same time. Even then he cannot actively consider the sacrifice to be a way out.

[hamishspence]

Ah, classic Paladin dilemma. If you're looking for a "RAW" answer, you can find it in Book of Exalted Deeds Pg 9, where this matter of Ends and Means is discussed quite a bit. Summarising, an evil act is an evil act. Just because it leads to a good end, it does not make the evil act any less evil.

True- the problem is, that not all killings, even of the Innocent, are explicitly Evil Acts.

Murder is specified as an Evil Act in BoVD (and FC2) but it's not defined in D&D- at least, not in terms of Killing the Innocent.

Thus- if killing the Innocent would be Murder (or Reckless Endangerment of Life, as mentioned in the second BoVD example) then it can qualify as an Evil Act.

But if it's not murder, then we end up in greyer territory.

[abadguy]

True- the problem is, that not all killings, even of the Innocent, are explicitly Evil Acts.

You're right, killing is not inherently evil.

But killing without a just cause and Good intentions is evil.

No sane DM would ever say "Killing of Innocents" is not an evil act. Even a mind-controlled paladin will need to atone if he has been compelled to do so.

BoED Pg 9 on Violence
Reckless endangerment - Non-combatants are mentioned too, the example being catching women and children in the area of a Fireball. But seriously,

So in summary, killing and violence is acceptable only if directed at stopping or preventing evil acts. To a LG, any other use of force can be considered Evil. And even then, qualities of mercy and "rules" of combat must be followed. Yeah it is hard for anyone to RP that, hence there is only one Lawful Good alignment :)

[hamishspence]

You're right, killing is not inherently evil. But no sane DM would ever say "Killing of Innocents" is not an evil act. Even a mind-controlled paladin will need to atone if he has been compelled to do so.

Also, the D&D definition of justifiable homicide (BoED Pg 9 on Violence) is a just cause and Good intentions. Non-combatants are mentioned too, no fireballing women and children.

I don't know about that. A low-level paladin in the 21st century, in a pandemic situation, faced with the decision of whether or not, to distribute a hazardous vaccine, would, I think, distribute it.

Even if he knows that by distributing it, he is Killing Innocents (specifically, the 1% or so that will have a bad reaction to it).

Thus, Killing Innocents, becomes, in certain exceptionally rare situations (I.E. when it's an unavoidable direct consequence of Protecting The Innocent) a nonevil act.

By contrast, the mind-controlled paladin on a rampage, is not doing so to Protect The Innocent.

Protecting The Innocent, may qualify as just cause and good intentions.

That said, "Must Not Commit an Evil Act" takes priority over that- so when the connection is much less direct, the killing of the Innocent may qualify as Murder, which in BoVD and FC2 is an Evil Act.

[abadguy]

Ah sorry, edited my prev post for clarity but the general idea is the same.

Right, you're bringing back the example of sacrificing 100 to save 1 million

A true 21st Paladin would exhaust all means of research, within all his resources, to make sure the vaccine is 100% safe before distribution. He cannot consciously distribute the vaccine, knowing it would kill SOME of those who take it. That is still an Evil act.

[FelixG]

Ah sorry, edited my prev post for clarity but the general idea is the same.

Right, you're bringing back the example of sacrificing 100 to save 1 million

A true 21st Paladin would exhaust all means of research, within all his resources, to make sure the vaccine is 100% safe before distribution. He cannot consciously distribute the vaccine, knowing it would kill SOME of those who take it. That is still an Evil act.

So killing everyone by not giving them the vaccine is good where saving the most possible by distributing it is evil?

Again, i figure the net gain would determine it, he chooses not to distribute he causes the death of everyone, he distributes it, causes the death of 100, damned either way but he is doing what he can to save as many as he can.

[hamishspence]

A true 21st Paladin would exhaust all means of research, within all his resources, to make sure the vaccine is 100% safe before distribution. He cannot consciously distribute the vaccine, knowing it would kill SOME of those who take it. That is still an Evil act.

This is the bit I tend to disagree with- in a pandemic situation, failure to distribute the vaccine, would lead to many times more deaths.

Thus, the paladin would have failed in his duty to "Protect the Innocent" when he had the power, and did not do so.

In a legal (or even a moral) sense, distributing the vaccine would not count as murder, or manslaughter, or "reckless endangerment"- which BoVD mentions as capable of causing a paladin to Fall.

Again, i figure the net gain would determine it, he chooses not to distribute he causes the death of everyone, he distributes it, causes the death of 100, damned either way but he is doing what he can to save as many as he can.

It's not just the net gain- but whether the killing is murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, or none of these.

Murder to save the many is still Evil.

But Killing to save the many, might not be.

[abadguy]

To the two posters above:

We're still on the topic of Paladins and playing a LG alignment right? Since we're still talking about a game situation, the DM has to arbitrate:
Has the Paladin exhausted all other avenue? Is it the absolute last resort or is he/she taking the "easy" way out?

Even if the Paladin knew that yes, it is the absolutely last resort ever, he could not consciously distribute the vaccine himself. If in a party, the rogue wld probably have no qualms about it. The paladin would have to stop him for sure. The other members probably have to knock him out to do it.

Also, "Protecting the Innocent", the reverse argument is: has he protected the 1% as well? No he hasn't, he gave them a faulty vaccine, knowing it would cause them to die.

Once again, reiterating D&D's view (from BoED) is that an evil act is an evil act, even if the means justify the ends. To a LG alignment, morality is not a relative thing, where killing 1 innocent is "less evil" and killing 100 is "more evil"

[hamishspence]

We're still on the topic of Paladins and playing a LG alignment right? Since we're still talking about a game situation, the DM has to arbitrate:
Has the Paladin exhausted all other avenue? Is it the absolute last resort or is he/she taking the "easy" way out?

Even if the Paladin knew that yes, it is the absolutely last resort ever, he could not consciously distribute the vaccine himself.

Thanks to the D20 system, you can put a paladin in almost any environment from the Stone Age to the far future.

Also, "Protecting the Innocent", the reverse argument is: has he protected the 1% as well? No he hasn't, he gave them a faulty vaccine, knowing it would cause them to die.

Once again, reiterating D&D's view (from BoED) is that an evil act is an evil act, even if the means justify the ends. To a LG alignment, morality is not a relative thing, where killing 1 innocent is "less evil" and killing 100 is "more evil"

True- the question is, when the only way of protecting a huge group of Innocents, is by using a means that will kill some of them in the process- can the paladin use that means without Falling?

I think they could- murder is Evil- but killing with Good Intentions, is not always murder. The paladin has no idea who will die- all he knows is 1% of people who take the vaccine, will die from it. But the vaccine is intended as a lifesaver, and overall, it is a lifesaver.

[FelixG]

Also, "Protecting the Innocent", the reverse argument is: has he protected the 1% as well? No he hasn't, he gave them a faulty vaccine, knowing it would cause them to die.

Once again, reiterating D&D's view (from BoED) is that an evil act is an evil act, even if the means justify the ends. To a LG alignment, morality is not a relative thing, where killing 1 innocent is "less evil" and killing 100 is "more evil"

I would note that "sacrificing x amount of people" is not the same as "killing x amount of people"

You are in a flaming building, there is a room with 20 people in it on fire and a room with 5 people in it on fire, you only have time to save one of the room full of people, you are not evil if you choose to sacrifice those 5 to save the 20.

Granted this applies to the OP not the Vaccine debate, but if you let 1,000 people die to save 1,000,000 you are not evil either, its just a matter of scale.

[abadguy]

True- the question is, when the only way of protecting a huge group of Innocents, is by using a means that will kill some of them in the process- can the paladin use that means without Falling?

I think they could- murder is Evil- but killing with Good Intentions, is not always murder. The paladin has no idea who will die- all he knows is 1% of people who take the vaccine, will die from it. But the vaccine is intended as a lifesaver, and overall, it is a lifesaver.

If we're talking about just talking about RAW, no he cannot do so without Falling. Letting 1% die is not killing with Good Intentions.

This is why in such sticky situations (which the DM has undoubtedly put the PC into), DM fiat has come into play. The PC would probably fall to his knees in utter despair and pray to his diety to show him a way *cue deus ex* But the moment he decides to "distribute the vaccine", boom, Fallen.

I would note that "sacrificing x amount of people" is not the same as "killing x amount of people"

You are in a flaming building, there is a room with 20 people in it on fire and a room with 5 people in it on fire, you only have time to save one of the room full of people, you are not evil if you choose to sacrifice those 5 to save the 20.

Granted this applies to the OP not the Vaccine debate, but if you let 1,000 people die to save 1,000,000 you are not evil either, its just a matter of scale.

Yup but the crux here is: why do the 1000 need to be "sacrificed" in the first place? Is there a way to do it such that we can save everyone without needing to sacrifice anyone?

If we want to use your flaming building example, its quite clear cut. A paladin would save the 20, and then jump back into the collapsing building to still TRY to save the 5, even at the cost of his life. To do any less would not be befitting of a paladin's conduct; as a DM i would not make the Paladin Fall because of him not going back again but i would dock EXP for sure.

Talking about scale, let's reverse that situation: would a Paladin sacrifice 10 to save 1? No he wouldn't and not because its an "inequitable trade" so to speak, its because as far as possible, his duty is save the world and prevent anyone from dying in the first place.

[hamishspence]

If we're talking about just talking about RAW, no he cannot do so without Falling. Letting 1% die is not killing with Good Intentions.

Why not? "Protecting the Innocent" is Good Intentions- he has no way to prevent the 1% from dying, since he has no idea who will die- all he knows is that if he does not distribute the vaccine, 50% or more of the population are certain to die.

In an earlier thread, another poster explained it rather clearly- a person in a position of power, must expect, that situations will come up where no matter what decision they make (including the decision to do nothing), people will die who might not have died if a different decision had been made:

If you're a king, and your nation has a problem with famine, decisions you make about, say, wheat distribution or regulations on merchants or taxes or whatever actually do play a role in choosing who lives and who dies. Presuming you are a person intellectually qualified on any level to make those decisions, you understand in at least a vague general sense who you are choosing to live and let die... it is not a completely blind toss of the dice.

Sure, it might not be taking the sword to people (because that just kinda sounds stupid and impractical), but you're killing off people as a result of your decisions nonetheless.

Does that mean paladins can't hold positions of power? In Faerun, the paladin Gareth Dragonsbane rules a fairly large kingdom, and one of the Open Lords of Waterdeep, is a paladin.

So "being in a position where lives hang on your decisions" is not barred to paladins.

And yes, the vaccine sucks. Real vaccines often do.

[abadguy]

Goddamn paladins.

Why not? "Protecting the Innocent" is Good Intentions- he has no way to prevent the 1% from dying, since he has no idea who will die- all he knows is that if he does not distribute the vaccine, 50% or more of the population are certain to die.

Ok we're just rephrasing our arguments. My stand (supported by RAW) is: An evil act is still an evil act even if it serves a vast vaster vastest greater good. As long as the paladin is complicit in committing said evil act, by RAW (I emphasis RAW), he would be Fallen.

Any other class or alignment would have no such dilemma. (cept anything from BoED)

In an earlier thread, another poster explained it rather clearly- a person in a position of power, must expect, that situations will come up where no matter what decision they make (including the decision to do nothing), people will die who might not have died if a different decision had been made:

Does that mean paladins can't hold positions of power? In Faerun, the paladin Gareth Dragonsbane rules a fairly large kingdom, and one of the Open Lords of Waterdeep, is a paladin.

So "being in a position where lives hang on your decisions" is not barred to paladins.

And yes, the vaccine sucks. Real vaccines often do.

Ok now you're going off on a different argument. I won't go into that but this would be my line of thought: my only concern is whether the paladin doing everything he can, pulling all the resources he can, all deals, pulling all the stops, to prevent the loss of life? If we want to use the example of a famine, it is not a direct action on his part that is causing the loss of life. When it comes down to it, Lord Paladin would probably slice off generous portions off his thighs if it meant feeding a few morel.

[hamishspence]

Ok we're just rephrasing our arguments. My stand (supported by RAW) is: An evil act is still an evil act even if it serves a vast vaster vastest greater good. As long as the paladin is complicit in committing said evil act, by RAW (I emphasis RAW), he would be Fallen.

Any other class or alignment would have no such dilemma. (cept anything from BoED).

On this point, we are agreed.

The point I've been trying to emphasise, is that the RAW, does not say "destroying an innocent" is an Evil act.

To quote the PHB again:

"Evil creatures debase and destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"

So, by implication, the following acts are Always Evil:

Debasing an innocent being for fun
Debasing an innocent being for profit
Destroying an innocent being for fun
Destroying an innocent being for profit

But is "Destroying an innocent being for a reason other than fun or profit", always an Evil act?

The rules are silent on the subject.

Even BoED's "Destroying a noncombatant is evil, since they are no threat" may only apply to situations where there are both noncombatants and combatants.

If we go to BoVD and FC2, they say "Murder is always an evil act" and even "Killing someone via recklessness will probably cause a paladin to Fall"

But again, they are quiet on the subject of "justified homicide".

The PC would probably fall to his knees in utter despair and pray to his diety to show him a way *cue deus ex* But the moment he decides to "distribute the vaccine", boom, Fallen.

If you really want to go into it, think of medical treatment this way. There is virtually always a chance, however small, that a treatment will kill a patient. There is again, nearly always a chance, however small, that a patient will recover without treatment.

Conclusion- every year, people are sacrificed who would not otherwise have died- because of the medical industry.

It simply does not make sense to say "If you know that something will kill a few people, while saving thousands, you cannot put it into action, or permit it- because that would be an evil act"- because that would effectively require you to ban the whole of medicine.

[olentu]

On this point, we are agreed.

The point I've been trying to emphasise, is that the RAW, does not say "destroying an innocent" is an Evil act.

To quote the PHB again:

"Evil creatures debase and destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"

So, by implication, the following acts are Always Evil:

Debasing an innocent being for fun
Debasing an innocent being for profit
Destroying an innocent being for fun
Destroying an innocent being for profit

But is "Destroying an innocent being for a reason other than fun or profit", always an Evil act?

The rules are silent on the subject.

Even BoED's "Destroying a noncombatant is evil, since they are no threat" may only apply to situations where there are both noncombatants and combatants.

If we go to BoVD and FC2, they say "Murder is always an evil act" and even "Killing someone via recklessness will probably cause a paladin to Fall"

But again, they are quiet on the subject of "justified homicide".


If you really want to go into it, think of medical treatment this way. There is virtually always a chance, however small, that a treatment will kill a patient. There is again, nearly always a chance, however small, that a patient will recover without treatment.

Conclusion- every year, people are sacrificed who would not otherwise have died- because of the medical industry.

It simply does not make sense to say "If you know that something will kill a few people, while saving thousands, you cannot put it into action, or permit it- because that would be an evil act"- because that would effectively require you to ban the whole of medicine.

Er strictly the rules apparently do not say that killing the innocent is evil except in those areas covered by other stuff such as creating evil creatures, and so forth. So by the rules killing the innocent is not evil as long as it does not fall under another evil act. So killing everyone for a good cause is fine as long as you are not using poison or something like that.

And still these acts would still be evil even if the rules stated it was the right of every creature to preform them whenever they wanted. So being against someones rights or not still does not matter matter as to if it is evil or not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm personally of the opinion that actions are just actions. Good and Evil are intent. If you sacrifice a million people to save a billion without thinking about it, that's a neutral action. If you sacrifice a million to save a billion because you believe that preserving as many lives as possible is the right thing to do, it's a good act. If you sacrifice a million to save a billion because you like the idea of your action snuffing a million lives, then it's an evil act. At least that's what I think of the idea.

[hamishspence]

I'm personally of the opinion that actions are just actions. Good and Evil are intent.

For some acts, this is true.

For others, Good or Evil might be intrinsic to the action.

Rebuking Undead (according to PHB),

casting an [Evil] spell, Murder, and Torture (according to FC2, BoVD, BoED, and Eberron Campaign Setting)

are among them.

[olentu]

For some acts, this is true.

For others, Good or Evil might be intrinsic to the action.

Rebuking Undead (according to PHB),

casting an [Evil] spell, Murder, and Torture (according to FC2, BoVD, BoED, and Eberron Campaign Setting)

are among them.

Don't forget stat damaging poison use.

[hamishspence]

Don't forget stat damaging poison use.

That's BoED-only- other sources, such as the FAQ for Complete Adventurer Ninja, have stated "there's nothing inherently evil about using poison".

Throw in the fact that at least one Always Good being (couatls) naturally has a stat damaging poison, and a case can be made that at least on that one, the BoED made a misstep.

Whereas the others usually have more than one source (or a core source, in the case of Rebuking Undead) to support them.

Just as BoVD stresses that while Lying is forbidden by many creeds (and it's against the paladin code) it's not actually an inherently evil act, the same could be said for poison- even stat damaging poison.

Other sources of stat damage- such as spells that inflict it, generally don't have the [Evil] tag. The only way to make Poison different, is to argue that it causes "excessive suffering in the process of incapacitating an opponent"- which is a difficult argument to defend.

[Fawsto]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Say you're trying to stamp out cancer (a good goal), and a multibillionaire offers you three billion dollars for research, but to get the money, you need to torture and rape a woman (sorry, been watching Dexter).

By that logic, the torture and rape would be fine, since it was for a noble goal. I don't buy that.

"Machiavellicaly" talking, yeah, that would be "fine". Machiavelli was a "utilitarist" (do not take this literaly), you know, the great benefit for the many while the few are sacrificed.

Also, there is a hole there in your example: How are you trying to cure cancer? You are trying to cure the cancer no matter what or are you trying to cure cancer in a good way? A Paladin would define his goals using the "in a good way" approach.

What I mean: Curing the cancer is not inherently good. Nor sacrifice is inherently evil.

Yet, there are loopholes. Someone may have a biased vision about good and evil, which would blur the definitions of good and evil goals.