Can you justify questing for power(godhood) as a 'good' act?

[Scarlet-Devil]

So I've never taken Leadership before, and I gets this idea, right? I thinks to meself, "I should like to play, fer me next character, a young lass 'u goes 'round like a Robin 'ood type, but 'o 'as a bi' o' a dark side to 'er." Now, she'd actually be Chao'ic Good, but in the process o' doing good deeds wi' the crowd she picks up, I wan' her ta, at least in 'er own mind, be acquirin' "faith", meanin' that, through the love an' faith she gains from 'er followers, she's slowly being el'vated ta a sor'o' semi-divine status.

Me question being, well, it's plain ta see on tha lid o' the tin, eh?

BQ: 'ow'd you rate me eye dialect?

[gibbo88]

I rate the accent as annoying to read...but onto the question.

If you aren't seeking godhood by stealing someones power or killing thousands of people/otherwise ruining their lives I don't see that there is a moral issue with it.

[Zaydos]

Why does she want godhood? If she wants so she's better able to help others, and isn't doing evil acts in an attempt to obtain it then why couldn't it be a good (or at least neutral) act?* A knight who trains diligently to gain the power to defend the weak is performing a good act in searching for power.

*This is of course subject to the DM's take on power corrupts.

As for the BQ: I could understand it so... not sure if that's good or bad with dialects.

[Ozymandias]

So I've never taken Leadership before, and I gets this idea, right? I thinks to meself, "I should like to play, fer me next character, a young lass 'u goes 'round like a Robin 'ood type, but 'o 'as a bi' o' a dark side to 'er." Now, she'd actually be Chao'ic Good, but in the process o' doing good deeds wi' the crowd she picks up, I wan' her ta, at least in 'er own mind, be acquirin' "faith", meanin' that, through the love an' faith she gains from 'er followers, she's slowly being el'vated ta a sor'o' semi-divine status.

Me question being, well, it's plain ta see on tha lid o' the tin, eh?

BQ: 'ow'd you rate me eye dialect?

There's nothing evil about ambition. Blasphemy or sacrilege can't really be immoral in the D&D universe were so many gods are evil anyway.

Also, 'with' goes to 'wiv,' and terminal "g"s (in, e.g. being) are usually dropped. Also, the "th" sound is usually cut off (so that is pronounced 'at and this is pronounced 'is or dis). Cockney's hard to transcribe because most of the more subtle bits are in the way the vowels are sounded.

[Scarlet-Devil]

Why does she want godhood? If she wants so she's better able to help others, and isn't doing evil acts in an attempt to obtain it then why couldn't it be a good (or at least neutral) act?* A knight who trains diligently to gain the power to defend the weak is performing a good act in searching for power.

*This is of course subject to the DM's take on power corrupts.

Well, I'd say she wants it so she can make the world a more likable place; she desires it both for herself and others. The thing is, whether it's being sought for the sake of others or not, it's still a pretty selfish act (kind of along the same lines as narcissism), and power being sought for good purposes and corrupting its user is a pretty well-known trope, so there's that issue. On the other hand though, I don't know if, even if it could ultimately corrupt the hero who sought great power, the seeking itself could be considered evil...

[Coidzor]

On the other hand though, I don't know if, even if it could ultimately corrupt the hero who sought great power, the seeking itself could be considered evil...

No, you're not going to start eating babies because you want to grow stronger and be able to protect others, otherwise Shonen Anime wouldn't work at all and Paladins would be even more impossible than they already are.

It's really quite simple, why is this a question at issue?

[Zaydos]

I'm assuming this is standard D&D morality system. If that assumption is correct narcissism isn't evil, it's neutral. Evil = hurts others. Good = risks/costs self to help others. Neutral = neither.

Even if she is doing it for the power, if she is not hurting others for it or performing other evil acts such as casting [Evil] spells then she is not doing anything evil.

So you have a neutral or good act depending on motives and what she'd be willing to sacrifice the goal for.

[Tengu_temp]

power being sought for good purposes and corrupting its user is a pretty well-known trope

It's also bullcrap. There is nothing wrong about ambition, despite what all those media that demonize it and want us to know our place and be good little sheeple might tell you.

[NichG]

It only starts becoming non-good when the character starts justifying questionable things on the basis of 'but the power I get will let me do so much more good!'

If the character says something like 'having these people worship me will do a lot more good than if they worship that stone idol cow deity of theirs, so there's nothing wrong with me usurping their religion!' thats starting to veer neutral.

If the character says something like 'I'm going to put these people in a bit of danger and save them, and their adoration will give me the power to help others!' thats neutral verging evil.

If the character says 'its okay, your sacrifice is going to help me save millions!' then you've hit evil.

[Mastikator]

I have dyslexia and your dialect is unreadable. Really, no offense but I have no idea what you just said.

Could someone translate into English?

[Vangor]

Questing for such power is not a good act, but nor is this evil by any stretch. You are committed to doing goodly acts to receive praise to become a quasi-deity, not committed foremost to becoming such a being. This is the important distinction, because the latter allows you to compromise the goodliness of your actions whereas the former does not.

[Ozymandias]

I have dyslexia and your dialect is unreadable. Really, no offense but I have no idea what you just said.

Could someone translate into English?

So, I've never taken Leadership before, and I had this idea, right? I think to myself, "I should like to play, for my next character, a young lass who goes around like a Robin Hood type, but who has a bit of a dark side to her." Now, she'd actually be Chaotic Good, but in the process of doing good deeds, with the crowd she picks up, I want her to, at least in her own mind, be acquiring "faith", meaning that through the love and faith she gains from her followers, she's slowly being elevated to a sort of semi-divine status.

Me question being, well, it's plain to see on the lid of the tin, eh?

BQ: How would you rate my eye ([?]) dialect?

Garn. Cor blimey.

[Coidzor]

I'm assuming this is standard D&D morality system. If that assumption is correct narcissism isn't evil, it's neutral. Evil = hurts others. Good = risks/costs self to help others. Neutral = neither.

Well, narcissism isn't really an action so it's not really going to effect alignment anyway as far as I understand it. We could say it's a flaw, but we'd have to show our work in that it's legitimately narcissism rather than a cultural perspective discrepancy due to the differing moral and metaphysical framework of the other universe.

[Scarlet-Devil]

Garn. Cor blimey.

Hah, very nice .

[golentan]

Godhood = power. No more, no less. No strings attached. Not intrinsically evil.

Power is dangerous. Even "good" powers like healing abilities can be abused. Fairly horribly (keeping a torture victim alive for years in a state of perpetual agony, for example). Dangerous doesn't mean evil, it just means dangerous.

In short, if you *want* her to go off the deep end and become corrupt, well, that's easy. You can do that with a pack of seeds and some rope(don't ask), much less godhood. But don't use the quest for godhood as an excuse. If she goes power mad, it's because she finds the idea of power for it's own sake too appealing, not the specific form.

[Gnoman]

If I were your DM, I would not consider the attempt evil in and of itself, BUT I would be inclined to punish any evil acts that you do more and more severely (alignment-wise) the greater influence your character gained.

[Saintheart]

At the risk of kicking off a Flame Arms Race, how does Raistlin fit into this picture? My impression was that he was seeking power more or less for its own sake, or basically for himself, and he even got a Colour Coded For Your Convenience change in his robe shade as he walked down that path. I didn't think he wanted to replace Tiamat Takhisis as an evil god per se, he simply wanted to take out the most accessible god -- being ol' five-headed-girl because she was nearby in the Abyss. Am I off track?

[Comet]

One good source of power being entirely well and good is much of shounen fighting and mecha anime and manga.

In many western works, the hero is supposed to be calm and humble. The great deeds come to the hero almost by accident, they never sought any glory.

In Japanese works, though, the hero can be loud and ambitious without being seen as critically flawed. 'I want to be stronger than anyone else' and 'my heart burns with the rage of a thousand suns' are commonly seen as signs of a great hero, not a hero falling into darkness.

So, power is not bad. If no one else is willing to become a god to right the wrongs of the world, you might as well do it yourself.

And your accent was hilariously all over the place. Please don't use it ever again, though

[Gnoman]

At the risk of kicking off a Flame Arms Race, how does Raistlin fit into this picture? My impression was that he was seeking power more or less for its own sake, or basically for himself, and he even got a Colour Coded For Your Convenience change in his robe shade as he walked down that path. I didn't think he wanted to replace Tiamat Takhisis as an evil god per se, he simply wanted to take out the most accessible god -- being ol' five-headed-girl because she was nearby in the Abyss. Am I off track?

Raistlin wanted to be the only god in existence. He was about to kill the very last god, Paladine, when Caramaon and Tas jumped into the future.

[Saintheart]

Raistlin wanted to be the only god in existence. He was about to kill the very last god, Paladine, when Caramaon and Tas jumped into the future.

But if you're seeking godhood, does it not stand to reason that the gods who are already there would take some minor objection to your basically elbowing your way up to the table and stealing some of their influence? Why does "My ascension to godhood will be opposed by the current management" change you from good to evil?

[Lord Vampyre]

The first question you need to answer for your character is what does she want to be the god of? Does she want to be the god of healing, magic, ect? D&D gods are rarely omnipotent, there are a few, such as Ao, and possibly Io. For the most part, the dieties in D&D have mastery over a specific aspect.

Even Raistlin in Dragonlance, had a specific goal in mind when he attained godhood, and a specific god he had chosen to usurp in the process. Although, in the end he took on all of the gods, and would have destroyed the world had it not been for a bit of time travelling on his brother's part, but I digress.

The point is, there are many paths a character might take on there way to godhood. The choice of paths will generally define the character's alignment. In the search for power, it is the means, and not the end that determines ones alignment.

[Gnoman]

But if you're seeking godhood, does it not stand to reason that the gods who are already there would take some minor objection to your basically elbowing your way up to the table and stealing some of their influence? Why does "My ascension to godhood will be opposed by the current management" change you from good to evil?

There's a difference between "I'm going to kill the evil god and take her place, which is what evil people do to get ahead, and then take on the other gods if they throw a hissy fit over it." and "I'm going to kill the god of evil, become a god, then kill all the other gods because I can." The latter is what he explicitly set out to do.

[Telonius]

Really depends on the situation, and the existing gods of the setting. Here's one way I could see this as being Good:

- The people have lost faith in the old gods. Their divisiveness is leaving them weak, making them easy prey to the truly evil forces that surround us. They need a unifier, a person on whom they can rest their hopes. But whoever it is, would be putting his soul in ultimate peril, day by day. I can't ask anyone else to bear that burden. I have to try to be that greater light, or the whole world will be lost in darkness.

[Weimann]

So I've never taken Leadership before, and I gets this idea, right? I thinks to meself, "I should like to play, fer me next character, a young lass 'u goes 'round like a Robin 'ood type, but 'o 'as a bi' o' a dark side to 'er." Now, she'd actually be Chao'ic Good, but in the process o' doing good deeds wi' the crowd she picks up, I wan' her ta, at least in 'er own mind, be acquirin' "faith", meanin' that, through the love an' faith she gains from 'er followers, she's slowly being el'vated ta a sor'o' semi-divine status.

Me question being, well, it's plain ta see on tha lid o' the tin, eh?

BQ: 'ow'd you rate me eye dialect?

Yes, the acquisition of power is neither a good nor evil act in itself. In theory, going to college is a form of power-gathering, since you gives you more knowledge and better opportunities in your field, and that is seldom seen as evil. What matters is 1) her reasons for doing it and 2) the methods she employs.

[BayardSPSR]

Questing FOR POWER sounds neutral to me. My instinct's Lawful Neutral, actually.

(Thus leading into obligatory anti-alignment rant:) Looks to me like this character, just for that contradiction, is too complicated for an accurate alignment assignment (unless in D&D 95%+ of humanity and PCs are TN, in which case 's'coo'). Don't take this as a criticism; contradictions are the things that make characters interesting - and the things that make us human.

[hamishspence]

In The PHB, TN is the "typical" alignment for humans- in the table of various monsters and their typical alignments.

Which means that, for humans, of all the alignments, TN is slightly more common than the others.

At the same time, PHB states "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

So- it may be more common, but that doesn't mean its that much more common, otherwise it would mean that Humans would be "Often Neutral" or even "Usually Neutral"- both of which would contradict humans having no alignment tendencies.

So, it's not likely to be 95%.

[BayardSPSR]

At the same time, PHB states "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

Based on this (which I didn't know; thanks for telling me), I'm almost willing to rescind the criticism. But if even the ones who wrote it admit its inapplicability in this way...

[Scarlet-Devil]

And your accent was hilariously all over the place. Please don't use it ever again, though

No promises there . I think Ozymandias made some good suggestions though.