The greater good

[Counterpower]

I've seen this idea in several different places: that a paladin committing an evil act is justified if the alternative is some much greater evil, especially lots of people dying. I just want to put forth my view on that and spark what will no doubt be an interesting debate.

My view: No paladin is ever justified in that. Period.

I've seen similar ideas in all sorts of different places. The first and most obvious is the Book of Exalted Deeds. It unequivocally states that the ends do not justify the means. But that can't be the final word. No D&D campaign ever limits itself to the rules on paper.

Another idea about the greater good that I have can be supported with a quote from the Halo book First Strike:

Spoiler

Show

"I'm tired of sacrificing others for the 'greater good,'" Dr. Halsey replied. "It never stops, Cortana... and we're running out of people to sacrifice."

from page 247

That was the point, wasn't it? He couldn't know the future. He had to do what he could to save every person. Today. Now.

from page 336

What does that imply? It seems to me that trying to protect a civilization or a group of people cannot be done by killing some of them. And "knowing" that a summoned demon lord will kill everyone in that civilization........... well, that leads into another good point.

Is that absolute certainty? No. There is still a chance that he can be stopped, even after the summoning. Given that chance, why are you giving up on finding that slim hope? Hope is one of good's weapons. The faith that your effort, determination, and skill will be rewarded with victory, instead of saying "There's no way I can avoid doing evil, so I'll have to satisfy myself with doing as little evil as possible." We call that giving up on Good, not defending it. The first part of that statement, "there's no way I can avoid doing evil", is a prophecy that will come true, every time you say it. If you don't even try to avoid evil, then you will end up doing evil. A much more Good train of thought would be "I can't stop the summoning, unless I commit evil, which I refuse to do. I'd better find a way to kill or imprison the demon."

Also, thinking in terms of the greater good can lead to truly horrifying results. Committing evil when you know full well that you're committing evil and are only doing it in pursuit of some greater good is bad enough. Allowing yourself to believe that the evil act you're committing is actually good because of the ends it serves or because the alternative is evil is much, much worse. Either can be taken to the point where the foulest act is good. You can justify anything as good in that manner. After all, I need a powerful magic sword to help serve all of those innocents. Since they're rich, I'll kill or rob a quarter of them so that I can buy the sword and protect the rest from the goblin hordes. Is that Good?

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

I worry that using the greater good justification, a person could say, "Well, obviously it's best if everyone lives, including myself so I can spread more good around!" Except if he's going around torturing people, leaving them dead or broken, he's not really spreading Good. I fully believe that 3 is the most good that can come of that situation. Either option 3, or some other solution that I didn't think of.

What does everyone think?

[PirateMonk]

Hm. Well, here is the Tau thing, but what do you expect from the only good guys in a hopelessly good universe? They're also communists...

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

There are probably also other options, depending on the genre. Real life? There's no such thing as an inarguable BBEG and torture is unlikely to get you the right information.

[Counterpower]

Of course. I don't claim to have stated all the options. If you can come up with a better choice, then that's excellent. I even happen to agree with you on the "torture is unlikely to work" statment.

[Daelon]

Other options? Zone of Truth ftw.

[TheElfLord]

Spot on Counter. I agree with you completly. DnD morality is not utilitarian, especally for Paladins. DnD morality is based upon the intention and the action rarely, if ever, on the concequences. The conflict comes when utilitarian players want to use their normal moral system as a DnD paladin. This creates the "greater good" arguements, because they are the bread and butter of utilitarianism, but not applicalble for paladin morallity in DnD.

[EvilElitest]

Here here. The people who disagree will start showing up about page two, maybe sooner, so i'll say right now i'm with you all the way. Well said counterpower
from,
EE

[Divides]

I've seen this idea in several different places: that a paladin committing an evil act is justified if the alternative is some much greater evil, especially lots of people dying. I just want to put forth my view on that and spark what will no doubt be an interesting debate.

My view: No paladin is ever justified in that. Period.

I've seen similar ideas in all sorts of different places. The first and most obvious is the Book of Exalted Deeds. It unequivocally states that the ends do not justify the means. But that can't be the final word. No D&D campaign ever limits itself to the rules on paper.

Another idea about the greater good that I have can be supported with a quote from the Halo book First Strike:

Spoiler

Show

from page 247

from page 336

What does that imply? It seems to me that trying to protect a civilization or a group of people cannot be done by killing some of them. And "knowing" that a summoned demon lord will kill everyone in that civilization........... well, that leads into another good point.

Is that absolute certainty? No. There is still a chance that he can be stopped, even after the summoning. Given that chance, why are you giving up on finding that slim hope? Hope is one of good's weapons. The faith that your effort, determination, and skill will be rewarded with victory, instead of saying "There's no way I can avoid doing evil, so I'll have to satisfy myself with doing as little evil as possible." We call that giving up on Good, not defending it. The first part of that statement, "there's no way I can avoid doing evil", is a prophecy that will come true, every time you say it. If you don't even try to avoid evil, then you will end up doing evil. A much more Good train of thought would be "I can't stop the summoning, unless I commit evil, which I refuse to do. I'd better find a way to kill or imprison the demon."

Also, thinking in terms of the greater good can lead to truly horrifying results. Committing evil when you know full well that you're committing evil and are only doing it in pursuit of some greater good is bad enough. Allowing yourself to believe that the evil act you're committing is actually good because of the ends it serves or because the alternative is evil is much, much worse. Either can be taken to the point where the foulest act is good. You can justify anything as good in that manner. After all, I need a powerful magic sword to help serve all of those innocents. Since they're rich, I'll kill or rob a quarter of them so that I can buy the sword and protect the rest from the goblin hordes. Is that Good?

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

I worry that using the greater good justification, a person could say, "Well, obviously it's best if everyone lives, including myself so I can spread more good around!" Except if he's going around torturing people, leaving them dead or broken, he's not really spreading Good. I fully believe that 3 is the most good that can come of that situation. Either option 3, or some other solution that I didn't think of.

What does everyone think?

I dunno. I personally feel that it's possible to be a realist (which is what would result in someone striving for the best chance at "the greater good," IMHO) and still be good aligned. I do think that it's a slippery slope... the moment you feel proud about allowing a minor evil to happen to prevent a bigger one, you're likely to become evil via mentality, even if your actions havn't really changed, but I don't think allowing harm to happen, or even doing some (minor) harm, automatically qualifise as an evil act if it (as has been said) serves the greater good.

That said, I think paladins, specifically, are a bit of a special case, since they're a class who specifically focuses not only on following the path of good, but having faith in its very concept. So if the paladin decides he'll need to perform a minor evil just to hedge his bets, then I think he's failing at being a paladin, even if he's not failing at being good.

Really, though, I've always been a bit dubious on D&D's allignment system, so that I havn't really been fully satisfide with any argument (save the possible argument that they're being tagged on by some unknown supreme based on whatever he happens to think "feels right" at the time), even the books themselves seem to be somewhat self contradictory... and your argument deffinetly does make some ammount of sense. So I dunno... you've got an interesting point.

[Lemur]

There are probably also other options, depending on the genre. Real life? There's no such thing as an inarguable BBEG and torture is unlikely to get you the right information.

As a token disagreement, I'd say that in real life, torture could potentially work. Meanwhile, in D&D, where there are definite bad guys, torture is unlikely to affect them at all. In either case, torture is not a good act.

In any case, I agree, "greater good" arguments don't hold up. Good is not quantifiable by the number of people saved. Utilitarianism is not a philosophy that paladins follow, rather, it's more the domain of certain breeds of antiheroes. If there are "Utilitarian Paladins" in existance, their requisite alignment is probably neutral.

The flip side of this is that a typical paladin generally doesn't need to worry about the long term consequences. He probably should worry about them anyway, but it's not strictly required. All he needs to do is prevent any evil in front of him from occuring as best he can. Even if the villain gets away to potentially do more evil, it's not worth sacrificing an innocent's life.

[martyboy74]

So does this mean that, in D&D, the means justify the end?

[NullAshton]

I believe that committing a minor evil to prevent a bigger evil would be neutral at best. The easy path is the dark side, thus to be good you might have to do a few difficult things. Hey, being the hero isn't supposed to be that easy?

That does put the paladin into a few situations where they lose their paladin status no matter what they do, though. That's why there's atonement, though.

[Divides]

I believe that committing a minor evil to prevent a bigger evil would be neutral at best. The easy path is the dark side, thus to be good you might have to do a few difficult things. Hey, being the hero isn't supposed to be that easy?

Well, I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between the "realistic expectations" and "the easy path." There are situations where there are, quite simply, no alternatives, no matter how much effort you're going to put into it, or where the odds are undeniable. Saying "I'll take that 90% chance of saving half the town over that 5% chance of saving all of it," doesn't mean you're being lazy per-se... it means you're not being much of an idealist, but that's not the same thing as being lazy.

[EvilElitest]

I dunno. I personally feel that it's possible to be a realist (which is what would result in someone striving for the best chance at "the greater good," IMHO) and still be good aligned. I do think that it's a slippery slope... the moment you feel proud about allowing a minor evil to happen to prevent a bigger one, you're likely to become evil via mentality, even if your actions havn't really changed, but I don't think allowing harm to happen, or even doing some (minor) harm, automatically qualifise as an evil act if it (as has been said) serves the greater good.

That said, I think paladins, specifically, are a bit of a special case, since they're a class who specifically focuses not only on following the path of good, but having faith in its very concept. So if the paladin decides he'll need to perform a minor evil just to hedge his bets, then I think he's failing at being a paladin, even if he's not failing at being good.

Really, though, I've always been a bit dubious on D&D's allignment system, so that I havn't really been fully satisfide with any argument (save the possible argument that they're being tagged on by some unknown supreme based on whatever he happens to think "feels right" at the time), even the books themselves seem to be somewhat self contradictory... and your argument deffinetly does make some ammount of sense. So I dunno... you've got an interesting point.

Intent is not the judge of aligment, actions are
from,
EE

[Kel_Arath]

what if its a situation where they have been captured by a demon, and you know that you cannat save them, but you could kill them to spare them from toture, still murder, but i would prefer it.

[Divides]

Intent is not the judge of aligment, actions are
from,
EE

Where's that written in the books?

Or, if that's just a statement of oppinion/interpretation, how's that follow?

Because, really, I've heard that before, but it's never really sat well with me...

[NullAshton]

Well, I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between the "realistic expectations" and "the easy path." There are situations where there are, quite simply, no alternatives, no matter how much effort you're going to put into it, or where the odds are undeniable. Saying "I'll take that 90% chance of saving half the town over that 5% chance of saving all of it," doesn't mean you're being lazy per-se... it means you're not being much of an idealist, but that's not the same thing as being lazy.

If you are in a situation where there are no alternatives, the 'good' path is to find an alternative. Good-aligned people, paladins and exalted people especially, should take the 5% chance of saving all of the town every single time.

[Divides]

If you are in a situation where there are no alternatives, the 'good' path is to find an alternative. Good-aligned people, paladins and exalted people especially, should take the 5% chance of saving all of the town every single time.

Perhaps. I'm still not convenced of that, but that's really beside what I was saying. My point is calling it "the easy path" is creating a strawman. Better odds does not always mean easier.

[Counterpower]

what if its a situation where they have been captured by a demon, and you know that you cannat save them, but you could kill them to spare them from toture, still murder, but i would prefer it.

That is a tricky situation, I admit. I would prefer if the paladin had the chance to talk to the upcoming victim and see if they actually wanted to keep living. Willing self-sacrifice is much better than murder. I also want to know exactly what "cannot save them" means.

If the 8th level paladin is standing next to the victim and a balor appears and announces his intent to take the victim, then I believe that the appropriate response from the paladin is "Over my dead body." That doesn't mean the paladin has to fight, only that the paladin should not allow the balor to take the victim, using whatever power he has, not kill the victim first. If the paladin is still standing after the balor is through with him (unlikely, but maybe our paladin has Diehard and/or rolled really well), then maybe a double sacrifice may be in order, but only after the paladin has received some kind of acknowledgement from the victim. Speaking is a free action, after all.

If, on the other hand, a paladin with a longbow is standing on a cliff 200ft. away and sees a balor kidnapping a victim............... then the issue is much more unclear. It seems to me that the paladin's first shot should be at the balor. With any luck, that will get his attention and distract him. Still, you may have a valid point. A little clarification about what exactly this situation is would be helpful.

If you are in a situation where there are no alternatives, the 'good' path is to find an alternative. Good-aligned people, paladins and exalted people especially, should take the 5% chance of saving all of the town every single time.

I agree wholeheartedly on the paladins and exalted people point. Part of what I'm saying is that any paladin should Fall for a evil act justified in the name of the greater good. And I do agree that this justification is not a good one for any good-aligned adventurer. Then again, I do not believe that this is an alignment-changing act. Sure, any Good character that commits evil with this justification repeatedly probably is better suited to a Neutral alignment. But they're not held to the "don't do it even once" standard that a paladin must abide by.

Perhaps. I'm still not convenced of that, but that's really beside what I was saying. My point is calling it "the easy path" is creating a strawman. Better odds does not always mean easier.

Of course not. I can see any paladin commiting evil for any reason to regret it deeply, and it certainly won't be an easy path for them. It's an easier path to one goal, but it subverts the paladin's primary goals in the process.

Edit: I do agree with you in some respect, Divides. That is, while actions are really what matters, intent can mitigate them to a minor extent. An evil act committed for good reasons is not good, but it's not the blackest evil that anyone can commit either. Still be good aligned? Maybe........ another case of being limited to only 9 alignments. I'd call a "realist" in the respect you referred to Neutral in the current system, though.

[Ulzgoroth]

Letting yourself die to spare the person responsible for the bomb torture...might very well be the good thing to do. But if in (3) you're also killing off bits of the city and countryside...still take the bomb away. But not to spare the BBEG torture. Either drag him with you to interrogate on the way (and guarantee that if anyone dies, he does) or have a friend back at the city running the interrogation and 'sending' you with the answer if it works.

So does this mean that, in D&D, the means justify the end?

This really encapsulates my entire view of the matter, if you add on the end.

[PaladinBoy]

So does this mean that, in D&D, the means justify the end?

No. It means that if you use good methods and try to avert evil ends, you will generally be fine. Just because you only use good means does not excuse any evil that comes about through your actions. The thing to note there is through your actions, not anyone else's. It's a fine line, but if you try to stop the BBEG's plans, you are usually okay from a moral standpoint. Of course, you have to try your very hardest, up to and including sacrificing yourself if it will help. A half-hearted attempt isn't good. You need to use every Good tactic in your arsenal, and if all that fails, then you lose. Dust yourself off (or pray for a rez) and prepare better to nail the BBEG next time.

[Counterpower]

Letting yourself die to spare the person responsible for the bomb torture...might very well be the good thing to do. But if in (3) you're also killing off bits of the city and countryside...still take the bomb away. But not to spare the BBEG torture. Either drag him with you to interrogate on the way (and guarantee that if anyone dies, he does) or have a friend back at the city running the interrogation and 'sending' you with the answer if it works.

Well, as long as dragging the BBEG wouldn't slow you down, then that might be acceptable. Although if there was no other way, then I would prefer leaving the city with the bomb and alerting the proper authorities on the way to the BBEG's location so they could deal out justice, over taking him with me. That isn't to say that I believe taking him with you is the wrong thing to do, just that I don't really think I'd do that. I wouldn't punish even a paladin for taking the BBEG along with the bomb out of the city. Personally, I prefer the second option you provided, as long as you could trust that friend not to torture. Handing someone over to a torturer is no better than torturing them yourself.

[Takamari]

In my opinion and intrepretation of the paladin, I'm looking at gods warrior. Meaning, that the paladin upholds the ideals of his god, period. He is sworn to a code of conduct that is not debatable. He is the shining star, the knight in shining armor, the pinicle of good. In ancient egypt, his heart would be so pure and good that it would float while the feather falls to the ground.

Saying that the ends justify the means is the first step to the dark side. If you could cure all of the diseases in the world in an instant, but to do so you have to murder with your bare hands a newborn baby, would you do it? Well, curing all the diseases in the world would certianly be good...but would you be?

To judge a paladins behaviors, we need to look at basic right and wrong and commen sense. Mitigating circumstances are not part of a paladins vocabulary PERIOD. Is it right to torture the BBEG? No, it isn't and the paladin should not participate or allow it to happen. It doesn't matter what will happen to all the innocents. It was stated previously that yes, he saves the city, but then he becomes a torturer. Once someone crosses the lines, they will do it again.

However, the paladin also needs to follow the law. It states somewhere that paladins stress good before law, but they are still law-bound. Therefore if the law says that prostitutes are put to death, then the paladin follows the law. Here is where the water gets murkey for me. It isn't "good" to put a prostitute or anyone to death, but it just may be the rightful law of this land. What is the paladin to do? In my game world the lawful evil god is a perversion of the nature of alignment system. He fancies himself as a good god and has the ability to support lawful good paladins. His cities are the safest and most orderly, however, if you litter you get your hand chopped off on the spot, or if you lie your tongue is torn out...so he really isn't good-his ends of bad acts enable everyone to benafit from the greater good and justify his means...food for thought, no?

[EvilElitest]

Where's that written in the books?

Or, if that's just a statement of oppinion/interpretation, how's that follow?

Because, really, I've heard that before, but it's never really sat well with me...

A paladin can't commit an evil action every. Anywas
Intent is only the little brother to actions in morality. it only keeps evil people evil
A LG person can kill a baby for a "Good cause" but that does not excuse his killing of the baby.
A CE person can save a baby for his own personal reasons. The difference is that he is doing it with evil intent (belkar)
So good needs good intent and good actions
A hermit can sit in a cave doing nothing but think of ways to kill/rape people, but when given the chance he does not that proves him not evil, but certainly not good. Horray for neutral.
from,
EE

[Takamari]

Yes, a lawful good person can, but then he is not longer good, is he? What if that lawful good person was a paladin, since we are not debating people, but paladins.

[Counterpower]

In my opinion and intrepretation of the paladin, I'm looking at gods warrior. Meaning, that the paladin upholds the ideals of his god, period. He is sworn to a code of conduct that is not debatable. He is the shining star, the knight in shining armor, the pinicle of good. In ancient egypt, his heart would be so pure and good that it would float while the feather falls to the ground.

Saying that the ends justify the means is the first step to the dark side. If you could cure all of the diseases in the world in an instant, but to do so you have to murder with your bare hands a newborn baby, would you do it? Well, curing all the diseases in the world would certianly be good...but would you be?

To judge a paladins behaviors, we need to look at basic right and wrong and commen sense. Mitigating circumstances are not part of a paladins vocabulary PERIOD. Is it right to torture the BBEG? No, it isn't and the paladin should not participate or allow it to happen. It doesn't matter what will happen to all the innocents. It was stated previously that yes, he saves the city, but then he becomes a torturer. Once someone crosses the lines, they will do it again.

However, the paladin also needs to follow the law. It states somewhere that paladins stress good before law, but they are still law-bound. Therefore if the law says that prostitutes are put to death, then the paladin follows the law. Here is where the water gets murkey for me. It isn't "good" to put a prostitute or anyone to death, but it just may be the rightful law of this land. What is the paladin to do? In my game world the lawful evil god is a perversion of the nature of alignment system. He fancies himself as a good god and has the ability to support lawful good paladins. His cities are the safest and most orderly, however, if you litter you get your hand chopped off on the spot, or if you lie your tongue is torn out...so he really isn't good-his ends of bad acts enable everyone to benafit from the greater good and justify his means...food for thought, no?

Ah yes, the quandary over which is more important: law or good. Ironically enough, I saw a really interesting quote that adresses this situation while touring some colleges.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The paladin who breaks or otherwise opposes that law is not going against his lawful alignment, basically. I believe that is also supported by the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Edit: Another point that just jumped out at me: the person who casually discarded a scrap of parchment, not realizing the consequences, who has his hand chopped off, isn't really enjoying the greater good, is he? "Everyone" in that case isn't really everyone, because the people who were punished far beyond the severity of their crimes do count in considering whether everyone is benefiting.

Unless I've misunderstood your point. Which is a distinct possibility.

[Desaril]

I agree with Counter and Divides that Paladins and exalteds have a stricter code which they agree to follow. I don't think that LG = Paladin-like behavior. A LG rogue should have far more leeway than a LG paladin. Paladins (exalteds and some clerics) have a stricter code, but the books don't provide it, so the GM needs to create it and provide it to those characters.

Out-of-game, each gaming group is going to determine what constitutes LG, CG, NG, etc, in their world. In-game, each GM has to determine how morality (alignment) is determined/judged. Do the gods decide alignment? If so, the GM must determine each deities rules/regulations/expectations. Is it the church hierarchies? Then the GM should to do the same for the Bishop or High Priest, etc. That way every follower of the faith/belief/code has some idea of what is acceptable or unacceptable.

Therefore, what a LG character should do may be very different from what a paladin should do. What a paladin should do, depends on who is the judge of his actions. Most fantasy deities have personalities; they are not merely perfect embodiments of their alignment. Therefore, the paladin should probably do what his god would do and that would vary from deity to deity.

Lastly, we never have these questions in reverse. If an evil person saves a life, does he start becoming neutral. What about a chaotic who pays his taxes and follows a few rules? It seems that any variance from the pinnacle of goodness risks your alignment, but evil is not held to the same standard. If we did, in any realistic world, most beings would have a neutral alignment because no one can maintain the pinnacles of the extremes.

[Takamari]

I agree. In one of the games I was playing in, our party leader was, of course, our paladin. We were in a save the world game and the gods were fighting. Our goal was to awaken the over god, so to speak, the being that made the gods. We had the artifacts and abilities to do it, but the night before we made our move, we were set upon by 13 paladins of the OTHER lawful good god. She wanted to be the one to save the gods, so we needed to be eliminated. We agreed to single combat between our paladin and theirs where we got to heal our champion after each battle. One of the enemy paladins turned on his own and tore them down, being the big 18th level. It posed an interesting quandery of morality. The second they engaged us in combat, would they not be committing an "evil" act. Did our paladin commit an evil act by slaughtering other paladins or beheading the ones who refused to fight him?

[Ulzgoroth]

Handing someone over to a torturer is no better than torturing them yourself.

Very true...though I wouldn't object to either under the circumstances. But actually, I find that a strong point for my position (which, if you've missed it, is that ends are the only thing that actually matter).

Handing someone to a likely torturer is at best only a little better than torturing them yourself (because likely and certain aren't quite the same). You also claim that doing so is worse than potentially killing large numbers of people caught in this enormous bomb blast, though I disagree. So why is handing hundreds or thousands over to the dominion of a vicious demon-lord better than killing one person?

Apologies if I'm making a false assumption about how you'd react to the 'demon or baby' scenario...

No. It means that if you use good methods and try to avert evil ends, you will generally be fine. Just because you only use good means does not excuse any evil that comes about through your actions. The thing to note there is through your actions, not anyone else's.

If your actions could have prevented it, or could have been much better chosen to prevent it, how is that not coming about through your actions?

Also, compare and contrast with my sentence from Counterpower, which seems like basic common sense.

[Desaril]

@EE- we've crossed swords on this topic before and I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. But here we go:

If intent is not as important as action, what about someone who inadvertantly kills a baby and thereby cures a horrible plague. There is action (killing an innocent), but no intent (indavertance), and a good consequence (people are saved).

Likewise what about a person who intends to kill the baby (in order to stop the plague), but get's lost and the plague kills millions (but not the baby). Now you've got a good intent, no action, and a bad consequence (people die).

What about if the person intends to kill the baby (to stop it from crying which is really annoying), fails because someone rescues the baby, and the plague stops, becuase the baby lives (the prophecy or whatever was wrongly interpreted). Now you've got a selfish intent, an attempted bad action and a good result (both baby and people are saved).

I think it's impossible to measure morality without looking at intent, action and consequence.

[Counterpower]

Lastly, we never have these questions in reverse. If an evil person saves a life, does he start becoming neutral. What about a chaotic who pays his taxes and follows a few rules? It seems that any variance from the pinnacle of goodness risks your alignment, but evil is not held to the same standard. If we did, in any realistic world, most beings would have a neutral alignment because no one can maintain the pinnacles of the extremes.

Well, an evil character who saves a life, even for evil reasons....... the only situation this reminds me of is Star Wars: A New Hope. Han Solo continually insists that he's only helping the Rebellion for the promise of money. He says that several times and insists it's the truth. Then again, it ends up not being the truth. He finally comes back, for no reason other than to help.

No one act can change an alignment, not even for a paladin. An evil act by a paladin will cause said paladin to fall, but won't change his alignment to LE or even LN. Repeated evil acts will cause that alignment shift, however. The slide does work both ways, though. A CE character (or a CN in Han Solo's case) that helps others repeatedly, even if he insists that he's not doing this for good reasons, will shift to CG eventually, and probably realize in the process that there is a reason why he keeps doing good. Just as a LG character that commits evil repeatedly, even for good reasons, will eventually shift to LE.

[Takamari]

@
I think it's impossible to measure morality without looking at intent, action and consequence.

I agree with that as well. We also must look at what is considered bad to know what is good. There can be no good without evil because they are defined by each other.

With that in mind, we need to look at culture and religion. Maybe one culture believes that it is good to murder the losers of any conflict and take their women and children as their own. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm almost sure that at least most americans believe this is wrong, maybe even evil. So, we need to allow that like beauty, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. (NOT the monster!!! lol)

I doubt that everyone or even half of the people who frequent these boards could come to an agreement on this topic. I've seen so many paladin and morality threads that I want to scream at times. I would venture to say that the writers of D&D are probabily christian or at least raised that way, but are open minded...(I really mean no offense). So I would theorize that if we look at good and evil in a generally christian way, then we can begin to gauge good and evil. (Please understand that this is a thought. I was raised Lutheran but have no religious affiliations as an adult. I am not at all stating the superiority of any religion, just offering a thought based on reading the books and posts of others.)

EDIT: I mean to say that if we look at it that way, we may be able to see what D&D terms good and evil and why.