Do All Good Characters Share The Same Values And Principles?

[Lord Raziere]

That is quite the condition on that caveat.
1) Hears the other person's reasoning
2) Find validity behind it


I believe what you describe is a virtue, but different good individuals may prioritize virtues differently.

Also when time is of the essence, we remember that figuring takes time.

On yet another hand, despite this thread pointing out little is held universally in common, some are commonly held in common. Just not universally in common. I think what you described is one of those.

there is always conditions. but then I hold people who don't listen and stubbornly hold to inflexible ways in low regard, so perhaps I simply fail to see whats so virtuous about recklessness, inflexibility and ignoring other people. I mean lack of time is understandable.....but....y'know...

as for this value, I do not know its name exactly. its a willingness to temporarily put a value aside to help another despite not believing in their values because you recognize there is good in it, even if its not something personally good to oneself. I'm not sure if it has a name, but it probably should, because its something to keep in mind when helping others- its their happiness your helping with, not your own.

[False God]

If we assume a cosmic alignment scale, then probably yes.

They may have different approaches, different endgames, different value levels, but I think functionally they must. Otherwise we can't really have a cosmic slide-rule of good and evil.

If we don't have a cosmic good/evil scale then no, there's no reason all good-aligned characters need to value the same thing or have the same principles, since they're all just making it up as they go.

[Ason]

I'm also going to say no.

Consider how many different philosophers have approached the question of ethics and goodness. Kant and other deontologists argue that the morality of an action is determined by its adherence to certain ethical rules/principles. Meanwhile, consequentialists (such as utilitarians) argue instead that its the effects of our actions, not the rules we follow in doing them, that make our behaviors right or wrong. There are many more ethical systems beyond these two: check out Wikipedia to get started. In essence, we can both agree that it's bad to murder people, while still differing logically in how we each came to the conclusion that murder is wrong. Maybe you think it's bad because we obligated by rules of virtue ethics to respect the dignity of life, whereas I think it's bad because if everybody murdered who they wanted to then society would cease to function.

For a D&D example, consider the factions of the Planescape setting. Some factions tend to be more aligned one way or another than the other factions, but all of them have their own ideas and understandings of their ideals. People belonging to the Sensates, Godsmen, Anarchists, and Dustmen can all be good-aligned and even friendly with each other, but how they understand goodness will differ. That's why older editions of D&D have different celestial realms and even different layers within those realms in order to give space for the various understandings of goodness.

This isn't to say things must be that way in your D&D games, however. You as the DM can decide that all celestials follow the exact same ethical systems. It's your game to have fun with. All I'm saying is that good forces can still agree to be good together while disagreeing on the minutiae of what goodness is, and that such disagreements are common in the real world and can even be sources of fun if you handle them well.

[RazorChain]

No.....


What is good is like beauty and cannot be indepentent of man. If there is no one to conceptualize what is good and evil then it ceases to exist.


So unless good and evil exist as universal truths independent of man (or sentinent races) then good character will not all share the same values and principles

[OldTrees1]

No.....

-snip-

So unless good and evil exist as universal truths independent of man (or sentinent races) then good character will not all share the same values and principles

And even if good and evil are universal truths independent of the moral agents, then good moral agents could still differ on their values and principles. (See most of the rest of the posts)

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, there is a whole lot more than just heroism, protecting, and sacrifice.

Ought you be honest? Probably (although not a universal belief). Ought you be honest always absolutely without exception? Now there is more uncertainty. What about omissions, do those fall under the same rules? Are there multiple kinds of omissions that have different standards to which we should aspire? What about unasked questions?

In that singular case of how one might answer a question, there are myriad nuances that moral philosophers debate to this day. Likewise there will be myriad opinions / beliefs among Good characters of the same alignment.

There are many more cases beyond those 3 categories. Morality is answering the question "What ought one do?" and thus beliefs about morality can touch every aspect of life.

If you pick a point on the alignment chart, you might find multiple characters that have no shared beliefs. This is a result of alignment trying to descriptively summarize the infinite dimensional matrix that is morality into a single axis.

Indeed, even when characters agree on general "shoulds", they can easily disagree on the priority and extent.

"You should be honest." How honest?

"You should be generous." How generous?

"You should be forgiving." How forgiving?

Etc.

[Geddoe]

Obviously, people of different alignments can't possibly share ALL of the same beliefs and values. But even within a single alignment, different people will care about and value different things.

For example, one Chaotic Good hero might rob from the rich and give to the poor, while another Chaotic Good hero might be more mercenary and take jobs paying gold so they can use that money to better equip themselves to fight a tyrannical dictator. Or literally a million other possible motivational factors that someone can choose to focus on.

It's all based on the concept of individuality.

I'm not sure a truly Good(in the D&D sense) person can be a mercenary. They can be in a wandering adventuring group that rights wrongs and does tasks for good with people occasionally rewarding them. But an actual mercenary? Killing/hurting people for money?

If you are tracking down the person who assassinated a prince to bring him to justice, you might be good. But if you are tracking him down to get money, I don't think it is really good. Even if stopping the assassin from killing in the future might be a good thing for the world.

[Saint-Just]

I'm not sure a truly Good(in the D&D sense) person can be a mercenary. They can be in a wandering adventuring group that rights wrongs and does tasks for good with people occasionally rewarding them. But an actual mercenary? Killing/hurting people for money?

Probably hurting\killing evil people (and animal-level intelligence monsters) for money. In D&D that probably will fly. And idea that upon hearing about wrong a character would immediately set to righting it without consideration of reward may fit exalted (in the BoED sense) characters but definitely is too narrow for what is presented as "D&D Good".

For that matter most real-world mercenaries usually was not willing to do literally anything for right amount of money. It is not impossible to imagine group with significantly more restrictions, but outside of those restriction motivated primary by wealth.

[Waxpapers]

Even within a single alignment (e.g. not just good, but specifically Lawful Good), there's room for a wide variety of values. A LG society might be collectivist and egalitarian, with no codified laws, just powerfully enforced social norms that are the result of majority agreement, or it might be vigorously hierarchical, with vast lists of rules to follow. It might place a high value on the idea of a benevolent social contract, and therefore wrongdoing would be punished through ostracization, since a wrongdoer has decided not to participate in society. It might believe in the (very lawful) idea that people's behaviors are mostly deterministic and a result of their environment, and therefore would take the (very good) route of seeking rehabilitation for all wrongdoing, with enforcement of laws oriented around changing people into better citizens. Or it might value righteous justice, and seek to (very lawfully) administer severe punishment for evil deeds. The society might value charity, with wealthy individuals seeing giving freely to the less fortunate as a sign of good character. But it also might not even have a place for charity, since food and aid are obligations that nobles have to their serfs.

And as people have mentioned, while some adventurers might truly seek only to travel around the countryside, addressing wrongs big and small out of the goodness of their heart, many Good adventurers are still essentially killers and problem-solvers for hire. That Holy Avenger the paladin uses costs a cool 120k gp. You think he got that kind of cash through "occasional rewards"? All that it means to be a Good adventurer is that you care about why the job needs to be done.

[aglondier]

Definitely no.
I play a LG dwarf fighter in CotCT, and am just about to convince the LE hellknights that they desperately need to purge the entire civilian population of a district of Korvosa because they are unrepentant cannibals. As a non-human, and a follower of Law and Good, this seems like a necessary action. If it were a settlement of dwarves that had become cannibals, I would still purge it. Not sure if our paladin is going to agree with me though...

[Powerdork]

Even on a personal level, a character doing Good acts can have values and principles that contradict each other, and be struggling to find how it all fits. If one (1) Good person can have that kind of conflict, any greater number can have that conflict.