Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

[Lord Raziere]

You are getting lost in the weeds of one, specific example about witches. The details of the example won't matter because they don't exist - any answers would just be arbitrary invented spins on the situation. You can just cut that useless phase out and assume both parties have full information.

The point isn't about equating subjectivity with morality. You can assume a purely objective moral framework: the trait we're looking for is that sometimes, a situation has two equally good yet mutually exclusive solutions. That's enough to create disagreement between two people - they can have subjective preference for one over the other. Their values create conflict, but it's not their values that make those solutions moral.

No. that makes no sense.

the details always matter. yes they are arbitrary. So is all of roleplaying. it doesn't matter if both parties have full information. what matters is the information itself, as whatever crime done has a degree of severity. that degree of severity from then on we can determine proper punishment in accordance with that severity, which will tip one side being right over the other. I'm the PC in this instance, therefore really only my decision matters. NPCs can voice they're opinion but they aren't the decision-makers.

and if you still look for this trait- I'm sorry, it doesn't actually exist. your looking for a fairy tale, morality is not a vacuum and any meaning moral decision has to take surrounding details into account. saving a life is inherently more valuable than killing one, the only reason to kill the witch over saving them are utilitarian reasons of saving more lives than that. if they aren't a threat, there is no reason to kill them and the people wanting to kill are just flat out wrong. if she is a threat and can't be convinced to stop being one, the people advocating for mercy are just flat out wrong. they are only right and therefore righteous if their response to the information matches reality. a bunch of people killing a single innocent is wrong no matter what. a bunch of people killed because they foolishly believed a monster will be merciful back are also wrong.

now its possible that everyone is evil, that the mob wanting her dead are people prejudiced against witches and thus will try to kill her no matter what, that the mob wanting her alive are actually witch conspirators wishing to garner her favor and thus work with her to kill everyone in the city, and the witch is evil. that is technically all morally equal options in that they're all equally bad to pick, and thus the actual moral option is to kill all three groups. but I generally try not to assume things that lead to paranoia massacres.

so to assume everyone is good, we have to assume the witch is good to, and that she doesn't want to kill anyone either. therefore when we talk to her the truth is revealed and when we go out to tell them, the group that wants her dead will realize that they were wrong and give up their viewpoint, thus it was never righteous. thus your speaking of a false moral equivalency: they are not equally good solutions because your only considering one side of the equation, to kill someone without knowing whether its right to do so based on a single trait that we don't know the full details of is prejudice, as we don't know what that trait entails or what this person themselves wants, when if this a sane universe and not a grimdark 40k one, they probably don't want to harm people.
now, this "we want witches dead" group could refuse to acknowledge this, say they are right and try to kill her anyways along with me for defending her. but they aren't good anymore if that is true, and I feel no guilt when my PC kills them in her defense. now if this was all a trick by the GM to suddenly make the witch evil kill the guys who want the witch to live then attack me, I'm just freaking angry because they pulled a gotcha on me, because this entire scenario feels like a gotcha waiting to happen, because two moral options of equal value just sounds like the GM going "okay lets what your personal compass points to so I can stomp on you for choosing any option at all." its the moral equivalent of a fork in the road with no other features: without clues to help you pick the right path, its all just luck, a coinflip. with the possibility that both faces of the coin lead to ruin. not really good GMing either way.

[Kyutaru]

now its possible that everyone is evil, that the mob wanting her dead are people prejudiced against witches and thus will try to kill her no matter what, that the mob wanting her alive are actually witch conspirators wishing to garner her favor and thus work with her to kill everyone in the city, and the witch is evil. that is technically all morally equal options in that they're all equally bad to pick, and thus the actual moral option is to kill all three groups. but I generally try not to assume things that lead to paranoia massacres.

It may surprise you to know that this is how real life generally goes though. People will say one thing publicly and carry ulterior motives for why they're really doing something. Supporters and condemners will form up sides to further their agenda. This scenario you portrayed as paranoid is actually the most realistic one.

now if this was all a trick by the GM to suddenly make the witch evil kill the guys who want the witch to live then attack me, I'm just freaking angry because they pulled a gotcha on me, because this entire scenario feels like a gotcha waiting to happen, because two moral options of equal value just sounds like the GM going "okay lets what your personal compass points to so I can stomp on you for choosing any option at all." its the moral equivalent of a fork in the road with no other features: without clues to help you pick the right path, its all just luck, a coinflip. with the possibility that both faces of the coin lead to ruin. not really good GMing either way.

This is the basis of the Witcher's grey morality and path of neutrality. Choosing sides is always wrong and makes you as much to blame for what comes of it. There is no Good vs Evil because both sides are flawed and seeking their own purposes. So whichever side you choose you're supporting the evils of that one in addition to the good they seek to do. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing an evil.

[Lord Raziere]

It may surprise you to know that this is how real life generally goes though. People will say one thing publicly and carry ulterior motives for why they're really doing something. Supporters and condemners will form up sides to further their agenda. This scenario you portrayed as paranoid is actually the most realistic one.


This is the basis of the Witcher's grey morality and path of neutrality. Choosing sides is always wrong and makes you as much to blame for what comes of it. There is no Good vs Evil because both sides are flawed and seeking their own purposes. So whichever side you choose you're supporting the evils of that one in addition to the good they seek to do. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing an evil.

You believe everyone is evil and deserving of a paranoia massacre by murderhobo? I have nothing further to say to you

[Kyutaru]

You believe everyone is evil and deserving of a paranoia massacre by murderhobo? I have nothing further to say to you

You added the murderhobo bit along with the concept of evil. I believe the realistic portrayal of humans as a selfish species who will push for goals that benefit them. A protectorate that defends a known criminal to garner favors and a mob full of prejudice wishing them dead are as on the mark as you can get.

[Lord Raziere]

You added the murderhobo bit along with the concept of evil. I believe the realistic portrayal of humans as a selfish species who will push for goals that benefit them. A protectorate that defends a known criminal to garner favors and a mob full of prejudice wishing them dead are as on the mark as you can get.

I fundamentally disagree with you. the good situation where everyone lives is the realistic one in my eyes. Your belief holds no value to me and your continued insistence to try and push it convinces me you do not care for my mental well being. Some of us need more faith in humanity than that to be happy and not depressed. Again: I have nothing else to say to you. Please don't push this.

[Kyutaru]

I fundamentally disagree with you. the good situation where everyone lives is the realistic one in my eyes. Your belief holds no value to me and your continued insistence to try and push it convinces me you do not care for my mental well being. Some of us need more faith in humanity than that to be happy and not depressed. Again: I have nothing else to say to you. Please don't push this.

I haven't continued to insist anything by stating the point, much less by referencing a popular work pertaining to it. My second reply came from your misconception regarding my original one as I had to correct your misunderstanding. Your state of mind is not mine to burden and if you disagree with the position then that's normal in a world of differing perspectives. But it's a public board and the discussion merits the portrayal. In short, I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Vahnavoi]

@Lord Raziere: you are doing two things at once:

The first is failure to engage. Imagine a teacher asking, "you have two apples and you give one to Suzie, how many apples do you then have left?" and a kid asking in response "but why would I give my apple to Suzie?". You are doing exactly what the kid is doing: getting sidetracked by details that don't matter for the solution of the problem. The correct way to engage the question is to assume, for the sake of discussion, that you will give an apple to Suzie, for whatever reason. The same is true for any game: there's a point where you stop asking questions from your GM and just accept that the details they've given you are all the details that matter.

The second is a more bizarre argument about nature of moral complexity. You say that moral problems with two (or more) exclusive but equivalent options are a "fairy tale" that "doesn't exist". But the reason why I can claim this trait exists on the abstract leveand talk about it "in a vacuum" because we know plenty of complex physical and logical systems behave like this. Why'd you presume moral systems are different? You're functionally saying "you must account for all variables to solve a system of equations!" and then "every system of equations must have a single, unique solution!" There are cases where can show the latter is untrue by following the former.

[Lord Raziere]

Nope. I've had my fill of philosophy for today/this week/month whatever. I'm getting angry and your talking about things I don't understand or care to figure out, especially since I do not see how a blanket statement that ignores the consequences or the possible scenarios I laid out that I find useful to keep in mind when considering situations like is dismissed as whatever your saying, I don't really know.

Bye thread I'm gone. have fun without me. I'm peacing out.

[OldTrees1]

@Lord Raziere: you are doing two things at once:

The first is failure to engage. Imagine a teacher asking, "you have two apples and you give one to Suzie, how many apples do you then have left?" and a kid asking in response "but why would I give my apple to Suzie?". You are doing exactly what the kid is doing: getting sidetracked by details that don't matter for the solution of the problem. The correct way to engage the question is to assume, for the sake of discussion, that you will give an apple to Suzie, for whatever reason. The same is true for any game: there's a point where you stop asking questions from your GM and just accept that the details they've given you are all the details that matter.

Apologies I am not Lord Raziere but I noticed something,

With math, we expect the teacher to know which details are relevant and which are not.

But the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. I have DM'd many years and the players can still surprise me. If they think there is yet another relevant question, there is yet another relevant question.

So when we ask a hypothetical D&D question on a forum, how much of the question is like the math question, and how much of it is like playing the actual scenario. It falls in between and depends on context.

Here the context is that the hypothetical was crafted with the intent to show 2 conflicting sides to demonstrate a point about conflict being inevitable (including having inaction default to one side). Lord Raziere tried to find "the" correct 3rd option.

@Lord Raziere: you are doing two things at once:

The second is a more bizarre argument about nature of moral complexity. You say that moral problems with two (or more) exclusive but equivalent options are a "fairy tale" that "doesn't exist". But the reason why I can claim this trait exists on the abstract level and talk about it "in a vacuum" is because we know plenty of complex physical and logical systems behave like this. Why'd you presume moral systems are different? You're functionally saying "you must account for all variables to solve a system of equations!" and then "every system of equations must have a single, unique solution!" There are cases where can show the latter is untrue by following the former.

Again, apologies for not being Lord Raziere.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I think both of them are saying "If options 1 and 2 are wrong, find a 3rd option". They just differ in which 3rd option they default to. Kyutaru was talking about inaction. Lord Raziere was talking about investigating to get the facts needed to create an active 3rd option.

I don't think this means Lord Raziere expects there to be a single unique solution. Their post sounds more like, "Well, start by asking about the other morally relevant details". However in the particular scenario the two sides believe in mutually exclusive goals due to believing in mutually exclusive realities. Once the facts are determined then they will point to one side or neither. Now perhaps a different scenario would avoid this problem, but it might have gotten a different reaction too, so we can't discuss the counterfactual with much precision.



Edit:
As a result I can understand their subthread discussion ending. There are several unshared premises that are hindering both arguments.

[Vahnavoi]

Apologies I am not Lord Raziere but I noticed something,

With math, we expect the teacher to know which details are relevant and which are not.

But the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. I have DM'd many years and the players can still surprise me. If they think there is yet another relevant question, there is yet another relevant question.

The GM doesn't need to be an expert on what a player or their character considers relevant, they only need to be an expert on what the moral framework of their game considers relevant. This works, because a GM can make arbitrary authorial decisions about the subject matter. For the sake of a hypothetical, we can assume the GM has already made up their mind and determined two options equal to one another, and all that's left is the players (and their characters) arguing with each other.

What you describe of your own play preferences instead suggests a scenario where the GM has not yet made up their mind, and hence the players (and their characters) are not merely arguing with each other, they're arguing for their case before the GM. You could end up here because you're not an expert and didn't do the math right, but just as well it could be because you left the problem open ended on purpose.

You can generalize this to all puzzle design: a GM can make their puzzles so that they know all their solutions beforehand, or they can make them so that they only know some of the answers but have an effective method for checking whether player-given solutions would work.

The rest, I don't feel a need to talk more of.

[Democratus]

Is this discussion even on topic any more?

The OP question was whether once can be good and also not be nice.

There have been many legitimate responses showing how the answer here could be "yes" or "no" depending on how you define "good" and "nice".

Are the last two pages of discussion getting any closer to resolving anything?

[OldTrees1]

The GM doesn't need to be an expert on what a player or their character considers relevant, they only need to be an expert on what the moral framework of their game considers relevant. This works, because a GM can make arbitrary authorial decisions about the subject matter. For the sake of a hypothetical, we can assume the GM has already made up their mind and determined two options equal to one another, and all that's left is the players (and their characters) arguing with each other.

What you describe of your own play preferences instead suggests a scenario where the GM has not yet made up their mind, and hence the players (and their characters) are not merely arguing with each other, they're arguing for their case before the GM. You could end up here because you're not an expert and didn't do the math right, but just as well it could be because you left the problem open ended on purpose.

You can generalize this to all puzzle design: a GM can make their puzzles so that they know all their solutions beforehand, or they can make them so that they only know some of the answers but have an effective method for checking whether player-given solutions would work.

The rest, I don't feel a need to talk more of.

PC, like most moral agents, decide what to do when faced by a moral choice based upon their moral beliefs. As such what is relevant to the player roleplaying the PC is not necessarily the same as what is relevant to the DM when rendering moral judgement. I normally try to avoid talking about moral truth and moral beliefs in the same post because they are unrelated, but I believe the distinction is important when discussing whether to shut down the player's investigation.

I have not said whether I do or do not make up my mind about the moral judgement in advance. I mentioned that the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. Then I made the intuitive leap that the GM is not an expert on which details will be relevant to the scenario (because if a player asks a question, then the answer is relevant to the question). You do have interesting observations on the DM knowing the moral judgement vs leaving it open until after hearing from the players, but I will leave it there.

When the PCs are faced with moral choices, is it a puzzle? Yes. Is it a solved puzzle or an open puzzle? Is it a case where the PC is trying to solve "what ought I do?" and the player is trying to solve "what will my PC do?"? In that case I expect the player to have their PC investigate until their PC arrives at a conclusion. However despite the DM's ability to know the morally relevant facts, they are not the expert on what facts are relevant to the PC's moral beliefs. As such they don't necessarily know which facts are relevant to the player, or to the PC. The only know which facts are relevant to the innermost puzzle of this multi layered puzzle. So I think it is premature for the DM to shut down further investigation, since they don't know if all the relevant facts have been gathered.

Bring it back to the example: Our hypothetical DM has set one group seeking to execute a person and another group seeking to provide sanctuary for the person. Our hypothetical DM has determined both positions are moral, and even equivalently moral. Whether that is a reasonable position IRL does not matter because the DM has authorial input here. Now enter the PC, the PC is trying to figure out which side to help, but also what they ought to do. The Player is trying to find what their PC will do. In this case the Player decides the PC will investigate for facts the PC finds relevant, even if the DM does not consider them relevant to the moral dilemma. Are those additional facts relevant to the scenario? I would say yes, they are part of the PC arriving at a conclusion and part of the Player solving "what will my PC do in this circumstance?". It is not a failure to engage, it is engaging with facts the DM might not expect to be relevant, but which were relevant.

Is this discussion even on topic any more?

The OP question was whether once can be good and also not be nice.

There have been many legitimate responses showing how the answer here could be "yes" or "no" depending on how you define "good" and "nice".

Are the last two pages of discussion getting any closer to resolving anything?

Emphatic No. It is not on topic and the last subthread (the one before Vahnavoi and myself) was a stubborn argument between 2 people (one of which left).

However the thread in general has been resolved several times over. Good is not necessarily Nice and Nice is not necessarily Good but there is a relationship between them because both can involve benevolence towards the mental and emotional health of others.

[Vahnavoi]

Generally speaking, a GM doesn't have to stop their players from chasing a red herring of their own making. In that sense, I agree that failure to engage a moral dilemma isn't necessarily a failure to engage with the game; a game can still move on as the players and their characters chase for whatever they think is relevant. But, if we loop back to my original argument, there's no point in going through this process in case of a hypothetical: you can assume the players or characters have already finished this process and acquired the information they want, and what's left of the conflict is caused by their differing values, not missing information.

[OldTrees1]

Generally speaking, a GM doesn't have to stop their players from chasing a red herring of their own making. In that sense, I agree that failure to engage a moral dilemma isn't necessarily a failure to engage with the game; a game can still move on as the players and their characters chase for whatever they think is relevant. But, if we loop back to my original argument, there's no point in going through this process in case of a hypothetical: you can assume the players or characters have already finished this process and acquired the information they want, and what's left of the conflict is caused by their differing values, not missing information.

Indeed that can happen. I don't think Lord Raziere was done gather information in the sanctuary or execution example. So I don't know their reaction to a conflict existing after that phase.

Personally I would start by concluding some tautologies:
"Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions."
"If both sides have valid solutions, then either solution is valid."
"If one side is mistaken, at least one side could find a better solution than their current solution."

From those tautologies I would conclude either the conflict is unnecessary (because either is valid) or the conflict is unnecessary (because the next step is more investigation). But it is hard to know why the conflict in unnecessary, so conflict is possible.

For more I will need to reread the part of the subthread specific to your points to Lord Raziere. Doing that now.
Edit:
So once we get past the "get enough information" section and into the "can there be multiple mutually exclusive valid solutions in this case?" it seems that the specific case of sanctuary vs execution is a poor choice of example. Under a given moral system there can be cases with multiple mutually exclusive valid moral solutions and cases with only mutually compatible moral solutions. It could be that when a life is on the line, Lord Raziere's moral theory does not have multiple mutually exclusive valid moral solutions. The life should either be protected or extinguished, rather than both being valid moral solutions. To be frank, many moral theories agree with them on this point (Which is not a compelling argument, just an observation). So while your point of multiple mutually exclusive valid moral solutions has merit, it might not apply to the sanctuary or execution example.

[Democratus]

Personally I would start by concluding some tautologies:
"Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions."
"If both sides have valid solutions, then either solution is valid."
"If one side is mistaken, at least one side could find a better solution than their current solution."

I'm not sure that first one is a tautology, since it ignores the possibility that both sides are mistaken.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure that first one is a tautology, since it ignores the possibility that both sides are mistaken.

How can you have both sides be mistaken and yet not have one side be mistaken? If there exist 1+ of something, then there exists at least 1 of something.

[Democratus]

How can you have both sides be mistaken and yet not have one side be mistaken?

Correct. You can have one side be mistaken. And you can have two sides be mistaken, which is not having one side be mistaken.

In a tautological statement, one side covers the meaning of exactly one side.

A tautology has to be true in the context of only itself and true in all interpretations. That's the weird magic of them.

[OldTrees1]

Correct. You can have one side be mistaken. And you can have two sides be mistaken, which is not having one side be mistaken.

In a tautological statement, one side covers the meaning of exactly one side.

A tautology has to be true in the context of only itself and true in all interpretations. That's the weird magic of them.

If 3 sides are mistaken, then 2 sides are mistaken, then 1 side is mistaken. Because the claim "there exists 3" implies "there exist 2" implies "there exist 1". If exactly 3 sides are mistaken, then 2 sides are mistaken BUT not exactly 2 sides are mistaken. Because the clam "there exist exactly 3" implies "there exist 3" but does not imply "there exist exactly 2".

The claim "Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions." does not say exactly 1 or 0 sides are mistaken. It says either 1 mistaken side exists or exactly 0 sides are mistaken. Aka either "x >= 1" or "x == 0". Aka "x >= 0" (assuming the domain is integers).

In a tautological statement, one side covers the meaning of exactly one side.

"Either one side is mistaken, or both sides have valid solutions."

I see no evidence of "exactly one" in my claim. I see the equivalent of "there exists at least one" and "there exists exactly 0" on either side of the "or" but I do not see "there exists exactly one". Now I could decompose "there exists at least one" into "there exists exactly 1 or there exists more than 1" but no matter what, that left hand side means 1+.

[Lord Raziere]

Apologies I am not Lord Raziere but I noticed something,

With math, we expect the teacher to know which details are relevant and which are not.

But the GM is not the expert on which details the PC or the Player will consider relevant. I have DM'd many years and the players can still surprise me. If they think there is yet another relevant question, there is yet another relevant question.

So when we ask a hypothetical D&D question on a forum, how much of the question is like the math question, and how much of it is like playing the actual scenario. It falls in between and depends on context.

Here the context is that the hypothetical was crafted with the intent to show 2 conflicting sides to demonstrate a point about conflict being inevitable (including having inaction default to one side). Lord Raziere tried to find "the" correct 3rd option.




Again, apologies for not being Lord Raziere.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I think both of them are saying "If options 1 and 2 are wrong, find a 3rd option". They just differ in which 3rd option they default to. Kyutaru was talking about inaction. Lord Raziere was talking about investigating to get the facts needed to create an active 3rd option.

I don't think this means Lord Raziere expects there to be a single unique solution. Their post sounds more like, "Well, start by asking about the other morally relevant details". However in the particular scenario the two sides believe in mutually exclusive goals due to believing in mutually exclusive realities. Once the facts are determined then they will point to one side or neither. Now perhaps a different scenario would avoid this problem, but it might have gotten a different reaction too, so we can't discuss the counterfactual with much precision.

Yeah, this is pretty accurate to my logic.

I wasn't expect on finding a perfect or unique or even a third solution yeah msotly I was jsut trying to figure out which world I'm living in, I just don't really care about white room scenarios, since I find that a lot of moral situations even in roleplaying end up having other details surrounding them that change the situation. for example how powerful and dangerous the witch is might render the whole situation moot: for example if she is capable of destroying a city district or above, then I have to send out evacuation orders to make sure both mobs get as far away from her as possible and I have to be very careful in my negotiations to make sure this is peacefully done, because it'd be preferable that I don't cause collateral damage to people's livelihoods and handing her over to an angry mob is just a surefire way to make that mob dead no matter how justified they are in their anger.

so yeah, technically maybe in some universe both sides could have a point, but it depends on what world we're living in and you'd have to find a very specific world where the scenario legitimately holds water. otherwise some overlooked detail just makes this state collapse into one side being right, which is why I don't value the example all that highly, because it sounds like one of arbitrary philosophical hypotheticals that in theory seems like a conundrum but really isn't. kind of like the boy stealing bread for his family one: why not just have the boy work for the bread-maker instead to earn the food? there is a solution there, and I don't really care for pigeonholing solutions into binary choices. especially ones where its highly dependent on the actual reality of the world where they are moral or not.

[Vahnavoi]

OldTrees1: I can admit that conceiving of a moral system and a situation where both executing and sparing a person are equally good can be difficult. I had one written out, but decided to omit it for sake of brevity; in retrospect, maybe I should've posted it. I instead tried to encourage moving past that particular example, but that went poorly.

[Democratus]

If 3 sides are mistaken, then 2 sides are mistaken, then 1 side is mistaken.

Not true, either in casual speech or in logically rigorous description.

A tautology must be self-true for all interpretations possible.

However, we are way off in the weeds - given that the topic is good vs. nice. So I'll stop cluttering up the thread.

[kyoryu]

Again, apologies for not being Lord Raziere.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I think both of them are saying "If options 1 and 2 are wrong, find a 3rd option". They just differ in which 3rd option they default to. Kyutaru was talking about inaction. Lord Raziere was talking about investigating to get the facts needed to create an active 3rd option.

Depends on the situation, but in a place where multiple parties are trying to, ya know, kill each other or claim self defense, the immediate active option is, like, stop the impending violence?

Very few cases where that isn't a good thing.

[Tvtyrant]

OldTrees1: I can admit that conceiving of a moral system and a situation where both executing and sparing a person are equally good can be difficult. I had one written out, but decided to omit it for sake of brevity; in retrospect, maybe I should've posted it. I instead tried to encourage moving past that particular example, but that went poorly.

Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

[Lord Raziere]

Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

If thats the world I'm living in, I'm just killing the mindflayer then. I'm no 3.5 paladin or exalted character, I have pragmatic things to do like make sure people are safe. I'll just do good elsewhere if others lecture me over it.

[hamishspence]

Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

Outside of "enemy has been put on trial for serious crimes and sentenced to death", yes.

[OldTrees1]

OldTrees1: I can admit that conceiving of a moral system and a situation where both executing and sparing a person are equally good can be difficult. I had one written out, but decided to omit it for sake of brevity; in retrospect, maybe I should've posted it. I instead tried to encourage moving past that particular example, but that went poorly.

Hmm. I think you were in a tough situation either way. Even in hindsight, trying to move past that particular example sounds like the more viable path. It just didn't quite work this time.

Depends on the situation, but in a place where multiple parties are trying to, ya know, kill each other or claim self defense, the immediate active option is, like, stop the impending violence?

Very few cases where that isn't a good thing.

Yeah, that is generally true.

Mindflayer gets captured. If you imprison them they have a high chance of getting free due to mind control powers, killing a captured enemy is Evil.

Um, that is an attempt at making 2 invalid solutions. Not quite the same thing.

[NorthernPhoenix]

If thats the world I'm living in, I'm just killing the mindflayer then. I'm no 3.5 paladin or exalted character, I have pragmatic things to do like make sure people are safe. I'll just do good elsewhere if others lecture me over it.

A Mindflayer in most DnD contexts is a supernatural monster of death effectively a (lowercase) demon. Killing it wouldn't make you "not Good" outside of gatcha land. However, how you went about it certainly would. At least in my mind. You can kill a Mindflayer and still be nice. If you're not, that's what makes it "non-good", to me.

[Xervous]

Outside of "enemy has been put on trial for serious crimes and sentenced to death", yes.

But the senate is too slow to act, if only we could get the chancellor emergency powers!

There must either be some high power individuals involved in capturing mind flayers or some intriguing circumstances. Or a pending Darwin Award.

[Lord Raziere]

A Mindflayer in most DnD contexts is a supernatural monster of death effectively a (lowercase) demon. Killing it wouldn't make you "not Good" outside of gatcha land. However, how you went about it certainly would. At least in my mind. You can kill a Mindflayer and still be nice. If you're not, that's what makes it "non-good", to me.

I mean I'm just smart/efficient. if I torture it that just gives it more time to mind control, got to do it fast so....quick probably, painless maybe, but my first priority is making sure the problem doesn't grow like a weed and endanger more people in negligence.

[OldTrees1]

@all
Let's move past that example. Here is another one:
A group of Ancients Paladins discover / rescue a young orphan. They know of several places that would raise the orphan. Each has different pros and cons. The orphan is does not have a preference (due to being too young or just not having a preference). The Ancients Paladins have a mild disagreement over which place to take the orphan.

This might be a decent example of multiple mutually exclusive but equally valid moral solutions. Although I did not succeed in tying in the topic of Nice to the example.