How to Play a Good-Aligned Character

[Cazero]

The irrational part of Good isn't at a "because you have to ask" level. It's at establishing altruism, empathy, happiness, respect for life and other things of the sort as positive values without rational justification.

[icefractal]

Can a good guy use a sword? Not now that I've had to ask.

And this one's not even an exaggeration. Poison is a lethal weapon (although less so in D&D), but so is a sword. Certainly someone who calls themselves Good shouldn't be killing people without a damn good reason, but that applies equally to doing it with a sword or spell as it does to poison.

Now when you get to non-combat poisoning, some uses are bad, but that's because of their effects (collateral damage from poisoning food that others may eat too, for example) rather than the fact that they're poison.

[Kaptin Keen]

This is an unjustified statement. Why wouldn't morality be functional?

It just isn't. It is essentially fluffy, and the minute you try to get around the fluffyness, you slip.

Philosophy is full of this. The best attempt (in my opinion), is the golden rule: Do onto others as you'd like them to do unto you. With a different wording but the same end result, you get the categoric imperative: Let your actions be such that they could be elevated to a general rule for everyone to follow.

Sounds good. Doesn't work. You can take either of those and accelerate from zero to my nuclear holocaust example from earlier, simply because 'well, the greatest sum of universal happiness will require this pre-emptive strike against the Jovians.'

Honestly it works better with stuff like: 'Would I tell my mother I did this' - or 'what would some good guy we all agree upon is really good do?'

Then let's keep asking questions.

Can a good guy use a sword? Not now that I've had to ask.

Can a good guy cast a spell? Well, not now that I've asked the question.

Can a good guy walk an old lady across the street? Well, if I have to ask, then it must be evil.

Can a good guy really justify allowing himself to continue breathing? I mean, what if someone else needs that air?

It is dangerous to make half baked moral absolutes.

This statement would include helping a hag get across a barricaded street where she could eat orphans.

Context matters, therefore justification by context is an integral function of morality.

You don't need to ask any of those questions. You already know the answer. That's my point: Moral is intuitive. If you need to ask, you're already trying to convince yourself despite your better judgement.

[Pleh]

Even in that case, I'd make the argument that it depends on how he sees his act. If it's "this is wrong, but I have to do it to survive, and will attempt to make amends later as best I can?" Then sure, he can be neutral or good (in a D&D sense). If it's "hey, I'm hungry, yay, food!" then I'd argue it's getting closer to evil.

Don't forget the more likely thought: "if I don't take this, I will die a slow, painful death."

Animalistic morality.

This is my primary issue with Utilitarianism (and this argument is certainly getting into Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism, and we sure as hell aren't going to resolve *that* in a forum thread). Anything can be justified in a Utilitarian system by someone that's sufficiently clever.

Sure, but in terms of justification, it matters to whom the justification is rendered. You could be justified in your own eyes and remain condemned by the state. You might fool a king, but probably not a god (or even an angel).

You are as justified as you are clever AND persuasive. Not perfect, but then neither is a system with no flexibility with respect to context.

"Am I infringing on someone's rights to their life (including health or time) or their property without their consent, and outside of the context of defending my rights or the rights of others" is a really, really good place to start. That's a pretty Deontological point of view, of course. But, at the minimum, it's pretty hard to get to a truly EVIL place by following that.

And in RPGs, from whence do Character Rights come? From their creator? What if an evil deity gives their people the right to take the lives of others?

It just isn't. It is essentially fluffy, and the minute you try to get around the fluffyness, you slip.

I reject this. Anything proposed without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

You don't need to ask any of those questions. You already know the answer. That's my point: Moral is intuitive. If you need to ask, you're already trying to convince yourself despite your better judgement.

Morality is intuitive, but it is not universal.

Everyone (except sociopaths) feels some compulsion to ethics, but not everyone feels the same reaction to the same stimuli.

What if I don't use poison, but instead I use medicine? You know, just some sedative to ease the pain from the injuries my allies gave the creature. Side effects may include unconsciousness.

[icefractal]

You don't need to ask any of those questions. You already know the answer. That's my point: Moral is intuitive. If you need to ask, you're already trying to convince yourself despite your better judgement.

But what's "intuitive" isn't universal. For example, I don't think of poison as any more "questionable" than violence in the first place is. It's just not something I have a visceral reaction to.

For that matter, speaking of gut reactions, "fair fight" gives me a somewhat negative one, because I think of it as a thing people who are good at fighting say so they can beat other people up without fear of external interference. Should I then say that Kord is evil?

[Calthropstu]

And this one's not even an exaggeration. Poison is a lethal weapon (although less so in D&D), but so is a sword. Certainly someone who calls themselves Good shouldn't be killing people without a damn good reason, but that applies equally to doing it with a sword or spell as it does to poison.

Now when you get to non-combat poisoning, some uses are bad, but that's because of their effects (collateral damage from poisoning food that others may eat too, for example) rather than the fact that they're poison.

The reason most consider poison evil is because it causes unnecessary suffering. Where a sword will kill you, poison will drag it out and slowly and agonizingly cause you to die long after the injury. It is the causing of suffering that is evil, not the killing.

[JNAProductions]

The reason most consider poison evil is because it causes unnecessary suffering. Where a sword will kill you, poison will drag it out and slowly and agonizingly cause you to die long after the injury. It is the causing of suffering that is evil, not the killing.

So use poisons that kill quickly, painlessly, or both. Realistic? I don't know. But possible in the D&D world? Definitely.

[Knaight]

The reason most consider poison evil is because it causes unnecessary suffering. Where a sword will kill you, poison will drag it out and slowly and agonizingly cause you to die long after the injury. It is the causing of suffering that is evil, not the killing.

Putting aside how that depends on the poison, sword wounds can also easily kill slowly and painfully, with people dying from wounds or sepsis hours or days after being wounded.

Then there's the small matter of fire, which was instrumental in real life warfare and only gets more important once you bring mages with fire into the mix. Burns are exceptionally painful injuries, and burns on large areas tend to lead to long and excruciating deaths.

[Kaptin Keen]

I reject this. Anything proposed without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

Morality is intuitive, but it is not universal.

But what's "intuitive" isn't universal.

Both true. But intuitive morals is actually closer to being right than the pragmatic functional morals that is the only alternative. We're very, very close, speaking globally, across all nations, religions, political systems, to something like a universally agreed upon, intuitive moral code.

It get's stretched super thin whenever politics or common greed is involved, but no where on earth is there a group or culture that thinks theft, murder or voilence is a grand idea, and essentially good.

[denthor]

You do things without expecting payment. Your first thought is this helpful not can they pay me?

How about do I really need to kill in this fight? Bar fight or can I subdue?

How about turning in evil items to local good churches for being destroyed rather then finding ways to keep and use them.

No poison use. If chaotic maybe strength or dexterity charisma may work. No constitution poison ever, do not allow this to be used by others either.

Why no poison use? I'd agree that that should probably not be your MO, maybe... But what's wrong with knock-out poisons? Or poisoning the evil vizier, so as to avoid a fight that might end with a lot of innocents dead?

Like my post said strength Dexterity or charisma poisons these paralyze maybe acceptable. These do not kill. Even wisdom or intelligence could be justified. As chaotic and good.

Constitution poison is a final judgment. Or as someone once said a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Playing good means you do not use the tactics of the enemy. As for your other question about the vizier if you kill her with her own poison method. You sink to here level of Evil. She wins in death your alignmenttakes a hit. The greater good is served yes at your expense.

[JNAProductions]

And a sword is... What?

Swords are pretty dang lethal.

[icefractal]

And a sword is... What?

Swords are pretty dang lethal.

This. I mean, there's a plausible argument to be made that going to lethal violence as quickly as most D&D characters do would disqualify you from being Good aligned. Something usually glossed over for the sake of gameplay.

But in the cases where you /are/ accepting bloody dismemberment as acceptable act, I really can't see how poison makes it any worse.

[Kaptin Keen]

I really can't see how poison makes it any worse.

Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal. Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

It doesn't have to make sense. It isn't quantifiable. It's morals, and poison is immoral.

For whatever reason. Going down the path of pragmatic rationalizations for your actions is what being evil is.

[Knaight]

For whatever reason. Going down the path of pragmatic rationalizations for your actions is what being evil is.

Yeah, because refusing to think about your morals at all and thus condemning others based on knee jerk responses when they've never actually done any harm isn't something that happens. Plus, even if it were it obviously wouldn't be bad in any way. Similarly, "it's just moral, don't think about it" is totally useless for rationalizing your actions.

[NovenFromTheSun]

Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal.

Because there's a very large chance of killing someone other than who you're trying to (if that target is one you're "allowed" to kill in the first place).

Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

Because, conceivably, the former scenario might involve the person trying to kill you. I've heard no reports of someone committing homicide in their sleep.

It doesn't have to make sense. It isn't quantifiable. It's morals, and poison is immoral.

And yet I just quantified it. Morality wasn't determined by flipping coins.

[Kaptin Keen]

Yeah, because refusing to think about your morals at all and thus condemning others based on knee jerk responses when they've never actually done any harm isn't something that happens. Plus, even if it were it obviously wouldn't be bad in any way. Similarly, "it's just moral, don't think about it" is totally useless for rationalizing your actions.

Like I just said: When ever you commit morals to a formula, it goes wrong. You can always and without exception run such a rule to it's logical conclusion, which will be something unrelentingly horrendous. Going with intuitive is literally a better solution.

It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.

And yet I just quantified it. Morality wasn't determined by flipping coins.

You did nothing of the sort.

[Knaight]

Like I just said: When ever you commit morals to a formula, it goes wrong. You can always and without exception run such a rule to it's logical conclusion, which will be something unrelentingly horrendous. Going with intuitive is literally a better solution.

Relying on intuition has a similarly horrific failure rate.

It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.

Sure there is. Someone who commits a spontaneous crime made one quick decision, usually in an emotional state. Someone who commits a premeditated crime made a decision, held to it, and doubled down on it in every step on the planning. Thus the second person did something worse, and is also more dangerous.

It's almost like there's an entire moral philosophy behind criminal law, with people actually thinking about it.

[Pleh]

Both true. But intuitive morals is actually closer to being right than the pragmatic functional morals that is the only alternative.

Citation, please.

We're very, very close, speaking globally, across all nations, religions, political systems, to something like a universally agreed upon, intuitive moral code.

Appeal to authority. Just because everyone else is jumping off the bridge doesn't actually make it a good idea. Explain how intuitive morality is actually better, or you have no case.

Furthermore, I challenge the statement to explain how this is supposed to work in a system known to be at least partially populated with sociopaths, who definitively do not feel morality by intuition.

And then, for those who aren't sociopaths, but feel similar dispassion for one (but not all) "laws" established by intuitive morality, how do you teach them to respect laws that are only based on the feelings of others that they do not share? That is to say, how do you help people create an empathetic link to a law's reason for being if you cannot rationalize its purpose?

How do you accurately communicate the Letter of the Law, if the Law's Spirit cannot be rationally explained?

If the Law's Spirit can be rationally explained, then exceptions (that is, distinctions between actions that violate the Law's Letter, but not its Spirit) can be rationally determined. This process is known as Justification: to make Just what is Illegal or Unjust.

And keep in mind that Justification by Exception should always be made on a case by case basis. There's room to document precedent over time, but Justifying a particular exception once doesn't automatically mean that particular action should always therefore be justified in the future (since the exact details are probably at least a little different in every case).

It get's stretched super thin whenever politics or common greed is involved, but no where on earth is there a group or culture that thinks theft, murder or voilence is a grand idea, and essentially good.

There are some particular radical groups around the world that would beg to differ with you. Many cultures and countries glorify the concept of eradicating millions of people in other countries. We don't need to let this devolve into details about global politics, but your statement is so blatantly false as to suggest you don't really know what's going on in the world around you.

I'd suggest researching recent events in North Korea and the Middle East. See what you think after reading about some of the philosophies espoused by these individuals pertaining to their beliefs about whether or not violence and murder is a good thing.

Playing good means you do not use the tactics of the enemy. As for your other question about the vizier if you kill her with her own poison method. You sink to here level of Evil. She wins in death your alignmenttakes a hit. The greater good is served yes at your expense.

Again, context matters. If you're playing a "dawn of civilization" era game, a TON of moral philosophy hasn't developed yet. Morality DOES evolve over time. We only recently came to a global opinion that we probably shouldn't be enslaving people (and we haven't fully shaken that idea out of our heads universally).

What I'm saying is there should be some accommodation for situations where the Setting says that no one in the world really knows any better.

Your statement isn't wrong, just it should come with the disclaimer that it's context-specific.

And I can hear you thinking, "But then no one is Good." Good/Evil has to be a Spectrum, not a Boolean. In a world where no one is Good, every action that is reasonably better than others is the new definition of Good until that level of Goodness gradually becomes commonplace. Then the standard rises and Culture moves forward into enlightenment.

It's nice to think that it's as easy as saying, "doing Evil is always Evil," but this puts us in the realm that Good characters cannot exist in a world where sometimes there are only Evil options available. A Good character should be able to at least choose the least offensive of the evil options and continue to advocate and press for societal change.

Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal. Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

It doesn't have to make sense. It isn't quantifiable. It's morals, and poison is immoral.

For whatever reason. Going down the path of pragmatic rationalizations for your actions is what being evil is.[/QUOTE]

Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal. Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

Because there's a very large chance of killing someone other than who you're trying to (if that target is one you're "allowed" to kill in the first place).

Because, conceivably, the former scenario might involve the person trying to kill you. I've heard no reports of someone committing homicide in their sleep.

Well, it's more than just that you might hurt an unintended target; there's also the laws based on "inhumane" treatment of your enemies. You don't get a free pass to mutilate a person just because they attacked you and you therefore have all freedom to do as you please with them all under the flag of "self-defense." There can be excessive force.

Good creatures really should be causing the least possible amount of harm in whatever harm they are compelled to distribute.

But this is exactly why they need to be given the opportunity to rationalize and justify their actions. In the heat of the moment, they probably didn't have time to think through all the moral philosophy of their actions, so taken in hindsight, they ought to reflect and try to learn how to handle similar situations better in the future.

Like I just said: When ever you commit morals to a formula, it goes wrong. You can always and without exception run such a rule to it's logical conclusion, which will be something unrelentingly horrendous. Going with intuitive is literally a better solution.

It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.

Morality always goes wrong, no matter what you do. That's because we have imperfect people running an imperfect justice system with imperfect understanding of an imperfect sense of an imperfect morality.

It will always go horrendously wrong sometimes.

Using Intuitive Morality will certainly not change that fact, especially since that is more or less the state from which Civilization evolved. Before we had the capacity for rational thought, all we had was intuitive ethics.

Since that time, we've had never ending disagreements about ethics, laws, and morals (intuitive morality has NEVER stopped us from having disagreements and differing perspectives on morality). True enough that, for the most part, we have a few things that we have come to some solid consensus on (no one likes getting murdered or stolen from, so probably we shouldn't do that to others), but generalizing this over the whole spectrum of morality overlooks a TON of nuances and fringe cases.

To resolve our disputes, we used our developing sense of Rational Thought to express our Intuitive Morality through an impartial medium so that we could communicate our values to one another and establish answers to disagreements that would be more or less universally applied.

Rational Morality is naturally going to occasionally lead to certain justifications being made.

If you say this is evil, then I say it certainly seems intuitive to me that it is less evil than denying my own intuitive trust of rational thought in favor of some other person's "gut instinct" (when the other person in question is known to be just as flawed as I am and suspect to having an evil agenda to begin with).

[Vhaidara]

It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.

...I'm like, 99% sure that premeditated IS punished harder than spontaneous. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter (premeditation)

[Kaptin Keen]

Citation, please.

Get real =D

[D+1]

So, any advice on how to play a good-aligned character? I'd appreciate it.

SIMPLE: Have the PC do as much for others as they do for themselves. I would say, "do more," but even good guys need to have faults, and a bit of selfishness now and again shows a necessary fallibility. :)

[Pleh]

Get real =D

Are you saying that everything you've said up to this point has been purely sarcastic?

That would make more sense than everything else you've been saying, but you could have indicated such a little more clearly.

Some people use blue font.

[Kaptin Keen]

Are you saying that everything you've said up to this point has been purely sarcastic?

That would make more sense than everything else you've been saying, but you could have indicated such a little more clearly.

Some people use blue font.

It was my way of saying I don't think you and I can engage in meaningful dialogue any further. I don't need quotes to form an opinion, I'm so clever I can make my own.

[Pleh]

You are free to all the opinions you like, but you phrased it as if to counter my arguments.

That is to say, it sounded as if you were wanting to convince me to agree with you by forming a counter argument.

I found the argument unconvincing and asked for some evidence to back it up.

If you are happy just believing things that you feel, more power to you.

Just don't expect other people to have much reason to adopt your moral philosophy.

Unfortunately, the context in this situation is TTRPGs, where *some* agreement of moral philosophy is necessary for the function of the simulated world experience. In such cases, moral philosophies ought to be rational, communicable, and functional, so players from various sets of beliefs can cooperate in the game to good faith. "Just go with your gut" isn't a great way to establish morality for a fictional universe.

After all, if people are free to have wildly varying ideas about morality in our own set of physical existence, how much more so in an RPG, where the setting is fictitious, first separating us from exactly the same reality we experience while additionally fabricating new moral dilemmas for our minds to consider.

It is critical to game experience for morality in such scenarios to be in some manner predictable, which Intuitive Morality works for just fine if everyone at the table already has more or less the same sense of intuitive morals.

It's a local solution, not a universal one.

[denthor]

Pleh

As to post # 78.

Context has already been established in any D&D game or any of its off shoots. Otherwise the question posed in this thread would not be asked.

Your very thought about a dawn of civilization game is not mentioned you are adding things not thought of. Your legal case you laid out is do as you please since no one thought about it is legal and OK to use exactly once. This is unfortunately true to form. However quickly brought under control.

[Kaptin Keen]

You are free to all the opinions you like, but you phrased it as if to counter my arguments.

That is to say, it sounded as if you were wanting to convince me to agree with you by forming a counter argument.

I found the argument unconvincing and asked for some evidence to back it up.

If you are happy just believing things that you feel, more power to you.

Just don't expect other people to have much reason to adopt your moral philosophy.

Unfortunately, the context in this situation is TTRPGs, where *some* agreement of moral philosophy is necessary for the function of the simulated world experience. In such cases, moral philosophies ought to be rational, communicable, and functional, so players from various sets of beliefs can cooperate in the game to good faith. "Just go with your gut" isn't a great way to establish morality for a fictional universe.

After all, if people are free to have wildly varying ideas about morality in our own set of physical existence, how much more so in an RPG, where the setting is fictitious, first separating us from exactly the same reality we experience while additionally fabricating new moral dilemmas for our minds to consider.

It is critical to game experience for morality in such scenarios to be in some manner predictable, which Intuitive Morality works for just fine if everyone at the table already has more or less the same sense of intuitive morals.

It's a local solution, not a universal one.

Like I said: You and I are no longer engaged in a discussion.

[vasilidor]

I never understood why the use of poison was inherently evil. that said I can think of some non evil uses for poison. 1: a sleep poison used on someone in order to prevent them from doing something self destructive or destructive to others. knock out gas is sometimes used in real world hostage situations, as long as proper care is given quickly there is no lasting harm from this. 2: using poisoned arrows on someone you have already decided to kill. here the issue is not that you are using poisoned arrows, but the fact that you decided to kill someone, are you acting in self defense? will using the poison end things faster*? these are more important questions in my mind.

*in acts of self defense or defense of others, the faster you end the conflict the less chance you or others have to come to harm.

[Pleh]

Pleh

As to post # 78.

Context has already been established in any D&D game or any of its off shoots. Otherwise the question posed in this thread would not be asked.

Your very thought about a dawn of civilization game is not mentioned you are adding things not thought of. Your legal case you laid out is do as you please since no one thought about it is legal and OK to use exactly once. This is unfortunately true to form. However quickly brought under control.

Not sure I fully get your meaning, perhaps you can clarify.

See, my understanding was that the OP was asking about how to be a Good aligned character in a general D&D styled RPG, which would include the possible setup for a dawn of civilization campaign, so I'm not adding things, I'm pointing out the rather extensive scope of possible gamestyles this thread is concerning itself with.

More general answers are better than more limited ones.

[denthor]

I know alignment doesn't actually matter that much in D&D, but to some it does. Like my group, for instance. If my character sheet says "Alignment: Good" on it, I want to make sure I live up to it when I roleplay my character. I don't just want to do it to maintain my Holy Status or use the mechanics or whatever, I want to roleplay my character as a good guy. Especially since everyone else in my group seems to be playing Chaotic Neutral.

In case you're wondering, the setting the D&D takes place in is of my friend's design. I don't really know much about it yet, but he said that the premise of the game is that we're fighting dragons and taking their treasure. For starters, I don't think my char would hoard all the dragon wealth to himself, but rather donate it to charity or something. And since I'm the only "good" guy in the group, I'd prefer to lead by example rather than force a conversion out of people. Cuz I think when a character shifts alignment mid-campaign that is a really cool thing, it's interesting, but it's no good if the alignment shift is forced. I want this character to be memorable for his goodness.

So, any advice on how to play a good-aligned character? I'd appreciate it.

Pleh
Above is 1st post it is in the mind of the DM much like your dawn of civilization is in your mind not the post.

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

[JNAProductions]

Above is 1st post it is in the mind of the DM much like your dawn of civilization is in your mind not the post.

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I do agree, poison CAN be worse than those, depending on the situation, and should require serious thought before a good person uses it, but that applies equally to any weapon.