Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

[Segev]

Two things emerge from this thread, first and foremost. One, the definitions of both "good" and "nice" are very situation dependent. Second, maybe TVTropes shouldn't be treated as a serious source of character analysis.

Nonsense! It's on the internet! A group collaboration for the amusement of people on the internet is always 100% factual and a perfect distillation of the highest wisdom!

[BisectedBrioche]

Two things emerge from this thread, first and foremost. One, the definitions of both "good" and "nice" are very situation dependent. Second, maybe TVTropes shouldn't be treated as a serious source of character analysis.

Sorry, I can't hear you! I'm over on TV Tropes analysing characters informally.

[NorthernPhoenix]

AKA: Most people are good people to their friends.

Definitely. Some of the most horrible people you can imagine probably are too. But that alone doesn't make anyone a good person.

[mindstalk]

No, Abusive parents are a thing. perhaps take your own medicine about foolish proverbs.

Abusive parents are definitely a thing, but someone who is wicked in some ways isn't necessarily an abusive parent -- nor is someone good in many ways necessarily *not* an abusive parent. (Eugene Greenhilt again, for a mild example.)

[ImNotTrevor]

Abusive parents are definitely a thing, but someone who is wicked in some ways isn't necessarily an abusive parent -- nor is someone good in many ways necessarily *not* an abusive parent. (Eugene Greenhilt again, for a mild example.)

Historically, most people I have met with predatory/abusive behaviors are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

The most common abusers are frequently {scrubbed} otherwise upstanding members of their community who are very charismatic and respected by their peers.

I can think of a noteworthy celebrity who pretty.much everyone thought of as a really nice, fudgepop-loving guy, a real family man... up until we all collectively learned he was a predator. And we tend to forget that the majority of people thought he was a nice, good man.

If the Devil showed up in your bedroom to make a deal with you tonight, I guarantee he'd be handsome, well dressed, and very, very friendly, sympathetic, and express genuine concern for your plights.

Nice and Good are two diffetent considerations. End of.

[kyoryu]

Historically, most people I have met with predatory/abusive behaviors are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

Well, of course.

How else do they suck their victims in?

[Segev]

Well, of course.

How else do they suck their victims in?

Vacuum cleaners?

Spheres of Annihilation?

Spheres of Defenestration set to reverse?

[Xervous]

Vacuum cleaners?

Spheres of Annihilation?

Spheres of Defenestration set to reverse?

Splatbooks/character cosmetics/catchy jingles...

[jayem]

If the Devil showed up in your bedroom to make a deal with you tonight, I guarantee he'd be handsome, well dressed, and very, very friendly, sympathetic, and express genuine concern for your plights.

It strikes me, that's where three of the different "nicenessess" behave in interesting ways.
If the (standard) Devil* showed up, the concern would seem genuine, but wouldn't be.

In terms of politeness/nice absolutely. In terms of being appealing/nice, absolutely. But I'm sure we've all been told "tricking someone to end up in Naraka on false pretences, isn't nice" (or was it just me), there's a variant of niceness that is more fundamental than the surface, so he only "seems nice", in the same way he might only seem "human".
However, and this is the point, lets take this 'good/nice' version of nice where we assume the Sirens are "seeming nice" but not actually "being nice". They, and particularly in the classic Diaboloical contract, are often seemingly 'nice' while simultaneously openly not being 'good'. So the nice and good distinction is still there.

*metaphor's mixed to avoid religious input.

[Vahnavoi]

There is a much simpler way of looking at this. Think of Paladins.

Paladins do not lie. They do not cheat. They do not knowingly associate with evil people or people who offend their moral code. They will not hire you as a retainer (etc.) if you fail to adhere to their standard of good.

They are also armed champions of law, with duty to punish those who harm or threaten innocents, up to and including arresting and executing those guilty of severe offenses.

Paladins are famously conflict-prone as player characters. Many people decry their code as something that puts them at odds with other character archetypes. But there's a reason for that: many other player character archetypes are either explicitly or implicitely thieves and raiders, they lie, they cheat, they threaten and harm for their own convenience. Their only real loyalty is to a tiny band of other player characters, with everyone else, the "non-player characters", deemed to be of lesser importance and free to exploit.

In short, judged by the standards the paladin is supposed to uphold, those other characters are horribly immoral. They are the sort of people a paladin should be duty-bound to oppose or cut ties with. Obviously, those other character and their players find this the very opposite of "nice". Many players even claim evil party members are preferable to a paladin, because at least an evil character is excused for unfairly favoring their fellow adventurers. That is, they don't need to judge their peers for lying, cheating and acting violently for their own convenience, and even kd they do, they don't need to do anything about it.

In the cut-throat world of adventuring, evil people can "play nice". A paladin can't.

[Bartmanhomer]

There is a much simpler way of looking at this. Think of Paladins.

Paladins do not lie. They do not cheat. They do not knowingly associate with evil people or people who offend their moral code. They will not hire you as a retainer (etc.) if you fail to adhere to their standard of good.

They are also armed champions of law, with the duty to punish those who harm or threaten innocents, up to and including arresting and executing those guilty of severe offenses.

Paladins are famously conflict-prone as player characters. Many people decry their code as something that puts them at odds with other character archetypes. But there's a reason for that: many other player character archetypes are either explicitly or implicitly thieves and raiders, they lie, they cheat, they threaten and harm for their own convenience. Their only real loyalty is to a tiny band of other player characters, with everyone else, the "non-player characters", deemed to be of lesser importance and free to exploit.

In short, judged by the standards the paladin is supposed to uphold, those other characters are horribly immoral. They are the sort of people a paladin should be duty-bound to oppose or cut ties with. Obviously, that other character and their players find this the very opposite of "nice". Many players even claim evil party members are preferable to a paladin because at least an evil character is excused for unfairly favoring their fellow adventurers. That is, they don't need to judge their peers for lying, cheating, and acting violently for their own convenience, and even kd they do, they don't need to do anything about it.

In the cut-throat world of adventuring, evil people can "play nice". A paladin can't.

Yes, I know that the paladins have a bad reputation for being lawful stupid which is probably that I'm not going to play as a paladin.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Yes, I know that the paladins have a bad reputation for being lawful stupid which is probably that I'm not going to play as a paladin.

I mean there are a lot of different oaths for different ideals. Oath of Ancients in 5e is pretty chill.

[Bartmanhomer]

I mean there are a lot of different oaths for different ideals. Oath of Ancients in 5e is pretty chill.

Cool. I never play D&D 5e so I can't vouch for an opinion on that.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean there are a lot of different oaths for different ideals. Oath of Ancients in 5e is pretty chill.

That and most other paladin-like classes or archetypes outside of DnD ditch the code altogether. you can still be a shining knight with white/holy magic after all, you can even play up the virtue part of it....the GM just isn't required to hold you to anything specific and thus whether your character truly or fully lives up to the paladin ideal stops being a requirement to make sure your powers work, and starts being an actual interesting look into a character like this: what kind of person goes out of their way to exemplify these ideals when nothing is requiring them to? how much of their morality do they hold themselves to and how much do they have to be flexible on? I find that one can have plenty of interesting moral quandaries and things to test your moral mettle in roleplaying without any specific code if that is what one thinks a paladin is about. and in some ways they can even be better people without one.

and of course they are perfectly capable of still being Rudely Good without a code: portray injustices/suffering right and it becomes kind of hard not to be in response. assuming they don't just descend upon evildoers in righteous berserking fury. paladin/barbarian is a more plausible hybrid than most people would assume.

[OldTrees1]

Cool. I never play D&D 5e so I can't vouch for an opinion on that.

Oath of Ancients in a nutshull:
Everyone is a candle. Help everyone flourish and let themselves shine bright. Protect the candles from the wind. Life can be great, let's all make it so.

Basically Oath of Ancients is one of the only Paladin oaths that would still exist in a utopia.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Oath of Ancients in a nutshull:
Everyone is a candle. Help everyone flourish and let themselves shine bright. Protect the candles from the wind. Life can be great, let's all make it so.

Basically Oath of Ancients is one of the only Paladin oaths that would still exist in a utopia.

Yeah and kinda the one that my pcs end up following anyway, without being paladins.

[Vahnavoi]

Yes, I know that the paladins have a bad reputation for being lawful stupid which is probably that I'm not going to play as a paladin.

"Lawful Stupid" is what Neutrals, Chaotics and Evils like to call a paladin when a paladin is not acting in a way that's convenient to them. It's not at all given that all paladins labeled as "Lawful Stupid" are acting stupidly from in-character, in-universe or moral point of views.

That and most other paladin-like classes or archetypes outside of DnD ditch the code altogether. you can still be a shining knight with white/holy magic after all, you can even play up the virtue part of it....the GM just isn't required to hold you to anything specific...

For conflict to happen, it is not at all necessary for the GM to require or enforce adherence to a code - it is enough for the player to require and enforce it of themselves. Even in a game where a GM does enforce it, trying to blame conflict on an externality is dodging responsibility, because it bypasses the most important question of all: why did the player, and hence the character, submit themselves to a code?

Yeah and kinda the one that my pcs end up following anyway, without being paladins.

And that is enough to come into a conflict with other characters, just like a paladin would. Remember the larger point: good people aren't always "nice". Paladins are just an obvious case, because they've made their morals explicit. But even when you're just trying to keep all candles safe from the wind, some people will disagree, because they want to see some candles snuffed out; and they will not find it "nice" if you object or act to prevent them.

[OldTrees1]

But even when you're just trying to keep all candles safe from the wind, some people will disagree, because they want to see some candles snuffed out; and they will not find it "nice" if you object or act to prevent them.

If I understood correctly: A team might not describe the other team's goalie as nice.

[Kyutaru]

If I understood correctly: A team might not describe the other team's goalie as nice.

Since sports are literal conflict, I think that's a bad example.

I think a better way to view it is some people have thoughts on principles they wish to uphold and protect while others want those principles abolished and will be more than a bit displeased if you prevent them from doing so.

Or yet another way... the witch has taken sanctuary in the church. Some wish to protect her, some wish to burn her at the stake. They both have a reasonably righteous case.

[Lord Raziere]

Or yet another way... the witch has taken sanctuary in the church. Some wish to protect her, some wish to burn her at the stake. They both have a reasonably righteous case.

No. Neither have a reasonably righteous case. they do not know enough about the witch to know whether she should live or die. only with further information about what evil she has done will reveal whether which one is righteous. these are only assumptions.

[Kyutaru]

No. Neither have a reasonably righteous case. they do not know enough about the witch to know whether she should live or die. only with further information about what evil she has done will reveal whether which one is righteous. these are only assumptions.

But, as I'm sure you may be able to understand, one must still act prior to having the information. There may be a time crisis in the distance or the grim reality is you will never actually know the truth because the world isn't fair and clean like that. But even those reasons matter not because the call to inaction begs the question of what do we do FOR NOW. Something must be done lest someone else take action and regardless of what is done you are making a choice. If the de facto answer is to hold her in some facility until a reasonable investigation has been conducted then you are still choosing to keep her alive and protected from the angry rioters. How long you can do that for and still keep the peace is uncertain. At some point, information or not, you will have to either grant her mercy or give her over to the mob.

[Vahnavoi]

No. Neither have a reasonably righteous case.

For people with truly different core values, you can assume both have full information and they will still disagree. Even in D&D there are three different flavors of good and it is not meant for them to always agree.

[kyoryu]

But, as I'm sure you may be able to understand, one must still act prior to having the information. There may be a time crisis in the distance or the grim reality is you will never actually know the truth because the world isn't fair and clean like that. But even those reasons matter not because the call to inaction begs the question of what do we do FOR NOW. Something must be done lest someone else take action and regardless of what is done you are making a choice. If the de facto answer is to hold her in some facility until a reasonable investigation has been conducted then you are still choosing to keep her alive and protected from the angry rioters. How long you can do that for and still keep the peace is uncertain. At some point, information or not, you will have to either grant her mercy or give her over to the mob.

Nobody ever said "good" was easy.

Arguably, if it's easy, it's not Good (capital letter). IOW, when the "right thing" happens to line up with the expedient or beneficial thing, then doing the right thing is easy and doesn't tell me much about you. (That doesn't make it bad, obviously). How you react when it's difficult or costly is really what's interesting.

[Lord Raziere]

For people with truly different core values, you can assume both have full information and they will still disagree. Even in D&D there are three different flavors of good and it is not meant for them to always agree.

And assuming they both have equal value in a situation is absurd.

subjectivism is not morality and shouldn't be treated as such. letting yourself be lost in grey vs grey idiocy because someone disagrees with you is letting evil win. both your points are irrelevant. not enough information has been provided, are witches even real? or are they just superstitious nonsense and the woman is a normal woman? this isn't the Dnd forum, I can't assume this is a setting where magic exists. if they are real, I can't assume witches are evil. not unless more information is provided.

and if I find out the mob just an angry unreasonable mob who won't listen and that witch is innocent? the moral thing to isn't just to keep her safe, but to help her escape so that she lives and hides from their idiotic wrath and not pretend as if those people are right just because there are more of them. and if I'm in a setting where the witch is areal danger and I'm an adventurer or hero with powers to help, the last thing I should is hand her over to them and let them die to her magic when I'm probably the more competent person to take her out. either way, its best to handle this myself than let her get near anyone else.

[NigelWalmsley]

Nobody ever said "good" was easy.

The thing about Good is that most people aren't Good. Most people don't go out and volunteer at shelters for domestic abuse victims, or donate their money to fight cancer, let alone actually go out and do relief work in war zones. Of course, most people aren't Evil either, but for the most part people are Neutral. And as a civilization, we are okay with that. Postulating a notion of people who are, in some meaningful sense, "Good" means postulating people who act in ways that the vast majority of people not only don't, but don't consider themselves particularly compelled to.

That is, of course, assuming you even accept the framework that there is a Good side and an Evil side to begin with. Which, frankly, is rather suspect as a claim. There's not a single universally agreed-upon answer to moral questions, and even if one of the sides offering an answer started calling themselves Good rather than Deontology or Utilitarianism or Virtue Ethics or whatever, that wouldn't magically make their conclusions right.

[Kyutaru]

subjectivism is not morality and shouldn't be treated as such. letting yourself be lost in grey vs grey idiocy because someone disagrees with you is letting evil win. both your points are irrelevant. not enough information has been provided, are witches even real? or are they just superstitious nonsense and the woman is a normal woman? this isn't the Dnd forum, I can't assume this is a setting where magic exists. if they are real, I can't assume witches are evil. not unless more information is provided.

Why should that matter? Even if our world, the angry mob believed witches were real. It doesn't matter if magic truly exists or not. All that matters is what the individual believes. You're right, this isn't a DND forum which means there is no objective Good and objective Evil cosmic forces out there. It's all based on the perceptions of the people involved and Good people can carry out Evil actions through misinformation.

[Lord Raziere]

Why should that matter? Even if our world, the angry mob believed witches were real. It doesn't matter if magic truly exists or not. All that matters is what the individual believes. You're right, this isn't a DND forum which means there is no objective Good and objective Evil cosmic forces out there. It's all based on the perceptions of the people involved and Good people can carry out Evil actions through misinformation.

It always matters. they are acting on false information, because witches are not real. and therefore what they acting on is prejudice and stupidity, not actual justice or morality. what they believe is worth less than dirt, as it has no basis in reality. moral subjectivism is similarly useless and not worth any serious consideration. the fact that good can accidentally do evil, is why I emphasize proper information finding over listening to an idiotic mob and wondering if their angry yelling is just as valuable as rational decisions when they clearly are not.

If witches are real, that doesn't tell me how dangerous they are. whats their power level? what can they destroy or do if they are dangerous? is this street level problem? a city level? country? are they from DBZ and can destroy a planet? I don't know.

and perhaps there is no perfect moral solution- but neither is there any perfectly amoral situation where all options are equal. there will be some information gleaned that will tip the scales one way or another and the lighter shade will be chosen. and if a GM makes this hypothetical situation where I can't judge any of the options, where no choices are right? thats just absurd, and not worth playing with if I'm trying to be moral (and if I'm roleplaying someone amoral- chances I don't care about the situation in the first place and won't make my choices on any priorities involving peoples safety)

Edit: like what, am I going to go in, find out the witch is just an ordinary person who did nothing wrong then go out and be Nice and say their subjective angry mob viewpoint is right and let them kill her? That isn't Good. thats absurd.

[Bartmanhomer]

It always matters. they are acting on false information because witches are not real. and therefore what they acting on is prejudice and stupidity, not actual justice or morality. what they believe is worth less than dirt, as it has no basis in reality. moral subjectivism is similarly useless and not worth any serious consideration. the fact that good can accidentally do evil, is why I emphasize proper information finding over listening to an idiotic mob and wondering if their angry yelling is just as valuable as rational decisions when they clearly are not.

If witches are real, that doesn't tell me how dangerous they are. whats their power level? what can they destroy or do if they are dangerous? is this street-level problem? a city level? country? are they from DBZ and can destroy a planet? I don't know.

and perhaps there is no perfect moral solution- but neither is there any perfectly amoral situation where all options are equal. there will be some information gleaned that will tip the scales one way or another and the lighter shade will be chosen. and if a GM makes this hypothetical situation where I can't judge any of the options, where no choices are right? that's just absurd, and not worth playing with if I'm trying to be moral (and if I'm roleplaying someone amoral- chances I don't care about the situation in the first place and won't make my choices on any priorities involving peoples safety)

I agree with you there. If the mob believes that witches are evil without any research how do they know witches are evil based by jumping to the conclusion. That's a stereotype and prejudice.

[Wizard_Lizard]

And that is enough to come into a conflict with other characters, just like a paladin would. Remember the larger point: good people aren't always "nice". Paladins are just an obvious case, because they've made their morals explicit. But even when you're just trying to keep all candles safe from the wind, some people will disagree, because they want to see some candles snuffed out; and they will not find it "nice" if you object or act to prevent them.

But no... the ancients paladin generally doesn't result in conflict as it's again.. fairly chill. Also I haven't seen it cause any conflict in my games or with my pcs.

[Vahnavoi]

And assuming they both have equal value in a situation is absurd.

subjectivism is not morality and shouldn't be treated as such. letting yourself be lost in grey vs grey idiocy because someone disagrees with you is letting evil win. both your points are irrelevant.

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.