On the nature of Good and Evil (Or 'Good is hard')

[Jesuncolo]

I agree with you, Ross. Good is hard. I've come to understand it recently. Mind manipulation, even if it is "for the good", it's not harmless. You're an good-aligned enchanter? Well...I admire the intention of not doing physical harm to people but...the point is that coercing someone to the point they unwillingly desire or do what you want them to do, is not harmless. How would you feel if you knew you've got charmed or dominated?
Also, killing a killer doesn't make you better than them, though it does help other people to be safe. And it's not like taking someone as prisoner is easy. Should you kill an evil character you caught?

I don't know. In D&D/Pathfinder, Good and Evil are tangible and real. Killing an evil character would send him to Hell or the Abyss or whatever. That means there is no way for him to save himself. He's going to suffer for eternity (quite a bit long time). And he won't have any chance to become a good creature and become useful to the society.

Spoiler:

I find it hard, that's nice to find. [cit. Smells like queer spirit]

[Mikaze]

I endorse the OP. :)

[TheNine]

I endorse what Mikaze said, and thus support the OP

[Jiggy]

It's staggering how many people's opinions on how this game mechanic works fail to be based on—and often even outright contradict—the printed rules for said mechanic.

Want the alignment rules in a nutshell? Look at the definition of neutral, and see where you fall:

The actual alignment system for Pathfinder wrote:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

If you're that, you're neutral. That's right, you can have compunctions against killing the innocent and still not be good. What is the "but" that keeps a life-respecting person stuck as neutral instead of good? Failing to make sacrifices.

If you're not making sacrifices, you're neutral at best. It's right there in the book.

By definition, you have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to be good. That seems pretty well in line with "good is hard" to me. I'm having trouble imagining how making personal sacrifices could be "easy".

[Ross Byers]

snobi wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Good is hard.

Which is why my character is neutral. Although, he roots for Team Good over Team Neutral (might walk by you as you lie dying on the street) and Team Evil. It's kind of weird rooting for a team you're not on.

Everyone is better off with Good neighbors.

[Ross Byers]

Anzyr wrote:

Evil is hard.

Petty Evil is easy. Villainous, ambitious Evil is hard work, but I think it's a different kind of 'hard' than being Good.

[Ross Byers]

Godwyn wrote:

I think the summary is excellent, except for one factual error that should be corrected.

The Prisoner's Dilemma shows the opposite of what you state. It shows that the better choice is to cooperate. But it is a harder and riskier choice. Which goes with the general theme. Good is hard, and not always self rewarding. Pretty much, being good gets either 1 year or 3, with no chance of freedom. While being selfish gets freedom or 3 years. If both people act selflessly and stay silent, they suffer a lesser sentence than if they both betray each other.

The 'best' outcome of the prisoner's dilemma is for both sides to cooperate. The best outcome for a single player is to defect, because he's better off regardless of what his opponent chooses.

If everyone were Good, then the world is a better place. But in a world of mixed Good and Evil, Good gets taken advantage of.

[Ross Byers]

Laurefindel wrote:

now if you could please-oh-so-very-please post about what is Law in equally eloquent manner, you'd be my hero for the year.

Maybe in a week or two I'll post "On the nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not legal')"

[Jiggy]

Ross Byers wrote:

Laurefindel wrote:

now if you could please-oh-so-very-please post about what is Law in equally eloquent manner, you'd be my hero for the year.

Maybe in a week or two I'll post "On the nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not legal')"

I look forward to it. :)

[Haladir]

Cerberus Seven wrote:

Evil is easy.

It makes its throne upon the bent backs, splintered bones, and broken hearts of those it subjugates, deceives, and harms. It does this easily because it doesn't even bother to think about what the moral or ethical choice might be. Reason being: it's decided it doesn't care. It gets to lie to itself, say 'Well, they deserved it' or 'Hey, I should get something for my troubles anyways'. And the thing about the lies? Eventually, you believe them. It gets so easy to tell them because you yourself start knowing them to be true. To the truly good, truth isn't something you shy away from, even when it hurts the image of who you really are underneath. To the truly evil, it doesn't matter who you are, all that matters is they are not you, so they don't matter.

Good vs evil isn't about acts. That debate can rage until the heat death of the universe. Good vs evil is about thoughts, feelings, and intent. It is the struggle at the core of every man's soul who has not yet slipped into the ease of the psychopath. It is the tug on your conscience that says even if it's only a little help, you should have done it. It is the nagging reminder of all those you've hurt, never giving you rest, sometimes not even when amends are made. It is the knowledge that you are here because civilization happened, and it happened because people tried to look beyond their selfish concerns and work together for a greater good, whatever that may be. Good happens because you're always pushing back at that heavy boulder inside, deciding that it'll be worth it, maybe even for you.

Good never rests. But evil? Evil takes four-day weekends.

Evil is easy.

I pretty much agree with one major exception:

Good intent is necessary but not sufficient. The act and the intent both matter. Being good requires doing good.

As the adage goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

[Jiggy]

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

[Sarcasmancer]

You don't deserve a pat on the back for being good when society in general rewards good and punishes evil. All this stuff about good being more difficult or having no reward except for its own sake, is nonsense.

[Democratus]

Sarcasmancer wrote:

You don't deserve a pat on the back for being good when society in general rewards good and punishes evil. All this stuff about good being more difficult or having no reward except for its own sake, is nonsense.

What society are you talking about? Pathfinder Society?

[Ross Byers]

I'm pretty sure he means an actual society. You know, one that collectively punishes stealing and rewards people (with respect) for doing things like donating to charity.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Jiggy wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Laurefindel wrote:

now if you could please-oh-so-very-please post about what is Law in equally eloquent manner, you'd be my hero for the year.

Maybe in a week or two I'll post "On the nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not legal')"

I look forward to it. :)

This I agree with. I look forward to discussing this. I must say, even though the alignment system is a poor approximation of the human experience and simplifies complex issues it does lead to engaging and thoughtful debate on the boards, at least for the most part.

[The Shining Fool]

Sarcasmancer wrote:

You don't deserve a pat on the back for being good when society in general rewards good and punishes evil. All this stuff about good being more difficult or having no reward except for its own sake, is nonsense.

I think you are conflating moral and philosophical "good" and "evil" with social acceptability and legality. Clearly, this is a thread about D&D morality, but if you're interested in the difference in real world morality, I'd suggest picking up Zimbardo's book "The Lucifer Effect".

In it, Zimbardo points out that people that we call heroes often say "I was only doing what anyone would do". And that is correct, as far as sentiment is concerned, or as long as we are sitting here comfortably at our computers talking about what we *would* do in that situation. Clearly, however, our actions break down when we are thrust into situations where maintaining decency and humanity ,things that, I'm sure, most people on this thread would handwave away as "easy", become terribly difficult.

[Eirikrautha]

All this thread has "clarified" is that the majority of the posters to it are products of a post-renaissance humanist culture. The opinions here might track somewhat closely with the alignment system in Pathfinder, but that is primarily a consequence of the fact that the original authors of D&D were from a similar culture. As far as any insight on "good", the statements above are almost hilariously parochial.

First, to define "good" (even partially) requires the answer to the fundamental question that has tasked religious minds for millennia (and which shows the humanist biases of the OP and supporters), a question even more important in a setting like Golarion where gods are real and present in the world:

"Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say something is good because it is good?"

For most of human history, human beings have defined good as obedience to the will of their deities. Period. If God commanded you to slay the Philistines or the Infidels or the Unclean, down to their women, children, and livestock, then "good" is defined as killing them, and evil is sparing them. Period.

Only after the Reconquista in 1492 did western philosophers run into an intellectual quandary. They rediscovered the great thinkers of the Classical Age (in Spanish libraries maintained by the Moors), but had to face Church criticism that the philosophers of antiquity were not Christian, and therefore were evil (by definition). From this cognitive dissonance was developed the the idea of humanism: the concept that some acts/ideas were objectively good, regardless of the religious status or context of the acts. Thus the second answer to the question above ("God says it's good because it is good").

Many cultures to this day still reject humanism (and never experienced their own "renaissance"). To them, an unbeliever (or pagan, or infidel, or Samaritan, etc.) is by definition evil, regardless of their actions or intentions. This is obviously not the cultural background of most of the posters here, which is why they feel comfortable making sweeping, universalist statements about "good."

In a setting where gods are real and present, good would almost certainly be a non-humanist concept for the vast majority of the religious followers in Golarion. If Sarenrae requires the slaughter of the nearby Orc tribe, then it is good by definition. Disagreement might be culturally appropriate for western humanists, but it is no more "true" than any other culturally-determined belief...

[Anzyr]

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

[Sarcasmancer]

@Eirikrautha I think all that is irrelevant in a fantasy world where there are several objectively real gods which have objectively differing viewpoints, but any of them seems as valid an object of worship as any other. The Riddle of Epicurus doesn't have much meaning when it's never been claimed that the god in question is neither all-powerful nor all-good.

@Shining Fool I think a person's true character is revealed in crisis. As you say it is indeed easy for everyone to sit around parroting the sentiments that they know are socially acceptable, it's different entirely what goes on when nobody is watching and there is actual personal risk involved.

[Voadam]

Jiggy wrote:

It's staggering how many people's opinions on how this game mechanic works fail to be based on—and often even outright contradict—the printed rules for said mechanic.

Want the alignment rules in a nutshell? Look at the definition of neutral, and see where you fall:

The actual alignment system for Pathfinder wrote:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

If you're that, you're neutral. That's right, you can have compunctions against killing the innocent and still not be good. What is the "but" that keeps a life-respecting person stuck as neutral instead of good? Failing to make sacrifices.

If you're not making sacrifices, you're neutral at best. It's right there in the book.

By definition, you have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to be good. That seems pretty well in line with "good is hard" to me. I'm having trouble imagining how making personal sacrifices could be "easy".

You don't see any room for a distinction between someone who only has compunctions against killing innocents and someone who actively does good and helps others without being selfless and sacrificing in the process?

I was talking about general moral good above and not Pathfinder good in saying it can be easy and without sacrifice. I personally disagree with Pathfinder's views about selflessness and sacrifice and their connection to morality.

But there is room in the system for saying someone who respects life, has concern for the dignity of others, and helps others fits most of the exemplars of the Pathfinder good definition and morally is more than merely someone who has only a compunction against killing innocents.

I would argue that is a good character in pathfinder and need not be hard.

[LazarX]

Democratus wrote:

Sarcasmancer wrote:

You don't deserve a pat on the back for being good when society in general rewards good and punishes evil. All this stuff about good being more difficult or having no reward except for its own sake, is nonsense.

What society are you talking about? Pathfinder Society?

Certainly not any modern day society I can think of. There's a reason why the phrase "Nice Guys Finish Last" was coined.... because in most cases it's the guy who's best at being the gamist manipulative bastard who screws everyone else who comes out ahead.

[Jiggy]

Anzyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

Who's "they"?

At first I thought "they" meant "people who are good-aligned", but given the (Pathfinder) definition of being good-aligned, that turns your statement into:
"People who are willing to make sacrifices are unwilling to make sacrifices."
Since that's obviously self-contradictory, you must mean someone else by "they".

My next guess is "people who call themselves good (or are called good by others)". But that would mean you're pointing out that not all people who call themselves good are actually good, which is true, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to a discussion of the definition of the good alignment.

So, I'm a little lost as to what your post is getting at. Can you clarify?

[Jeven]

Haladir wrote:

Good intent is necessary but not sufficient. The act and the intent both matter. Being good requires doing good.

I think part of the alignment system lies with intent.

Action will follow intent when the opportunity presents itself.

E.g. An evil but cowardly farmer might not have the opportunity to commit evil deeds, but if an opportunity presented itself - like if a wounded man with bags of gold lands on his doorstep - then he would commit an evil act without any hesitation.

Its backwards for PCs for gaming reasons.

[Ross Byers]

Anzyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others. There is never an 'only way' forward: such things only exist in hypotheticals.

Lots of villains fall into the 'I make the hard choices the Good won't.'
R'as al-Ghul is a poster child.

As I've said over and over: Everyone thinks they are 'Right'. That has little bearing on if they are Good or Evil.

[Spook205]

Eirikrautha wrote:

All this thread has "clarified" is that the majority of the posters to it are products of a post-renaissance humanist culture. The opinions here might track somewhat closely with the alignment system in Pathfinder, but that is primarily a consequence of the fact that the original authors of D&D were from a similar culture. As far as any insight on "good", the statements above are almost hilariously parochial.

You calling me a humanist? Them's fighting words. :/

Also, most of your presuppositions seem kind of...off and show a sort of bias against the medieval era. The era that created such people as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine shows that western philosophers had quandries far before 1492.

I mean we can go back to Anselm's deontological stuff, or even the old 'world of forms' from Plato. Teleological arguments can be fun, but then people start arguing over what in fact defines the goals of certain things. And we get into unmoved movers and uncaused causes and discussions about caves and so on and so forth.

The core problem really is that Alignment in Pathfinder/DnD is supposed to be of the 'don't think too hard roleplaying guide' angle. Its for goofy little motivational posters where we put Malcolm Reynolds in the Chaotic Good spot, and Miss Yukari in the Chaotic Evil Spot and have Neutral occupied by like...what's a good pop culture reference for Neutral, I dunno, the Neutrals from Futurama.

Real discussions of this stuff is kind of beyond the scope aimed for in Pathfinder. Its why in alignment debates I always say to keep the 'official definition' far away, since its not really a good definition of good or evil.

Its the comic book definition. The 'good is nice and huggles, and good people and stuff, and evil is meanies and bad guys!'

Alignment isn't the core problem in DnD, people want evil bad guys and good heroes. They don't want sketchy nuance, because if they did they'd be playing like the Witcher RPG, or GURPs. Its the inconsistant application of that alignment.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Ross Byers wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others. There is never an 'only way' forward.

Lots of villains fall into the 'I make the hard choices the Good won't.'
R'as al-Ghul is a poster child.

As I've said over and over: Everyone thinks they are 'Right'. That has little bearing on if they are Good or Evil.

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good. We can easily point to things we intuitively feel are good, but there's no clear delineation. The problem is no one has the authority to be the person who is right about what constitutes good or evil. Even if these were definable concepts, which I am not certain of, no one of us can create a universal definition which is right. How can you define good and evil without first being "right" about what good and evil mean?

[Spook205]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others. There is never an 'only way' forward.

Lots of villains fall into the 'I make the hard choices the Good won't.'
R'as al-Ghul is a poster child.

As I've said over and over: Everyone thinks they are 'Right'. That has little bearing on if they are Good or Evil.

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good. We can easily point to things we intuitively feel are good, but there's no clear delineation. The problem is no one has the authority to be the person who is right about what constitutes good or evil. Even if these were definable concepts, which I am not certain of, no one of us can create a universal definition which is right. How can you define good and evil without first being "right" about what good and evil mean?

Inability to sense or percieve the right option does not negate that option's existance.

If we're trying to get to St. Louis, the fact we don't have a map, a sign post, or can't see the city doesn't mean its not out there somewhere and there's a proverbial right way to get there.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Spook205 wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others. There is never an 'only way' forward.

Lots of villains fall into the 'I make the hard choices the Good won't.'
R'as al-Ghul is a poster child.

As I've said over and over: Everyone thinks they are 'Right'. That has little bearing on if they are Good or Evil.

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good. We can easily point to things we intuitively feel are good, but there's no clear delineation. The problem is no one has the authority to be the person who is right about what constitutes good or evil. Even if these were definable concepts, which I am not certain of, no one of us can create a universal definition which is right. How can you define good and evil without first being "right" about what good and evil mean?

Inability to sense or percieve the right option does not negate that option's existance.

If we're trying to get to St. Louis, the fact we don't have a map, a sign post, or can't see the city doesn't mean its not out there somewhere and there's a proverbial right way to get there.

But is also doesn't mean that people looking at map they can't read shouldn't just point at places and yell, "There's St. Louis!"

Also we all, for the most part, agree on objective geography. Where as we don't necessarily all even agree there IS such a thing as objective morality, let alone what it might consist of.

[Captain Wacky]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread. Good is not perfection, nor is good based on a list established by a random set of players who believe good is a certain set of unbreakable principles. Good is so subjective that the alignment system is ridiculous, but if you must have an alignment system only the players are fair adjudicators. A given set of actions can fall anywhere on the good v. evil perspective based on the particular facts, motivations, and knowledge of a person. More importantly it depends on first principles. Is justice more important than freedom? That's a rhetorical question, though I am sure someone will try to "answer" it. The truth is a person whose main principle of good is total freedom is going to behave differently than someone who defines good and total fairness and equality.

Good is not perfection... you are correct in that, good does make mistakes and there is not always a clear "good" solution to every problem. There are sometimes "necessary evils", but they are still evils.

I have to disagree with the bolded. In general people don't think of themselves as evil. But good and evil are objective... not subjective. It is not for one individual to determine the morality of the whole; unless you happen to be a deity, but they are a different level than us.

[subjective] An assessment altered by personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, biases and emotions.

Sacrificing children so your god can consume their souls is "good" because you are satisfying the tenants of your deity. You are a pious person doing your duty to said deity. Killing children also makes you feel good. And of course if it feel good so it IS good.

[objective] An assessment that is fact-based, measurable and observable. Viewed from an outside perspective without bias.

Sacrificing children is evil because it causes emotional damage to the family. This damage will hamper the growth of the family and extend to the surrounding community. A member of the community has been taken away and thus future growth of said community will be stunted. Any joy that child would have brought to the family and surrounding community is now lost forever.

However, if you think that the values of good and evil should be left to the individual then remove the alignment system, because everyone will be good. Most people who commit evil acts consider themselves "misunderstood".

Shall we look at the definition?

Evil Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.

This.. is the problem with subjective alignment. I understand the philosophy behind it and I know that different civilizations have different definitions of what is considered "immoral". But this is a game where good and evil are manifested forces. The line must be drawn somewhere between good positive outcome and good force.

If every person is allowed to make their own personal determination of what "good" and "evil" are, no one will be evil. Law is guided by morality. Societies and civilization require structure to flourish. Otherwise you have communities that are only as strong as the leader can maintain.

Barbarian tribes are prime examples of this. Once you kill the leader, if there's no one strong enough to take his place, the tribe splits until someone is strong enough to unite them, or until they get absorbed by a larger tribe. In-fighting and murders occur because there is no one strong enough to put everyone in check. This happens because the leader makes the rules and these rules are based upon his own biased opinions... his morality. There is no sense of "right and wrong" beyond the leader.

Most serial killers will be good because they are removing the people from society that they think don't fit or have (perceivably) caused them harm.

Rapists will be good because sex is also known as "making love" and "they love" the person they are forcing themselves on and thus rape = love and love = good. Or "women are worthless" and thus they don't deserve the same amount of consideration or respect.

Highwaymen and drug dealers are just doing what they need to to survive, but they are otherwise "good people".

Terrorists think that they are good and holy warriors of their faith.

Orcs are killing raping and plundering their way across the land "for the betterment of Orckind" (is that a word?).

All of these people are deviant minorities within their communities (with the exception of the Orcs of course).

Also, justice and freedom are properties of law and chaos, as I'm sure someone else has pointed out by now.

[Prince of Knives]

Y'know, an interesting conceit from Planescape, one that's stealthily carried over through 3.5 and to an extent into Pathfinder, is that Good and Evil are equally valid, and that the conflict between the two is essentially about which one is better for sapient beings. Food for thought.

[Democratus]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others. There is never an 'only way' forward.

Lots of villains fall into the 'I make the hard choices the Good won't.'
R'as al-Ghul is a poster child.

As I've said over and over: Everyone thinks they are 'Right'. That has little bearing on if they are Good or Evil.

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good. We can easily point to things we intuitively feel are good, but there's no clear delineation. The problem is no one has the authority to be the person who is right about what constitutes good or evil. Even if these were definable concepts, which I am not certain of, no one of us can create a universal definition which is right. How can you define good and evil without first being "right" about what good and evil mean?

The DM makes this decision as he sets up the world for the players. From that point on it is an objective truth of the world.

Communicating the nature of good/evil and law/chaos is something a good GM needs to do right at the start of a campaign - hopefully before character generation.

[Ross Byers]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good.

I attempted to do that, in my first post. I established as my axioms that Good can be equated with selflessness and Evil with selfishness. If you disagree with those axioms then the rest of the logic is invalid.

[Jiggy]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

There is no objective definition of good. We can easily point to things we intuitively feel are good, but there's no clear delineation. The problem is no one has the authority to be the person who is right about what constitutes good or evil. Even if these were definable concepts, which I am not certain of, no one of us can create a universal definition which is right. How can you define good and evil without first being "right" about what good and evil mean?

Um, are you aware that this thread is (probably intentionally) in the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum, not (for instance) the Off-Topic Discussions forum?

Presumably, Ross didn't start this thread to discuss what it means to be good in real life. The location of this thread suggests instead that we're talking about the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game's alignment mechanic.

In that context, there is an "objective definition of good". There's rules for it right there in the book. There is a (relatively) "clear delineation". The authors have "the authority to be the person who is right about what constitutes good or evil".

Alternatively, the GM and players can discuss before the campaign what "good" and "evil" will mean for their game. Whatever consensus they come to becomes the objective definition of good and evil of which every (N)PC is aware within the game world.

You are correct that good/evil is way too hard to pin down in real life. But it's fairly concretely defined in the context of the game. Presumably, that's what Ross it talking about.

[Voadam]

Ross Byers wrote:

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others.

It is real easy to come up with self-sacrificing evil minions in a D&D context.

[Ross Byers]

Prince of Knives wrote:

Y'know, an interesting conceit from Planescape, one that's stealthily carried over through 3.5 and to an extent into Pathfinder, is that Good and Evil are equally valid, and that the conflict between the two is essentially about which one is better for sapient beings. Food for thought.

I agree. From an Evil being's point of view, a Good person is naive, weak, and foolish.

[Prince of Knives]

Ross Byers wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good.

I attempted to do that, in my first post. I established as my axioms that Good can be equated with selflessness and Evil with selfishness. If you disagree with those axioms then the rest of the logic is invalid.

I'm afraid I have to, at least as core value. A Modron is selfless. A Formian is selfless. Plenty of devils act in selfless fashions. Selflessness is a trait shared by both Good and Law; Good values it because it displays a concern for others, Law values it because it displays a concern for the community.

[Ross Byers]

Voadam wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Good makes sacrifices of themselves. Evil makes sacrifices of others.

It is real easy to come up with self-sacrificing evil minions in a D&D context.

I was, in context, replying to the idea of sacrificing a mass of innocents.

Evil does self-sacrifice, but not to help others. Only to help itself. Self, in this case, can be an expanded self, such as serving a greater Evil (a cult or evil mastermind.)

[Mikaze]

Eirikrautha wrote:

In a setting where gods are real and present, good would almost certainly be a non-humanist concept for the vast majority of the religious followers in Golarion. If Sarenrae requires the slaughter of the nearby Orc tribe, then it is good by definition. Disagreement might be culturally appropriate for western humanists, but it is no more "true" than any other culturally-determined belief...

No, if "Sarenrae" demands the slaughter of an entire tribe, you smite evil on her, because she's apparently Sifkesh or Shamira in disguise.

Good is not defined by Sarenrae. Sarenrae's actual goodness is defined by Good.

Like Ross said in the OP, the bar for Good keeps getting lowered to the point that it doesn't even qualify sometimes. Trying to excuse genocide and the murder of children being a depressingly common case in point.

[Mikaze]

There was an excellent sidebar in Dark Roads and Golden Hells about the need to not reduce Good and Evil to two teams in different jerseys. Need to look that up again.

[Prince of Knives]

Ross Byers wrote:

Prince of Knives wrote:

Y'know, an interesting conceit from Planescape, one that's stealthily carried over through 3.5 and to an extent into Pathfinder, is that Good and Evil are equally valid, and that the conflict between the two is essentially about which one is better for sapient beings. Food for thought.

I agree. From an Evil being's point of view, a Good person is naive, weak, and foolish.

Yes and no. It comes down to values, really. Good and Evil both claim to be "good for you". Both sides deliver on these claims if you're willing to play their party line. How is the debate. To wit:

Good believes in the power of community. How that community manifests - lawful, neutral, or chaotic - is much less important than the value placed upon it. Good characters care about others, support and protect those others, try to live their lives without causing misery and unhappiness, and embrace solutions to conflicts that utilize and enhance the community. Good says that it will make you happy, peaceful, and safe. If everyone acted Good, everyone would have those things.

Evil believes in the power of the self - self-discipline, self-motivation, self-reliance, self-preservation, and selfishness. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, actually. "Evil" and "Innocent" are not mutually exclusive. To Evil, others become crutches that make you, as an individual, weak. By rejecting those others, you gain power that lets you dictate your own environment, your own life, and ultimately your own freedom, and you can use those things to secure anything you want - like, say, happiness.

Good believes that ideal individuals arise out of communities created to nurture them. Evil believes that ideal communities arise from individuals who are strong enough to construct them. Both have strident examples of both success and failure. Neither is truly harder than the other. Good asks you to sacrifice things important to you for others at times, but Evil asks you to sacrifice help and trust in the name of strength. It can be a hard row to hoe either way.

[Kazaan]

A few things to consider:

1) While the Alignment grid is traditionally presented as a grid of 9 equal-sized squares that square cleanly with one another, the reality is that TN in the middle is the largest while the four Corners are the smallest. There is also some overlap.

2) Both Good and Evil are "Hard", just in different ways. Same goes for Lawful and Chaotic.

3) The 2-dimensional alignment grid is highly misleading because it's actually a sloped cross-section of a 3-D cube with the third axis being Heroic vs Villainous. The 2-D view places LG firmly up in the Heroic region with CE firmly down in the Villainous region and a lesser slope between CG and LE as it gradates between. A better alignment system would allow for LG villains and CE heroes in a more complete view of the cube. And that's not even considering 4th-axis considerations of Bacon/Necktie... Those who follow the path of Bacon will be blessed with dinner while those who follow the path of the Necktie will be dressed for dinner.

4) What's Good for a Lawful character is going to be very different than what's Good for a Chaotic character. Lawful characters value structure, discipline, and hierarchy so they'll consider things like following laws and sacrificing oneself against chaos and disorder as "Good" while breaking laws, even for good reasons, and sacrificing oneself for chaos and disorder are evil. Meanwhile, Chaotic characters value freedom, pride, and autonomy so their views of good and evil are very different. Likewise, a Good person will have different views on what make for good Law and Chaos compared to the views of an Evil person. "We could be killed; or worse, expelled."

5) The four corners tend to be "extreme and far-reaching" in their alignment views. LG is large-scale on both Lawful and Good. CG is large-scale on Chaotic and Good. Meanwhile, NG is more small-scale on Good; they do more good that's less restricted, but it tends to be on a much more personal and intimate level. LG Superman saves the world and CG Robin Hood steals from the rich to give to the poor, but NG works in a soup kitchen and cleans up the municipal park on weekends.

6) Different cultures are going to have different, sometimes drastically different, views on what is Good or Evil. A culture that views life as sacred and suicide as a sin will take a dim view of killing oneself to avoid being captured and interrogated. But a culture that views honor and sacrifice as being the highest good and has no stigma against suicide would view suicide in the course of one's duty as a high form of goodness. Likewise, when food is scarce, is it better to let everyone starve equally or let only a few starve but enough survive to reproduce? If you're the only one who knows a particular skill, is it 'good' for you to sacrifice yourself and your skill and starve to death so others may eat, or is it 'evil' to deprive your social group of that important skill?

7) I've always felt that the terms Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic are far too subjective to make for a good alignment system. If such a system is really necessary to help outline and differentiate different ways of thought and behavior, objective terms are best. In my own system, I replace Good/Neutral/Evil with Cooperative/Independent/Competitive while Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic are replaced with Conservative/Liberal/Radical. Add that to the aforementioned third axis of Hero/Commoner/Villain and you get a much deeper, more objective, and ultimately more useful view of behavioral analysis of characters. This sometimes requires a shifting of accepted alignment restrictions, but it's done easily enough. For example, Paladins go from being LG to needing to be Heroic and non-Radical. So you can't have a Villainous or even Commoner Paladin, but he could be either Conservative or Liberal and could be about Cooperative "Together we stand", Independent "None need suffer but me", or Competitive, "The forces of evil must be defeated for us to survive".

[Captain Wacky]

Mikaze wrote:

Eirikrautha wrote:

In a setting where gods are real and present, good would almost certainly be a non-humanist concept for the vast majority of the religious followers in Golarion. If Sarenrae requires the slaughter of the nearby Orc tribe, then it is good by definition. Disagreement might be culturally appropriate for western humanists, but it is no more "true" than any other culturally-determined belief...

No, if "Sarenrae" demands the slaughter of an entire tribe, you smite evil on her, because she's apparently Sifkesh or Shamira in disguise.

Good is not defined by Sarenrae. Sarenrae's actual goodness is defined by Good.

Like Ross said in the OP, the bar for Good keeps getting lowered to the point that it doesn't even qualify sometimes. Trying to excuse genocide and the murder of children being a depressingly common case in point.

[Edit]

Mikaze... I've noticed there are a lot of things I don't agree with you about, but this is most assuredly something we agree on.

[CosmicKirby]

Mikaze wrote:

Eirikrautha wrote:

In a setting where gods are real and present, good would almost certainly be a non-humanist concept for the vast majority of the religious followers in Golarion. If Sarenrae requires the slaughter of the nearby Orc tribe, then it is good by definition. Disagreement might be culturally appropriate for western humanists, but it is no more "true" than any other culturally-determined belief...

No, if "Sarenrae" demands the slaughter of an entire tribe, you smite evil on her, because she's apparently Sifkesh or Shamira in disguise.

Good is not defined by Sarenrae. Sarenrae's actual goodness is defined by Good.

Like Ross said in the OP, the bar for Good keeps getting lowered to the point that it doesn't even qualify sometimes. Trying to excuse genocide and the murder of children being a depressingly common case in point.

That's an entirely different argument about where the objectivity of "Good" lies. Does it lie with the Goddess Sarenrae, who is of the Good domain? Or is the Good domain define what is "good".

Depending on the GM, Smite Evil might do nothing on Sarenrae, what if she's actually correct?

That's really a problem with having both Gods and platonic idealism, they don't play nice together. One implies a sentient being is calling the shots, the other is a mathematical constant ball of good-ness, having both begs questions of their contradictory nature.

Unless you're playing as a Philosopher, I really don't see the reason to question a God once you've determined they're real.

Edit: An afterthought; Sarenrae can also just be performing an evil act, as long as she isn't infallible it's also a possibility. Especially if she isn't the personification of good, and rather an incredibly powerful emissary.

[Jiggy]

Mikaze wrote:

There was an excellent sidebar in Dark Roads and Golden Hells about the need to not reduce Good and Evil to two teams in different jerseys. Need to look that up again.

I've gotten the impression that a great many people already think that Good and Evil alignments really are nothing more than Team Celestial and Team Fiendish. Seems like most threads about paladins being disruptive (at least the threads I've seen) tend to be rooted in that.

Basically, they apply a double-standard to what "evil" means; their necromancer can be "evil" independently of whether he's a bad and dangerous person or not, but the paladin is required to behave as he would if "evil" always meant "bad and dangerous person", and then point at the result as being proof that "good" includes violent psychopaths.

[Voadam]

Ross Byers wrote:

Evil does self-sacrifice, but not to help others. Only to help itself. Self, in this case, can be an expanded self, such as serving a greater Evil (a cult or evil mastermind.)

So somebody self-sacrificing to help a greater Good is not actually good alignment, because they are only actually helping an expanded self and not others?

[Ross Byers]

Prince of Knives wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good.

I attempted to do that, in my first post. I established as my axioms that Good can be equated with selflessness and Evil with selfishness. If you disagree with those axioms then the rest of the logic is invalid.

I'm afraid I have to, at least as core value. A Modron is selfless. A Formian is selfless. Plenty of devils act in selfless fashions. Selflessness is a trait shared by both Good and Law; Good values it because it displays a concern for others, Law values it because it displays a concern for the community.

I disagree. A modron (or formian) isn't selfless: It's just that 'self' is a great honking big hive mind.

Devils are similar: They're selfish as they come, but devils in their own branch of the infernal heirarchy, can be 'self'.

[Jeven]

The game's alignment system is obviously based on modern Western morality and values. So in a nutshell a very fluid combination of Christianity and modern humanism.

When it comes to the finer details there will inevitably be disagreements on some issues between players.

The game does have a neutral alignment though, so things which are controversial can be dumped into that category to avoid heated morality arguments.

[Ross Byers]

Voadam wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Evil does self-sacrifice, but not to help others. Only to help itself. Self, in this case, can be an expanded self, such as serving a greater Evil (a cult or evil mastermind.)

So somebody self-sacrificing to help a greater Good is not actually good alignment, because they are only actually helping an expanded self and not others?

Yes. There are degrees of 'otherness'. Helping my own spouse/child/tribe is less meaningful than helping a stranger.

Edit: Also, most example of Evil being self-sacrificing are things like suicide bombers or vicious weapons: hurting myself a comparative little to hurt my foes a LOT.

[Prince of Knives]

Ross Byers wrote:

Prince of Knives wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Distinguish the concepts for me. There is no objective definition of good.

I attempted to do that, in my first post. I established as my axioms that Good can be equated with selflessness and Evil with selfishness. If you disagree with those axioms then the rest of the logic is invalid.

I'm afraid I have to, at least as core value. A Modron is selfless. A Formian is selfless. Plenty of devils act in selfless fashions. Selflessness is a trait shared by both Good and Law; Good values it because it displays a concern for others, Law values it because it displays a concern for the community.

I disagree. A modron (or formian) isn't selfless: It's just that 'self' is a great honking big hive mind.

Devils are similar: They're selfish as they come, but devils in their own branch of the infernal heirarchy, can be 'self'.

Modrons don't have a hive mind, they're just very good at obedience. The existence of rogue Modrons is a testament to this.

As far as devils go, they display the very Lawful traits of loyalty, valor, honesty (in this case literalistic honesty) and community. A devil within your particular branch of Hell is still a rival, but the ties that bind you to them mean that you cooperate with them and perform selfless actions for them until or unless you can find a legal method of betraying them.

Hell is actually a very interesting case study in how mixing Law and Evil can accidentally make the Evil seem more Good. Treachery is a contractual obligation in the society Below, and one can be censured by the social contract for being insufficiently evil. At the same time, loyal and selfless service both to Hell and your oathsworn masters is expected. It's a delicious contradiction that kills a lot of people not clever enough to avoid being ground up alive by the system.