You view both choices as evil. I don't.
I find it evil that one is sitting on his hands and doing nothing because the choices are between a greater and lesser evil.
Ok this guy goes and kills a family and lets say five more, but he saved at lest that many in a war. And he is an upstanding member of his community and gives blood. What your saying is he has done no evil.
Good aligned characters oppose evil, they do not appease evil. Don't ever be the one to pull the trigger on the innocent.
A problem arises when you assign weight to good and evil acts such as you then define a lesser of two evils. Be confident that if you can define an act as evil, you don't have to weigh it outside of those parameters. Good aligned characters do not perform evil acts. Absolute and simple definition will help you here.
The devil's advocates will construct all manner of incongruous, devious and outrageous scenarios to tempt you into doing evil to do good. Don't buy it! That way lies madness. Level up and end the evil scourge!
|
No, you took the easy out. You justify what you did, but it was evil. Next time the chose will be easier, then the time after that easier soon it's "well only 40'000 will die we can still save 20'ooo"
You compromise and justify and every step goes easier and easier. Making the call to kill 60 will effect you enough for an AL switch and each small step gores easier and easier and you don't see what you have done as evil. No it was necessary is all.
To me LN and LE are the scariest of all AL's as they can justify anything.
Aaaah! The good ole "slippery slope" argument; favorite of evangelists everywhere! Your argument might work if the character was neutral. A good character, on the other hand, would see the situation for what it was, learn from it, and take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. Look at the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...sure 100's of thousands died, but their sacrifice saved the lives of millions. Was this act evil? I don't think so. Every life has a value, but when you compare those values 1,000,000 > 150,000 every time.
I use "lesser evil" as synonymous with "lesser good".
That's absolutely frightening, LT.
|
|
No, you took the easy out. You justify what you did, but it was evil. Next time the chose will be easier, then the time after that easier soon it's "well only 40'000 will die we can still save 20'ooo"
You compromise and justify and every step goes easier and easier. Making the call to kill 60 will effect you enough for an AL switch and each small step gores easier and easier and you don't see what you have done as evil. No it was necessary is all.
To me LN and LE are the scariest of all AL's as they can justify anything.
Aaaah! The good ole "slippery slope" argument; favorite of evangelists everywhere! Your argument might work if the character was neutral. A good character, on the other hand, would see the situation for what it was, learn from it, and take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. Look at the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...sure 100's of thousands died, but their sacrifice saved the lives of millions. Was this act evil? I don't think so. Every life has a value, but when you compare those values 1,000,000 > 150,000 every time.
|
|
Aaaah! The good ole "slippery slope" argument; favorite of evangelists everywhere! Your argument might work if the character was neutral. A good character, on the other hand, would see the situation for what it was, learn from it, and take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. Look at the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...sure 100's of thousands died, but their sacrifice saved the lives of millions. Was this act evil? I don't think so. Every life has a value, but when you compare those values 1,000,000 > 150,000 every time.No, you took the easy out. You justify what you did, but it was evil. Next time the chose will be easier, then the time after that easier soon it's "well only 40'000 will die we can still save 20'ooo"
You compromise and justify and every step goes easier and easier. Making the call to kill 60 will effect you enough for an AL switch and each small step gores easier and easier and you don't see what you have done as evil. No it was necessary is all.
To me LN and LE are the scariest of all AL's as they can justify anything.
Yes. It was evil. It was in fact a war crime, as was the destruction of Dresden. They didn't 'sacrifice' their lives, our side murdered them. And then talked about their sacrifice to make our crime seem less. Was it a sensible military decision? Yes, absolutely. Was it expedient? You bet. Was it the best decision to make under the circumstances? Probably. Was it the 'good' decision? No.
How is that in any way relevant to my hypothetical?
Its the very same thing. You kill people but thats not evil as you have done more good then evil right? What did those people you killed to save the 60000 do to deserve to die? did they come at you with weapons? no you went into here homes and murdered them ...but saved more then you murdered so it 's not evil right?
|
|
Yes. It was evil. It was in fact a war crime, as was the destruction of Dresden. They didn't 'sacrifice' their lives, our side murdered them. And then talked about their sacrifice to make our crime seem less. Was it a sensible military decision? Yes, absolutely. Was it expedient? You bet. Was it the best decision to make under the circumstances? Probably. Was it the 'good' decision? No.
I disagree...all's fair in love and war and all. Additionally, since we were pre-geneva convention (as i recall), it was both a lawful and a good act.
What do you mean by "disregarding all other people"?
then are we to define the good and evil of a person solely on other peoples opinion? (court system does) i believe evil can only be done if a person knows an act is evil and conciously makes a decision to commit said evil act disregarding all other people, showing a clear lack of morality.
selfishness
Some of you believe there is some sort of objective standard of good and evil and you, luckily enough, happen to see yourselves on the good side of that divide (it's amazing how often people who believe in good vs. evil believe they are on the good side).
I'm a bit more neutral - primarily because I've seen the kind of damage that believing in objective good/evil does. In terms of game alignment, I'm more true neutral. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that I see "lesser evil" as synonymous with "lesser good" and have a great deal of suspicion towards fundamentalist morality.
The murder of an innocent. Evil or just another log on the fire of greater good/lesser evil?
Good and Evil act themselves out on a both a small and large stage in a character’s life but the one principle that ties them together is Empathy. Empathy is the ability for you to put yourself in someone else’s place, understand what they are enduring, realize that you wouldn’t want that to happen to you, and then taking steps to prevent it or alleviate it. Just as importantly, the urge to change things that are happening to other people is often a greater urge than pursuing your own interests. When Good characters confront someone, or something being put into a position that they themselves would not want to be in, the characters should take some action to change things, if they can. This can be something as minor as a Good aligned merchant giving some down on their luck adventurers a break on his prices, or as large as a party making the defeat of an Evil mage the sole focus of their lives. The other side of Good is the protection of Good people, and the defeat of Evil. This is how seemingly Good people can go about murdering sentient creatures, and still keep that halo. In the Forgotten Realms campaign, a nation of Good creatures has formed a country called the Silver Marches, and an orc barbarian is trying to form an army to kill, rape, and slaughter the Good people. Under these conditions, it would be perfectly Good for a group of adventurers to go out into the forest, hunting down and killing Evil goblins.
Good: The basic rules of Good are as follows:
1) Support, aid, and protect non-Evil creatures.
2) Defeat and destroy Evil
Evil If Good was difficult to describe, Evil is easy: “I’m in it for number one, and everyone else is just a tool for me getting what I want.” Have you ever anyone say “He’s a complete sociopath.” Of course, they’re exaggerating usually, because complete sociopaths are some of the most evil people there are. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahlmer to name just a few. When a group of psychologists examined various sociopathic people they found a curious common trait: a complete lack of empathy. To a sociopath, a person has the same meaning and relevance as a chair or a table or a car. They see people as tools and pawns that either help or hinder their quest to achieve their own goals. The ones that help are treated as any useful object would, the ones that do not help are tossed to the side, and the ones that hinder are destroyed
Evil: The basic rules of Evil are:
1) Only look out for number one.
2) Other sentient creatures are only tools for getting what you want. If they help, work with them, if they hinder, eliminate them.
Neutral Neutral people fall into two groups: Conscientious Neutral, and Ignorant / Apathetic Neutral. Conscientious Neutral Conscientious Neutral people see the universe as a place where everything must balance. Just as there is summer, there is winter; predator has prey; Good has Evil.
Ignorant / Apathetic Neutral A television interviewer once asked a guy on the street: “What is your opinion about the ignorance and apathy on the part of the American voter.” To which the man on the street replied “I don’t know, and I don’t care.” This sums up the vast majority of people who are neutral. They aren’t looking to help the downtrodden or wronged, but they also aren’t looking to trod on or wrong anybody either. “Me and Mine” are a guiding principle for this kind of neutral person. They’ll step up to help someone who has a personal connection to them, but everyone else is on their own. In the same fashion, they will attempt to harm someone who has hurt them or someone that they have a personal connection to, but otherwise they won’t hurt anyone else. They don’t want evil people to come to power, but they also don’t want some goody two shoes telling them how to live their lives either. They just want to be left alone. Most of the people that your PC’s will run into fall into this category. They are the people living in the villages and towns who aren’t caught up in the titanic struggle of Good Versus Evil, they just want to get their crops grown and harvested, their kids grown and married off, and perhaps a warm spot by the fire when they get old.
Neutral:
Neutral people fall into two groups: Conscientious Neutral, and Ignorant / Apathetic Neutral.
The basic rules of Neutrality are:
1) Good and Evil must be balanced to maintain the universal order.(only aplyes to a person who is Consientious neutral)
2) Only worry about “Me and Mine”
Law vs Chaos.(and pleas Think ORDER whenever you see Law, since following the law says nothing about lawfull when we look at alignment)
The basic rules of Chaos are:
1) The only constant in life is change.
2) The rights of the individual trump the rights of society.
3) The heart rules the mind.
The basic rules of Law (Order) are:
1) Order and Discipline are guiding principles for life.
2) The needs of society trump that of any individual.
3) The head should rule and control the heart.
Neutral people fall into two groups: Conscientious Neutral, and Expediency Neutral
The basic rules of Neutrality are:
1) Chaos and Law must be balanced to maintain the universal order.(only aplyes to a beeing who see neutral as a religious or pilosofical goal in it self)
2) Use whatever works.
that is my take on Good and evil.
|
|
wow. I walk away for an hour and a half and there's 40 replies. We need to drop this topic guys - it's burning too hot.Agreed, we can't even stay philosophical about this. Maybe we should retry somewhere else.One thing is clear. There are different - even diametrically opposed - ideas of what is "good".
Which points out what I've said multiple times before - the moral system in this game is written in crayon.
That's what makes it fun!
Some of you believe there is some sort of objective standard of good and evil and you, luckily enough, happen to see yourselves on the good side of that divide (it's amazing how often people who believe in good vs. evil believe they are on the good side).
I'm a bit more neutral - primarily because I've seen the kind of damage that believing in objective good/evil does. In terms of game alignment, I'm more true neutral. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that I see "lesser evil" as synonymous with "lesser good" and have a great deal of suspicion towards fundamentalist morality.
The murder of an innocent. Evil or just another log on the fire of greater good/lesser evil?
Whenever you ask someone to define what makes a good person, they often will outline their own personal qualities, or the precepts of their god, that is just how the human mind works. and to be fair most ppl in the real world are neutral(to use a D&D term) because we worrie about "me and mine" but do not dont actually participate in the larger sceems of things, who can honestly say that they could follow the moral code of good in both thought and Action(the later beening fare more important than the intention)
|
|
Bad example using the analogy of the A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how it is observed its an evil act. Saying that the 150000 innocent civilians 'sacrifice' saved millions was merely the golden pill for the people to swallow.
It wasn't an easy decision, but ultimately it was a good one. Had we not done it, the war would have drug on until one of our enemies had a working nuke...and if you think they would have shown restraint and stopped at using two you're naive. We would have had no choice but to retaliate and would have ended up with a global nuclear winter...so yeah i think killing 150,000 in lieu of this was a good decision. Not the lesser of two evils. Not pure evil. But the only decision that could be made and one that i would have been able to sleep well at night knowing i had made the right one were it me making the decision.
So, you are a devout and stalwart believer and adherer to total pacifism as well? Or do you just not like to acknowledge how your moral code chooses the murder of innocents?The murder of an innocent. Evil or just another log on the fire of greater good/lesser evil?
Whoa there, Nelly, I just asked a question. And I have no idea what you're saying about my moral code, please be specific about choosing the murder of innocents.
Bad example using the analogy of the A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how it is observed its an evil act. Saying that the 150000 innocent civilians 'sacrifice' saved millions was merely the golden pill for the people to swallow.
Aaaah! The good ole "slippery slope" argument; favorite of evangelists everywhere! Your argument might work if the character was neutral. A good character, on the other hand, would see the situation for what it was, learn from it, and take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. Look at the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...sure 100's of thousands died, but their sacrifice saved the lives of millions. Was this act evil? I don't think so. Every life has a value, but when you compare those values 1,000,000 > 150,000 every time.
the "sacrifice" of others are never good, at least not in the classic alignment debate. the key to understanding this should be empathy. witch lets you see if from the perspective of the sacrifice/victim.
"if someone told you, you where going to be murdered, but by dying 10 others (random) people would be saved, would you then go along with it?"
this is not so unrealistic if you put up your organs for transplantation and then kill yourself you might save at least 5 other people who are in need of new harts, lungs ect.but who does that?
What part of my hypothetical involved going into peoples' homes and murdering them?
Forget I asked. It's not relevant. What is relevant is that you have no idea what my hypothetical even is. You might want to go back and read it again.
But you did, you choose 60 people. How did they get picked? you never said but it comes down to you rounded 60 people up and murder them for the greater good. Yes it's an evil act, dress it however you like
You seem to like changing the v when it suits you but if someone else builds off the change they " don't have an ideal hypothetical even is" when it seems you don't know what it was at this point
|
|
Whoa there, Nelly, I just asked a question. And I have no idea what you're saying about my moral code, please be specific about choosing the murder of innocents.The murder of an innocent. Evil or just another log on the fire of greater good/lesser evil?
So, you are a devout and stalwart believer and adherer to total pacifism as well? Or do you just not like to acknowledge how your moral code chooses the murder of innocents?
Mr. Young do you or do you not ever advocate the loss of innocents. For example, every legal system in the world is imperfect. Should we assume "innocent until proven guilty" and, thereby, advocate the loss of innocent lives by people who we let out of the legal system whom we assumed were innocent?
I believe, with rare exception, almost all of us advocate a system which is imperfect and will result in the loss of innocent lives. The only way around that is to live a life of total pacifism.
Actually, we've acknowledged that. That's why we call the lesser of two evils evil but necessary. You're the one who's claiming it's explicitly good. Do you even understand your own arguments?
Bad example using the analogy of the A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how it is observed its an evil act. Saying that the 150000 innocent civilians 'sacrifice' saved millions was merely the golden pill for the people to swallow.It wasn't an easy decision, but ultimately it was a good one. Had we not done it, the war would have drug on until one of our enemies had a working nuke...and if you think they would have shown restraint and stopped at using two you're naive. We would have had no choice but to retaliate and would have ended up with a global nuclear winter...so yeah i think killing 150,000 in lieu of this was a good decision. Not the lesser of two evils. Not pure evil. But the only decision that could be made and one that i would have been able to sleep well at night knowing i had made the right one were it me making the decision.
do onto others before they do onto you? again would you be the one to be sacrificed in order to prove a point that may or may not be real.
Richard:
"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)
|
|
do onto others before they do onto you? again would you be the one to be sacrificed in order to prove a point that may or may not be real.Bad example using the analogy of the A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how it is observed its an evil act. Saying that the 150000 innocent civilians 'sacrifice' saved millions was merely the golden pill for the people to swallow.It wasn't an easy decision, but ultimately it was a good one. Had we not done it, the war would have drug on until one of our enemies had a working nuke...and if you think they would have shown restraint and stopped at using two you're naive. We would have had no choice but to retaliate and would have ended up with a global nuclear winter...so yeah i think killing 150,000 in lieu of this was a good decision. Not the lesser of two evils. Not pure evil. But the only decision that could be made and one that i would have been able to sleep well at night knowing i had made the right one were it me making the decision.
That "do unto others" stuff is crap. Not everyone wants to be treated the same. While I'm sure not everyone wants to die (with the exception of Carbunkles), when it comes to war, the rules of good and evil change dramatically (as these concepts are just that...concepts--nothing concrete). Are all the combatants in opposing armies evil because they are actively trying to seek and destroy each other? No. There comes a point when taking a life to defend yourself or your people is no longer evil or a necessary evil, but the only thing that can be done...and a good thing at that.
Mr. Young do you or do you not ever advocate the loss of innocents. For example, every legal system in the world is imperfect. Should we assume "innocent until proven guilty" and, thereby, advocate the loss of innocent lives by people who we let out of the legal system whom we assumed were innocent?I believe, with rare exception, almost all of us advocate a system which is imperfect and will result in the loss of innocent lives. The only way around that is to live a life of total pacifism.
But I did not reference 'loss' of innocents. I said 'murder' of an innocent. Is this not evil?
And I can completely separate my arguments from my personal beliefs, don't assume the two necessarily go hand in glove. You may find we agree here more than we disagree.
The game allows us a much freer embrace of absolutes by featuring readily identifiable alignments that don't exist in reality. In the game, we can judge each act in terms of absolutes, because they exist there.
|
|
Actually, we've acknowledged that. That's why we call the lesser of two evils evil but necessary. You're the one who's claiming it's explicitly good. Do you even understand your own arguments?Whoa there, Nelly, I just asked a question. And I have no idea what you're saying about my moral code, please be specific about choosing the murder of innocents.The murder of an innocent. Evil or just another log on the fire of greater good/lesser evil?
So, you are a devout and stalwart believer and adherer to total pacifism as well? Or do you just not like to acknowledge how your moral code chooses the murder of innocents?
Mr. Young do you or do you not ever advocate the loss of innocents. For example, every legal system in the world is imperfect. Should we assume "innocent until proven guilty" and, thereby, advocate the loss of innocent lives by people who we let out of the legal system whom we assumed were innocent?
I believe, with rare exception, almost all of us advocate a system which is imperfect and will result in the loss of innocent lives. The only way around that is to live a life of total pacifism.
Yes, I'm calling it explicitly good.
Now, about you calling it "necessary". In what way, exactly, is it "necessary"? Clearly you don't mean its "necessary" in the same way as breathing, eating, or taking up space. It's not at all clear what you mean -exactly- by "necessary".
I mean it in the same way most people mean it.
With your example, the legal system is flawed, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. We make the best system we can and try to minimise and rectify it when it causes harm to the innocent. That doesn't mean that harming the innocent is good.
If I am in a situation where I have to kill one person to save ten, then I would kill them (unless I knew them in which case the ten are s%&# out of luck, but that's my selfishness not any sort of goodness acting). But that would not make the act good, just better than the alternative. It was necessary, but not good. You don't seem to believe there's a difference.
EDIT: and as Niels points out, in real life most of us are neutral because we don't do the right thing if it hurts us. In the game, which is what we're allegedly discussing, we hold our characters to higher standards because in the game, absolute good and evil verifiably exist.
|
|
What 'enemies' Germany and the axis allies had been defeated by then, and the war was over in Europe, Japan was the only country left. At the time only the Americans had the technology for atomic energy, by virtue of having all the scientists who had atomic energy knowledge. The Russians wouldn't obtain it until the fifties. The War would have lasted several months longer possibly higher soldier loss, but the loss of innocent civilians would have been less. This argument you posit is 'Do unto others first before you do unto me' I find it satanically evilBad example using the analogy of the A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how it is observed its an evil act. Saying that the 150000 innocent civilians 'sacrifice' saved millions was merely the golden pill for the people to swallow.It wasn't an easy decision, but ultimately it was a good one. Had we not done it, the war would have drug on until one of our enemies had a working nuke...and if you think they would have shown restraint and stopped at using two you're naive. We would have had no choice but to retaliate and would have ended up with a global nuclear winter...so yeah i think killing 150,000 in lieu of this was a good decision. Not the lesser of two evils. Not pure evil. But the only decision that could be made and one that i would have been able to sleep well at night knowing i had made the right one were it me making the decision.
Whatever floats your boat...I'm just saying that i value the lives of soldiers of my country over the lives of any member of a country that perpetrated a cowardly and unprovoked attack.
EDIT: To clarify...we were at war with Japan at the time. We now have a peaceful relationship with them and there is no reason to still feel this way towards the Japanese. Again, war changes everything.
|
|
LT,
In the real world, I believe good is an unattainable goal where people act without any selfishness and give their all to help another without reward. I never claimed I was good.
In the game, I hold the same belief but as there's no actual risk, I can play up to the ideal and sacrifice my character's life in a way I wouldn't do with mine.
As we're discussing characters in the game, where there is absolute good and evil, this is possible. In real life where there isn't? Not so much. You seem to be conflating the two. We are discussing good and evil in the game, not in the shifting sands of the real world.
Just a reminder: ethicists have been trying to determine the nature of good and evil for, well, just about all of human history. It is still debatable. So let's not get too hot under the collar over someone else's ethical system.
There is a story I like to remember from 2nd edition. There once was a band of Paladins of Tyr, a demon had done something terrible and escaped through a forest that was filled with elves and was sacred to said elves, those elves were good people. When the paladins got there and tried to passed through the forest the elves said they could not go on, cause they would harm the "holliness"of said place, the paladins killed all elves that stood in their path, got the demon and solved the problem. Not one of them lost status nor had a change in alignment.
I think it's funny that when a good guy does one evil deed everyone says he IS evil, period. An when an evil guy does a good thing, no one pays heed to it and say he is good.
Let's be more specific.
A Balor has captured a thousand people, and will begin devouring them at sunset. He will stop only if a paladin (from a neighboring kingdom, so under no direct obligation to help beyond being a servant of Good) is willing to sacrifice a 6 year old girl in a specific ritual that will bind her innocent soul to the Balor.
What is the right thing to do?
Fight the Balor, free as many of the people as possible, offer himself to the Balor instead. No good being would sacrifice a child to a demon under any circumstances. There is always another way - and if he dies fighting the demon, and captured people die, the Paladin at least tried to stop the demon. Being a Paladin is about doing all you can to do what is right.
|
|
Let's be more specific.
A Balor has captured a thousand people, and will begin devouring them at sunset. He will stop only if a paladin (from a neighboring kingdom, so under no direct obligation to help beyond being a servant of Good) is willing to sacrifice a 6 year old girl in a specific ritual that will bind her innocent soul to the Balor.
What is the right thing to do?
If the paladin has a decent chance of winning against the Balor...fight it.
If not, find some way to bind the Balor to his word then sacrifice the kid. Atone if necessary (although I don't believe it would be).
There is a story I like to remember from 2nd edition. There once was a band of Paladins of Tyr, a demon had done something terrible and escaped through a forest that was filled with elves and was sacred to said elves, those elves were good people. When the paladins got there and tried to passed through the forest the elves said they could not go on, cause they would harm the "holliness"of said place, the paladins killed all elves that stood in their path, got the demon and solved the problem. Not one of them lost status nor had a change in alignment.
I think it's funny that when a good guy does one evil deed everyone says he IS evil, period. An when an evil guy does a good thing, no one pays heed to it and say he is good.
But in-world, people might. Take for instance "Jayne's Town" from Firefly. Jayne was committing a robbery that accidentally benefited the "mudders". To him, it was just a job that went wrong. He would go on to commit many more criminal acts for hire and for fun. But to the Mudders, he was a hero, and anyone that said differently was just wrong. It would be fitting that an evil character who did something that helped the greater good, even for evil purposes, might be considered good by some people - even if those who actually know the characters "know better".
In your example, the Paladins committed an evil act and they should have lost status. There were other ways of handling the situation. They could have sought the blessing of the Elves' priests. They could have implored the Elves to drive the demon out. They could found a way to work with the elves - if the elves were good, as was stipulated, a solution could have been found. Just killing the elves was an evil act - it was taking good, innocent lives for their own ends.
Let's be more specific.
A Balor has captured a thousand people, and will begin devouring them at sunset. He will stop only if a paladin (from a neighboring kingdom, so under no direct obligation to help beyond being a servant of Good) is willing to sacrifice a 6 year old girl in a specific ritual that will bind her innocent soul to the Balor.
What is the right thing to do?
If the paladin has a decent chance of winning against the Balor...fight it.
If not, find some way to bind the Balor to his word then sacrifice the kid. Atone if necessary (although I don't believe it would be).
You NEVER sacrifice an innocent to a demon. Chances of winning be damned, you don't help an evil demon. You don't make bargains with them - because you know, by their nature, they will betray their oaths. That's not a semantic argument, demons literally are the embodiment of Chaotic Evil.