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.
I don't think I would have. Yes, ultimately it may have been the better choice, but I would never say that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good act. Perhaps it was necessary, it may even be probable that it was the only way to force a surrender and end the war. But given all that, I would still never say it was good.
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.As i said before:
find some way to bind the Balor to his wordIf this is not possible, don't fight it if you're horribly outmatched. I say this because good "requires" the preservation of life. If you know you're going to lose, then you are needlessly throwing your life away on top of the 1001 lives already in jeopardy.
And if you fight the demon to keep it's attention while your allies free the captives? Sometimes you have to fight even when you know you're going to lose, because even in losing, you can do good.
|
I don't think I would have. Yes, ultimately it may have been the better choice, but I would never say that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good act. Perhaps it was necessary, it may even be probable that it was the only way to force a surrender and end the war. But given all that, I would still never say it was good.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.
In war there is only what is good for your side. Not doing the most you can to preserve life for your side during a war is evil IMHO. Take torture for instance. The only reason I oppose torture by our military is because we have agreed not to do it; were this limit not in place, i would have no problem torturing enemies if i thought it could save even one of my people's lives.
One evil act, doesn't make one's alignment. War is a great example of this, good people kill each other all the time in wars, they don't become evil because of it.
I like the scaling alignment, no one is utterlly good or evil. So, from that basis alone, the OP is Neutral in my view, he may have shifted closer to evil sometimes, and closer to good on other moments, but he is neither. Raistilin is a GREAT example of this.
|
To answer the OP, I think he's CN. Like a previous poster said: pretty much Halaster the Mad camp (i.e. appetite for destruction = chaos) A few evil acts here and there doesn't make one evil. Chaotic Evil would mean he's in it for himself 100% of the time, always looking for an angle to screw others, etc.
|
|
And if you fight the demon to keep it's attention while your allies free the captives? Sometimes you have to fight even when you know you're going to lose, because even in losing, you can do good.
If you're going to get one-shotted by this demon, then there is no point in fighting. You won't be buying any time, you'll be throwing your life away for no gain whatsoever. We had a situation in our game the other night where we were horribly outmatched by a CE dragon (we were level 2). The paladin wanted to flee with the group, but when he did he was told he felt his powers leave him. He was given another chance, went back and was horribly slaughtered...for no gain whatsoever. I feel that a needless sacrifice of oneself is totally unnecessary...not that it would matter unless he was being raised.
|
|
Ok, last post in the thread for me, because all that really matters is that everyone around the game table has the same view of in game good and evil. So here's how I rule on the kill 60 to save 60000 issue.
1) You are tricked and don't know you're killing 60 people, and there's no reason you should know that you are.
If you're a Paldin, nothing happens. You didn't knowingly commit evil.
If you're Good, nothing happens for the same reason.
2) If you do know but can see no other choice.
If you're a Paladin, you fall, but the atonement quest will be difficult (because they always are) but not impossibly challenging.
If you're Good, nothing will happen but I might bring it up occasinally when you're acting cocky about your righteousness.
3) If do know, and just do it because it's easier or too much risk to your character.
If you're a Paladin, you fall so hard there's a mile wide impact crater and the dust blots out the sun. The redemption quest involves redeeming one of the Archdevils.
If you're Good, you will be asked "What's the alignemnt on your character sheet? Are you sure?". If you continue to do evil, it probably won't stay Good for long.
That's it. It's an evil, but if you have no good options you don't change alignment unless you're a Paladin as they're held to the ideal.
And if you fight the demon to keep it's attention while your allies free the captives? Sometimes you have to fight even when you know you're going to lose, because even in losing, you can do good.If you're going to get one-shotted by this demon, then there is no point in fighting. You won't be buying any time, you'll be throwing your life away for no gain whatsoever. We had a situation in our game the other night where we were horribly outmatched by a CE dragon (we were level 2). The paladin wanted to flee with the group, but when he did he was told he felt his powers leave him. He was given another chance, went back and was horribly slaughtered...for no gain whatsoever. I feel that a needless sacrifice of oneself is totally unnecessary...not that it would matter unless he was being raised.
That's Bad DMying.
And if you fight the demon to keep it's attention while your allies free the captives? Sometimes you have to fight even when you know you're going to lose, because even in losing, you can do good.If you're going to get one-shotted by this demon, then there is no point in fighting. You won't be buying any time, you'll be throwing your life away for no gain whatsoever. We had a situation in our game the other night where we were horribly outmatched by a CE dragon (we were level 2). The paladin wanted to flee with the group, but when he did he was told he felt his powers leave him. He was given another chance, went back and was horribly slaughtered...for no gain whatsoever. I feel that a needless sacrifice of oneself is totally unnecessary...not that it would matter unless he was being raised.
That's your DM being an a$$#ole. Anyone who pits a level 2 party against a dragon is an outright jerk. Was this a random encounter or part of a larger adventure?
Even if fighting futilely may not be the best option, it's still a far better option than sacrificing someone else's soul to the demon.
|
|
And if you fight the demon to keep it's attention while your allies free the captives? Sometimes you have to fight even when you know you're going to lose, because even in losing, you can do good.If you're going to get one-shotted by this demon, then there is no point in fighting. You won't be buying any time, you'll be throwing your life away for no gain whatsoever. We had a situation in our game the other night where we were horribly outmatched by a CE dragon (we were level 2). The paladin wanted to flee with the group, but when he did he was told he felt his powers leave him. He was given another chance, went back and was horribly slaughtered...for no gain whatsoever. I feel that a needless sacrifice of oneself is totally unnecessary...not that it would matter unless he was being raised.That's your DM being an a$$#ole. Anyone who pits a level 2 party against a dragon is an outright jerk. Was this a random encounter or part of a larger adventure?
Even if fighting futilely may not be the best option, it's still a far better option than sacrificing someone else's soul to the demon.
Part of an adventure...and we had all the clues that the dragon was there (big pool of acid, item needed for our adventure sitting in the middle of it in a humongous room, etc.). We even had a couple potions conducive to NOT waking the dragon in a chest in the adjacent room. We just made alot of noise trying to do it another way, woke the dragon and were trying to escape from the room and seal it in. Point is, by your reasoning, that is what the paladin should have done...stood and fight even though he was horribly outmatched.
To answer a few questions so far...
In my partial defense, a good majority of those 60 innocent bystanders would've died anyway. They would've walked themselves right into a meat grinder thinking that it was some amusement park ride. If it weren't for the group, none of those people would've survived anyway. I remember my response when the rest of the group said WTF. It was "those people were dead anyway". In spite of all that, I still see it as an evil act, for sure.
The Chaotic Nuetral alignment came from when I created him. He's had a lot of tradgedy in his past that just drove him mad. Early on, he was very reckless. He'd run in the middle of a room with 30 goblins in it channeling until he dropped. He was quite suicidal and had nothing to live for. I had my DM choose his diety since he doesn't even know who or what supplies him power. He has the Destruction and Madness domains. He's certainly not all there but is getting better as he's developed a stong loyalty to the group (mostly out of necessity to make this kind of character work).
He doesn't do good to get rewarded and has never asked for one. He doesn't really have any kind of agenda. He goes on whatever adventures the group wants to partake in (which are your standard save the person/town/world type stuff) but more out of a protective obsession of the group. I guess I should note that the incident described above only happened because we were getting dangerously close to being defeated. One party member had already been turned into a tree (the wizard), another had fallen and the other two left were getting close. He typically won't needlessly kill people but typically, that'll get you arrested and executed rather quickly as well. He doesn't really care but won't screw the group over with his actions.
Note: I have over 100 more posts to read (and counting) so it might be a little while before I can address other questions and comments that came after post 50 or so.
To answer a few questions so far...
In my partial defense, a good majority of those 60 innocent bystanders would've died anyway. They would've walked themselves right into a meat grinder thinking that it was some amusement park ride. If it weren't for the group, none of those people would've survived anyway. I remember my response when the rest of the group said WTF. It was "those people were dead anyway". In spite of all that, I still see it as an evil act, for sure.
The Chaotic Nuetral alignment came from when I created him. He's had a lot of tradgedy in his past that just drove him mad. Early on, he was very reckless. He'd run in the middle of a room with 30 goblins in it channeling until he dropped. He was quite suicidal and had nothing to live for. I had my DM choose his diety since he doesn't even know who or what supplies him power. He has the Destruction and Madness domains. He's certainly not all there but is getting better as he's developed a stong loyalty to the group (mostly out of necessity to make this kind of character work).
He doesn't do good to get rewarded and has never asked for one. He doesn't really have any kind of agenda. He goes on whatever adventures the group wants to partake in (which are your standard save the person/town/world type stuff) but more out of a protective obsession of the group. I guess I should note that the incident described above only happened because we were getting dangerously close to being defeated. One party member had already been turned into a tree (the wizard), another had fallen and the other two left were getting close. He typically won't needlessly kill people but typically, that'll get you arrested and executed rather quickly as well. He doesn't really care but won't screw the group over with his actions.
Note: I have over 100 more posts to read (and counting) so it might be a little while before I can address other questions and comments that came after post 50 or so.
Neutral Evil.
Part of an adventure...and we had all the clues that the dragon was there (big pool of acid, item needed for our adventure sitting in the middle of it in a humongous room, etc.). We even had a couple potions conducive to NOT waking the dragon in a chest in the adjacent room. We just made alot of noise trying to do it another way, woke the dragon and were trying to escape from the room and seal it in. Point is, by your reasoning, that is what the paladin should have done...stood and fight even though he was horribly outmatched.And if you fight the demon to keep it's attention while your allies free the captives? Sometimes you have to fight even when you know you're going to lose, because even in losing, you can do good.If you're going to get one-shotted by this demon, then there is no point in fighting. You won't be buying any time, you'll be throwing your life away for no gain whatsoever. We had a situation in our game the other night where we were horribly outmatched by a CE dragon (we were level 2). The paladin wanted to flee with the group, but when he did he was told he felt his powers leave him. He was given another chance, went back and was horribly slaughtered...for no gain whatsoever. I feel that a needless sacrifice of oneself is totally unnecessary...not that it would matter unless he was being raised.That's your DM being an a$$#ole. Anyone who pits a level 2 party against a dragon is an outright jerk. Was this a random encounter or part of a larger adventure?
Even if fighting futilely may not be the best option, it's still a far better option than sacrificing someone else's soul to the demon.
If it helped the group getaway - giving the party another round's lead to get to their horses/whatever - then yes, he should have. It would have been a noble sacrifice as long as it helped the rest of the party escaped. But it's still a Bad DM move. You don't sent lowbies against BBEGs.
Neutral Evil.
Surviving is not evil. It's Neutral.
|
|
To answer a few questions so far...
In my partial defense, a good majority of those 60 innocent bystanders would've died anyway. They would've walked themselves right into a meat grinder thinking that it was some amusement park ride. If it weren't for the group, none of those people would've survived anyway. I remember my response when the rest of the group said WTF. It was "those people were dead anyway". In spite of all that, I still see it as an evil act, for sure.
The Chaotic Nuetral alignment came from when I created him. He's had a lot of tradgedy in his past that just drove him mad. Early on, he was very reckless. He'd run in the middle of a room with 30 goblins in it channeling until he dropped. He was quite suicidal and had nothing to live for. I had my DM choose his diety since he doesn't even know who or what supplies him power. He has the Destruction and Madness domains. He's certainly not all there but is getting better as he's developed a stong loyalty to the group (mostly out of necessity to make this kind of character work).
He doesn't do good to get rewarded and has never asked for one. He doesn't really have any kind of agenda. He goes on whatever adventures the group wants to partake in (which are your standard save the person/town/world type stuff) but more out of a protective obsession of the group. I guess I should note that the incident described above only happened because we were getting dangerously close to being defeated. One party member had already been turned into a tree (the wizard), another had fallen and the other two left were getting close. He typically won't needlessly kill people but typically, that'll get you arrested and executed rather quickly as well. He doesn't really care but won't screw the group over with his actions.
Note: I have over 100 more posts to read (and counting) so it might be a little while before I can address other questions and comments that came after post 50 or so.
Sounds to me like he's LN--he has a personal code that he follows (protect the group) and has no distinction between good and evil as to how he accomplishes that code.
|
|
Ok, last post in the thread for me, because all that really matters is that everyone around the game table has the same view of in game good and evil. So here's how I rule on the kill 60 to save 60000 issue.
1) You are tricked and don't know you're killing 60 people, and there's no reason you should know that you are.
If you're a Paldin, nothing happens. You didn't knowingly commit evil.
If you're Good, nothing happens for the same reason.2) If you do know but can see no other choice.
If you're a Paladin, you fall, but the atonement quest will be difficult (because they always are) but not impossibly challenging.
If you're Good, nothing will happen but I might bring it up occasinally when you're acting cocky about your righteousness.3) If do know, and just do it because it's easier or too much risk to your character.
If you're a Paladin, you fall so hard there's a mile wide impact crater and the dust blots out the sun. The redemption quest involves redeeming one of the Archdevils.
If you're Good, you will be asked "What's the alignemnt on your character sheet? Are you sure?". If you continue to do evil, it probably won't stay Good for long.That's it. It's an evil, but if you have no good options you don't change alignment unless you're a Paladin as they're held to the ideal.
I can agree with 1, 2, and 3 above, but would add 4.
4.) You know that, to save the 60,000 you must sacrifice the 60. You choose to do nothing and allow the 60,000 to die.
Result: as per 3 above.
And at your table that's fine. But if the DM pulls that stunt on a Paladin and give them no self-sacrifice way out, they're being a massive douche as a DM.
EDIT: Yes, I know. I rolled a 1 on my Will save. So sue me.
|
|
If it helped the group getaway - giving the party another round's lead to get to their horses/whatever - then yes, he should have. It would have been a noble sacrifice as long as it helped the rest of the party escaped. But it's still a Bad DM move. You don't sent lowbies against BBEGs.
It was one of those encounters that I believe the book describes as 'easy if the players figure out the trick' (or something like that i'm paraphrasing). It goes on to say that if the trick isn't found then the encounter becomes very difficult to impossible. We, as a part, had all the tools available to us, but didn't recognize them for what they were/chose not to use them. It was our fault for not thinking more creatively about the situation. A bad DM would have made the situation impossible (ie.- we had to fight and defeat the dragon).
As for the pally helping us escape...most of the group was already halfway down the hallway...if there's any complaint I have, it's my usual one about most players/DMs views on paladins.
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.
And that was crap. The 'good' elves prefer the company of demons to paladins? Why bother with alignment at all. Murder anyone who stands in the way of your purported goodness.... The demon won this one!
And that was crap. The 'good' elves prefer the company of demons to paladins? Why bother with alignment at all. Murder anyone who stands in the way of your purported goodness.... The demon won this one!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.
The Demon passed through the forest, they didn't protect him. thy gave the options for the paladins to not go through the forest and go around it. That was a clear case of "holy war". Each one protecting what they perceived as right (and so did their Gods and Religions), but not doing anything good.
The Demon passed through the forest, they didn't protect him. thy gave the options for the paladins to not go through the forest and go around it. That was a clear case of "holy war". Each one protecting what they perceived as right (and so did their Gods and Religions), but not doing anything good.
Let's see. Go around the forest or murder the good elves. Hmmm. Yeah, that's a tough one for paladins....
|
|
The Demon passed through the forest, they didn't protect him. thy gave the options for the paladins to not go through the forest and go around it. That was a clear case of "holy war". Each one protecting what they perceived as right (and so did their Gods and Religions), but not doing anything good.Let's see. Go around the forest or murder the good elves. Hmmm. Yeah, that's a tough one for paladins....
Could be the paladins thought the elves were aiding the demon? That would make them fair game.
Note: have not read this story so I'm unsure of the details.
To answer a few questions so far...
In my partial defense, a good majority of those 60 innocent bystanders would've died anyway. They would've walked themselves right into a meat grinder thinking that it was some amusement park ride. If it weren't for the group, none of those people would've survived anyway. I remember my response when the rest of the group said WTF. It was "those people were dead anyway". In spite of all that, I still see it as an evil act, for sure.
"Nuke 'em from orbit; its the only way to be sure" isn't evil, per say. But in the original use of that sentence, the colonists truly were dead. There is nothing the Marines could have done to prevent those deaths.
However, I suspect that there was something your character could have done instead of what he did. And there isn't anything in your posts thus far to indicate that your character has had any particular moments of "good." That is, self-sacrifice, altruism, and atonement.
A good role-playing moment might be for your "wandering" character to realize that it's time to take a stand. This event would be a good catalyst for character growth. "Through my actions, widows now cry, and children will grow up without fathers. Mothers weep over the bodies of their children. Never again will the innocent be sacrificed. Never again will evil triumph."
Shrugging it off implies an evil personality.
I don't think "neutral" should exist for the character after this; it was a pretty big event (60 innocents, after all).
Good luck.
They had no time, the demon was about to make a nasty ritual, they had to go through. As I said, this story is to illustrate, that nothing is SUPREME when it comes to good and evil. It's extremelly complicated, but one action is not enough to judge one's alignment, normally.
Sounds to me like he's LN--he has a personal code that he follows (protect the group) and has no distinction between good and evil as to how he accomplishes that code.
I really can't imagine him as Lawful. Yes he has a personal code to protect his freinds (even at risk to himself) but I don't believe that's enough. He still has no greater lawful tendencies than that. He would go disreguard law and order under just about any other situation on a whim. One could argue that he's Nuetral on this axis but this argument would make a truly Chaotic character very difficult to play. Everyone has at least a loose personal code unless they are 100% mad/crazy. My character is probably only half mad. I don't want him turning on the group just because he's crazy and unpredictable.
Now with a clearer picture of your situation. It shows clearly he has some rationality. He can tell between right and wrong. He knows killing innocent people will get a noose around his neck. Looking at the situation now we got a party that's half down, sixty or so innocents ready to become hamburger meat, and a slightly insane cleric having to make a quick choice between life and death. Good act no way. Evil act under normal circumstances yes. Lawful act no there seems no plan. Chaotic Yes spur of the momment and based on emotion rather than logic. Under normal circumstances I would consider this a Chaotic Evil act. However, the Pc in this situation is reacting under the influence of his insanity, brought upon by an extreme stressful situation. I can see a loss of control to 'save himself and friends' but not actually comprehending the damage he caused. I would say borderline CN/CE, but the chaotic component taking greater prescedense.
I viewed this situation pretty much exactly how you describe it. So back to the original question. Does committing this evil (and a couple of others) make him Evil even though he's knowingly commits many selfless acts to help others without any expectations of reward? Of course, he doesn't do them because it's the right thing to do. He does them simply because it's something to do and the fact the rest of the group does want to do it.
I guess I should point out that specializing in channel [negative] energy means that my CHA is pumped up to where I'm the party face. I was probably incorrect when I said that I just go a long with the group as I often times make the decisions that lead our path (not that they wouldn't make the same ones). I pretty much just go with whatever comes our way, though. When someone asks for help, we help. It generally doesn't matter to my character if that someone is the mayor or the leader of the thieves guild. If the group objects to our current objective, though, and decides to change course I always go along with them without question or resistance.
I would suggest to solve this problem is for you and your group to make a list of both possible good and evil deeds.
Killing one innocent bystander = 5 evil
Torching a village = 3 evil
Pushing your religion on summon else = 25 evil
and etc. Of course don't use my values for certain acts
Then do the same for good acts
For each person you save: 1 good
Stopping a crime = 3 good
and so on.
After your group makes the list grab some black beads and some blue beads or just two different color beads. One to represent evil and one to rep good.
Then you and your group start recalling all deeds and dropping the beads in separate bowls. If you evil bowl is heavier then dude you are evil.
Frogboy, your character sees his murder of several dozen people as a justifiable act. That's evil. There wasn't anything else he could have done? Perhaps warn them, frighten them off, cause a panic in another direction, you know, anything besides channel negative energy and directly kill them?
What good deeds has this character done?
|
|
I really can't imagine him as Lawful. Yes he has a personal code to protect his freinds (even at risk to himself) but I don't believe that's enough. He still has no greater lawful tendencies than that. He would go disreguard law and order under just about any other situation on a whim. One could argue that he's Nuetral on this axis but this argument would make a truly Chaotic character very difficult to play. Everyone has at least a loose personal code unless they are 100% mad/crazy. My character is probably only half mad. I don't want him turning on the group just because he's crazy and unpredictable.
Look up the book description of LE...they don't follow the law perse, but fallow their own code of conduct or their own rules that they've established for themselves. A disciplined assassin that has rules regarding who they will and won't kill (ie.-no women or children), would be considered LE...even tho they obviously break the law by killing people.
The fact that your character will go to such great lengths to protect his friends leads me to believe that, regardless of his past trauma or present psychosis, this guy is lawful.
Frogboy, your character sees his murder of several dozen people as a justifiable act. That's evil. There wasn't anything else he could have done?
Not true. He didn't justify anything because he just didn't/doesn't care. This act is evil no matter what as far as I'm concerned. Does that automatically make my character evil though.
Perhaps warn them, frighten them off, cause a panic in another direction, you know, anything besides channel negative energy and directly kill them?
They were oblivious to us. Because they couldn't see through the illusion of what was really going on and we could, they couldn't perceive us in any way (that I know of).
What good deeds has this character done?
Saved many lives and rescued three towns from either destruction or dire peril. I can elaborate later. I have to step away for while.
To answer a few questions so far...
I still peg him as NE. The 'they would die anyhow " excuses does not fly.He seems to care for only himself and those few he calls friends and seems to have no issue with doing whatever it takes to meet whatever "goals" he has.
They had no time, the demon was about to make a nasty ritual, they had to go through. As I said, this story is to illustrate, that nothing is SUPREME when it comes to good and evil. It's extremelly complicated, but one action is not enough to judge one's alignment, normally.
They took the time to kill the elves rather than just moving on through.
Lots of examples of world's most uncreative 'heroic' adventurers, filled to the brim with just one way to skin a cat.
Here come the heroes....run for your lives!!!
Don't waste your breath LT...i've made the greater good argument before (see the limitations of the paladin's code thread), but apparently sacrificing one to save thousands falls firmly in the evil camp...if you were REALLY good you wouldn't tarnish your good name and you'd make a weak, flailing attempt to kill the BBEG that would probably fail, thereby causing the deaths of 10's of thousands of people...but hey, you're still good...and it's not like YOU killed them, well not directly at least :Dn the other hand, who was this invisible foe? Was he going to kill 60,000? Was it a question of sacrificing 60 in order to save a thousand times that number?
That's not known.
Would it have been a good act if it were?
I take exception to that.
If Killy Mc'Stabfreak, wants Noble Mc'Goodness to perform an evil act, and threatens him with the probability of an even worse atrocity if he does not comply, all it does is highlight Mr Mc'Stabfreak vile nature.
If I robbed a liquor store with a handgun, and threaten the cashier to give all the money in the safe or I'll kill him, The police wouldn't rule his death as asuicide by any stretch. ('Had it coming to him.')
Ultimately, the villain is culpable in villanous acts. even if he's trying to force the good guy's hand.
Batts
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.
the history fail in this makes me weep.
Batts
It really depends on which ethical system you are using. Philosophers have been debating the meaning of good and evil for pretty much all of human history. If your ethical system is utilitarian, then killing 60 to save 6000 isn't evil, because you are bringing the most benefit to the greatest number. If you are more Kantian or some similar system, murder is always evil - there is no such thing as extenuating circumstances.
Just to state for the record, I don't care if my character is or should be Evil. I'm just playing the character that I envisioned and never realy cared much for the alignment system to begin with. I'm not trying to justify or prove that my character isn't evil.
I was just trying to get a feel for how everyone else perceives the difference between Nuetral and Evil. I kind of view it (in game terms) as the following.
Good: You do good because it's the right thing to do
Evil: You do evil because it's not the right thing to do
Nuetral: Your choices aren't based on any moral code so you end up doing what would be considered good sometimes and what would be considered evil other times.
I see that a lot of people don't see Neutral this way though. It seems that many feel it's more like...
Good: You always do the right thing no matter what
Neutral: You don't always do the right thing but you never do anything considered evil
Evil: You do things (at least sometimes) that are evil
Not saying that my way of envisioning alignments is right and the other(s) is wrong. Just trying to get an idea of how others perceive it so I can understand how my friends possibly see it a little better. Thanks for all of your input.
|
I could not help myself.... A little Diamondback
Thankless little b@#+@, for the tears I cried
Take her down now, don't wanna see her face
Blistered and burnt, can't hide my disgrace
27 every one was nice, gotta see them,
Make them pay the price
See their bodies out on the ice, take my time
Am I evil, yes I am
Am I evil, I am man
As I watched my Mother die, I lost my head
Revenge now I sought, to break with my bread
Takin' no chances, you come with me
I'll split you to the bone
Help set you free.
27 every one was nice, gotta see them,
Make them pay the price
See their bodies out on the ice, take my time
Am I evil, yes I am
Am I evil, I am man
On with the action now, I'll strip your pride
I'll spread your blood around, I'll see you ride
Your face is scarred with steel, wounds deep and neat
Like a double dozen before you, smell so sweet.
27 every one was nice, gotta see them,
Make them pay the price
See their bodies out on the ice, take my time
Am I evil, yes I am
Am I evil, I am man
I'll make my residence, I'll watch your fire
You can come with me, sweet desire
My face is long forgotten, my face not my own
Sweet and timely whore, take me home.
I would suggest some reading in the "Exalted Deeds" and "Vile Darkness" books. They really go in depth of the good/evil axis in alignments.
Personally, after reading all of your post I will have to agree that you are CN bordering on CE.
So back to the original question. Does committing this evil (and a couple of others) make him Evil even though he's knowingly commits many selfless acts to help others without any expectations of reward? Of course, he doesn't do them because it's the right thing to do. He does them simply because it's something to do and the fact the rest of the group does want to do it.
The problem here is that you cannot go around committing evil acts and then expect to balance it out by committing acts of good.
That's not to say neutral characters can never commit any acts of evil and stay neutral, but they shouldn't make a habit of it.
Another thing to note:
Evil characters can continue to run with a non-evil party.
Doing quest to help others is not always inherently an act of good.
You can do it to gain money or power, or simply as a means to keep from getting bored. Some evil characters might even use this as a means to find things to fight and kill simply for the joy of the act of killing.
There are many, many reasons for evil characters to work with the other alignments.
|
The Chaotic Nuetral alignment came from when I created him. He's had a lot of tradgedy in his past that just drove him mad. Early on, he was very reckless.
This, IMO, is the biggest problem with the CN alignment. It seems to be the default choice for people who want to play crazy characters.
I don't know if Gary Gygax intended Chaotic Neutral to be synonymous with 'fishmalk insane,' but that seems to be what it's become.
why won't my dm let me play a lawful evil baddass little 12 year old asian girl? swordsage goodness.
Doing something evil for a "correct" reason is still doing something evil.
Killing other soldiers in times of war isn't good or evil, but neutral. They're trying to kill you right back. Killing civilians in times of war is evil, however. In other words, being in the war itself is neutral, but with changes to do good (being especially valorous to save your command, taking enemies prisoner, etc), or chances to do evil (targeting civilians,
The character in question is CE/NE but is slowly gaining neutral-good tendencies. Avoid slaughtering people in evil rituals and hey, you might see an alignment change in the future.
Killing innocent people is evil. Period. End of sentence. You can do something evil with a good end in mind, but you're still doing something evil.
As for the "The demon kidnaps blah blah," that's a stupid situation that should never happen in game. If your DM flat out forces you to either murder an innocent child and bind them to a demon, or watch thousands of people die, you don't try to find a solution, you punch him and walk out because he's a terrible DM.