Killing millions of people to save billions of people is an Evil act. Especially evil when you find out it was pointless. Saving billions of people without having to kill even one person is a Good act.
At the risk of getting sucked into the thread, THIS.
Arguing that the lesser of two evils is actually "good" is an argument for moral relativism. D&D specifically posits the existence of moral absolutes. Committing an evil act in order to prevent a more evil act is better than sitting around, but isn't a "good" act in and of itself.
That's not to say that DMs should use this to screw paladins specifically. If need be, change their code so that picking the lesser of two evils is acceptable if and only if trying for a better aletrnative is impossible.
TOZ, I think you've gone a fair bit too far now. Killing an evil person can itself be a good act. Executing an evil person under the law is almost certainly a good act.
The notion that using violence to vanquish actual evil is not good, is definitely departing from how D&D deals with good.
Killing Hitler before WWII would have been an Evil act. Killing him afterwards would have been an Evil act. Bringing him to court, judging him, and executing him would be a Neutral act at best.Hitler couldn't have said it better himself. He'd be proud of you.
Killing millions of people is not a good act. Saving billions of people, however, is.
But someone going back in time to kill Hitler before WWII with the intention of preventing mass murder would be a good person committing an evil act.
Executing an evil person under the law is almost certainly a good act.
All of the people who are anti-capital punishment (including most of the developed world) would dispute this claim. I'm actually pro-capital punishment, and even I accept it as the lesser of two evils -- not as "good." Moral relativism eschewed again.
TOZ, I think you've gone a fair bit too far now. Killing an evil person can itself be a good act. Executing an evil person under the law is almost certainly a good act.
The notion that using violence to vanquish actual evil is not good, is definitely departing from how D&D deals with good.
I actually agree with TOZ on this one.
But someone going back in time to kill Hitler before WWII with the intention of preventing mass murder would be a good person committing an evil act.
No; it would be a person committing an evil act. Is the person good or evil? Well, let's see what else they do.
Lie, commit massive fraud, betray (and kill) his own people, personally kill innocents, personally kill other innocents, personally kill more innocents, engineer the destruction of millions of people, plot to kill or remove anyone who might get in the way of the destruction of millions of people -- all evil acts.Boast about, triumph in, and base his personal image on his ability to do all of the above. He's evil.
|
TOZ, I think you've gone a fair bit too far now. Killing an evil person can itself be a good act. Executing an evil person under the law is almost certainly a good act.
The notion that using violence to vanquish actual evil is not good, is definitely departing from how D&D deals with good.
NO, it cannot. Either killing someone is bad across the board, or it is not. Who you are killing does not matter. The fact you are killing someone makes it Evil.
The fact you are killing someone makes it Evil.
No, I disagree. Killing evil isn't evil -- it's good. Killing the innocent is evil.
But someone going back in time to kill Hitler before WWII with the intention of preventing mass murder would be a good person committing an evil act.No; it would be a person committing an evil act. Is the person good or evil? Well, let's see what else they do.
Lie, commit massive fraud, betray (and kill) his own people, personally kill innocents, personally kill other innocents, personally kill more innocents, engineer the destruction of millions of people, plot to kill or remove anyone who might get in the way of the destruction of millions of people -- all evil acts.
Boast about, triumph in, and base his personal image on his ability to do all of the above. He's evil.
If all those actions allowed him to go back in time and kill a mass murderer before he commits genocide, I would still say he is good, except the destruction of millions of people. He would need to be saving a lot more people than Hitler killed in order to justify that.
No, I disagree. Killing evil isn't evil -- it's good.
That's because you're arguing from a standpoint of moral relativism. TOZ isn't.
|
|
The fact you are killing someone makes it Evil.No, I disagree. Killing evil isn't evil -- it's good. Killing the innocent is evil.
If killing something is evil, and killing another is good, then killing the first thing is not evil.
Ladies and gentleman, the argument of relative versus absolute.
Dammit Kirth, ninja'd me again! 8)
|
|
Killing Hitler before WWII would have been an Evil act. Killing him afterwards would have been an Evil act. Bringing him to court, judging him, and executing him would be a Neutral act at best.I view it differently. I think killing him after the war would be Neutral, either by trial (LN) or other less legal methods like assasination(CN). Of course, if you did him any unnecessary harm or pain besides the execution, ie. torture, then that would be Evil.
Absolutely, hence my 'Neutral at best' statement. It certainly isn't Good.
No, I disagree. Killing evil isn't evil -- it's good. Killing the innocent is evil.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
SRD disagrees with you.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, but the method of problem solving is very different. 1 is actually logical and methodical, the other is very scatterbrained. Both get to the same end result. 1 is lawful, the other is chaotic. Preplanning and organization are lawful traits, they see to put order into your life. My point is that Sherloch Homes's defining characteristic is his ability to put everything into its place, and this makes him lawful. The fact that he fits every other definition of chaotic the book has does not matter as much as this 1 thing, as I have yet to meet anyone who says Sherloch is chaotic.
Both people are inteligent in game terms, they just approach the problem differently. 1 is very lawful, the other is chaotic.Which was EXACTLY my point to begin with. INT, ie reasoning, ie. logic, ie. analytical thought, is independent of alignment.
I'll say it!
Sherlock Holmes is very much Chaotic.
I just read through all the stories again while my internet was off. He's Chaotic in pretty much every way. The only possible shadow of Lawfulness about him is, as you say, he tendency to think things through rationally and get all his facts straight. But I don't see anywhere in the description of Law in the game that describes that.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
Is a Chaotic character prohibited from being thorough? Must they Always Act Randomly?
No, I disagree. Killing evil isn't evil -- it's good.That's because you're arguing from a standpoint of moral relativism.
No, I'm not. Taking into account the nature and actions in the person to be killed in determining the moral value of killing them isn't moral relativism. Moral relativism is the belief that it's not possible to judge objectively whether or not killing an evil person is evil. Both TOZ and I are willing to say, flat-out, that killing an evil person has a definitive moral evaluation; we just disagree with which one it is.
Neither of us is arguing from a moral relativist position; we're disagreeing on which moral standard correctly describes D&D.I'm sorry, but it is indisputable that good-aligned outsiders and dieties kill evil beings, and are acting according to their alignment when they do so.
There's no way that paladin would be granted the Smite ability if killing evil creatures were anything but a good act. Destroying evil in the service of good is a good act.
If killing something is evil, and killing another is good, then killing the first thing is not evil.
Ladies and gentleman, the argument of relative versus absolute.
This reminded me of my philosophy class lol ^^
|
|
If all those actions allowed him to go back in time and kill a mass murderer before he commits genocide, I would still say he is good, except the destruction of millions of people. He would need to be saving a lot more people than Hitler killed in order to justify that.But someone going back in time to kill Hitler before WWII with the intention of preventing mass murder would be a good person committing an evil act.No; it would be a person committing an evil act. Is the person good or evil? Well, let's see what else they do.
Lie, commit massive fraud, betray (and kill) his own people, personally kill innocents, personally kill other innocents, personally kill more innocents, engineer the destruction of millions of people, plot to kill or remove anyone who might get in the way of the destruction of millions of people -- all evil acts.
Boast about, triumph in, and base his personal image on his ability to do all of the above. He's evil.
And what I am saying is that justifications mean nil. The act itself determines if it is Good or Evil. And the acts you perform determine if you are Good or Evil. Ozymandias killed millions, therefore he is Evil.
I think I understand your position, and we probably won't come to an agreement, but I've been enjoying the disagreement. :)
SRD disagrees with you.
SRD agrees with me. Don't translate "respect for life" into "pacifism". The former is part of the Good alignment. The latter is definitely not.
|
|
This reminded me of my philosophy class lol ^^If killing something is evil, and killing another is good, then killing the first thing is not evil.
Ladies and gentleman, the argument of relative versus absolute.
I doubt you'd be surprised to hear I'm taking Intro to Philosophy this semester then. :)
|
|
I'm sorry, but it is indisputable that good-aligned outsiders and dieties kill evil beings, and are acting according to their alignment when they do so.
There's no way that paladin would be granted the Smite ability if killing evil creatures were anything but a good act. Destroying evil in the service of good is a good act.
I've never seen a story where the paladins and angels go out and slaughter 'evil beings' on their own, except for OotS Start of Darkness. And that was to illustrate the error of thinking that killing Evil races is Good. Murder is Evil no matter which side does it. If the good-aligned outsiders were actually played according to the definition of Good, they would kill only when attacked and be distraught over it afterwards.
Being granted an ability against Evil does not make killing Good. Going out and killing in the name of Good does not make killing Good.
Well, I think you could kill Hilter without a trial after the WWII and not consider it Evil. If a mob caught him and killed him for his war crimes, I'd consider that CN, or maybe even LN depending on what you consider vigilante justice to be (cue Batman references!)
It could be Neutral, yes. My stance is that it could never be good. Depending on if you believe Lawful to mean 'follows laws' then a trial and execution under the law would be a Lawful act.
"Good" doesn't mean "pacifism". Violence against evil beings is a good act.
Again, the very existence of the avenging angels, of the paladin class, of good-aligned gods of war (you think they only deal nonlethal damage or something?) makes this clear.
If you translate all killing, under all circumstances, into evil acts, you've eviscerated much fantasy literature and completely re-written the game.
If the good-aligned outsiders were actually played according to the definition of Good, they would kill only when attacked and be distraught over it afterwards.
You're flat-out wrong. There is such a thing as righteous violence, and killing evil is good.
Killing innocents (even members of "evil" races) is evil -- and that's what the Start of Darkness was about.
There is such a thing as righteous violence, and killing evil is good.
So Al Quaida is Good, then? I disagree. If your definition of evil is "people I don't like," and then you go about killing them, that's evil.
That's because Good outsiders and Paladins are allowed to do Neutral acts.
And they're also allowed to do Good acts, which is what slaying the evil dragon ravaging the countryside is.
It's not something to be remorseful over; it's something to be celebrated. And it always have been, in fantasy literature and in actual real-world religious texts.Good != pacificm. Killing != evil.
|
|
"Good" doesn't mean "pacifism". Violence against evil beings is a good act.
Again, the very existence of the avenging angels, of the paladin class, of good-aligned gods of war (you think they only deal nonlethal damage or something?) makes this clear.
If you translate all killing, under all circumstances, into evil acts, you've eviscerated much fantasy literature and completely re-written the game.
No, I'm pointing out the inherent contradictions of the game. And this is why I remove alignment from my game. The very existence of those things proves that Good and Evil are not clearly defined, to allow people to play either way, relativist or absolutist.
Of course Good doesn't mean pacifism. You must be willing to fight to protect yourself, or Evil will kill you. That doesn't make returning Evil to Evil a Good act.
So Al Quaida is Good, then? I disagree.
Are you really this dense?
Does Al Qaida kill evil, or do they kill innocents?Have I ever said that killing innocents can be good? Even once?
[in actual real-world religious texts.
Here we go with Al Qaida again...
Have I ever said that killing innocents can be good? Even once?
You've totally failed to provide a standard definition for "good," "evil," or "innocent." Indeed, you've been adamant in avoiding the standards that TOZ and others are using. If there are no standards, there are no absolutes -- just your opinion.
|
|
If the good-aligned outsiders were actually played according to the definition of Good, they would kill only when attacked and be distraught over it afterwards.You're flat-out wrong. There is such a thing as righteous violence, and killing evil is good.
Killing innocents (even members of "evil" races) is evil -- and that's what the Start of Darkness was about.
Righteous violence is not good. Either violence is bad, and no one should do it, or violence is acceptable and it is wrong to punish those that use it.
No, I'm pointing out the inherent contradictions of the game. And this is why I remove alignment from my game. The very existence of those things proves that Good and Evil are not clearly defined, to allow people to play either way, relativist or absolutist.
If you think the position I'm putting forward is moral relativism, then you don't actually understand what that term means.
Of course Good doesn't mean pacifism. You must be willing to fight to protect yourself, or Evil will kill you. That doesn't make returning Evil to Evil a Good act.
*sigh* Violence != evil.
Violence is a neutral object that can be used against the innocent by evil or against the evil by good.Again, not only does the game recognize this, but so do actual real-world religions.
Are you really this dense?
Ad hominem attacks are not "good." Even against someone who disagrees with you.
Agreed. But also Killing != good, ever. And Good = no killing.
Wrong. Justly killing evil = good.
Are you really this dense?Ad hominem attacks are not "good." Even against someone who disagrees with you.
There's a difference between a personal attack and an ad hominem argument.
There's also a difference between addressing the attack and addressing the separate argument.Guess which one you did.
Again, not only does the game recognize this, but so do actual real-world religions.
Like militant Islam.
There's also a difference between addressing the attack and addressing the separate argument.
Guess which one you did.
Actually I did both, but you chose to rely only to the one.
Wrong. Justly killing evil = good.Wrong :P
That is Neutral.
Wrong. :-p
It's good.
And what I am saying is that justifications mean nil. The act itself determines if it is Good or Evil. And the acts you perform determine if you are Good or Evil. Ozymandias killed millions, therefore he is Evil.I think I understand your position, and we probably won't come to an agreement, but I've been enjoying the disagreement. :)
Yes, I am arguing that the actions you take do not matter for your alignment, the intent of your actions does. Why you perform the actions that you perform determines if you are Good or Evil. Ozymandias believed he was saving billions of people, and therefore he is good. Others may judge you based off of the result of your actions, including your god or yourself, but that doesn't actually change your alignment.
I agree, we wont come to terms over this discrepency, and have had a great time today arguing.
|
|
*sigh* Violence != evil.
Violence is a neutral object that can be used against the innocent by evil or against the evil by good.
Again, not only does the game recognize this, but so do actual real-world religions.
Violence = cause harm
Causing harm = evilViolence = evil.
Violence is an object that should NEVER be used. The fact that we Neutral humans use it and accept its use does not make violence right, it makes us wrong.
Like militant Islam.
Since you liked throwing out the words "ad hominem", I'll just ask -- do you know the name of the fallacy you used in this post?