So you say a guy can nurse some sick kittens back to health and become good and totally fool everyone and not go back to evil until he's up to his neck in the guts of the high priest, every alter boy, and some passing parishioners?Did I not then clearly specify "sum totality of deeds," not "one single deed?" Quote out of context, and you can make anyone seem to be saying anything.
Many, many kittens then.
Or they get a fresh one. Someone who didn't commit all that many evil deeds. Not so many kittens, then.
The basis still remains: It's totally his intention to murder some people to death in a horrible fashion. But you say that counts for nothing: If he saves enough people from drowning, or gives generously enough, or does a sufficient number of other good things, he becomes good. They could make a project of it. Tell him to walk along some lake shore and then throw several orphanages worth of kids into the lake for him to save.
He then is considered good, even though his intention is to become very, very evil again (intentions count for nothing, by your words), and can get through the evil detector.
And don't give me that "taken out of context" nonsense. If intention doesn't count for anything, this sort of thing is totally possible.
|
Kirth, if you had to assign an alignment to Cadogan or Fiachra, what would they be? I'm curious if you and I see them the same way.Cadogan? CN, because he just doesn't give a s@#@. Yeah, he goes along with the others, but that's largely a nod of the head towards self-preservation. Still, he's not all that bad a guy, just a bit immature.
Fiachra seems nastier; if I understand it, he actively wants to murder his relatives, and cares about societal rules less than Cadogan, while paying lip service to them solely as cover. His family history has left him as severly damaged goods. He'd be CE by Aviona standards, defined roughly as "the obsessive desire to amass power solely as a means to subjugate and/or impose misery and/or destruction on others."
Cadogan: He actually does kind of give a care, he just raised himself and doesn't really know better. But, yeah, you and I are about 90% in agreement.
Fiachra: 100%. He's nastier than you think he is, in fact. There's a reason he admires Jazeed's character, if not his intellect.
But he has genuine feelings for Trog. Not anything romantic (he wouldn't know what a romantic feeling was - plus, ewww, gross!), but he sees her as a kindred spirit of sorts, rejected by the world and left on the trash heap. She may be his redemption some day.
|
|
This is a tricky question. I'll give you my reply, but I'm not claiming it has any authenticity as a difinitive answer.
Alignment in D&D / Pathfinder needs to be kept distinct from the ethical questions of right behavior. Alignment -- from its first appearance in D&D, a palimpsest on Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories -- is about the gods and powers. Elric is "chaotic" because he serves the gods of Chaos. He can act as prudently, as kindly, as he likes, but he is still batting for Team Chaos.
So, my interpretation of alignment: every time someone in Golarion sees the sunrise and feels a swell of warmth in his heart, he is serving the Dawnflower, and adding a drop of devotion to her power. Every time you poison a rat in your home, you are advancing the "portfolio" of Norgerber, and strengthing the god of poisons just a little. So, good-intentioned people can serve evil gods, and vice versa.
Clerics are a different kettle of fish. Like Elric, Clerics -- and Inquisitors, I would imagine -- make explicit pacts and deals with the heavens. Erikol the Chaotic can ride into town and pay for his ale with coins; reinforcing lawful Abadar's portfolio in the process. But he can't devote his life and will to Abadar without espousing the god's dogma. The god grants spells and powers to the clerics, to be used at the clerics' discretion, and that requires a certain faith and trust on the gods' part. Other than the occaissional sign or spiritual dictate, the gods have to trust that the clerics are going to further their divine will.
(Animating mindless undead is evil in Golarion not because of any intrinsic quality, but because undead fall entirely under the purview of Urgathoa, and Urgathoa is evil.)
So, we come to Zombur's evil-aligned dude weaselling his way into a good-aligned organization. Every time he does something kind and holy, he will be strengthening the good powers. Over time, this will make his alignment "good", even though he may be foul-speaking, sarcastic, and...
This is actually why I eschewed alignments all together. Everyone does something to serve several metaphysical masters, but, unless they're clerics or paladins, they really don't "glow" enough to truly register on the scale.
Totally dig your take, btw.
The basis still remains: It's totally his intention to murder some people to death in a horrible fashion. But you say that counts for nothing: If he saves enough people from drowning, or gives generously enough, or does a sufficient number of other good things, he becomes good.
Try again. "The totality of his deeds" would include ALL of them -- including the murdering -- not just the good ones as you're claiming I'm saying. There aren't enough kittens he can save to atone for those murders.
But what if he never, ever kills anyone at all, even though he planned to? And all he does is rescue kittens? He dies a kitten rescuer only, not a murderer. He's good, whether he set out to be or not.
Deeds or intention? Both. To be evil, ya have to intentionally commit evil deeds. To be good, ya have to intentionally commit good deeds. Neutral is easy; all ya have to do is lack the intentions or not do the deeds.
In the case of the priest-killer, it wouldn't work. He's not saving kittens or whatever to do the right thing; he's doing it as a means to evil. This is why BBEGs manipulate real good guys [or neutral guys] into turning to the dark side.
Man I miss these alignment debates! Such is my punishment for not playing 3.x anymore. :(
|
I roll with both intent and action mattering. If intent never matters, you wind up with a bat@#$% crazy morality system like Fable where you can easily make up for decapitating an innocent villager and punting his/her head around like a football for hours by brutally murdering bandits for their money or by defending your own sinful self with lethal force(damn that game still makes me angry). If action never matters, things can get just as stupid and horrifying right quick.
obvious reference I should be maimed for forgetting
please excuse me while I stab myself for being so mortified for forgetting.
*sob*
|
The basis still remains: It's totally his intention to murder some people to death in a horrible fashion. But you say that counts for nothing: If he saves enough people from drowning, or gives generously enough, or does a sufficient number of other good things, he becomes good.Try again. "The totality of his deeds" would include ALL of them -- including the murdering -- not just the good ones as you're claiming I'm saying. There aren't enough kittens he can save to atone for those murders.
But what if he never, ever kills anyone at all, even though he planned to? And all he does is rescue kittens? He dies a kitten rescuer only, not a murderer. He's good, whether he set out to be or not.
I think the point KaeYoss was trying to get at is that your alignment would be taken at a given moment. Yes, once the murders were committed, that falls under his Totality of Deeds. A deity could potentially see that coming, but the way humans (and the other races, presumably) are wired, they can only see the past and the present. Your alignment would change from moment to moment, so if you took a sample of his alignment between rescuing kittens/orphans and the murders, only the ones committed in the past would count for his Totality of Deeds as far as a human could detect.
As an example, take Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. He's gone to both extremes on the Good/Evil scale. At different times, his alignment would have registered at both extremes. His Totality might register at one end or the other after death, but in the middle it changes from time to time.
In response to the original issue, however.
I'd say it would be something you'd have to agree with the GM on. He could theoretically do it an retain his alignment within certain limitations. Example: He probably can't start slinging around Good-Aligned spells if he has an Evil Divine casting class (the only ones affected by the spell-alignment ban). He can do mundane good deeds such as bathing/feeding the homeless, taking orphans into the church, etc.
As a GM, I would play out chunks of that several years he spends in the church to see if anything happens that cause him to actually change alignment. If not, I would definitely tie a future story into something that happened while he was being "Good." Example: he rescues an orphan and brings him into the church, and post-assassination, that orphan is tasked with hunting him down when he's well-known as an evil-doer.
Personally, I would say discuss this article with your GM before going on. Talk about whether alignments should be strictly code-based, intention-based, or somewhere in the middle. I tend toward intention-based, so I'd say he could keep his alignment provided he didn't fall prey to the seduction of good deeds, and I'd make him actively fight that seduction all the way down. It happens in real life, and you can make it happen in the game.
Your alignment would change from moment to moment, so if you took a sample of his alignment between rescuing kittens/orphans and the murders, only the ones committed in the past would count for his Totality of Deeds as far as a human could detect.
And those committed in the past would wipe out the minor "signal" from kitten rescuing. "Totality" would be everything up to that moment -- not just the most recent things. And no, I'm not claiming that X kittens = 1 murder or any other similar strawman -- you can't open an ASPCA as a "get out of murder free card," before someone starts in on that.
A guy who has never done anything worse than jaywalking, ever, and who rescues a lot of kittens in the meantime, should register as "good" -- claiming that he might or might not kill people later on doesn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) count for much, if at all.
Your alignment would change from moment to moment, so if you took a sample of his alignment between rescuing kittens/orphans and the murders, only the ones committed in the past would count for his Totality of Deeds as far as a human could detect.And those committed in the past would wipe out the minor "signal" from kitten rescuing. "Totality" would be everything up to that moment -- not just the most recent things. And no, I'm not claiming that X kittens = 1 murder or any other similar strawman -- you can't open an ASPCA as a "get out of murder free card," before someone starts in on that.
A guy who has never done anything worse than jaywalking, ever, and who rescues a lot of kittens in the meantime, should register as "good" -- claiming that he might or might not kill people later on doesn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) count for much, if at all.
What if he did all those things as a guise merely to get everyone not to suspect him for the upcoming 30 murders he intended on doing?
And those committed in the past would wipe out the minor "signal" from kitten rescuing. "Totality" would be everything up to that moment -- not just the most recent things. And no, I'm not claiming that X kittens = 1 murder or any other similar strawman
You're talking of strawmen? Instead of even addressing the core of the argument I'm making, you cling to the obviously exaggerated example I was giving for this.
Forget about kittens.
The fact is, if I'm a guy who, say, murdered 4 people, I could get a clean slate by doing sufficient good. Maybe dedicate vast amounts of money, thinking and spare time to curing a hitherto deadly disease, finding a way you can survive the disease without the (usually expensive) magical help of clerics and other healers. The fantasy variant of AIDS or cancer.
Something like that would save countless lives. That would probably crowd out those four murders all by itself. Even if not, you can continue doing good deeds until you turn good. And yes, there definitely are deeds good enough to balance out a murder.
Or I just hire a promising hitman apprentice who hasn't commited any murders yet (just received a well-rounded education and training in things like poisonology, stealth, swordery etc and some field experience where he deliberately didn't kill anyone or done any other evil deeds.
I'll pay that guy money to give his karma a thorough cleaning, to make sure his actions put him squarely in the Good corner.
Either way, there is now one guy with a good alignment, who will then infiltrate the unsuspecting church, who will test his alignment and find he is good, so he can get past the Evil Detector. He then gets the job, maybe keeps up the charade a bit more (all the while doing more good in the church) until he gains access to his quarrel.
By your logic, he's still good at this time, since he has done far more good deeds than evil ones, even though there was evil intent behind absolutely everything.
He then thoroughly murders his quarry, and everyone else he can find. He goes bonkers with murder. Now he's evil again, but since he always wanted to be evil, that's alright.
claiming that he might or might not kill people later on doesn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) count for much, if at all.
You're trying really hard to misrepresent our arguments here, don't you?
There is nothing about any "claims" here. Nothing about might.
It's about intent and intention. He totally intents to kill that guy dead. It's not others speculating that he might do it, it's himself deciding that he will do it if given the chance)
Plus, he only does these good deeds to fool others into believing he really is good (which can work if nobody bothers to check your actual alignment). He's still an evil bastard
Note that intent is even recognised by criminal law as criminal. For example, beating someone up just to beat him up will carry a less severe penalty than beating him up with the intent to beat him to death, but failing to do so, even if the injuries are the same.
And finally, your definition seems to assume that alignment, and alignment changes are cold, totally reasionable decisions one makes without any emotion. It's like a computer game where you play a character. "So I will now help the next 10 people who are in trouble, that should give me enough Good points to put me to good. Then I'll take these paladin levels I need. After that, I'll just kill NPCs what are walking around in the streets until I have turned evil, so I can start in on blackguard and trade in my paladin levels to max it out at once."
And poeple just don't behave like that. Good and evil are abstract constructs describing what people really are like. People don't actually have alignments, they have moral and ethical values, and the game just vaguely describes them using alignment.
It's about intent and intention. He totally intents to kill that guy dead.
Take it a step further then -- someone is holding my wife at gunpoint, but I get the drop on him. I shoot him dead, quite intentionally, in order to save her. Am I evil because of the intent, if not for the deed itself?
Maybe the reason for doing something is more important than the intent to do so?
It's about intent and intention. He totally intents to kill that guy dead.Take it a step further then -- someone is holding my wife at gunpoint, but I get the drop on him. I shoot him dead, quite intentionally, in order to save her. Am I evil because of the intent, if not for the deed itself?
Maybe the reason for doing something is more important than the intent to do so?
THIS IS WHY ALIGNMENT IS A STUPID MECHANIC!
who gets to decide good and evil? morality is determined by those that say what morality is.
If you didn't know you killed anyone at all but your actions killed several hundred people are you responsible? If you know would it bother you? would you be evil? If you did it intentionally but it saved hundreds of people would it be a good act even though you thought you were going to kill everyone? what if you later are glad that you did it to help people even though your original intent was evil.
In my opinion alignment has no place in any game related to reality. Because fantasy isnt related to reality then you should define the exact morality of said world. If you want a more realistic feel, disband alignment.
who gets to decide good and evil?
Well, that's kind of the thing. D&D - and, by extension, Pathfinder - is a world of moral absolutism. Moral relativism (which is what you're espousing for "realistic" settings) has no place in it.
As to the question quoted - well, that varies from game world to game world. In Ravenloft, 'twas the Dark Powers that decided what was good and evil. (Anyone remember the Carnival module? It's dark lord was a Chaotic Good Eladrin, and this was back when Eladrin meant "powerful exemplar outsider", not "high elf.") In most worlds, it's the gods. In Faerun, it's Ao.
But, basically, it boils down to the GM.
who gets to decide good and evil?Well, that's kind of the thing. D&D - and, by extension, Pathfinder - is a world of moral absolutism. Moral relativism (which is what you're espousing for "realistic" settings) has no place in it.
As to the question quoted - well, that varies from game world to game world. In Ravenloft, 'twas the Dark Powers that decided what was good and evil. (Anyone remember the Carnival module? It's dark lord was a Chaotic Good Eladrin, and this was back when Eladrin meant "powerful exemplar outsider", not "high elf.") In most worlds, it's the gods. In Faerun, it's Ao.
But, basically, it boils down to the GM.
Your judgement that my assessment of alignment with the statement that "moral relativism" has no place in it with then a following statement that says "it boils down to the GM" is so self defeating. I am wondering why you quoted me as being both wrong and saying that game worlds shouldn't have said approach? it is insulting.
If the GM decides then the GM can determine what is Good and Evil, for one person to decide the absolutes of morality for the world is EXACTLY what I suggested should be done for the world prior to even playing at the end of my post.
Lastly, morally subjective views is often based on religious views or the so called "laws of nature" which are fabricated from idealisms formed by men (or God depending on your stance). To determine my blurred view on alignment is "wrong" for DND is hardly a good arguement nor is it a respected one from my point of view.
A good case in point was the Eberron setting for 3.5, which blatantly says in the beginnings of its chapters that Good and Evil are blurred.
Before you go throwing around that my way of playing is wrong please understand alignment is definitely something that you can not argue from gaming group to gaming group because decisions (like in reali life when moral debates arise) will never be deemed absolute or one side being more correct than the other.
Alignment is a point of view. Only is it generally described in the books, as for actions qualifying as good and evil that is solely up to perspective.
One might claim that humanoids are terrible for a planet because they drain resources and Undead are the only perfect force which requires no sustenance and purifies the living by making them turn undead. Undead dont breath (so they dont waste oxygen), they also dont eat, sleep, ect. what is to say that undead are the good guys and the resource consuming skum of the earth is the evil ones for being so wasteful? the living does. so it is perspective. Do you think undead think they are evil? possibly, but to them evil could be the same as being good. After all undead rarely kill each other (although it happens just like in the humanoid species).
D&D likes to say it is a moral absolutist system, but it really isn't.
The player characters wipe out a kobold warren? Good act!
The orc warband slaughters a human settlement? Evil act!
The alignments are just team names. One side is no better than the other in the overall scheme of things.
+1
exactly.
D&D likes to say it is a moral absolutist system, but it really isn't.
The player characters wipe out a kobold warren? Good act!
The orc warband slaughters a human settlement? Evil act!
The alignments are just team names. One side is no better than the other in the overall scheme of things.
So what you're saying here is 'Alliance or Horde?'
Man, I started tabletop to get AWAY from WoW.
D&D likes to say it is a moral absolutist system, but it really isn't.
The player characters wipe out a kobold warren? Good act!
The orc warband slaughters a human settlement? Evil act!
The alignments are just team names. One side is no better than the other in the overall scheme of things.
So what you're saying here is 'Alliance or Horde?'
Man, I started tabletop to get AWAY from WoW.
well to put it blatantly that is why I hate alignment...
Its just team names, which is lame sauce in my opinion. What is generally good and evil is just that they dislike each other. To deem good or evil on to something is to declare that something an absolute.
|
So what you're saying here is 'Alliance or Horde?'
Man, I started tabletop to get AWAY from WoW.
Precisely why I cut alignment from my game.
Now sure, people will say 'the PCs killing kobolds without cause is an evil act, not a good act' and 'as long as they are only stopping the orcs from attacking the village it's not evil!'
The problem is, killing is Evil according to D&D. 'Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others'. If D&D is morally absolute, then any killing is an Evil act. Even stopping orcs from attacking villages.
So Mr. Paladin loses his powers after killing the orc when D&D is a moral absolutist system. Since the DMs that actually do make paladins fall for that are usually mentioned in threads about bad DMs, this is obviously not how we run alignment in D&D.
The fact is that you're on one of four teams. Evil, Good, Chaos, or Law. And your best bet is to pick one and stick with it because switching teams actually hurts your chances of being your team captain's right hand man when you kick the bucket.
Better, I think, to divorce the team names from any moral compass.
So what you're saying here is 'Alliance or Horde?'
Man, I started tabletop to get AWAY from WoW.
Precisely why I cut alignment from my game.
Now sure, people will say 'the PCs killing kobolds without cause is an evil act, not a good act' and 'as long as they are only stopping the orcs from attacking the village it's not evil!'
The problem is, killing is Evil according to D&D. 'Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others'. If D&D is morally absolute, then any killing is an Evil act. Even stopping orcs from attacking villages.
So Mr. Paladin loses his powers after killing the orc when D&D is a moral absolutist system. Since the DMs that actually do make paladins fall for that are usually mentioned in threads about bad DMs, this is obviously not how we run alignment in D&D.
The fact is that you're on one of four teams. Evil, Good, Chaos, or Law. And your best bet is to pick one and stick with it because switching teams actually hurts your chances of being your team captain's right hand man when you kick the bucket.
Better, I think, to divorce the team names from any moral compass.
I can dig it.
D&D likes to say it is a moral absolutist system, but it really isn't.
The player characters wipe out a kobold warren? Good act!
The orc warband slaughters a human settlement? Evil act!
The alignments are just team names. One side is no better than the other in the overall scheme of things.
Uh, that's kind of the definition of moral absolutism, actually.
As to Midnightoker - if you wish to think I said you were "wrong" or be insulted by my comment, go ahead - it's within your right. I was merely proposing a counterargument, since you seem to imply that alignments are a joke (I believe your words were "A STUPID MECHANIC") because there's no one to draw the hard line that the game requires.
The hard line exists, and it's the GM's call to make it what it is for that game. Like it or not, that's what the game's about.
D&D likes to say it is a moral absolutist system, but it really isn't.
The player characters wipe out a kobold warren? Good act!
The orc warband slaughters a human settlement? Evil act!
The alignments are just team names. One side is no better than the other in the overall scheme of things.
Uh, that's kind of the definition of moral absolutism, actually.
As to Midnightoker - if you wish to think I said you were "wrong" or be insulted by my comment, go ahead - it's within your right. I was merely proposing a counterargument, since you seem to imply that alignments are a joke (I believe your words were "A STUPID MECHANIC") because there's no one to draw the hard line that the game requires.
The hard line exists, and it's the GM's call to make it what it is for that game. Like it or not, that's what the game's about.
In that case I take it back.
But the reason I called it a stupid mechanic (probably harsh words) is because any time alignment comes up in terms of character it turns into a big moral debate between the DM and the Player unless alignment is fully and entirely fleshed out prior to starting play or the DM lays constant reminders. This is if the two have even slightly differing views on what is deemed chaotic, lawful, evil, or good.
I just choose to make the game less subjective and difficult for everyone to manage. Troubling someone with moral deliberations within the character personality is far more rewarding for me and my players in our experience than trying to find out if the paladins attempt to save the towns peoples miserible failure was an evil or good act.
You are right though I definitely should have reworded it instead of calling it stupid. Personally I dont care for trying to define morality for everything in the world, who am I to say after all, and as a DM I dont feel comfortable making that decision even for four to five people. That is just my personal qualms with it, but it is fully within a DMs ability and probably his responsibility to do that.
|
|
Uh, that's kind of the definition of moral absolutism, actually.
'Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.'
I don't understand how you can say that killing being a Good or Evil act depending on who is doing it and for what reason falls into this definition. Moral absolutism says 'Killing is either Evil or Good no matter what.'
|
|
It's about intent and intention. He totally intents to kill that guy dead.Take it a step further then -- someone is holding my wife at gunpoint, but I get the drop on him. I shoot him dead, quite intentionally, in order to save her. Am I evil because of the intent, if not for the deed itself?
Maybe the reason for doing something is more important than the intent to do so?
In this case, your intent is your intent to kill him for the pleasure of killing him, or is your intent to kill him for the sake of saving your wife's life?
If killing is defined as absolutely evil, then it doesn't matter. If you aren't being absolute, then it does. Reason and Intention are not so easily divorced as you make it seem, though. Reason guides Intention. So tell us, in that situation: is your intention to take a life at any cost or to save a life at any cost?
Bouncing to the other argument. Ultimately, it's the GM's call. Doing away with Good and Evil does away with an interesting game mechanic, however flawed it is as a construction. The theme of Good Vs. Evil is one of the oldest in the history of humanity. A large number of other internal mechanics also depend upon the idea of Alignment being present (spells, Paladins, Clerics, etc).
What if, using Moral Absolutism as a guideline, GMs set up a chart/system of notes. Certain acts are defined as absolutely Good/Evil, Chaotic/Lawful. Example: Torture, the act of inflicting some form of pain on somebody as a punishment or a coercion, is Absolutely Evil. Healing, the act of causing a wound/injury/person to become sound or healthy, is Absolutely Good. Killing, the act of causing a death or cessation of life, is Absolutely Neutral. Other things go in these areas as well, along with things for the Lawful/Chaotic Axis.
For things that are Absolutely Neutral, a brief question would then be asked. Take Killing. What intention did you have? What reason did you have? What reaction do you have? Depending on the answer, it could fall under any of the alignments. Once a set of Intentions/Reasons/Reactions is set, though, that set will always equal the first-chosen Alignment. A Killing for "save lives and prevent suffering/person killed would have caused unnecessary death and suffering to others through cruelty/I didn't enjoy it but it needed to be done" could be Good, and that Intention/Reason/Reaction would then always be Good. A Killing for "taking his life/he really got under my skin/good riddance" would be Evil. In future, it would then always be evil.
Actions taken could be compared to the chart/set of notes for their Alignment. If something comes up as questionable, then it's dealt with by brief discussion, with GM having final say. Once something is on the chart, it's locked. It provides an easy reference for people if they're trying to figure out how the character would act. One step away from your alignment is safe. Two steps away is highly questionable/forbidden.
Just an idea. 1.5cp
|
|
Yeah D&D/PF sure know how to kill some of histories greatest storylines with a couple opf trivial spells and basic abilities.
Detecting lies and alignments simply kills mystery.
Detect Lies, yes. Detect alignment, no. Just because someone pings as evil doesn't mean they are the guilty party for whatever mystery you're investigating. Hell, a Neutral Evil (primarily selfish) character has a good reason NOT to engage in overtly illegal activities...he's selfish enough to not want to suffer the consequences of being caught.
Let's say you do detect evil, find out that the butler (let's call him Mr. Green) was evil, and summarily execute him. That's good news for the chaotic neutral maid (Mrs. Peacock) who killed the victim in a fit of rage (in the library...with the candlestick) upon finding out that she wasn't his only mistress. Anyhow, I'm going to console Miss Scarlet on the death of her lover. ;)
Would his alignment be good because of his good deeds, or would it not change as it was a means to an end.
Personally, I'm calling it evil. Faith matters more than acts, ultimately. If you bring 100, 000 people into a Vecna church by setting up soup kitchens and helping the needy, you're still leading them down a path of destruction, so you're still being utterly evil. In fact, that would actually be much worse to me than just stabbing a few people.
It depends somewhat on his motives for the assassination.
To use evil means for a good end is a neutral mentality.
Not necessarily. It depends on how evil the means are, and how good the ends. Derailing a train (killing everyone in sight) to save the child that fell onto the tracks is an instance of a good end used to justify evil means that is definitely totally evil.
I disagree. The man saving the child values the innocent child over the ambiguous passengers, and goes so far as to save him at any cost, sounds neutral to me.
The man saving the child values the innocent child over the ambiguous passengers, and goes so far as to save him at any cost, sounds neutral to me.
Children are natural sociopaths (have you seen how they treat each other when they think you're not looking?); ethics often have to be taught or learned. I'd say the passengers are more likely to be "good" than the child.
The man saving the child values the innocent child over the ambiguous passengers, and goes so far as to save him at any cost, sounds neutral to me.Children are natural sociopaths (have you seen how they treat each other when they think you're not looking?); ethics often have to be taught or learned. I'd say the passengers are more likely to be "good" than the child.
I would disagree on your perspective of ethics, but that's not the philosophy this thread is about.
When talking about neutality, I would say it doesn't matter if the baby is actually a demon in disguise. From the rescuer's perspective he's the good that deserves to be rescued at the cost of othe human life. I just see that as neutrality. Especially if when thown into the same situation again, he takes the opposite approach and saves the train. Gotta maintain balance
|
Ok If I have an evil character that wants to infiltrate a good church hypothetically. If the spend the next few years doing good deeds just to infiltrate this church to lets say assassinate a higher up. Would his alignment be good because of his good deeds, or would it not change as it was a means to an end.
It wouldn't change one bit. In fact, such 'evil' efforts should be commended and rewarded.