Li Shenron
Legend
Yeah, another alignment thread
Yesterday we played another session of CotSQ, and we were discussing about the fact that our characters, which are all good or neutral, have become quite cynical and methodically resort to violence when facing a possible threat. Clearly, because the adventure takes place in the underdark, most of the encounters are with creatures that probably want to kill us or capture us, so our characters have learned to always attack first before it's too late. Actually, the thing has become more extreme after a couple of insta-kill situations: because we're at high level, there are already foes with save-or-die spells or abilities, which means that sometimes giving the enemies the advantage of a surprise round or a won initiative can make the difference between life or death. In conclusion, our characters now think that it is more "smart" or "safe" to kill everyone before they even speak, without little remorse since almost all of the underdark denizens are evil, and "it's not evil to kill other evil".
Anyway, yesterday night we discussed a lot about this fact. Basically our discussion ended up around two different views about being "good" (or "non-evil").
One vision was that good can be in the motivations even without being in the methods used. So, if your motivation is to save the world from evil, you are still "good" if you mercylessly slaughter all the evil people, because basically the ends justify the means.
The opposite vision is that good is mostly in the means, and the methods used to achieve a goal is indeed what distinguish good from evil, although in some (but not all cases) the target itself can be good or evil.
What's your opinion on this matter...? Are ends always more important than means in the good/evil balance?
We came up ourselves with some examples. Some of us mentioned the fact that even some dictatorships or cruel governments IRL might have stemmed from a "good purpose" of making the people of the country live better. For example a king may really want to help his people live happy and wealthy, and believes that imprisoning and eventually eliminating those 5-10% who want a different king (whom are called "rebels") is a necessary action to keep society working with the least problems.
It would be nice to try compiling a very informal list of actions, thoughts and behaviours as well as motivations and targets which may mostly be considered "good" or "evil", and use the list as guidelines in our games.
Extremes are obviously easier to adjudicate, but most of the common behaviours aren't extreme, and player characters most of times aren't either saints nor villains.
For example, the strive for some sort of personal power or wealth is common in everyone. Is it inherently an evil target? Doesn't it really depend on how you intend to (1) achieve that power/wealth and (2) use it afterwards, that makes you good or evil?
Yesterday we played another session of CotSQ, and we were discussing about the fact that our characters, which are all good or neutral, have become quite cynical and methodically resort to violence when facing a possible threat. Clearly, because the adventure takes place in the underdark, most of the encounters are with creatures that probably want to kill us or capture us, so our characters have learned to always attack first before it's too late. Actually, the thing has become more extreme after a couple of insta-kill situations: because we're at high level, there are already foes with save-or-die spells or abilities, which means that sometimes giving the enemies the advantage of a surprise round or a won initiative can make the difference between life or death. In conclusion, our characters now think that it is more "smart" or "safe" to kill everyone before they even speak, without little remorse since almost all of the underdark denizens are evil, and "it's not evil to kill other evil".
Anyway, yesterday night we discussed a lot about this fact. Basically our discussion ended up around two different views about being "good" (or "non-evil").
One vision was that good can be in the motivations even without being in the methods used. So, if your motivation is to save the world from evil, you are still "good" if you mercylessly slaughter all the evil people, because basically the ends justify the means.
The opposite vision is that good is mostly in the means, and the methods used to achieve a goal is indeed what distinguish good from evil, although in some (but not all cases) the target itself can be good or evil.
What's your opinion on this matter...? Are ends always more important than means in the good/evil balance?
We came up ourselves with some examples. Some of us mentioned the fact that even some dictatorships or cruel governments IRL might have stemmed from a "good purpose" of making the people of the country live better. For example a king may really want to help his people live happy and wealthy, and believes that imprisoning and eventually eliminating those 5-10% who want a different king (whom are called "rebels") is a necessary action to keep society working with the least problems.
It would be nice to try compiling a very informal list of actions, thoughts and behaviours as well as motivations and targets which may mostly be considered "good" or "evil", and use the list as guidelines in our games.
Extremes are obviously easier to adjudicate, but most of the common behaviours aren't extreme, and player characters most of times aren't either saints nor villains.
For example, the strive for some sort of personal power or wealth is common in everyone. Is it inherently an evil target? Doesn't it really depend on how you intend to (1) achieve that power/wealth and (2) use it afterwards, that makes you good or evil?