Good vs Evil: a matter of aims or a matter of means?

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?

I was gonna post a big, long schpiel about intent and execution being primary factors, microcosm and inclusive macrocosm, and stated vs unstated intent.. but then I realized that I am far too tired at the moment and run serious risk of becoming incoherant. Blarg.

Anyway, what I will say is this: Self-Preservation is neither good nor evil, and drawing first on a (in the above case, very) probable hostile isn't evil, either - it's prudent.

Li Shenron said:

What's your opinion on this matter...? Are ends always more important than means in the good/evil balance?

Click to expand...

The ends never justify the means. Taking a single innocent life to save a thousand is not Good. It's Evil.

Oftentimes, Evil individuals have the best of goals. They want to unite the land to prevent future wars. Or they want to elevate humanity to a higher level of consciousness. Or they want to relieve people of suffering. etc. etc. Goals don't justify actions. And actions are what determine whether or not an individual is Good or Evil.

In the end, this means that Good is almost always at a disadvantage compared to Evil, because often the most practical actions, the most prudent decisions, are also evil. It's not an even playing field. It's harder to climb the mountain than walk along its base. This is one of the reasons the path of Evil is so seductive. Quick power and easy solutions can tempt even the purest of hearts.

Both are important, but I would say that the means is the most decisive aspect.

Let say you want to unify various feuding countries into a great empire. There are several means to that end. You can try tyranny and conquests, this is an evil mean to that end. You can also try to unite them through politics, creating a confederation, persuading petty leaders to join in as a way to insure their own prosperity, etc. (A real world example could be unifying Europe, with Napoléon Bonaparte for the "tyranny & conquest" approach; and, later, Jean Monnet and Konrad Adenauer for the "conciliation and negociation" approach.)

Same end, different means, and it's the means that determines morality.

Saying "it's not evil to kill evil" is a logical fallacy, one that might bite them in the back later. Once again, what is important is the mean, not the end. Goodness is about respect for life -- which is not the same as preservation of all life, mind you -- and thus forbade gratuitous murders, torture, etc.

Killing people with an insta-kill spell, before they can act, can be construed as non-evil in that way -- you do not inflict gratuitous suffering if the foes are dispatched instantly.

The Book of Exalted Deeds has some good fluff write-ups on the nature of Goodness in a D&D world, and what actions constitute 'good' or 'evil', for what it's worth. Still, ultimately, DMs have to decide how these things work in their games.

One thing about drawing parallels between D&D and the real world (particularly the modern world)--D&D has a much more real existence than evil than the real world.

I would say that the good have the motivation & the means - one without the other is probably neutral (btw being neutral in D&D is ok). Being good is often the difficult path in the short term but I believe pays out big over time (& I am not referring to an afterlife).

The kill 1 to save 1000 suffers from quantifying the value of a life. If a life is priceless then 1 life = 1000 (1*priceless = 1000*priceless). If a life = 1500gp in taxes then yes, the 1000 are more valuable, but I believe that quantifying the value of a life is not a "good" action. It may be practical & expediant but in D&D terms would not count as doing good - probably be a neutral action.

I'll say it again, I consider neutral is generally acceptable, by definition. Also, good characters don't have to be suckers.

I agree 100% that motivation is the key to Goodness, although the original example doesn't really seem to apply for this discussion, it seems. Self-defence isn't really anywhere on the moral scale, it's simply an act of preservation that any creature with acknowledgement of itself would perform, but if it's regarding the purpose behind the excursion into the Underdark, then that's a horse of a different colour.

To say that the means defines morality needs to consider one thing: from whose viewpoint should we consider? If a band of heroes makes an action with good intentions, but the mass populace doesn't agree with their selection, does that mean that the group committed evil? In the case of sacrificing one life to save a thousand, the vote will be split as to whether or not this is truly a good act: I'm sure that the 999 remaining survivors won't mind their choice too much but when stacked against the millions of other votes, does this mean that theirs don't count? So, if that's the case, there will always be a body of individuals that will disagree with the outcome of the party's action and profess them to be evil, and when the sword is drawn, a good hero cannot weigh these factors too much -- he needs to make a choice in the here and now.

That's why it's more REALISTIC (despite the fact that we're talking about fictional characters in a world that exists solely in our heads) for intent to drive morality. If we defined every single action according to the whim and desires of others, my God, we'd never be able to function properly. Hell, a hero wouldn't even be able to dress themselves if that were the case.

However, there is always a threat of contamination: if these actions become involved and chosen for selfish or singular purposes, then the threat of these decisions being evil becomes a greater possibility. That's really what Evil is: a singular desire to take power from others. So, back to the saving-a-thousand-example, choosing which one person to kill simply because of personal dislike would actually corrupt the action as evil -- it had a selfish purpose behind it.

Hope that this argument makes sense.

Well, if you want to play "good" to the hilt, it's both that counts...the intentions of a character, his long-term goals as well as how he acts and behaves. Which will be a tough nail to chew in a setting like the Underdark. There's far too many atrocities that were done in the name of the "greater good" to claim that the end justifies the means, and conversely there's lots of "good deeds" done in a simply unthinking and uncaring way, like the donation drives I see all around me during December every year, where people don't give to do some good, but because it's the politically correct thing, no matter where the money really goes, to claim that I simply have to behave like a good person to be a good person.

It doesn't mean a good character cannot act rough, careful or decisive, if he doubtlessly knows he's acting right for the situation...but it simply can take a lot of thinking and roleplaying sometimes. Which is the whole fun of it.

My soapbox...this is why I define good and evil in my games.

Real life, I don't know. I have been around long enough and know a good bit of history to say Zelazany had it right in his book Lord of Light, good is beautiful and evil is ugly; what we find repulsive, hideous, and unsightly we label evil, those things we find attractive, stylish, fashionable, and chic we see as good.

To me the ends do not justify the means because you do not know what the results will be at the end, how much good would you be wiping out as part in a quest to the end. Justification for actions do not make them less evil, they only allow you excuses to live with yourself.

Good Vs Evil

Good is THE difficulty to play,as well as Evil...they are common aligments,but to play them there are a lot of factors to count in...most characters i've met come closer to neutral...
First of all,defining good and evil...
-It's the people's opinions?Then the BigBadIKnowHeIsEvil King, may be defined good...because people have their own point of view....
-It's cosmology...If god's define good and evil then many things can happen...In gods' history,especialy in Faerun,gods have made great attrocities in the name of good...
-It's what we as players and the dm,regard good and evil?Well,we have again OUR points of view...
What i'm trying to say,is relativism....The good and evil is depentant to the personal point of view...
Indeed "exalted deeds" had really good texts about how relative is the aligment...It's much more complex than Demon is evil,so i kill any demon i find....
That's why Paladins are the most difficult class existing,even though many players,mostly new, have simplified anything concerning morale dillimas....
Evil is doing anything that is easy,gathering most power,finding the easiest methods,using the cunniest tricks to destroy your enemies....As i said,YOUR ENEMIES....is this so easy to define evil?Everyone,every character now and then,came close to the dark side,even if it is to survive....
The only drawback is that evil destroy's itself, while good does not...If evil could be united, it would be the end of Mount Celestia...Of course the "good" solars,help anyone to prevent that unity...in any way they can ...Of course they are THE GooD ....It's that relative...