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

[The_Universe]

Ends and means cannot be considered seperately in anything that would approximate a truly moral or ethical judgement. It's possible to make all the "right" decisions, and still end up with a result that is undoubtedly evil - means without concern for ends is lacking.

And, as is often spouted, "the ends can't justify the means."

However, I would contend that the ability of the ends to justify the means is directly proportional to the extremities of both of them. How "good" are the ends? How "evil" were the means?

Massacreing infants for the sake of lower taxes is, of course, not going to fly. But what about massacreing infants for the sake of the survival of the world (of course, something that silly could only happen in a game )? Is it "Good" to leave the children alive, but allow the world to die? Has delaying their deaths been any better than killing them for the survival of others?

While there are certainly (in D&D, at least) certain things that are ALWAYS valuable, I would argue that it is inapropriate to have anything so valuable that it is Monolothic. Everyone should value life. That's a universal value. Everyone should value liberty. But can each of those things give, in order to achieve other (presumably greater) goods, without allowing the decisionmakers to fall to evil? Absolutely. Just because you note that the things are good, does not mean that they cannot be compromised for other goods.

 

[painandgreed]

The ends always justifies the means, otherwise people wouldn't undertake those means. Justification is a trap shouldn't be used for determination of good or evil. Good people find themselves justified in preforming good actions and evil people feel justified in evil actions. You can justify any action if you put thought into it, that doesn't make an evil action good. Justifying taking evil actions is just justifying your alignment change. A good person may find themselves needing to preform an evil action, I don't think they will ever feel justified* in doing so and will always regret it even if they'd do it agian given the same choice.

*as in feeling free of guilt or blame

Edited to add:
Oops! Making hasty posts and getting my rhetoric mixed up. The first sentence and the rest of the paragraph are using different definitions of justify. For the sake of this arguement, simply ignore the first sentence.

 

[swrushing]

My views...

means and ends matter. accomplishing good thru evil means would tend toearn you a neutral in my book, based on the really broad assumtpion of parity between them. If you decided to save a little gril (good) by slaughtering and torturing an entire nation (BIG evil) you wind up evil in my book.

As for the kill first, slay evil, self-defense thing...

self-defense would in my book chal;k up as a neutral end.
killing things because "they are evil" is at best neutral in my book. (thats different from killing them because the are DOING EVIL THINGS)
killing before they can speak is an evil means.

So, in general, a party who consistently slaughtered everything they met before the enemy even spoke would be rapidly sliding (barring other acts) towards neutral and maybe into evil alignment.

After al, those drow probably felt the same "kill them first or they will kill us" when they met your group... and were right.


gotta say though, it sounds like a great story progression of the "stare into the abyss too long" fall from grace and then redemption angle.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Earlier in this thread, this statement was made:


"there are also evil persons IRL, but you don't kill them even if you have the opportunity to 100% escape law punishment."

My question: if you know they are evil, have seen them committing the evil, and you won't be punished for killing them....why *don't* you kill them?


In modern terms, many things we do in D&D, as our chracters, are evil. But to a medieval mindset, these things were not evil. In part, we play the game to roleplay the mindset of different cultures and periods. We should take into account the prevalent opinions in the world on the nature of good and evil, even if we personally believe that evil is objective.

And if Evil is truly objective, and whole races actually are Evil with a big E...how can it be evil to slay them? If warfare is evil by nature, even to survive, then Good dies out in a couple of generations when faced by Evil, which will gladly kill and eat them.

Good and pacifism are not the same thing. Allowing evil to continue because the Evil won't listen to you and be friendly, meaning you can't stop them without violence, and you won't be violent...that's selfish. that's refusing to sully your precious morals even though the fate of the world is at stake. Also, when Evil kicks in the door and tries to eat your babies, it is often too late for effective action.

I'd say refusing to fight Evil is at best a Neutral act.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "
Edmund Burke

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. "
Martin Luther King, Jr.

(On the other hand, Gandhi opposed evil nonviolently. As I recall, this got him killed.)

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Both means and intent speratly and together.

 

[Kemrain]

(On the other hand, Gandhi opposed evil nonviolently. As I recall, this got him killed.)

It got Martin Luther King Jr. killed as well, may he rest in peace.

I can't speak for Edmund Burke, knowing nothing beyond him save his quote.

- Kemrain the [Neutral].

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Nod to that. I have a great deal of respect for both Dr. King and Gandhi. i just believe that nonviolent resistance tends to lead to martyrdom too often to be an effective long term tactic.

 

[painandgreed]

I'd say refusing to fight Evil is at best a Neutral act.

Reminds me of one DM I had. When asked what evil was, he stated it was the "torture, maiming and killing of life" When asked what good was, he replied "the torture, maiming and killing of evil."

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Nah. Torture is evil, because it's excessive force. Torturing them before killing them doesn't make them less of a threat, and generally it doesn't scare their associates off, it just makes them fight harder. Kill quickly and mercifully...but kill.

More on topic...both ends and means can be good or evil, but violence as a means is not inherently evil.

 

[shilsen]

(On the other hand, Gandhi opposed evil nonviolently. As I recall, this got him killed.)

[NITPICK]Gandhi's non-violent opposition to British occupation had absolutely nothing to do with him being killed. He was assassinated in 1948, after the British had left India, for reasons to do with the Partition of the country into India and Pakistan.[/NITPICK]