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

[fusangite]

I think D&D is expected to be run on the Star Trek model -- that when there appears to be a means-ends choice, this is an illusion and the means must always trump the ends. In order to make the good-evil mechanic work, a GM must design stories that conform to these basic Star Trek criteria; it is simply unfair to the players under the rules that we have to ever achieve a greater collective good through evil means than good.

 

[FireLance]

I think D&D is expected to be run on the Star Trek model -- that when there appears to be a means-ends choice, this is an illusion and the means must always trump the ends. In order to make the good-evil mechanic work, a GM must design stories that conform to these basic Star Trek criteria; it is simply unfair to the players under the rules that we have to ever achieve a greater collective good through evil means than good.

Actually, the rules only punish characters whose abilities are alignment-dependent (like paladins), but I generally agree that there seems to be an expectation in D&D that good ends are best (or most completely) achieved through good means. In the games I design, I try to ensure that choosing to use good means is usually more effective and rewarding.

Still, I'm sure there are groups who prefer a "greyer" or "grimmer and grittier" style of play where evil means must sometimes be employed to achieve good ends (or vice-versa). If they're having fun, I'm not going to say that they're doing it wrong.

 

[Mokona]

Number one, Good and Evil cannot be separated from a moral code.

So I'll use the real world (ie the United States of America) here.

Good and Evil are determined by how your actions affect other people around you or in the world. Since we're not telepaths no one can know if another person is acting out of a desire to do good. When we judge a persons actions to be Good or Evil what we're able to judge with the senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste) we have is the impact of that person's actions upon ourself or other people.

So an Evil action causes harm, directly or indirectly, to people around the actor while a Good deed benefits others. Now we have to define help and hurt. This is where you need a moral center because how do you judge hurting one purpose to benefit a greater number of people. For example, is it ok to hurt people who take Evil actions to stop them?

How many people have to be hurt, or how bad does the hurt have to be to deserve hurting the perpetrator of the Evil deeds? Who is empowered to decide? Are the rules ever suspended (even slightly), as in warfare? Is collateral damage Good or Evil? Is collateral damage allowed even if it is Evil because of the greater Good?

 

[Darkness]

Is collateral damage Good or Evil? Is collateral damage allowed even if it is Evil because of the greater Good?

Good? Never. Accidental collateral damage, while regrettable, is neutral. So is collateral damage caused in the pursuit of a greater good if it's not excessive. If it is excessive, or if you knowingly cause it just because it is easier for you, it is evil.

BTW, please be careful with real-world war examples for this, everybody. Especially if they're controversial.

 

[Li Shenron]

Good? Never. Accidental collateral damage, while regrettable, is neutral.

This is true, that an accidental harming of innocents (supposing it's not caused by recklessness or irresponsibility, which IS a guilt) is not itself evil. I would say that it probably becomes evil when it is accepted beforehand: saying "there's bound to be casualties" and proceeding anyway might be already evil in a way... not sure.

But if the "collateral damage" wasn't expected, no doubt it doesn't make the characters evil, although I suppose they would still feel guilty for it if they are good or neutral, and maybe try to repair. Probably if they get used not to bother anymore, not to feel guilty if it happens again, it's become already an evil disposition.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

To quote myself on another 'evil' thread,

"We have a fundamental disconnect here. Some posters believe that killing is inherently evil. Some do not. The D&D rules do indeed state that killing is evil, but they also state that a paladin loses his status at the first evil act...so no paladins get past their first battle. "

and

"In the real world, I do not believe that violence, or indeed, killing, are inherently evil. There are circumstances which justify their use. Many of you do not accept this...and you have every right not to. We each make our own moral choices."

IMO violence is a perfectly acceptable, even Good choice under some circumstances.

The harming of innocents, on the other hand, is evil, even if somehow neccessary.
Unintended harm can be evil, if, as Li Shenron says, it is due to negligence or carelessness on the part of a sentient.

 

[rounser]

The D&D rules do indeed state that killing is evil

Evil, full stop? There are no jails for evil dragons...what are PCs going to do, leave it tied up? If that really is what the book says, it doesn't sound very well thought through.

Either that, or the best alignment a classic D&D adventurer can hope for on the good/evil axis is neutral.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

From the 3.5 SRD:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior."


And yes, Rounser, that's our point.


Oh, by the way...psychopaths, by D&D terms, are neutral, according to the above statement, because they "lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." If you can't tell good from evil according to D&D, you can't be good *or* evil.

 

[Darkness]

"We have a fundamental disconnect here. Some posters believe that killing is inherently evil. Some do not. The D&D rules do indeed state that killing is evil, but they also state that a paladin loses his status at the first evil act...so no paladins get past their first battle. "

Killing is neutral. Murder is evil.

If someone wants to classify all killing, period, as evil, they'll run into difficulties in D&D. Unless they either never have combat, always subdue their enemies without killing them, or don't mind that the PCs are evil.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

This precise point is being made on multiple threads as we speak. If killing is evil, then we can't actually play good guys in the game as set up.

D&D may be *like* a superhero game...but it isn't the old Marvel system where killing somebody makes you lose all your Karma.