Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Good vs Evil: a matter of aims or a matter of means?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Samhaine" data-source="post: 1914750" data-attributes="member: 4873"><p>As I noted on the Law/Chaos thread, I suspect that motivation/ends/goals is a good way to judge good and evil.</p><p></p><p>A good character tries to do what is best for "society" or "the people" and sacrifices his personal safety and desires in the pursuit of doing so. An evil character tries to do what is best for himself, and sacrifices the safety and desires of others whenever they conflict with his own interests.</p><p></p><p>Under this interpretation, Evil is way easier to maintain than good. The evil character just has to make sure that he's not allowing himself to help others when it's not in his own interests. The good character has to find out whether helping one part of society will negatively impact another part of society, and has to question his own motives for selfishness. The character who is neutral by default rather than principle generally does what is best for himself so long as it doesn't do much harm to anyone else.</p><p></p><p>Ends Justifies the Means, in this situation, is a slippery slope rather than an instant evil act. A character that is Good can use pragmatic means in the pursuit of what is best for others. Many who didn't like the means chosen will refer to the character as "wrong" or even "evil", but, as far as objective alignment is concerned, the character is trying his best to do Good. Where this becomes a slipperly slope is the size of these means. One death to save 1000 is ethically questionable, but not necessarily evil outright. However, killing 1000 to save 1000 is harder to justify: at some point the character is no longer working to protect "society" or "the greater good" but is actually just championing his own agenda to the detriment of the people.</p><p></p><p>With this setup, you can have some very interesting situations:</p><p></p><p>The ruler of a peaceful, prosperous country can be deeply Evil; he's always found that it's easier to get what he wants with honey than vinegar, and has found that a happy nation increases his powerbase far more than a terrorized one. He still doesn't really care about crushing and killing to get what he wants, and would gleefully murder every one of his citizens if he could get more power out of it, but for now the ethics of his means have been unquestionable.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, the leader of a degenerate, ravening warband bent on genocide can be entirely Good; he's had a verified vision of the future sent by his god. In a few years all members of a certain race will be posessed by demons and turn the world into a hell. He feels deeply sorry for wiping them out, but cannot think of any other way to save the world within the time frame. He'd sacrifice himself if he could, and he'll have to take a long, hard look at himself when he finishes, but he never wavers in his pursuit of protecting the many.</p><p></p><p>These both set up situations for the PCs to question their own values and ends, rather than just following a Detect Evil with a massive combat. Can they figure out a way to dispatch or reform the evil leader without undoing the good he's inadvertantly wrought? Do they stop the good leader from his crusade in hopes that a more pure method of saving the world might present itself? Do they kill him if he doesn't believe they can succeed and just keeps going?</p><p></p><p></p><p>And this can explain why evil continues to exist in the world: the majority prefers goodness and loathes evil, but good characters can rarely agree on their methods, while a small handful of evil can happily use a vast range of means without any qualms to get what it wants.</p><p></p><p>Thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Samhaine, post: 1914750, member: 4873"] As I noted on the Law/Chaos thread, I suspect that motivation/ends/goals is a good way to judge good and evil. A good character tries to do what is best for "society" or "the people" and sacrifices his personal safety and desires in the pursuit of doing so. An evil character tries to do what is best for himself, and sacrifices the safety and desires of others whenever they conflict with his own interests. Under this interpretation, Evil is way easier to maintain than good. The evil character just has to make sure that he's not allowing himself to help others when it's not in his own interests. The good character has to find out whether helping one part of society will negatively impact another part of society, and has to question his own motives for selfishness. The character who is neutral by default rather than principle generally does what is best for himself so long as it doesn't do much harm to anyone else. Ends Justifies the Means, in this situation, is a slippery slope rather than an instant evil act. A character that is Good can use pragmatic means in the pursuit of what is best for others. Many who didn't like the means chosen will refer to the character as "wrong" or even "evil", but, as far as objective alignment is concerned, the character is trying his best to do Good. Where this becomes a slipperly slope is the size of these means. One death to save 1000 is ethically questionable, but not necessarily evil outright. However, killing 1000 to save 1000 is harder to justify: at some point the character is no longer working to protect "society" or "the greater good" but is actually just championing his own agenda to the detriment of the people. With this setup, you can have some very interesting situations: The ruler of a peaceful, prosperous country can be deeply Evil; he's always found that it's easier to get what he wants with honey than vinegar, and has found that a happy nation increases his powerbase far more than a terrorized one. He still doesn't really care about crushing and killing to get what he wants, and would gleefully murder every one of his citizens if he could get more power out of it, but for now the ethics of his means have been unquestionable. Meanwhile, the leader of a degenerate, ravening warband bent on genocide can be entirely Good; he's had a verified vision of the future sent by his god. In a few years all members of a certain race will be posessed by demons and turn the world into a hell. He feels deeply sorry for wiping them out, but cannot think of any other way to save the world within the time frame. He'd sacrifice himself if he could, and he'll have to take a long, hard look at himself when he finishes, but he never wavers in his pursuit of protecting the many. These both set up situations for the PCs to question their own values and ends, rather than just following a Detect Evil with a massive combat. Can they figure out a way to dispatch or reform the evil leader without undoing the good he's inadvertantly wrought? Do they stop the good leader from his crusade in hopes that a more pure method of saving the world might present itself? Do they kill him if he doesn't believe they can succeed and just keeps going? And this can explain why evil continues to exist in the world: the majority prefers goodness and loathes evil, but good characters can rarely agree on their methods, while a small handful of evil can happily use a vast range of means without any qualms to get what it wants. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Good vs Evil: a matter of aims or a matter of means?
Top