Can two forces be in conflict, both believing themselves to be good?

[Alexander123]

To torture an evil person for information to save your child's life is evil to you and you feel that the paladin should give up his titles? You would think of yourself as evil after having tortured an evil person for information to be able to save your child's life? I doubt anyone would be willing to sacrifice their child to get out of having to torture someone assuming that torture is the only way to get information out of him.

 

[Filcher]

To torture an evil person for information to save your child's life is evil to you and you feel that the paladin should give up his titles? You would think of yourself as evil after having tortured an evil person for information to be able to save your child's life? I doubt anyone would be willing to sacrifice their child to get out of having to torture someone assuming that torture is the only way to get information out of him.

If my PC were part of a holy order devoted tenets handed down from on high, and faced with breaking those tenets, I see him as having two honorable options:

• Leave the order he has devoted his life to, so that when he sullies his personal honor, he doesn't sully the honor of the order; or ...

• Uphold the tenets, allowing his horrific deed to pass, and then rain the fury of heaven down on the villains until he has scoured the world of their remains.

Of course, my neutral good and chaotic good characters would make different choices. But for the LG paladin, I think both of the above options are great setups for a tragic hero who has made a deep personal sacrifice for what he loves.

Off topic, it is this sort of decision that makes a character cool. What does he decide? What does he really care about?

 

[Filcher]

To torture an evil person for information to save your child's life is evil to you and you feel that the paladin should give up his titles? You would think of yourself as evil after having tortured an evil person for information to be able to save your child's life? I doubt anyone would be willing to sacrifice their child to get out of having to torture someone assuming that torture is the only way to get information out of him.

A lawful good paladin's analysis of the scene might go like this:

1. The bad guys kidnapped my child and will hurt him. This is an Evil act. We must act!

2. We found the Bad Guy and are holding him against his will (kidnapping).

3. If I'm going to take the next step of hurting a powerless person, how does this make me different from the bad guys in #1? I'm doing exactly what they did to me.

The next decision he makes should define his character.

Put another way, can he kidnap a villain's child to save his own kidnapped child? Should he preempt the villains and kidnap their children first so that his are safe?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Isn't the Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good split the essence of this sort of debate? Both are good, but they could come into violent conflict over what their definitions of good (group over individual vs. individual over group) and specific tactis.

I've used this in campaigns to show conflicts between clerics and churches of different Good religions, and even in one campaign where there was a violent conflict within a particular good church between different sects (Church of Lathander/Amanuator in FR is almost purpose built for this sort of thing).

 

[Alexander123]

Right, but the difference is not between LG and CG. I am saying that a paladin who allows his child to die to avoid engaging in torture and any group that considers this torture to be evil is evil and immoral. I do not consider this conflict to be between LG and CG, but a paladin by refusing to engage in torture to save this childs should be considered evil and immoral.

 

[Filcher]

I am saying that a paladin who allows his child to die to avoid engaging in torture and any group that considers this torture to be evil is evil and immoral.

But he's not trying to avoid it. He knows that it is wrong, and is refusing to do evil to accomplish good.

How much evil will you permit him, in order to accomplish good? Can he kidnap and threaten the villain's child, to save his own kidnapped child?

 

[El Mahdi]

... I do not consider this conflict to be between LG and CG, but a paladin by refusing to engage in torture to save this childs should be considered evil and immoral.

I wouldn't consider him evil, but I would personally consider him a fool. But of course that's completely from my point of view, which is the point about Good and Evil in the first place. Good and Evil are almost always based entirely upon the subjective point-of-view of the the one making the valuation. Just as you see the Paladin as Evil if he doesn't use torture in this case, there are just as many who would see him as Evil if he did. In the end, the only thing that matters is what the Paladin thinks about it. And it may come down to not what the Paladin considers Evil or not-Evil, but which one he's most willing to live with. Sometimes it really is about choosing the lesser of two Evils.

 

[jonesy]

Torture is evil.

Saving the child doesn't make the torture a good act.

You don't know the future, you can't say that the possibility of obtaining information from torture justifies it. It might make things worse.

And you can't justify past deeds with the present outcomes. For all you know there were a hundred better ways to reach the goal.

 

[the Jester]

Not only is it possible for two good forces to be in conflict- I'm going to ignore the obvious (and valid) possibility of "one force is evil but just thinks they are good har har"- it is sometimes unrealistic for them NOT to be in conflict.

A caveat: Some campaigns posit the good vs. evil conflict to be the primary universal conflict, in which case there might be exceptions, but consider the following scenario:

Nation A and nation B are neighbors and both are good. Crossing the border is a river, running from A through B to the sea.

As nation A's population grows, it uses more of the water for agriculture. Eventually only a trickle is going to nation B. B tries negotiating, but A is like, "Hey, it's our water until it's on your territory, and if we give you more, our people starve."

Nation B feels justified in going to war against nation A because otherwise their people starve.

Both are good, and they must needs go to war.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And if they have a REALLY good war, both countries' populations will be reduced enough to restore equilibrium.

Which is all the incentive Nation C, even further downstream, needs to sell weapons to both Nation A & B! (Well, that plus the economic stimulus, that is.)