Alignment

[Rakusia]

killing the evil overlord doesnt make you as bad as him. letting the girl in the elaborate trap die so you can get a sneak attack does

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you are a Good Dwarf torching an Evil Drow city, it is always Good.

Good and Evil are not philosophies in the D&D Cosmology. They are hard coded laws of the universe set in place by the Overgods and enforced by the Gods.

It seems like you're saying defeating Evil is a Good thing, even when the thing you are attacking leans towards Evil.

It was never evident that the troll was there to help the PCs. He came, he destroyed, he was destroyed. That he attacked (probably) much weaker Orcs who had not threatened him attests to his Evil nature.

This seems to contradict that directly, as orcs are lean towards Evil.

 

[Animal]

i see no contradiction. Evil creatures hate each other almost as much as they hate Good. neutral hungry dumb trolls don't care about alignments at all.
killing a stray troll in a battle is not a good act, but surely not evil either.

btw, if you have to write these walls of text, include tl;dr versions, please.

 

[JamesonCourage]

i see no contradiction. Evil creatures hate each other almost as much as they hate Good. neutral hungry dumb trolls don't care about alignments at all.
killing a stray troll in a battle is not a good act, but surely not evil either.

btw, if you have to write these walls of text, include tl;dr versions, please.

The contradiction is that he's saying killing something that leans towards Evil is a good act, but when a troll does it, it shows that it's Evil. That's contradictory.

Also, those aren't walls of text. They are well thought-out posts in an ongoing discussion. If you don't want to read it, that's on you, not them.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Demons have duties? Once again, you're defining everything lawful terms.

It is the duty of Demons to obey the laws of the creator of their race. They are bound to Calling spells, they are bound to the deals that they make with summoners. They are bound to combat Devils in The Blood Wars in Baator, and their hatred for eachother is well known. These are cosmic laws they are bound to.

Of course, that's not what "duty" means, so Celebrim's point is well taken.

duty
[doo-tee, dyoo-]
-noun, plural -ties.
1. something that one is expected to do or required to do by moral or legal obligation.
2. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.
3. an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; function: the duties of a clergyman.
4. the respectful and obedient conduct due a parent, superior, elder, etc.
5. an act or expression of respect.
6. a task or chore that a person is expected to perform: It's your duty to do the dishes.

It is no more a demon's "duty" to answer Calling spells than it is my "duty" to obey the law of gravity. And it should be quite obvious from the definition I have provided that a demon would whole-heartedly reject the notion that it owes any duty to anyone or anything (in fact, would conclude that the entire concept of "duty" is utter gibberish), exactly as Celebrim pointed out.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, except to say it is obvious to me that most of your miscomprehensions stem from an inability to correctly categorize your own ethics and morals. You make the extremely common mistake of attempting to superimpose your own values on the D&D alignment scheme, rather than simply accepting that you are (like myself) not "D&D Good," but more accurately "D&D Neutral."

This is not to say that I am not a good person. Like any Neutral D&D character would, I simply do not believe that the ideals espoused by D&D Good are actually the ones that result in the best possible world. Rather, I believe that acting in one's own self-interest and commitments to others through personal relationships are "gooder" than altruism (as, it seems, do you). Thus, we are not "D&D Good," but more properly "D&D Neutral."

 

[Dross]

In the D&D universe, Good and Evil are not regional concepts. Dwarves are generally Good, Drow are generally Evil. If you are an Evil Drow living in an Evil Drow city, torching a Good Dwarf city is always Evil.
If you are a Good Dwarf torching an Evil Drow city, it is always Good.

(While someone can always find exceptions in these examples) I wonder about all the human/dwarf/gnoll/goblin slaves trapped in such a place being burned. A good being would to me at least think about that, and an evil one wouldn't. (And quoting you out of context somewhat): Would that be an acceptable sacrifice or too much collateral damage (your "greater good")? I do think that for some it would be (better than being a slave to such evil beings), but for others it wouldn't (should not suffer the same fate just because they are forced to be there).

Let me ask this to see if I understand.
If a Good Drow (which are generally evil) torches an Evil Dwarf (which are generally good) city, is it a Good act?

1. If "yes": is it because the specifics in this case don't matter, all that matters is that the race has a "usually Evil" alignment so all should be considered such alignment (tarred with the same brush so to speak). So the actions of an "usually evil" race can be always considered "Evil" and a "usually good" race can be always considered good? If so then... well we just have different views.
2. If "yes" because: It only matters what the perpetrator's alignment is and the alignment the victim's race usually is. Thus a good drow burning a drow city of any alignment would be a Good action (because drow are "usually Evil"), but a good drow burning a dwarf city of any alignment would not be a Good action (because they are "usually Good"). If so then again we just have different views.
3. If "no": is it because the alignment of those involved matter and the actions of the specific beings matter rather then what a race is known for? For me this implies that you need to figure out the alignment (and/or reasons of said creature's actions) before acting if they have aided you. Which is obviously where I stand.

Post 35 ("It is never Evil to kill any one of the "usually" or "always" Evil beings.") has me leaning towards 1 & 2 (although to me 2 is a possible LN trait)

Or have I just entirely missed your point?

It was never evident that the troll was there to help the PCs. He came, he destroyed, he was destroyed. That he attacked (probably) much weaker Orcs who had not threatened him attests to his Evil nature.

It could be argued that it was never evident the troll was there to harm the PCs either (given what we know, it's motives are unknown). I agree that there are lots of trolls who's idea of a good time is doing bad & evil (pretty much describes every troll that my PCs have met), but those are the bad & evil ones. If a troll acted this way to most of my Good to Neutral PC's they would be asking why it acted in that manner and try to find reasons: detect alignment, Knowledge checks, questioning, etc (while a ranger's hated enemy wouldn't get such considerations).

In post #66 I mentioned troll types that are not "usually Evil" but "usually Neutral" and questioned what the alignment of a Steppe Troll is. If this troll happened to one of those Neutral trolls would that modify your view of the actions being a good act?

 

[Sekhmet]

Of course, that's not what "duty" means, so Celebrim's point is well taken.

duty
[doo-tee, dyoo-]
-noun, plural -ties.
1. something that one is expected to do or required to do by moral or legal obligation.
2. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.
3. an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; function: the duties of a clergyman.
4. the respectful and obedient conduct due a parent, superior, elder, etc.
5. an act or expression of respect.
6. a task or chore that a person is expected to perform: It's your duty to do the dishes.

Answering a Summon spell falls under definitions 1, 2, 3, and 6. It is their legal (contractual laws between summoner and called creature) duty, it is their positional duty (demons obey summoning ritual etiquette), it is expected of them (see entry 6), and it is an obligatory force that is directly tied to all demons.
Fighting Devils falls under definitions 6, 3, and 2 for similar reasons.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, except to say it is obvious to me that most of your miscomprehensions stem from an inability to correctly categorize your own ethics and morals. You make the extremely common mistake of attempting to superimpose your own values on the D&D alignment scheme, rather than simply accepting that you are (like myself) not "D&D Good," but more accurately "D&D Neutral."

This is not to say that I am not a good person. Like any Neutral D&D character would, I simply do not believe that the ideals espoused by D&D Good are actually the ones that result in the best possible world. Rather, I believe that acting in one's own self-interest and commitments to others through personal relationships are "gooder" than altruism (as, it seems, do you). Thus, we are not "D&D Good," but more properly "D&D Neutral."

I am an amoral sociopath. I make no mistake in my own alignment (being most definitely CN). However, I do have an exceptionally high (99th percentile) IQ and exceptional reading comprehension.
This adds together so that I have the (apparently) unique ability to read the descriptions in the PHB and apply them to the situation at hand. My own opinions of good and evil in the real world are much, much different than are displayed in the D&D world. When speaking of one, I do not use the other's arguments.
I'd like to point out that I most often play LN or LE characters, as I find them more challenging to play correctly without becoming a detriment to a party's short and longterm goals.

Regarding an Evil creature performing an Evil act

It is not Evil for the Troll to attack the Orcs. Evil creature's hatred does not end at Good creatures, however. Troll attacking helpless Orcs (entangled, Orcs apparently had no way to kill the Troll) is exploiting a situational weakness which is quite the opposite of the code of honour that applies to Paladins, which makes it, at the very least, Chaotic or Evil (not necessarily both).

(While someone can always find exceptions in these examples) I wonder about all the human/dwarf/gnoll/goblin slaves trapped in such a place being burned. A good being would to me at least think about that, and an evil one wouldn't. (And quoting you out of context somewhat): Would that be an acceptable sacrifice or too much collateral damage (your "greater good")? I do think that for some it would be (better than being a slave to such evil beings), but for others it wouldn't (should not suffer the same fate just because they are forced to be there).

We can safely assume the Drow would have human/elven/dwarf slaves. If burning the city is for the protection of the Good peoples of the world, then it is inherently Good. If it is for resource or personal gain, it is Evil.
If no regard is given to the slave it is a Chaotic act, if some regard (but ultimately decided against) was given to the slave, it would be Lawful.

Let me ask this to see if I understand.
If a Good Drow (which are generally evil) torches an Evil Dwarf (which are generally good) city, is it a Good act?

If "yes": is it because the specifics in this case don't matter, all that matters is that the race has a "usually Evil" alignment so all should be considered such alignment (tarred with the same brush so to speak). So the actions of an "usually evil" race can be always considered "Evil" and a "usually good" race can be always considered good? If so then... well we just have different views.

If "yes" because: It only matters what the perpetrator's alignment is and the alignment the victim's race usually is. Thus a good drow burning a drow city of any alignment would be a Good action (because drow are "usually Evil"), but a good drow burning a dwarf city of any alignment would not be a Good action (because they are "usually Good"). If so then again we just have different views.

If "no": is it because the alignment of those involved matter and the actions of the specific beings matter rather then what a race is known for? For me this implies that you need to figure out the alignment (and/or reasons of said creature's actions) before acting if they have aided you. Which is obviously where I stand.

Post 35 ("It is never Evil to kill any one of the "usually" or "always" Evil beings.") has me leaning towards 1 & 2 (although to me 2 is a possible LN trait)

Or have I just entirely missed your point?

You have a good grasp, but miss some of the nuances.
Good and Evil creatures can perform acts that are against their nature. If a Good creature burns an Evil city, it can be for Evil reasons. If an Evil creature burns an Evil city, it can be for Good reasons.
However, the reasons aren't what really matter. What matters is the consequence.
To take this back to the Troll situation.
Assume a Troll is LG and a party is entirely LG.
If the Troll attacks the party, it is performing an Evil act.
If the party retaliates and kills the Troll, it is an Evil act. We'll call this the "two wrongs don't make a right" theory.

If a Troll of unknown alignment joins combat between a Good party and any other creature, and, during that combat is slain, the Good party is effectively "torching the Evil city with slaves in it". It is for the betterment and protection of a greater number of Good persons than it harms.

To bring this into a real world scenario that might be easier to understand for some, assume a tyrannical dictator holed himself up in a bunker with twelve of his trusted, also tyrannical allies (generals, scientists, or what-have-you), and one benevolent, altruistic scientist who is being held hostage. It is still a Good act to destroy the bunker and thereby everyone in it because it is for the betterment of the greater Good. Killing the good scientist is regrettable, but necessary. It is Chaotic Good to destroy this bunker. It is Lawful Good to send a strike team to extract the good man and kill the evil men with more precision tactics.

It could be argued that it was never evident the troll was there to harm the PCs either (given what we know, it's motives are unknown). I agree that there are lots of trolls who's idea of a good time is doing bad & evil (pretty much describes every troll that my PCs have met), but those are the bad & evil ones. If a troll acted this way to most of my Good to Neutral PC's they would be asking why it acted in that manner and try to find reasons: detect alignment, Knowledge checks, questioning, etc (while a ranger's hated enemy wouldn't get such considerations).

In post #66 I mentioned troll types that are not "usually Evil" but "usually Neutral" and questioned what the alignment of a Steppe Troll is. If this troll happened to one of those Neutral trolls would that modify your view of the actions being a good act?

If the Troll was of a subrace that is usually/always non-Evil/Chaotic, the PC's can assume that it will not be in the best interest of Good to slay that particular Troll.

My question to you is this, if a Red Dragon flew overhead and torched half of your enemies in a combat, landed and proceeded to torch things (other than you), would you attack that Red Dragon?

 

[JamesonCourage]

It is not Evil for the Troll to attack the Orcs. Evil creature's hatred does not end at Good creatures, however. Troll attacking helpless Orcs (entangled, Orcs apparently had no way to kill the Troll) is exploiting a situational weakness which is quite the opposite of the code of honour that applies to Paladins, which makes it, at the very least, Chaotic or Evil (not necessarily both).

Whoa, that's completely false. You can be incredibly Lawful and not follow the paladin code. You can be incredibly Lawful and use poisons. Lawful does not mean fair. Nothing stops a monk from uses poisons, and they have to be Lawful. If what you say is true, however, then the party is basically also committing a Chaotic or Evil act. Up to this point, it seems you've argued they haven't done such (again, seems that way).

If a Troll of unknown alignment joins combat between a Good party and any other creature, and, during that combat is slain, the Good party is effectively "torching the Evil city with slaves in it". It is for the betterment and protection of a greater number of Good persons than it harms.

You're saying the ends justify the means, which the D&D universe does not agree with, in my opinion. If you do not follow Good tenets while pursuing Good, then you're not acting in a Good way. Intent is not enough. You can murder, torture, rape, and otherwise destroy purely Evil beings, and you're still performing Evil act after Evil act. Even if you're sole goal is to scare Evil so bad that it will stop voluntarily, and you support Good, you're still performing Evil act after Evil act. It isn't Good in the slightest, even if it does help "the greater good."

I once ran a Lawful Evil monk NPC with that exact mindset, in fact, who rejected magic's definition of Evil, since he obviously wasn't. According to D&D, however, I'm pretty sure torture and murder are simply Evil acts, no two ways about it.

 

[baradtgnome]

I can say that I am amazed at how some folks are defining good, evil, law & chaos. I have always understood for D&D purposes, lawful good is both the intent and the process. Here is a clip of text from a typical paladin code.

Be an example to others and preserve the honor and ideals of your order. Act honorably, even when not treated honorably. Properly maintain your person and possessions. Keep a civil tongue. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not slander. Do not steal. Do not poison. Do not strike from behind. Do not torture.​

There is NOTHING in here of the 'ends justify the means' thinking. This does not really answer the OPs starting question but when folks start implying torture or mass murder might be allowable or desirable for a LG character... I just don't see how that works.

 

[Vegepygmy]

However, I do have an exceptionally high (99th percentile) IQ and exceptional reading comprehension.
This adds together so that I have the (apparently) unique ability to read the descriptions in the PHB and apply them to the situation at hand.

Please accept my most obsequious apologies. I had no idea who I was dealing with.