My point being, that being Nice, is not good enough. If Good is not even Nice, then what is? Evil could never be nice, it can only pretend to be.
Good holds itself to higher standards. Good does the right thing, because it is not easy, but right. It is not easy to release those surrendered, or enforce some form of penance upon them, or oversee their future actions. Of course it is easier to slay them outright. But doing so is not doing "Good".
Good cares about more than just providing most benefit to the largest population. It cares about what is Right, and Just.
Killing a fellow shipwrecked sailor, so you and two others may partake of his flesh and possibly survive, is not "Good".
Even in a democracy, the popular is not always right and just.
I agree with you. I can't talk in place of Ashtagon but I'd say we share that opinion. It was a poor choice of words in the given setting, nothing else.
The common phrase "Good is not Nice" is used to imply that people can get quite ruthless even when fighting for a good cause. Even Good characters in D&D.
You're right, the wouldn't be doing Good. By RAW, killing can never be Good. It's Neutral if justified, and Evil if isn't. But Neutral actions in themselves don't put a Good character at a risk of Alignment change. It's mean, it's sickening to think about, it's dirty, and a lot of Good characters stay clear of it for their whole life or only engage in it when they see no other route, but it's
borderline approvable. Emphasis because killing can corrupt, just like(if not more so than) lies or authority. But they can do it with a clear consience and if they are in a hurry, I wouldn't call them out on it. If they aren't,
then I'd say they are lazy a*holes, but nothing stops people with said traits to be Good aligned and vice versa.
People have trouble defining Evil. They either consider it a set standard and fail to draw the line, or just write it off as relative and stop thinking about it altogether. I'm not claiming to have found the line, nor that there is a one at all. But where the tought process - sorry, but your thought process, too - really fails it's purpose is at the point when you start feeling sympathy and decide when you can feel a given level of remorse for punishing an individual then that person does not qualify as Evil on the grounds of you saying so. I'm not saying you should swallow your goodwill; the more damned souls you feel for, the better. The damned are just not necessarily menacing as you believe - real friends, use, and others are traits a fair number of people think a malevolent being cannot have. If we were, the Gods forbid, discussing real life issues, we could argue pointlessly until we withered and died, but in D&D, we know "redeeming" or respectable qualities don't help one ascend from the depths of the Alignment chart, simply due to having no effect on a system where Ethics and Morals are the only variables. They do make him a
nice or at least
nicer person, but Detect Evil will promtly proceed not to give a damn, and there is no such thing as a Detect Meanie spell(for now). Two aspects of a creature's personality doesn't tell you everything you'd want or need to know, no matter how much you cross your fingers while wishing it to be that way because it'd be convenient for you. It's the same trap those you oppose fell into, essentially.
In short, yes, Good is not Nice. At least, not always. And sometimes, Evil is, as weird as that might sound. Which is partially the reason why one might want to leave villains alive.
Evil is just the gun. Ignorance is the powder, and awfulness is the bullet. Take away the bullet, and the gun becomes a bludgeon. It hits harder - but not until the holder walks up to you.
... I wonder if anyone has said this before. Can you patent a sentence? It ended up kinda badass.
? Sorry dude! Debate is meant to be good. Was it misconstrued, or not thought through? Is there a "quick statement" icon I missed? Forum is bad media for gauging intent.
