Evil or just.........mostly evil?

[Goldmoon]

Let me just say to all of you that I am really grateful for the feedback. Its nice to hear views opposite to my own so I can make sure I have all the factors.

 

[KarinsDad]

Interesting debate.


I wonder how many players here who play Good PCs have the PCs donate to charities (and not just some coin and useless to the PCs magical items, but even useful magical items), help the poor, cast spells (or do manual labor) to improve the lives of the NPCs around them, or even do more exalted levels of behavior such as: martyr themselves for an NPC, are celibate, take a vow of silence, preach to the downtrodden, actually give most of their wealth to the poor, etc.


I contrast this with adventuring. Go somewhere else, kill most of the creatures there, steal their possessions, rinse and repeat...

I'm not quite sure that many people play good aligned DND PCs that are truly good.

 

[IcyCool]

I'm not quite sure that many people play good aligned DND PCs that are truly good.

If you are going by the definition of good in the BoED, I would put forward that it would be nearly impossible to play the typical dungeon crawl without handwaving the exalted alignment rules.

But then, my hat of BoED know no limit.

I'd also like to say, IMO, good people will do something potentially dangerous to help others, even if it isn't advantageous for them.

So to use the "racial slur and beaten to death" example above:

A good PC would stop the 10 people from beating his friend to death.

A neutral PC would let him get what was coming to him.

An evil PC would watch with popcorn. Maybe even help.

Edit - You ever see the movie Boondock Saints? The Rev. at the beginning says something along the lines of "We must all fear evil men. But there is another evil that we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Food for thought.

 

[silentspace]

I contrast this with adventuring. Go somewhere else, kill most of the creatures there, steal their possessions, rinse and repeat...

The reason behind adventuring, and how that manifests itself in play, is the key. Rescue hostages? Or kill and loot them? Return stolen relics to the church? or loot them? Destroy evil artifact? Or be evil and harness its power?

Also, maybe my experiences are different then most, but IME Good PCs do donate to charities and other worthy causes.

 

[KarinsDad]

The reason behind adventuring, and how that manifests itself in play, is the key. Rescue hostages? Or kill and loot them? Return stolen relics to the church? or loot them? Destroy evil artifact? Or be evil and harness its power?

PCs are out in the wilderness. They encounter a Hydra. The DM says "roll initiative". Is the first inclination of GOOD PCs to Charm the Hydra and then sneak away, or is it to attack?

I suspect that you are attempting to rationalize "kill and loot" behavior. How often do good PCs keep the loot they find and how often to they hand most of it or all of it over to the local authorities or the Temple?


True Lies: when Harry Trasker is drugged and Helen asks him "Have you ever killed anyone?", he replies "Yeah, but they were all bad.".

The point is, adventurers invade the homes/territories of other creatures, kill them, steal their stuff, and then justify it by saying "But they were all bad.". This is how invasion, violence and theft is justified in the game system and it is the rare player who breaks out of that mold and plays a truly good PC. IME.

In reality, many Good PCs are Neutral at best (i.e. sometimes good, sometimes bad).

Also, maybe my experiences are different then most, but IME Good PCs do donate to charities and other worthy causes.

But do they donate their most useful and powerful magical items to the Temple or other charity? If they find an artifact, is their first thought to give it over to their deity?

Or do they merely donate some gold and a few scrolls they cannot use every once in a while? Possibly that magical mace that nobody in the group wants.

 

[Artoomis]

One needs to be careful about modern morailty and medieval moraility, which is what D&D is closer too.

Killing an evil creature and taking it's loot (spoils of war) is perfectly fine for a "good" character. A reaaly, really good character might not do so until after the evil monster attacks first, I suppose.

Mind you , it's not particularly a "good" thing to kill solely to get the loot, but if the loot is secondary and only won because the evil creature would not yield, then it's fine.

A "good" creature adventures for "good" reasons which does not include getting treasure - at least not as a prime motivator.

An exalted "good" character would probably only keeep as much treasue as diectly served the "cause" - such as a magic iem that helps him defeat other enemies.

It helps to keep in mind that a "good" character sees no balance in allowing evil to exist and would like to eradicate all evil from the land - but certainly not by any means. The end cannot justify the means for a "good" character.

 

[KarinsDad]

One needs to be careful about modern morailty and medieval moraility, which is what D&D is closer too.

DND morality is nowhere near medieval morality. In medieval times, the lords owned all. A non-noble (i.e. most PCs) could not kill any significant creature (e.g. deer, bear, boar, etc.) because the lord owned all of them.

If you killed a person in medieval times (e.g. using British Common Law), you had to pay a weregild. You could only kill a person and get away with it if they were an outlaw. None of this is part of DND alignment at all. DND alignment is one of (generally) Good vs. Evil and both sides have no qualms about exterminating the other side.

DND morality is much closer to ancient laws and customs such as Ancient Greece where people outside of society were barbarians and killing them was not a form of murder. Effectively, they were considered similar to British or Norse Outlaws (i.e. outside the law as a penalty), but instead of being outside the law due to breaking the law, barbarians were often considered outside the law because they were not part of a ruling empire to begin with.

However, there were slightly more advanced societies like Ancient Rome where even Barbarians had certain rights and normal Roman citizens could not just go out and kill them without penalty.

Killing an evil creature and taking it's loot (spoils of war) is perfectly fine for a "good" character. A reaaly, really good character might not do so until after the evil monster attacks first, I suppose.

Mind you , it's not particularly a "good" thing to kill solely to get the loot, but if the loot is secondary and only won because the evil creature would not yield, then it's fine.

You'll note I used a Hydra in my example since Hydras are generally neutral creatures.

The good versus evil rationale does not work when discussing neutral creatures. It is the neutral creature's territory, the good PCs travel through there, they kill the neutral creature because it is protecting its hunting grounds or whatever.

This happens in a lot of DND games. Might makes right, even for Good PCs.

A "good" creature adventures for "good" reasons which does not include getting treasure - at least not as a prime motivator.

An exalted "good" character would probably only keeep as much treasue as diectly served the "cause" - such as a magic iem that helps him defeat other enemies.

Do you honestly believe that players play their Good PCs without treasure acquisition as a primary goal in a game like DND where treasure acquisition is part of the entire Encounter Challenge Rating system?

 

[Wolfwood2]

I'm neither....I'm a Bard. I'm practical. I have no illusions about nobility but neither am I evil and malicious.

If you are talking to a co-worker out the window of your apartment building and he yells a racial slur to a group of 10 people across the street and they proceed to come across the street and beat him to death, are you going to jump in the fight and die beside your co-worker or is he on his own? Why die for someone else's stupidity?

See, what gets me is that you keep framing alignment questions in terms of people your character knows. "The party", "a co-worker".

But alignment is all about how you treat people you don't know.

Say your bard hears racist slurs yelled, then looks out a window and sees 10 people on the street chasing a guy with murder in their eyes.

Is she going to go down and intervene or not?

That's good vs. neutral to me.

 

[Goldmoon]

See, what gets me is that you keep framing alignment questions in terms of people your character knows. "The party", "a co-worker".

But alignment is all about how you treat people you don't know.

Say your bard hears racist slurs yelled, then looks out a window and sees 10 people on the street chasing a guy with murder in their eyes.

Is she going to go down and intervene or not?

That's good vs. neutral to me.

Initially, yes her inclination is to help that person. Her party is a different story however. She has grown to not like them and not trust them. We are in the middle of an unfamiliar jungle though and she cant leave them just yet.

 

[Artoomis]

...


You'll note I used a Hydra in my example since Hydras are generally neutral creatures.

The good versus evil rationale does not work when discussing neutral creatures. It is the neutral creature's territory, the good PCs travel through there, they kill the neutral creature because it is protecting its hunting grounds or whatever.

This happens in a lot of DND games. Might makes right, even for Good PCs.

The "good" PC should be waiting for the neutral monster to attack, or simply bypass it, if possible. It's part of what makes playing a "good" PC a bit harder.

Do you honestly believe that players play their Good PCs without treasure acquisition as a primary goal in a game like DND where treasure acquisition is part of the entire Encounter Challenge Rating system?

Some do. Those who don't are really playing closer to Neutral than Good.