Good vs Evil: a matter of aims or a matter of means?

[Trickstergod]

It's about now that I almost wish I was a bit more familiar with City of the Spider Queen, as I find the random "Seek treasure in evil lands and kill anything evil that gets in the way" is pretty much evil in and of itself...oh well.

Anyway, I'm with Geron in saying that both counts. However, I do believe that the means count more. Presuming, of course, that you're working towards a good end, anyway; whether you achieve it or not is another matter altogether. But it's the means and motivation that count for quite a bit.

Often enough, it seems that the means is all that separates one group from being called good and another one evil. Without trying to delve too much into forbidden, thread-closing or post erasing areas, let's take religion, for example. There's a number of wars that were fought, at least in part, to convert the opposing side over or to wipe their religion away. Conversely, there's a number of missionary's who went ostensibly alone into hostile societies with that same thought of conversion in mind, where the only life likely to be lost was the missionary's. Essentially the same ends, drastically different means and ones that I think illustrate my point decently enough.

For that matter, I fully believe evil people can have good ends in mind. Road to hell, good intentions, all that. Take The Watchmen, for example, specifically Ozymandias and Rorschach. In my mind, Ozymandias is clearly evil. He has essentially a good end in mind, but the means he takes is as reprehensible as it gets. Meanwhile Rorscach, though he has other problems that definitely conflict with his alignment if you want to boil it down to that, stands out as the more moral of the two. Sure, if he was allowed to relate what he knew about what happened to the world it would probably be catastrophic, but he's not willing to sully his hands in the way that Ozymandias is to achieve his ends. Idealistic, a bit stupid perhaps, but that's what I feel good is (again, like I said, Rorschach definitely has other problems going on, but those aren't what I'm getting into right now).

As I see it, good is the ideal, whereas neutral and evil are essentially practical and pragmatic with varying degrees of selfishness and extremes they're willing to go to thrown in there. So yes, the means edge out the ends. I think you can find any number of individuals who had ends that could be argued as essentially good, yet aren't people you'd exactly describe as good by any means.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the question about viewpoints or the opinions of others in the world should not be a big part of the discussion, otherwise it is possible to change something from "good" to "evil" by changing the audience...

That's really what Evil is: a singular desire to take power from others. So, back to the saving-a-thousand-example, choosing which one person to kill simply because of personal dislike would actually corrupt the action as evil -- it had a selfish purpose behind it.

I am having more and more doubts about this... While talking with the others, I got the impression that many just had in mind the idea that EVIL = "wants to rule the world". What about someone who wants to rule the world because he thinks the world is currently ruled by cruel leaders? What if he tries to overthrow the leaders with no violence (if it was IRL, for example by just winning the elections), and once he gets to power, he uses it for the country's benefit, and not his own?

Of course it's usually unlikely that someone with power isn't using it to his own advantage... but maybe (maybe) power is not intrinsecally evil, but it is its use which usually is?

---

Back to the self-defense topic. The question is not whether the party should trust everyone or should not defend itself. The point is that they have get used to attack at the first doubt (i.e. unless they are quite sure they won't be attacked/robbed/betrayed, but far before this happens). Ok, they meet lots of drow, illithid, sahuagin, duergar, etc. and of course this is a game (so it's acceptable to treat some group as "inherently evil"), but still we are feeling like we're getting too far from being acceptably good. Even if they're evil creatures, they are not mindless, they aren't all the time trying to kill you, and they aren't irredeemable (tho that's not the point of this adventure). For comparison, there are also evil persons IRL, but you don't kill them even if you have the opportunity to 100% escape law punishment.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Back to the self-defense topic. The question is not whether the party should trust everyone or should not defend itself. The point is that they have get used to attack at the first doubt (i.e. unless they are quite sure they won't be attacked/robbed/betrayed, but far before this happens). Ok, they meet lots of drow, illithid, sahuagin, duergar, etc. and of course this is a game (so it's acceptable to treat some group as "inherently evil"), but still we are feeling like we're getting too far from being acceptably good. Even if they're evil creatures, they are not mindless, they aren't all the time trying to kill you, and they aren't irredeemable (tho that's not the point of this adventure). For comparison, there are also evil persons IRL, but you don't kill them even if you have the opportunity to 100% escape law punishment.

This is one of those in game cleric based themes, the DM and Cleric should get together and draw the line in the sand, the cleric is the Spiritual Leader of the party and need to discuss it in game if the 'characters' are having loss of faith. She/he should offer up the gods forgiveness.

The other things is to show evil in a different light than just combat, Cannibalism is always a good choice, players see a slave taken, killed, gutted, cooked, then ate. Killing per say is not always evil in a fantasy world, it is other actions too.

You could also use taint in your games.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think the question about viewpoints or the opinions of others in the world should not be a big part of the discussion, otherwise it is possible to change something from "good" to "evil" by changing the audience...

Nah, you're right, especially as D&D does work with an objective point of view on good and evil, mostly, but that's beside the point.

Back to the self-defense topic. The question is not whether the party should trust everyone or should not defend itself. The point is that they have get used to attack at the first doubt (i.e. unless they are quite sure they won't be attacked/robbed/betrayed, but far before this happens). Ok, they meet lots of drow, illithid, sahuagin, duergar, etc. and of course this is a game (so it's acceptable to treat some group as "inherently evil"), but still we are feeling like we're getting too far from being acceptably good. Even if they're evil creatures, they are not mindless, they aren't all the time trying to kill you, and they aren't irredeemable (tho that's not the point of this adventure). For comparison, there are also evil persons IRL, but you don't kill them even if you have the opportunity to 100% escape law punishment.

This is the most important point. If your characters are all of a good alignment, and you as players start to become uncomfortable at how your characters behave in light of this alignment, it's high time to change gears a bit.
Try to kill less, and incapacitate more. Go for subdual damage if you aren't in a direct life-or-death situation. If you're down there that long, your characters should know a few weaknesses of your opponents, and be able to use them in a way that killing won't be necessary. Maybe you have a wizard who can start laying out with charms and hold spells, followed by gratuitious clobbering? If you have a rogue, give him a sap for his sneak attacks...or let him get creative with them, like allowing him to pull a bag over the head of an opponent instead of stabbing his back? A cleric is great for spells that influence others' reactions, too. If you feel your characters react too callous about killing, try to kill less. Doesn't mean the campaign athmosphere has to change...but your characters should, at least enough for you all to feel comfy again.
And of course, talk this out with your DM, who might be able to help you with some tools needed for less-killing attacks...like natural sleep poisons, or a lost lab somewhere, or nonlethal weaponry in a trash heap abandoned by the Drow.

 

[Trickstergod]

Ok, they meet lots of drow, illithid, sahuagin, duergar, etc. and of course this is a game (so it's acceptable to treat some group as "inherently evil"), but still we are feeling like we're getting too far from being acceptably good. Even if they're evil creatures, they are not mindless, they aren't all the time trying to kill you, and they aren't irredeemable (tho that's not the point of this adventure). For comparison, there are also evil persons IRL, but you don't kill them even if you have the opportunity to 100% escape law punishment.

And I'm more or less in agreement with you. In general, I think the wrathful smiting of evil is less a good thing and more a neutral thing. Good purpose, generally aimed at the right sort of people, but any kind of first strike strategy is bound to kill some innocent or, at the least, someone who meant no harm.

Of course, I think their reasoning for being in the Underdark can flavor that.

For what it's worth, I really think most people should just jot down "True Neutral" on their character sheets, unless they're going for some sort of alignment restricted class.

 

[Li Shenron]

bump: this thread has useful comments for me and I wish more

 

[Sado]

This may be an oversimplification, but by my thinking:

a matter of aims=good vs evil

a matter of means=law vs chaos

 

[Gez]

So you're saying you can't have lawful or chaotic aims?
And that you can't have good or evil means?

 

[Zappo]

Premise: I think alignment derives from actions, not the other way round. Therefore, in my view, any statement that begins with "a good character will..." is intrinsically flawed (ok, unless it ends with "...take extra damage from unholy weapons" or some other crunch, nitpickers!).
Since I'm going to use such statements in this post, I need to point that they do not apply to all good characters, but only to a simplistic, alignment-dictated stereotype which is useful in a discussion but which I would seldom use in a game.

I think that first strike without gathering enough information in advance to make sure that there is no other option is evil or neutral at best. I think good characters should use violence only as a last resort or against unredeemable foes such as evil outsiders, undead, and similar creatures that are intrinsically corrupted.

More on the general side, I don't think that the "means versus ends" argument has too much to do with good versus evil. Good characters will pursue good ends, and will strongly favor good means to those ends, feeling in conflict when there are no good means available - but that's fairly obvious, isn't it? They are good, they like to do good, they don't like not being able to do good.

I think that if we're talking about means versus ends, a somewhat more pertinent comparison could be made with law versus chaos. I think that lawful good characters hold the view that there is a destiny or a "greater good" which must be served at all costs; they still will attempt good means first and feel bad when they can't, but they are more likely to justify the means with the ends. When is the justification valid? This is the paladin's dilemma.

Chaotic good characters do not believe in an overall destiny, but only maybe in a personal destiny, and they do not strongly believe in a "greater good". To a chaotic good character, the loss of an individual might be as tragic as the loss of hundreds. I think they are more likely to refuse using questionable means to achieve good ends, and to keep trying the use of good means even when their ends are put in serious danger as a result.

My 2 eurocents.

 

[Darkness]

Alright, let's give the man a few examples to work with...

Li Shenron, please tell me what you think of each of the following situations, alignment-wise: Are the actions of the characters - whether their alignment is good or evil - morally good, evil or neither? Where you can discern it, feel free to point out the law/chaos axis as well. Everyone else's thoughts are very welcome, too, of course.


A band of Good adventurers trespass on NE goblins' territory on the way to their destination on a quest to save a kind-of-Good city, and kill all goblin combatants they encounter on sight unless they are in the process of moving away from them. Goblins who survive the initial attack and surrender are spared, as are noncombatants. (Noncombatants are spared in this example because debates with a premise like "is killing goblin children wrong?" are tiresome and fruitless.)

As above, but they don't accept any combatants' surrender, slaughtering them where they stand so they can't be a threat later. They also pursue and slaughter goblins they could have avoided to make sure they don't summon reinforcements. Goblin noncombatants are still spared.

A red dragon obtains money through trading and uses it to spread the religion of a CE deity of slaughter. (Yes, this one is as simple as it seems.)

A Lawful noble murders a N foreign adventurer to obtain his magic items because he needs more power to fight for his LN king in a war against CE orcs.

A paladin patrols through a LG city, constantly detecting evil, and kills every adult who detects as evil, no matter their combat prowess, who they are or what they are doing at the moment.

A LG ruler of a generally G realm orders the imprisonment and execution of those 5% of his adult population who want his N cousin, who has an almost equally legitimate claim to throne, to become the ruler, no matter their alignment, combat prowess or previous acts (or lack thereof) to weaken his rule.

To prevent the spread of a magical plague that might cause great destruction, a paladin prince orders the slaughter of an entire city of his generally non-Evil people. Not wanting to lose valuable time, he doesn't even consider other options. (Yes, this is a Warcraft example.)

A mostly NG human town and a NE goblin tribe have both grown in numbers over the years and are now regularly clashing over contested territory they both need to survive, leading to a war.

As above. Hard-pressed by the humans, the goblins send a NE goblin assassin of high level to assassinate the human leadership to prevent their tribe's destruction.

As above, but the other way around: The humans are hard-pressed and send a NG ranger to assassinate the goblin leadership.

After a widespread famine, a Neutral-to-Good realm ruled by a Good queen is in great peril. One day, a powerful Evil outsider appears before the queen and offers her a deal: It will use its magical powers to continually provide food for the people but in exchange is given two citizens per week that it will eat. The queen, not wanting to see her people starve, reluctantly agrees.

Due to the results of a large war in ages past, a tribe of CG elves are living as a minority under the rule of their human allies in the war, who are now ruled by a LN dictator. Neither the elves nor the humans have very much personal freedom but they are very safe and there is little crime. The Chaotic elves chafe very much under the dictator's rule and one day start to rebel against the dictator's forces to attain their freedom because they can't take it any longer, even though their actions will cause widespread chaos and destruction in the realm.