How would you classify "Good by any means neccessary"

[hopeless]

Reg: Good by any means

Lawful neutral with good tendencies.

OI!

Absolutely NOT!
My cleric of helm/sorceror (long story don't ask!) is LN with inherently good tendencies and he ABSOLUTELY wouldn't do that!
Neutral alignment with evil tendencies then it becomes quite possible...

 

[delericho]

I was thinking about something I read in Sandstorm about how Paladin Ashworm Dragoons would go through a ritual to remove the Ashworm's poison glands, since Paladins are generally against using poison... So that got me thinking about whether there could be a Paladin hood that would allow such tactics, and ultimately it lead me to this quandary...

Certain paladins may be against poison use, but it is neither inherently Chaotic or inherently Evil, since dead by poison is not noticably worse than dead by insertion of steel. However, poison is generally not much use in open combat, since it's wiped from the blade too quickly, and since you're going for the kill. And the Paladin won't use poison in a duel since that would be dishonourable. And, of course, assassination is out of the question.

So, while poison use is not forbidden to the paladin, there are very few circumstances in which they would actually see any value in it. And, certainly, a paladin who chooses to never use poison under any circumstances can hardly be faulted for doing so.

How would you classify a god, religion, and paladin-hood whose basic tenet was "Do good, by any means neccessary." They would resort to whatever dirty tactics were needed to ensure that the greater good prevailed.

Evil. Probably Lawful Evil, but definately Evil.

This is the old "what alignment is Jack Bauer?" argument again - the character starts off as a Good guy, but over the course of five seasons to date has gradually slipped further and further from the path of righteousness. In fact, the very circumstance you described was used by the show... and it's evil.

Historically, there are a great many groups and individuals who have done terrible things in the name of what they thought was the greater good. These groups are now condemned as being misguided and evil, and rightly so.

 

[Kristivas]

The Assassin from Serenity sounds like the kinda 'good' you're talking about. I read the Shadowbane Inquisitor and this guy wanted to play one. The abilities of a paladin, with the freedom to be an evil jackass (as aside from a L-Stupid jackass)? No way. I allowed the class, without the freedom to commit evil.

One of the examples of the Shadowbane Inquisitor was to destroy an entire village because a demon is hiding there. What the hell kinda paladin is that?

 

[Arkhandus]

That is Chaotic Neutral at best, I would have to say.

In D&D, alignment is less a matter of purpose and more a matter of substance; i.e. killing babies is evil no matter how you look at it, even if they're half-fiendish red dragon babies that you know will, almost undoubtedly, commit acts of horrible and unspeakable evil if allowed to grow up and develop their full power. Lying and cheating are chaotic or evil, and thus why Paladins aren't allowed to do either, regardless of whether or not they are lying or cheating for the sake of the greater good.

Paladins have restrictions that specifically forbid certain acts, and their description has no caveat for 'if it is for the greater good, then it's okay'. Ergo, acts are Evil or Chaotic (or Good or Lawful) in D&D regardless of the purpose or intent behind them.

"Ends justify the means" is not a viable Paladin mindset, and will get them stripped of their holy powers for perpetrating acts of Evil or Chaos, regardless of the Paladin's intentions with those acts. Any other Lawful Good character can get away with it somewhat, since they aren't bound by an iron code of morality, but too much and they're going to quickly find themselves drifting to Chaotic Neutral alignment.

Chaos in D&D involves ignoring restrictions or codes, and doing what one feels like regardless of whether or not it is acceptable or raises quandaries. Law requires adhering to principles, duties, or codes of conduct without bending to situational whimsy. Doing a minor Evil for the sake of the greater Good is antithetical to Lawful or Good behavior, as it bends one's moral principles based purely on situational ethics.


I take issue with the Shadowbane Inquisitor's fallacious take on D&D's alignments, and it leads only to a slippery slope and blurring of the alignments that is unsuited to D&D's manifest alignments (they are not merely insubstantial concepts in D&D, they have entire planes formed of their essence!).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMHO, Poison is like any other tool or weapon- whether its use is evil or good depends upon the circumstances surrounding the use.

Examples:

Evil use: Poisoning a village well.

Good use: Poisoning a BBEG who can only be truly defeated by use of a particular poison (IOW, the BBEG has a Tarrasque-like constitution and vulnerability); poisoning the food of an Army of Evil with an emetic or soporific in order to escape or to facilitate surveilance/infiltration without killing someone.

Evil use: using a poison that's sole effect is causing debilitating pain. Platypus poison, for example, isn't inherently life threatening, but it is long lasting and has 2 primary effects: it causes intense pain and it increases the ability of the afflicted to feel pain. The result is someone writhing in pain and screaming...for days.

Good use: using a non-lethal poison to defend oneself- a skunk (or Trog's) repellent scent is a form of poison; an inflammatory, sleeping or paralytic poison (that affects voluntary, not involuntary, muscle contractions) may be used to facilitate escape, or the live capture of a fugitive.

Paladins (to my thought) consider poison to be dishonorable...

Not all Paladins have an overdeveloped sense of "honor." Some might be quite pragmatic. Honorable ≠ Good, Dishonorable ≠ Evil.

For instance, is it for the greater good to confont the BBEG after raising an army to offset the BBEG's, thus fighting the epic War to end Evil, but resulting in the deaths of thousands of combatants and noncombatants on both sides...

or to infiltrate the BBEG's camp (never doing an overtly evil act, nor omitting a potential good one) and dose the BBEG insensate, carrying him off, and presenting him bound & gagged to the priests of the Church of Tyr (or St. Cuthbert, or whomever...)?

 

[S'mon]

Sheesh, I'm glad I only use Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic these days!

FWIW, to answer Asmor's question, in 1e AD&D I believe this would be Chaotic Good behaviour, but I have no idea about 3e. Consensus here seems to be that 3e Good is what 1e called Lawful Good, not sure where that leaves 3e Chaotic Good - equally honourable & nice, just more free-spirited?

 

[Merkuri]

I once pondered a PrC that seemed similar to the "do good by any means" idea. The idea was that the character was allowed to do evil acts for the greater good, but had to, at one time or another, accept all the consequences of his actions. This meant that the character was most certainly damned, but in some perverted way they thought of this as the ultimate sacrifice for the greather good.

I could never come up with any "consequences" that would justify the evilness other than damnation, and that doesn't really have an in-game effect other than roleplaying. And it would probably not have a place in either a good or evil party, so I abandoned the idea. Might be a good idea for a nemesis, though: someone who thinks he's sacrificing his very soul for the greater good.

 

[delericho]

FWIW, to answer Asmor's question, in 1e AD&D I believe this would be Chaotic Good behaviour,

From my 1st Edition Player's Handbook, p.33:

"Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great. By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world."

There is nothing there to justify such a character torturing the wife and child of the BBEG in order to force him to cease in his actions.

 

[smootrk]

It sounds more like the alignment type for an Anti-Hero. Doing evil things (and subsequent evil alignment), but ultimately gets some good done, or at least a 'net good' effect.

 

[Kurotowa]

I played that character in an Eberron game, and he lived up to his Lawful Evil alignment every day. He did whatever he thought was needed to protect his country and innocent people. But "by any means" is by definition evil, because it is unrestrained by mercy or justice. Though his intentions were good, his actions involved the unhesitating slaughter of anyone who was a threat to peace.

Your alignment is judged by your actions, not your goals. Eberron reflects this well, where even the best intentioned spymaster is Evil because of the methods their job demands. In more polarized game worlds a Good organization might not accept Evil members as readily. But someone like that will none the less be Evil.