How would you classify "Good by any means neccessary"

[Stone Dog]

This is like "The Operative" from the movie Serenity. He knows (and explicitly states) that he is a monster, but he does it because he believes in a day when his kind won't be necessary. I'd call him neutral, at best, quite possibly evil.

I'd call him evil.

Spoiler

He slaughtered dozens of people including children and other such non combatants because the people he wanted to find MIGHT have shown up to one of them. I'm pretty sure he even killed Patience just in case and Patience and Mal ain't exactly on couch surfing terms.

He orchestrated a systemwide slaughter of Mal's allies when it would have been only mildly less efficient to set up stakeouts and seemed to be only mildly dissapointed that he had to do it (probably was thinking of the paperwork back at Parlaiment or something).

Okay, he was a good loser and knew when he was beaten, but I really don't think that this excuses somebody who considers killing children "when I have to" to include Plan B.

He is a very polite evil and I am sure he is very pleasant company if he isn't trying to kill you (not that you could tell...), but evil all the same.

 

[Stone Dog]

To loosely paraphrase CS Lewis, "There is no wicked act done in the name of Good that does not glorify Evil." Whatever the end results are, for weal or woe, the act itself will remain evil.

The question is, how far up the list is such an act for a character? Unthinkably distant? Plausibly necessary? Plan B? First impulse?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Honorable = Lawful.

I'd disagree with that, just based on features of D&D.

First, you can be Lawful Evil. It is entirely possible to commit an act that is 1) within the law and a code of conduct and still be evil. Examples include slavery and using your economic power to ruin a competitor's business - see Gordon Gecko's (Michael Douglas) answer in Greed "Why did you wreck my father's company?" "Because I could!". So, an act can be Lawful and not be Honorable.

Heck, you can even find this:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness, and a lack of adaptability.

3.5 PHB p 104.

 

[Harmon]

To loosely paraphrase CS Lewis, "There is no wicked act done in the name of Good that does not glorify Evil."

Like the quote. It is very true.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For example, let's say some evil dude is poisoning a large town's water supply, dozens have already died and hundreds are sick. Time is of the essence, and the source of the posion as well as an antidote must be found. They know who's behind it, but don't know where he is. So said "morally-ambiguous" paladins capture the villain's mother/girlfriend/children and torture them into revealing the villain's secret hide out, with the full blessing of their church and god.

The torture is what does it. Without the torture, they're on pretty solidly Good ground, but the moment they delve into torture, they compromise the whole "protect the innocent" schtick. Torture is an Evil Thing, placing the torturer's goals above the integrity, safety, and quality of life of those tortured, no matter what means are used, no matter how noble the end goal. If torturing one person saves one million, the torture is still evil. Even if the torture is something like water torture, or sleep deprivation, or ritual humiliation (e.g.: more mental in nature than physical), you are removing the other person's humanity, their free choice, to serve your own ends. Even if they're evil themselves, even if who you're torturing would torture others to get to you, even if they kick puppies and shoot babies and seduce your daughters and give blood sacrifice to their wicked gods of tyranny and slaughter. Selfish, cruel, and evil.

However, going to meet them, using your ranks in Intimidate, and letting them know that a paladin can't stop the wrath of their own deity...

Good by evil means isn't really good in D&D, just as evil through good means isn't really evil. There's a grey area, though, and it's significant.

 

[Delta]

Lawful Evil if they use the torture, Lawful Neutral at best.

Agreed.

 

[delericho]

And that's exactly the problem myself and my group have, it is with the modern definition of the word "hero" itself. They simply aren't heroic, this is IMHO but generally agreed with by my group that the modern definition of "hero" reeks of pointless guilt. That the primary definition of "hero" is someone great.

That's fair enough, but where that definition goes wrong is that it omits the clauses that "just because he's a hero doesn't mean he's Good", and the allied "just because I like him, doesn't mean he's Good."

As Klaus pointed out, Achillies certainly wasn't Good (although I would label him a hero). Jack Bauer has long since ceased to be Good. Some incarnations of the Batman aren't Good. And the Operative in Serenity isn't Good. Some or all of these are heroic characters, and all of them are likeable characters.

 

[Seeten]

The torture is what does it. Without the torture, they're on pretty solidly Good ground, but the moment they delve into torture, they compromise the whole "protect the innocent" schtick. Torture is an Evil Thing, placing the torturer's goals above the integrity, safety, and quality of life of those tortured, no matter what means are used, no matter how noble the end goal. If torturing one person saves one million, the torture is still evil. Even if the torture is something like water torture, or sleep deprivation, or ritual humiliation (e.g.: more mental in nature than physical), you are removing the other person's humanity, their free choice, to serve your own ends. Even if they're evil themselves, even if who you're torturing would torture others to get to you, even if they kick puppies and shoot babies and seduce your daughters and give blood sacrifice to their wicked gods of tyranny and slaughter. Selfish, cruel, and evil.

However, going to meet them, using your ranks in Intimidate, and letting them know that a paladin can't stop the wrath of their own deity...

Good by evil means isn't really good in D&D, just as evil through good means isn't really evil. There's a grey area, though, and it's significant.

THis is why I like the lawful evil alignment for PC's. You can behave like a real person, and not like a bizarre idealized person who would never succeed at anything.

"Tell us what you poisoned the people with so we can make an antidote."

"No."

"Please??"

Lawful Evil version.

"Tell us what you poisoned the people with so we can make an antidote Or I will rip out your entrails and feed them to you while you still live."

"Um...no."

*Begin slicing* "Ok, ok, it was sage, garlic, and thyme! STOP! STOP! NOOOOOOOOO!"

"Lets go save the village. Leave this sack here for when we return."

The common version of "Lets find out the info" I hear LG proponents espousing is comical. It reminds me of Space Balls.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

That's fair enough, but where that definition goes wrong is that it omits the clauses that "just because he's a hero doesn't mean he's Good", and the allied "just because I like him, doesn't mean he's Good.

No arguments there, Hero doesn't mean Good and Good doesn't mean Hero. I was kind of riled by the assumption that the defining characteristic of a Hero was their Goodness without which they weren't a Hero. But I should address the primary point huh?

Good can never be by any means necessary. The use of the initial example is evil, no ifs ands or buts about it. The defining nature of Good is that it seeks to protect the innocent, an indivisible part of that is punishing the evil but that does not give Good the perogative to harm one innocent to help another. That is what makes Good so difficult to manage. Without that Good looses most of its meaning.

Mostly you have to squelch the idea of intention if you're working with an objective morality like D&D. If morality is objective then it doesn't matter what you thought, hoped or wanted when you did the act, it is the act itself that defines the morality. Thus Good is not the result of Good intent but Good act. Even if you achieve an end that is Good if you use Evil means then your acts were Evil and the end itself is tainted by the acts that led to it. There was an example earlier in the thread about spymasters and it's a good one that should be considered before continuing with the discussion.

 

[iwatt]

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...

So because your character is LN this alignment can't fit? Not all LN are the same.

For example, a cleric dedicated to routing out demonic cults. His god given mandate is to hunt down and destroy these evil doers. Since hunting and killing evil-doers is basically what good people do, you'd usually peg him as Good. If he starts to use non-good tactics he'll start slipping. If he mostly does good and every once in awhile he' uses evil, I'd epg him as neutral. It's GM judgement call when he stops been good and when/if he slips into evil. If he's done a lot of good and some evil, I wouldn't peg him as GOOD, but definitely wouldn't switch him into EVIl. So what does that leav: NEUTRAL.

Now, about the Law/Chaos angle: he is dedicated singlemindedly to a goal, and all his actions are taken in accordance to the precepts and orders he's been given. That doesn't sound to me like Chaotic. Some will say that if he breaks the law he can't be lawful, but IMO he's only held accountable to what he perceives to be a higher law (his god's command). In that sense I'd call him Lawful.

With those two arguments, I can only repeat that he is LN. If he has good or evil tendencies is dependant on how much he indulges in evil actions.