Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 3250239" data-attributes="member: 39593">No arguments there, Hero doesn't mean Good and Good doesn't mean Hero.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But I should address the primary point huh?Good can never be by any means necessary.&nbsp; The use of the initial example is evil, no ifs ands or buts about it.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That is what makes Good so difficult to manage.&nbsp; Without that Good looses most of its meaning.&nbsp; Mostly you have to squelch the idea of intention if you're working with an objective morality like D&amp;D.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Thus Good is not the result of Good intent but Good act.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeavenShallBurn, post: 3250239, member: 39593"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification