Is fighting evil necessary and/or sufficient for being good.

[Kahuna Burger]

Necessary - you cannot be of good allignment if you have not fought against evil. (though you may have to do other things as well)

Sufficient - if you fight against evil, you are good. (though there may be other ways to achieve a good allignment.)

Fighting evil - actual conflict (though not neccassarily combat) with evil or [evil] beings or their agenda.

Exagerated examples welcome!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sufficient - if you fight against evil, you are good.

Blood War?

-Hyp.

 

[Shemeska]

Blood War?

-Hyp.

*grin*

Exactly. Evil can fight Evil.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Blood War?

-Hyp.

Or even a more mundane example of a mob hit man who only ever hits rival mob leaders.

(I voted Neither, but I generally don't put my own take in the opening post because I want to know what people think not just have them argue with me. )

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The Way of the Leaf, from the Wheel of Time.

They were good, very good, but they didn't fight evil.

However, abetting evil to avoid violence is NOT good.

 

[Korgoth]

I voted "neither". Evil can fight evil (therefore it is not a sufficient condition), and kindly old nuns can be perfectly good without ever fighting anybody (therefore it is not a necessary condition).

 

[balterkn]

On the OP discussion:

Counter example to necessary (must fight evil to be good): People who operate hospices and fight pain, suffering, disease, etc on any comers - I'd rule these people to be good, even if they would heal evil creatures (they may detain evil-doers they treat for others to arrest and rehabilitate)

Counter example to sufficient (fighting evil makes you good): many have mentioned the Blood War as an example. A better example is one PC in an old campaign, who was initially CG, eventually developed such a burning hatred of Iuz and his followers that she would wantonly slay all creatures/beings affiliated with Iuz (non-combatants, including children in villages raided) unless the other PCs stopped her - note, she said to me to treat her as if her alignment was evil (played for a wonderful descent into darkness for her).

My thought is that although killing isn't evil by default (IRL and in game), murder would be evil (regardless of the alignment of the victim) - hence murdering an evil entity is evil - thus the "morally right and wrong ways to fight evil", as opposed to ethical considerations for the law/chaos axis.

 

[comrade raoul]

Pacifists can be good.

Aspiring paladins who haven't fought evil, but hope to, can be good.

Sweet, loving, cheerful villagers who've never faced a significant conflict in their life can be good.

Truly benevolent people, who never even face internal moral conflicts, can be good.

You can be good.

So fighting evil is not necessary to be good. (The first response suffices to show that it's not sufficient.)

 

[DM_Matt]

Neither necessary nor sufficient, but the kind of good that is merely benevolent is inferior to the good that is both benevolent to the innocent AND fights the guilty.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Neither necessary nor sufficient, but the kind of good that is merely benevolent is inferior to the good that is both benevolent to the innocent AND fights the guilty.

Are you talking about individuals or philosophies? I don't think an individual who splits her efforts between aiding people and fighting evildoers is in any way superior to an individual who devotes all her efforts to benevolent aid.